|
Haven't seen a topic on this yet.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/08/us/washington-same-sex-marriage/index.html
+ Show Spoiler +A bipartisan group of lawmakers in Washington State voted Wednesday in favor of a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage, putting Washington on the path toward becoming the seventh state in the nation to legalize marriage for gay and lesbian couples.
"With today's vote, we tell the nation that Washington state will no longer deny our citizens the opportunity to marry the person they love," said Gov. Chris Gregoire, a Demorcrat who has vowed to sign it. "We tell every child of same-sex couples that their family is every bit as equal and important as all other families in our state. And we take a major step toward completing a long and important journey to end discrimination based on sexual orientation."
The law will go into effect in June, when the legislative session ends, unless opponents halt its implementation by putting it on the November 2012 ballot.
The 55-43 vote in the House included two Republicans in support of the bill. The Senate vote last week was 28-21 and included four Republicans.
Personal thoughts:
One state closer to a better America  . It's great to see gay marriage finally being legalized in some states, and I think that with time gay marriage will eventually be legal in most or all of the U.S. It's long overdue, anyway. I lol'd at this little quote in there:
+ Show Spoiler +"If we as a state are going to take the position that mothers and fathers are interchangeable and replaceable, if we are going to send a message to fathers and potential fathers in this state that it isn't important to be in the lives of their children because dads specifically don't matter, that is something we should all do together," he said last month.
That's an incredibly misleading quote that a lot of people would fall for, I'm sure. Anyway, a good day for gay rights in the U.S.!
Note for any people outside the U.S. that don't know U.S. states: This is referring to Washington, a state in northwestern U.S., not Washington D.C., the capital the U.S.
|
Just heard about this. Incredible news and makes me still have a little bit of belief in America.
|
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.
|
Finally. Between this and proposition 8's downfall, things are looking better for gay rights.
|
You can thank Microsoft for this. From what I heard they threatened to move their business out of the state.
|
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.
Of course. But, as with slavery and minority/women's rights, I think eventually the southern states will relent. It won't be soon, but I believe it will eventually happen. But yeah, that is true
|
Good news.
BTW, could the title be changed to emphasize that this is Washington State, and not Washington DC (and thus Congress and the US as a whole)? Because I was kinda excited, and then let down to see that it was just the state of Washington.
|
United States7483 Posts
Great news for Washington, I'm so proud.
|
Every little bit counts. For a country that prides itself on personal freedom, the freedom to marry who you love should not be an issue. Oh well, great things take time.
|
You know. I live in the damned state that Started this whole thing. GO MASSACHUSETTS!!!
I may not be gay or a lesbian but. Who the hell cares what sex you want to love or be with. Doesn't really matter as long as your happy.
Thank you Washington...for once..you do something right.
|
On February 09 2012 11:57 Probulous wrote:
Every little bit counts. For a country that prides itself on personal freedom, the freedom to marry who you love should not be an issue. Oh well, great things take time.
It really isn't that easy, but this is good
|
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.
|
Good thing for America and humanity!
Rainbow power!
|
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.
It appears the US is on a slippery slope towards becoming a free country.
|
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.
|
Good movement forward in my opinion. I'm guessing that it's still gonna take a while for most states to pass it since the majority of America still considers itself a Christian nation (I am a Christian myself, not trying to troll).
|
On February 09 2012 12:55 Yosho wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 12:49 bRiz wrote:
Don't know how I feel about this. On one hand, it's a positive answer to a problem being experienced in the GLT community, but I personally prefer to keep marriage between a man and a woman, though I don't think I'd vote for a restriction like that. Just a personal opinion. I wouldn't vote for this to pass but if I would vote to not let is pass. Although even in nature gay animals exist, I feel it's like any other deficiency that people / animals can be born with. One of the sole thing we rely on to define life is reproduction. You cannot do this naturally on gay people. Not to be rude but I don't count this as a step up, but as a step down.
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.
|
On February 09 2012 12:55 Yosho wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 12:49 bRiz wrote:
Don't know how I feel about this. On one hand, it's a positive answer to a problem being experienced in the GLT community, but I personally prefer to keep marriage between a man and a woman, though I don't think I'd vote for a restriction like that. Just a personal opinion. I wouldn't vote for this to pass but if I would vote to not let is pass. Although even in nature gay animals exist, I feel it's like any other deficiency that people / animals can be born with. One of the sole thing we rely on to define life is reproduction. You cannot do this naturally on gay people. Not to be rude but I don't count this as a step up, but as a step down.
That's your problem. You're living in the 19th century. Anyway, the debate is besides the point. Government should not be deciding who you can marry. As long as both participants are mentally capable of making an informed decision (ie you can't marry your dog) then why should others have any say in who you decide to spend your life with?
|
On February 09 2012 12:55 Yosho wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 12:49 bRiz wrote:
Don't know how I feel about this. On one hand, it's a positive answer to a problem being experienced in the GLT community, but I personally prefer to keep marriage between a man and a woman, though I don't think I'd vote for a restriction like that. Just a personal opinion. I wouldn't vote for this to pass but if I would vote to not let is pass. Although even in nature gay animals exist, I feel it's like any other deficiency that people / animals can be born with. One of the sole thing we rely on to define life is reproduction. You cannot do this naturally on gay people. Not to be rude but I don't count this as a step up, but as a step down.
Homosexuals still have the capacity to have kids, so if they really wanted to, they could pass on their genetic material. The desire to have sex that can lead to reproduction, however, is more maladaptive, especially since we are overpopulated. By your seemingly biologically reductionist logic homosexuals are superior to heterosexuals (a view I would find offensive as a heterosexual).
|
On February 09 2012 13:00 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
United States37500 Posts
Updated thread title.
I was thinking national level for some reason too but that didn't really make sense. :X
Glad gay rights is progressing.
|
On February 09 2012 12:29 NekoFlandre wrote:
You know. I live in the damned state that Started this whole thing. GO MASSACHUSETTS!!!
I may not be gay or a lesbian but. Who the hell cares what sex you want to love or be with. Doesn't really matter as long as your happy.
Thank you Washington...for once..you do something right.
Me to. It's a step in the next direction for sure, I hope more states follow suite.
|
Heard the news last week that they got enough votes for this to pass. Glad this passed. Its good to see some progress in my states! State pride haha. Working to make the world a better place
|
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.
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.
|
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 just said it exists in nature, but now it's going against nature? might want to reword your arguement there.
And err, the marriage you are referring to is largely religously based. This is a government-sponsered marriage, for governemnt benefits. Remember the whole Religion seperate from Government and vice cersa scpheel you learned about when you read the Constitution?
I don't think this law is forcing churches to marry gay people or anything.
|
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.
defilement of a marriage is being a scumbag and cheating on your wife, breaking your marriage vows, letting your kids down and bickering over who gets what in a divorce.
|
On February 09 2012 13:06 Probulous 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. Is menopause a deficieny? Cause if not why should women who can't reproduce be allowed to get married? Hell what about sterile men? Honestly this deficiency bullshit is just cover for bigotted religious views.
I don't believe in religion. At all...
|
United States37500 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.
"Goes against nature" is such a terrible supporting point. Homosexuality actually does occur in nature.
As for what marriage means to you, that's your belief, sure. I also feel that our government shouldn't impose the majority's belief upon the minority.
|
On February 09 2012 12:55 Yosho wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 12:49 bRiz wrote:
Don't know how I feel about this. On one hand, it's a positive answer to a problem being experienced in the GLT community, but I personally prefer to keep marriage between a man and a woman, though I don't think I'd vote for a restriction like that. Just a personal opinion. I wouldn't vote for this to pass but if I would vote to not let is pass. Although even in nature gay animals exist, I feel it's like any other deficiency that people / animals can be born with. One of the sole thing we rely on to define life is reproduction. You cannot do this naturally on gay people. Not to be rude but I don't count this as a step up, but as a step down.
Old people can not reproduce naturally. Perhaps they shouldn't be allowed to get married as well.
If you live in the United States, there are many benefits to getting married to your partner. Taxes and credit being a big two. If a gay couple are living together they should be able to live the same lifestyle as a straight couple if they choose.
|
On February 09 2012 13:07 Yosho wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 13:06 Probulous wrote:On February 09 2012 13:02 Yosho wrote:On February 09 2012 13:00 1Eris1 wrote:On February 09 2012 12:55 Yosho wrote:On February 09 2012 12:49 bRiz wrote:
Don't know how I feel about this. On one hand, it's a positive answer to a problem being experienced in the GLT community, but I personally prefer to keep marriage between a man and a woman, though I don't think I'd vote for a restriction like that. Just a personal opinion. I wouldn't vote for this to pass but if I would vote to not let is pass. Although even in nature gay animals exist, I feel it's like any other deficiency that people / animals can be born with. One of the sole thing we rely on to define life is reproduction. You cannot do this naturally on gay people. Not to be rude but I don't count this as a step up, but as a step down. You say they are born with it, than why does it matter if they can get married? It's not like you're going to convince one of them to turn straight, and thus reproduce anyways. I figure it goes against nature. Why support it further? Mentally ill people who are born with deficiency's also should be restricted on what they can and can't do. I would not like a mentally handicapped person to operate extremely heavy machinery. And I don't think gay people should marry. I feel it's a defilement of what marriage is. Is menopause a deficieny? Cause if not why should women who can't reproduce be allowed to get married? Hell what about sterile men? Honestly this deficiency bullshit is just cover for bigotted religious views. I don't believe in religion. At all...
So then how is two men getting married different in a biological sense (with regards to reproduction) from a sterile man marrying a women?
|
On February 09 2012 13:08 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 13:07 Yosho wrote:On February 09 2012 13:06 Probulous wrote:On February 09 2012 13:02 Yosho wrote:On February 09 2012 13:00 1Eris1 wrote:On February 09 2012 12:55 Yosho wrote:On February 09 2012 12:49 bRiz wrote:
Don't know how I feel about this. On one hand, it's a positive answer to a problem being experienced in the GLT community, but I personally prefer to keep marriage between a man and a woman, though I don't think I'd vote for a restriction like that. Just a personal opinion. I wouldn't vote for this to pass but if I would vote to not let is pass. Although even in nature gay animals exist, I feel it's like any other deficiency that people / animals can be born with. One of the sole thing we rely on to define life is reproduction. You cannot do this naturally on gay people. Not to be rude but I don't count this as a step up, but as a step down. You say they are born with it, than why does it matter if they can get married? It's not like you're going to convince one of them to turn straight, and thus reproduce anyways. I figure it goes against nature. Why support it further? Mentally ill people who are born with deficiency's also should be restricted on what they can and can't do. I would not like a mentally handicapped person to operate extremely heavy machinery. And I don't think gay people should marry. I feel it's a defilement of what marriage is. Is menopause a deficieny? Cause if not why should women who can't reproduce be allowed to get married? Hell what about sterile men? Honestly this deficiency bullshit is just cover for bigotted religious views. I don't believe in religion. At all... So then how is two men getting married different in a biological sense from a sterile man marrying a women?
Where would you draw the line though? Man and women was clearly intended. Man and man, woman and woman wasn't. It just happens that the male or female couldn't reproduce. They were still meant to be.
|
Some states will continue to try and stop gay marriage as payback for reconstruction Those damn Yankees and the War of Northern Aggression.
I personally find the idea of polygamy much more interesting to debate than gay marriage.
|
On February 09 2012 13:07 Yosho wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 13:06 Probulous wrote:On February 09 2012 13:02 Yosho wrote:On February 09 2012 13:00 1Eris1 wrote:On February 09 2012 12:55 Yosho wrote:On February 09 2012 12:49 bRiz wrote:
Don't know how I feel about this. On one hand, it's a positive answer to a problem being experienced in the GLT community, but I personally prefer to keep marriage between a man and a woman, though I don't think I'd vote for a restriction like that. Just a personal opinion. I wouldn't vote for this to pass but if I would vote to not let is pass. Although even in nature gay animals exist, I feel it's like any other deficiency that people / animals can be born with. One of the sole thing we rely on to define life is reproduction. You cannot do this naturally on gay people. Not to be rude but I don't count this as a step up, but as a step down. You say they are born with it, than why does it matter if they can get married? It's not like you're going to convince one of them to turn straight, and thus reproduce anyways. I figure it goes against nature. Why support it further? Mentally ill people who are born with deficiency's also should be restricted on what they can and can't do. I would not like a mentally handicapped person to operate extremely heavy machinery. And I don't think gay people should marry. I feel it's a defilement of what marriage is. Is menopause a deficieny? Cause if not why should women who can't reproduce be allowed to get married? Hell what about sterile men? Honestly this deficiency bullshit is just cover for bigotted religious views. I don't believe in religion. At all...
To quote metalocalypse, I think what you mean is that you don't believe in god. Because religion definitely exists.
|
On February 09 2012 13:09 Yosho wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 13:08 Probulous wrote:On February 09 2012 13:07 Yosho wrote:On February 09 2012 13:06 Probulous wrote:On February 09 2012 13:02 Yosho wrote:On February 09 2012 13:00 1Eris1 wrote:On February 09 2012 12:55 Yosho wrote:On February 09 2012 12:49 bRiz wrote:
Don't know how I feel about this. On one hand, it's a positive answer to a problem being experienced in the GLT community, but I personally prefer to keep marriage between a man and a woman, though I don't think I'd vote for a restriction like that. Just a personal opinion. I wouldn't vote for this to pass but if I would vote to not let is pass. Although even in nature gay animals exist, I feel it's like any other deficiency that people / animals can be born with. One of the sole thing we rely on to define life is reproduction. You cannot do this naturally on gay people. Not to be rude but I don't count this as a step up, but as a step down. You say they are born with it, than why does it matter if they can get married? It's not like you're going to convince one of them to turn straight, and thus reproduce anyways. I figure it goes against nature. Why support it further? Mentally ill people who are born with deficiency's also should be restricted on what they can and can't do. I would not like a mentally handicapped person to operate extremely heavy machinery. And I don't think gay people should marry. I feel it's a defilement of what marriage is. Is menopause a deficieny? Cause if not why should women who can't reproduce be allowed to get married? Hell what about sterile men? Honestly this deficiency bullshit is just cover for bigotted religious views. I don't believe in religion. At all... So then how is two men getting married different in a biological sense from a sterile man marrying a women? Where would you draw the line though? Man and women was clearly intended. Man and man, woman and woman wasn't. It just happens that the male or female couldn't reproduce. They were still meant to be.
No actually they were not. "Meant" implies some grand plan. If a man is sterile, he is not "meant" to have children simply because he can't have children. If the purpose of marriage is to reproduce then every marriage that cannot produce children should not be allowed. Why separate same sex marriages?
|
On February 09 2012 13:09 Yosho wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 13:08 Probulous wrote:On February 09 2012 13:07 Yosho wrote:On February 09 2012 13:06 Probulous wrote:On February 09 2012 13:02 Yosho wrote:On February 09 2012 13:00 1Eris1 wrote:On February 09 2012 12:55 Yosho wrote:On February 09 2012 12:49 bRiz wrote:
Don't know how I feel about this. On one hand, it's a positive answer to a problem being experienced in the GLT community, but I personally prefer to keep marriage between a man and a woman, though I don't think I'd vote for a restriction like that. Just a personal opinion. I wouldn't vote for this to pass but if I would vote to not let is pass. Although even in nature gay animals exist, I feel it's like any other deficiency that people / animals can be born with. One of the sole thing we rely on to define life is reproduction. You cannot do this naturally on gay people. Not to be rude but I don't count this as a step up, but as a step down. You say they are born with it, than why does it matter if they can get married? It's not like you're going to convince one of them to turn straight, and thus reproduce anyways. I figure it goes against nature. Why support it further? Mentally ill people who are born with deficiency's also should be restricted on what they can and can't do. I would not like a mentally handicapped person to operate extremely heavy machinery. And I don't think gay people should marry. I feel it's a defilement of what marriage is. Is menopause a deficieny? Cause if not why should women who can't reproduce be allowed to get married? Hell what about sterile men? Honestly this deficiency bullshit is just cover for bigotted religious views. I don't believe in religion. At all... So then how is two men getting married different in a biological sense from a sterile man marrying a women? Where would you draw the line though? Man and women was clearly intended. Man and man, woman and woman wasn't. It just happens that the male or female couldn't reproduce. They were still meant to be.
Intended by who? Meant to be by what standards?
|
On February 09 2012 13:09 Yosho wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 13:08 Probulous wrote:On February 09 2012 13:07 Yosho wrote:On February 09 2012 13:06 Probulous wrote:On February 09 2012 13:02 Yosho wrote:On February 09 2012 13:00 1Eris1 wrote:On February 09 2012 12:55 Yosho wrote:On February 09 2012 12:49 bRiz wrote:
Don't know how I feel about this. On one hand, it's a positive answer to a problem being experienced in the GLT community, but I personally prefer to keep marriage between a man and a woman, though I don't think I'd vote for a restriction like that. Just a personal opinion. I wouldn't vote for this to pass but if I would vote to not let is pass. Although even in nature gay animals exist, I feel it's like any other deficiency that people / animals can be born with. One of the sole thing we rely on to define life is reproduction. You cannot do this naturally on gay people. Not to be rude but I don't count this as a step up, but as a step down. You say they are born with it, than why does it matter if they can get married? It's not like you're going to convince one of them to turn straight, and thus reproduce anyways. I figure it goes against nature. Why support it further? Mentally ill people who are born with deficiency's also should be restricted on what they can and can't do. I would not like a mentally handicapped person to operate extremely heavy machinery. And I don't think gay people should marry. I feel it's a defilement of what marriage is. Is menopause a deficieny? Cause if not why should women who can't reproduce be allowed to get married? Hell what about sterile men? Honestly this deficiency bullshit is just cover for bigotted religious views. I don't believe in religion. At all... So then how is two men getting married different in a biological sense from a sterile man marrying a women? Where would you draw the line though? Man and women was clearly intended. Man and man, woman and woman wasn't. It just happens that the male or female couldn't reproduce. They were still meant to be.
Intended by who? You said you aren't religious and intentionality requires an agent. If you mean intended by nature, that evidently isn't true, because nature isn't a sentient entity. If you mean intended by the state/people, well it is intended now.
|
I live here. It's a few years overdue. We passed the "everything but marriage" bill a few years ago, and I blasted people for accepting such a consolation. But now real change. This is good. At least if you're not a homophobe or religious fanatic.
But guess what folks? My people (Washingtonians) are taking the bait AGAIN! The state passes something the majority of the state would agree with while they continually cut funds to education, parks, and cities. Basically, they're distracting us from the increased sorry condition of our state by throwing us a bone. Meanwhile, the sheer amounts of state government redundancy (ie, meaningless positions and agencies that absorb a lot of money) remains.
We have a large state debt and the same politicians that pass gay marriage are simultaneously fucking the have-nots by providing them with subpar education to ensure our children grow up to be idiots who will obey their televisions and politicians. I've lived here all my life, this is what they do. In my town, we have two middle schools, but they cut so much that they have ONE principle for the two schools! One person to manage two schools? Also, teacher positions for helping those with learning disabilities (dyslexia, etc.) have been cut to the point where now the school is relying on volunteers, and far less of them.
I'm glad that (monogamous) sexuality/gender is no longer in the definition of marriage here, but America still appears to be fucked on both the local and national scales.
|
Civil Unions do the exact same thing, and Marriage being a religious institution first should not have to be rewritten IMO to make people feel more secure in their relationships.
|
On February 09 2012 13:13 reincremate wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 13:09 Yosho wrote:On February 09 2012 13:08 Probulous wrote:On February 09 2012 13:07 Yosho wrote:On February 09 2012 13:06 Probulous wrote:On February 09 2012 13:02 Yosho wrote:On February 09 2012 13:00 1Eris1 wrote:On February 09 2012 12:55 Yosho wrote:On February 09 2012 12:49 bRiz wrote:
Don't know how I feel about this. On one hand, it's a positive answer to a problem being experienced in the GLT community, but I personally prefer to keep marriage between a man and a woman, though I don't think I'd vote for a restriction like that. Just a personal opinion. I wouldn't vote for this to pass but if I would vote to not let is pass. Although even in nature gay animals exist, I feel it's like any other deficiency that people / animals can be born with. One of the sole thing we rely on to define life is reproduction. You cannot do this naturally on gay people. Not to be rude but I don't count this as a step up, but as a step down. You say they are born with it, than why does it matter if they can get married? It's not like you're going to convince one of them to turn straight, and thus reproduce anyways. I figure it goes against nature. Why support it further? Mentally ill people who are born with deficiency's also should be restricted on what they can and can't do. I would not like a mentally handicapped person to operate extremely heavy machinery. And I don't think gay people should marry. I feel it's a defilement of what marriage is. Is menopause a deficieny? Cause if not why should women who can't reproduce be allowed to get married? Hell what about sterile men? Honestly this deficiency bullshit is just cover for bigotted religious views. I don't believe in religion. At all... So then how is two men getting married different in a biological sense from a sterile man marrying a women? Where would you draw the line though? Man and women was clearly intended. Man and man, woman and woman wasn't. It just happens that the male or female couldn't reproduce. They were still meant to be. Intended by who? You said you aren't religious and intentionality requires an agent. If you mean intended by nature, that evidently isn't true, because nature isn't a sentient entity. If you mean intended by the state/people, well it is intended now.
No I mean intended as all through history reproduction is the largest rule. Nowhere in history or species besides self sex species are same sex who can pro create. Just like man man, woman woman. This isn't religious based. This is based on the fact that male and female reproduce and follow the law that is survival. Gay and lesbians seem to be the human race falling off it's primary function intended by evolution. Survival... reproduction. It's kind of silly in my eyes.
|
I don't want to involve myself in this debate because I'll be up all night and have an aneurysm, but I have to say that's it's really offensive to compare homosexuality to a birth defect like mental disabilities. It's offensive to homosexuals because there's no medical distinction between a homosexual and a heterosexual besides their behavior, which means that it's not a disorder/defect/etc. It's also offensive to those who were born with handicaps because you're essentially saying that being disabled (yes in this context you mean mentally but it's a slippery slope to physical handicaps too) means that you aren't entitled to the same rights as "normal" people.
Basically, if you think that gay people are born with some sort of congenital disorder, that's pretty damn homophobic, and even if you do think that, if you're a rational and compassionate person, you wouldn't have a problem denying them their right to happiness.
You don't have to bother replying to this (I'm gonna go to bed, don't expect a debate), but please try to consider what I said. I'm not even gay and I was pretty disgusted by what you're saying.
edit: should clarify that this is all directed at Yosho
|
On February 09 2012 13:17 Yosho wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 13:13 reincremate wrote:On February 09 2012 13:09 Yosho wrote:On February 09 2012 13:08 Probulous wrote:On February 09 2012 13:07 Yosho wrote:On February 09 2012 13:06 Probulous wrote:On February 09 2012 13:02 Yosho wrote:On February 09 2012 13:00 1Eris1 wrote:On February 09 2012 12:55 Yosho wrote:On February 09 2012 12:49 bRiz wrote:
Don't know how I feel about this. On one hand, it's a positive answer to a problem being experienced in the GLT community, but I personally prefer to keep marriage between a man and a woman, though I don't think I'd vote for a restriction like that. Just a personal opinion. I wouldn't vote for this to pass but if I would vote to not let is pass. Although even in nature gay animals exist, I feel it's like any other deficiency that people / animals can be born with. One of the sole thing we rely on to define life is reproduction. You cannot do this naturally on gay people. Not to be rude but I don't count this as a step up, but as a step down. You say they are born with it, than why does it matter if they can get married? It's not like you're going to convince one of them to turn straight, and thus reproduce anyways. I figure it goes against nature. Why support it further? Mentally ill people who are born with deficiency's also should be restricted on what they can and can't do. I would not like a mentally handicapped person to operate extremely heavy machinery. And I don't think gay people should marry. I feel it's a defilement of what marriage is. Is menopause a deficieny? Cause if not why should women who can't reproduce be allowed to get married? Hell what about sterile men? Honestly this deficiency bullshit is just cover for bigotted religious views. I don't believe in religion. At all... So then how is two men getting married different in a biological sense from a sterile man marrying a women? Where would you draw the line though? Man and women was clearly intended. Man and man, woman and woman wasn't. It just happens that the male or female couldn't reproduce. They were still meant to be. Intended by who? You said you aren't religious and intentionality requires an agent. If you mean intended by nature, that evidently isn't true, because nature isn't a sentient entity. If you mean intended by the state/people, well it is intended now. No I mean intended as all through history reproduction is the largest rule. Nowhere in history or species besides self sex species are same sex who can pro create. Just like man man, woman woman. This isn't religious based. This is based on the fact that male and female reproduce and follow the law that is survival. Gay and lesbians seem to be the human race falling off it's primary function intended by evolution. Survival... reproduction. It's kind of silly in my eyes.
Don't go blaming your eyes for something that's entirely in your head. 
|
On February 09 2012 13:17 Yosho wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 13:13 reincremate wrote:On February 09 2012 13:09 Yosho wrote:On February 09 2012 13:08 Probulous wrote:On February 09 2012 13:07 Yosho wrote:On February 09 2012 13:06 Probulous wrote:On February 09 2012 13:02 Yosho wrote:On February 09 2012 13:00 1Eris1 wrote:On February 09 2012 12:55 Yosho wrote:On February 09 2012 12:49 bRiz wrote:
Don't know how I feel about this. On one hand, it's a positive answer to a problem being experienced in the GLT community, but I personally prefer to keep marriage between a man and a woman, though I don't think I'd vote for a restriction like that. Just a personal opinion. I wouldn't vote for this to pass but if I would vote to not let is pass. Although even in nature gay animals exist, I feel it's like any other deficiency that people / animals can be born with. One of the sole thing we rely on to define life is reproduction. You cannot do this naturally on gay people. Not to be rude but I don't count this as a step up, but as a step down. You say they are born with it, than why does it matter if they can get married? It's not like you're going to convince one of them to turn straight, and thus reproduce anyways. I figure it goes against nature. Why support it further? Mentally ill people who are born with deficiency's also should be restricted on what they can and can't do. I would not like a mentally handicapped person to operate extremely heavy machinery. And I don't think gay people should marry. I feel it's a defilement of what marriage is. Is menopause a deficieny? Cause if not why should women who can't reproduce be allowed to get married? Hell what about sterile men? Honestly this deficiency bullshit is just cover for bigotted religious views. I don't believe in religion. At all... So then how is two men getting married different in a biological sense from a sterile man marrying a women? Where would you draw the line though? Man and women was clearly intended. Man and man, woman and woman wasn't. It just happens that the male or female couldn't reproduce. They were still meant to be. Intended by who? You said you aren't religious and intentionality requires an agent. If you mean intended by nature, that evidently isn't true, because nature isn't a sentient entity. If you mean intended by the state/people, well it is intended now. No I mean intended as all through history reproduction is the largest rule. Nowhere in history or species besides self sex species are same sex who can pro create. Just like man man, woman woman. This isn't religious based. This is based on the fact that male and female reproduce and follow the law that is survival. Gay and lesbians seem to be the human race falling off it's primary function intended by evolution. Survival... reproduction. It's kind of silly in my eyes.
You have not answered my question
No actually they were not. "Meant" implies some grand plan. If a man is sterile, he is not "meant" to have children simply because he can't have children. If the purpose of marriage is to reproduce then every marriage that cannot produce children should not be allowed. Why separate same sex marriages?
What is different between a menopausal women marrying a man and two lesbians getting married in terms of reproduction? Nothing, neither marriage will produce children, so why is one allowed whilst the other isn't? It cannot be on reproduction grounds.
|
I'm not homophobic, but shoving "gay marriage" down the throats of religious groups is hardly a "right step foward." I do agree with the idea that gays should have equally binding civil unions, but calling it marriage is a slap in the face to many
|
On February 09 2012 13:21 rapidash88 wrote:
I'm not homophobic, but shoving "gay marriage" down the throats of religious groups is hardly a "right step foward." I do agree with the idea that gays should have equally binding civil unions, but calling it marriage is a slap in the face to many
he he that's a little hypocritical. How many marriages are a slap in the face to religious communities? I cite the enormous divorce rate and the presence of drive through chapels as evidence. If marriage is based on love, surely gays ahve just as much right to fuck up marriage as straight people?
|
On February 09 2012 13:17 Yosho wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 13:13 reincremate wrote:On February 09 2012 13:09 Yosho wrote:On February 09 2012 13:08 Probulous wrote:On February 09 2012 13:07 Yosho wrote:On February 09 2012 13:06 Probulous wrote:On February 09 2012 13:02 Yosho wrote:On February 09 2012 13:00 1Eris1 wrote:On February 09 2012 12:55 Yosho wrote:On February 09 2012 12:49 bRiz wrote:
Don't know how I feel about this. On one hand, it's a positive answer to a problem being experienced in the GLT community, but I personally prefer to keep marriage between a man and a woman, though I don't think I'd vote for a restriction like that. Just a personal opinion. I wouldn't vote for this to pass but if I would vote to not let is pass. Although even in nature gay animals exist, I feel it's like any other deficiency that people / animals can be born with. One of the sole thing we rely on to define life is reproduction. You cannot do this naturally on gay people. Not to be rude but I don't count this as a step up, but as a step down. You say they are born with it, than why does it matter if they can get married? It's not like you're going to convince one of them to turn straight, and thus reproduce anyways. I figure it goes against nature. Why support it further? Mentally ill people who are born with deficiency's also should be restricted on what they can and can't do. I would not like a mentally handicapped person to operate extremely heavy machinery. And I don't think gay people should marry. I feel it's a defilement of what marriage is. Is menopause a deficieny? Cause if not why should women who can't reproduce be allowed to get married? Hell what about sterile men? Honestly this deficiency bullshit is just cover for bigotted religious views. I don't believe in religion. At all... So then how is two men getting married different in a biological sense from a sterile man marrying a women? Where would you draw the line though? Man and women was clearly intended. Man and man, woman and woman wasn't. It just happens that the male or female couldn't reproduce. They were still meant to be. Intended by who? You said you aren't religious and intentionality requires an agent. If you mean intended by nature, that evidently isn't true, because nature isn't a sentient entity. If you mean intended by the state/people, well it is intended now. No I mean intended as all through history reproduction is the largest rule. Nowhere in history or species besides self sex species are same sex who can pro create. Just like man man, woman woman. This isn't religious based. This is based on the fact that male and female reproduce and follow the law that is survival. Gay and lesbians seem to be the human race falling off it's primary function intended by evolution. Survival... reproduction. It's kind of silly in my eyes.
Evolution isn't an external intentional agent, but rather the change of populations of species over time via natural selection. Homo sapiens are not anywhere near extinction (unless we do it through our own means, which is another matter), and thus homosexuality is not a maladaptive trait. Even if 50% of the population were homosexuals, we would still have no trouble surviving. As a matter of fact, at this point not reproducing would be beneficial for us, as were putting a massive strain on our resources.
|
On February 09 2012 13:21 rapidash88 wrote:
I'm not homophobic, but shoving "gay marriage" down the throats of religious groups is hardly a "right step foward." I do agree with the idea that gays should have equally binding civil unions, but calling it marriage is a slap in the face to many
Again, no one is forcing religious groups/churches to marry same sex couples. This is a government function, not a religious one.
Stop getting the two mixed up
|
On February 09 2012 13:02 Yosho wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 13:00 1Eris1 wrote:On February 09 2012 12:55 Yosho wrote:On February 09 2012 12:49 bRiz wrote:
Don't know how I feel about this. On one hand, it's a positive answer to a problem being experienced in the GLT community, but I personally prefer to keep marriage between a man and a woman, though I don't think I'd vote for a restriction like that. Just a personal opinion. I wouldn't vote for this to pass but if I would vote to not let is pass. Although even in nature gay animals exist, I feel it's like any other deficiency that people / animals can be born with. One of the sole thing we rely on to define life is reproduction. You cannot do this naturally on gay people. Not to be rude but I don't count this as a step up, but as a step down. You say they are born with it, than why does it matter if they can get married? It's not like you're going to convince one of them to turn straight, and thus reproduce anyways. I figure it goes against nature. Why support it further? Mentally ill people who are born with deficiency's also should be restricted on what they can and can't do. I would not like a mentally handicapped person to operate extremely heavy machinery. And I don't think gay people should marry. I feel it's a defilement of what marriage is.
Stop with the "definition of marriage" No one culture/ideology owns what defines it. People who are against it bring up all this shit about that its supposed to be between a man and a woman but thats just one definition and if thats yours then whatever but you can't go around telling other people that your right and they are wrong. What gives you the authority to justify that? Because your cultural group has traditionally done so? Religion? Because none of those things should affect the power of the government to regulate marriage between two people.
|
Yay Washington! This makes me so happy that people are realizing that we should treat each other as equals with equal rights.
On February 09 2012 13:02 Yosho wrote:
I figure it goes against nature. Why support it further? Mentally ill people who are born with deficiency's also should be restricted on what they can and can't do. I would not like a mentally handicapped person to operate extremely heavy machinery. And I don't think gay people should marry. I feel it's a defilement of what marriage is.
As for this, what is marriage to you? Your definition must be different than mine. To me, marriage has always been about a civil union between two people that love each other, devoid of a religion connotation or gender. People get married to gain "couple's" rights, share finances, and most important show their love as a commitment to one an other. Sure, marriage can be a religious sacrament, but only between people that are religious themselves. Otherwise people on the outside need to stop viewing everything through religious goggles and getting all bent out of shape over something that doesn't effect them. We have separation of church and state for a reason. Denying gay people the opportunity to get these rights and experience the joy of marriage is a bigger defilement of what marriage is, in my opinion, mainly because discrimination is disgusting to me.
|
On February 09 2012 13:23 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 13:21 rapidash88 wrote:
I'm not homophobic, but shoving "gay marriage" down the throats of religious groups is hardly a "right step foward." I do agree with the idea that gays should have equally binding civil unions, but calling it marriage is a slap in the face to many he he that's a little hypocritical. How many marriages are a slap in the face to religious communities? I cite the enormous divorce rate and the presence of drive through chapels as evidence. If marriage is based on love, surely gays ahve just as much right to fuck up marriage as straight people?
Gays DO have just as much rights to be with the people they love. However, I think that gay marriage would be a lot easier for a lot of its opponents to handle if it was simply a civil union with all of the same legal ramification of a marriage. In my opinion, that would have allowed it to pass in my home state (where it failed by referendum very narrowly). Some religious people, myself included, don't hate gays. I just believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I voted against the proposal. If it had been worded differently (that little of a difference) I wouldve voted yes.
|
This shouldn't even be an issue. If two people want to get married why should any one have the right to tell them they can't.
|
On February 09 2012 13:28 rapidash88 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 13:23 Probulous wrote:On February 09 2012 13:21 rapidash88 wrote:
I'm not homophobic, but shoving "gay marriage" down the throats of religious groups is hardly a "right step foward." I do agree with the idea that gays should have equally binding civil unions, but calling it marriage is a slap in the face to many he he that's a little hypocritical. How many marriages are a slap in the face to religious communities? I cite the enormous divorce rate and the presence of drive through chapels as evidence. If marriage is based on love, surely gays ahve just as much right to fuck up marriage as straight people? Gays DO have just as much rights to be with the people they love. However, I think that gay marriage would be a lot easier for a lot of its opponents to handle if it was simply a civil union with all of the same legal ramification of a marriage. In my opinion, that would have allowed it to pass in my home state (where it failed by referendum very narrowly). Some religious people, myself included, don't hate gays. I just believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I voted against the proposal. If it had been worded differently (that little of a difference) I wouldve voted yes.
Ok that is reasonable. Can I ask, what is your definition of marriage?
|
On February 09 2012 13:28 rapidash88 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 13:23 Probulous wrote:On February 09 2012 13:21 rapidash88 wrote:
I'm not homophobic, but shoving "gay marriage" down the throats of religious groups is hardly a "right step foward." I do agree with the idea that gays should have equally binding civil unions, but calling it marriage is a slap in the face to many he he that's a little hypocritical. How many marriages are a slap in the face to religious communities? I cite the enormous divorce rate and the presence of drive through chapels as evidence. If marriage is based on love, surely gays ahve just as much right to fuck up marriage as straight people? Gays DO have just as much rights to be with the people they love. However, I think that gay marriage would be a lot easier for a lot of its opponents to handle if it was simply a civil union with all of the same legal ramification of a marriage. In my opinion, that would have allowed it to pass in my home state (where it failed by referendum very narrowly). Some religious people, myself included, don't hate gays. I just believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I voted against the proposal. If it had been worded differently (that little of a difference) I wouldve voted yes.
Except religion doesn't own the concept. If you want fine they can't get married in whatever church doesn't approve of it but they can't claim the concept of marriage.
My grandma said almost the same thing "give them exactly what marriage is just don't call it marriage".....Wha?
|
On February 09 2012 13:18 corpuscle wrote:
I don't want to involve myself in this debate because I'll be up all night and have an aneurysm, but I have to say that's it's really offensive to compare homosexuality to a birth defect like mental disabilities. It's offensive to homosexuals because there's no medical distinction between a homosexual and a heterosexual besides their behavior, which means that it's not a disorder/defect/etc. It's also offensive to those who were born with handicaps because you're essentially saying that being disabled (yes in this context you mean mentally but it's a slippery slope to physical handicaps too) means that you aren't entitled to the same rights as "normal" people.
Basically, if you think that gay people are born with some sort of congenital disorder, that's pretty damn homophobic, and even if you do think that, if you're a rational and compassionate person, you wouldn't have a problem denying them their right to happiness.
You don't have to bother replying to this (I'm gonna go to bed, don't expect a debate), but please try to consider what I said. I'm not even gay and I was pretty disgusted by what you're saying.
edit: should clarify that this is all directed at Yosho
Well I didn't mean to spark this much a debate ^^ I will let you guys carry on. Although I still stand strongly by my view this isn't the place for the debate at the moment. ^^
|
On February 09 2012 13:31 Yosho wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 13:18 corpuscle wrote:
I don't want to involve myself in this debate because I'll be up all night and have an aneurysm, but I have to say that's it's really offensive to compare homosexuality to a birth defect like mental disabilities. It's offensive to homosexuals because there's no medical distinction between a homosexual and a heterosexual besides their behavior, which means that it's not a disorder/defect/etc. It's also offensive to those who were born with handicaps because you're essentially saying that being disabled (yes in this context you mean mentally but it's a slippery slope to physical handicaps too) means that you aren't entitled to the same rights as "normal" people.
Basically, if you think that gay people are born with some sort of congenital disorder, that's pretty damn homophobic, and even if you do think that, if you're a rational and compassionate person, you wouldn't have a problem denying them their right to happiness.
You don't have to bother replying to this (I'm gonna go to bed, don't expect a debate), but please try to consider what I said. I'm not even gay and I was pretty disgusted by what you're saying.
edit: should clarify that this is all directed at Yosho Well I didn't mean to spark this much a debate ^^ I will let you guys carry on. Although I still stand strongly by my view this isn't the place for the debate at the moment. ^^
Hey matey, can you PM your answer to my question? Thanks!
|
On February 09 2012 13:21 rapidash88 wrote:
I'm not homophobic, but ...
Homophobe detected.
User was warned for this post
|
Washington voter. Voting for it. Go team?
It doesn't seem like it should be huge news. The backwards thing is that this requires voting.
|
So proud to live in a state that now supports gay marriage. <3
|
Good for you guys, I support gay marriage.
|
The myth of the "gay gene," or some sort of psychological anomaly that makes people tend towards "gayness" is just one more way of labeling them as abnormal while simultaneously "excusing" their behavior. It's not really their fault. Fault? It plays both sides of the field.
Marriage has been around far longer than certain homophobic monotheistic religions. So if it is proven to be a religious institution, it's probably not the religion you wish it would be.
|
On February 09 2012 13:33 MountainDewJunkie wrote:Homophobe detected.
That's no way to hold a discussion. These guys are clearly in the minority and this attitude won't help them see reason. Honestly the best bet to get people to change their views on things like this is to make the logic clear. Calling someone a homophobe (be they one or not) is unlikely to change their mind.
Edit: Atrocious spelling and grammar, for shame...
|
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.
Would you be okay if it was called "marraige" instead of "marriage," or is that too similar? How different should it be if marraige is too similar?
The government can not force any church to marry anyone if that church doesn't want to. How is that any different from what you said?
|
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.
Finally someone who realizes that opposing gay marriage =/= hating gay people.
I agree with what you say. I oppose marriage for gay people because I believe that marriage is originally a religious idea, and the way that said religion defines marriage is between a man and a woman.
I have absolutely no problem voting to legalize civil unions that give the exact same benefit as any marriage, just don't make it a church thing and don't call it marriage.
|
On February 09 2012 13:28 rapidash88 wrote:
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.
Marriage is just a word. Why do religious groups have to cling to it so fervently? It's not like they invented it. Marriage is a state/human right, not a religious one. Gay couples don't want to get "civil union-ized," they want to get MARRIED.
|
On February 09 2012 13:40 bode927 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 13:28 rapidash88 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 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. Finally someone who realizes that opposing gay marriage =/= hating gay people. I agree with what you say. I oppose marriage for gay people because I believe that marriage is originally a religious idea, and the way that said religion defines marriage is between a man and a woman. I have absolutely no problem voting to legalize civil unions that give the exact same benefit as any marriage, just don't make it a church thing and don't call it marriage.
The point is that it isn't a church thing. Every culture has some form of "marriage" just because the word has religious roots does not mean it is a religious word. The fact that non-religious people can get married makes this argument void. If you accept that in terms of "marriage" non religious and homosexuals are identical then why does one group have to use the words civil union whilst the other can use marriage?
|
On February 09 2012 13:40 bode927 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 13:28 rapidash88 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 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. Finally someone who realizes that opposing gay marriage =/= hating gay people. I agree with what you say. I oppose marriage for gay people because I believe that marriage is originally a religious idea, and the way that said religion defines marriage is between a man and a woman. I have absolutely no problem voting to legalize civil unions that give the exact same benefit as any marriage, just don't make it a church thing and don't call it marriage.
Why not make it a church thing?
Your logic is that gays are unable to ever call themselves Christians, or many other religions.
That's illegal segregation in the US, even if "civil unions" are the same thing with a different name. "separate but equal"
I don't follow this issue much, but if it is true that gays are not allowed to be Christians, it just makes me laugh all the more at religion and even more sad at how much governmental power they have.
|
I have a Christian friend, and he explained it to me pretty well. I am for gay marriage, and we were discussing it. He said that he doesn't' really care what other people do, except that they should not use the term marriage. Marriage is term that is held dearly to them, and therefore, that is why he is against it. I asked him if he was OK if it was named something else (civil union) and he said that he is uncomfortable, but is OK with it.
I think the basic idea is that those of us that are not religious see marriage as a ceremony to declare love to each other, but Christians sees it something almost sacred. I think that is the primary issue.
|
On February 09 2012 13:23 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 13:21 rapidash88 wrote:
I'm not homophobic, but shoving "gay marriage" down the throats of religious groups is hardly a "right step foward." I do agree with the idea that gays should have equally binding civil unions, but calling it marriage is a slap in the face to many he he that's a little hypocritical. How many marriages are a slap in the face to religious communities? I cite the enormous divorce rate and the presence of drive through chapels as evidence. If marriage is based on love, surely gays ahve just as much right to fuck up marriage as straight people?
Gays 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.
|
On February 09 2012 13:17 Yosho wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 13:13 reincremate wrote:On February 09 2012 13:09 Yosho wrote:On February 09 2012 13:08 Probulous wrote:On February 09 2012 13:07 Yosho wrote:On February 09 2012 13:06 Probulous wrote:On February 09 2012 13:02 Yosho wrote:On February 09 2012 13:00 1Eris1 wrote:On February 09 2012 12:55 Yosho wrote:On February 09 2012 12:49 bRiz wrote:
Don't know how I feel about this. On one hand, it's a positive answer to a problem being experienced in the GLT community, but I personally prefer to keep marriage between a man and a woman, though I don't think I'd vote for a restriction like that. Just a personal opinion. I wouldn't vote for this to pass but if I would vote to not let is pass. Although even in nature gay animals exist, I feel it's like any other deficiency that people / animals can be born with. One of the sole thing we rely on to define life is reproduction. You cannot do this naturally on gay people. Not to be rude but I don't count this as a step up, but as a step down. You say they are born with it, than why does it matter if they can get married? It's not like you're going to convince one of them to turn straight, and thus reproduce anyways. I figure it goes against nature. Why support it further? Mentally ill people who are born with deficiency's also should be restricted on what they can and can't do. I would not like a mentally handicapped person to operate extremely heavy machinery. And I don't think gay people should marry. I feel it's a defilement of what marriage is. Is menopause a deficieny? Cause if not why should women who can't reproduce be allowed to get married? Hell what about sterile men? Honestly this deficiency bullshit is just cover for bigotted religious views. I don't believe in religion. At all... So then how is two men getting married different in a biological sense from a sterile man marrying a women? Where would you draw the line though? Man and women was clearly intended. Man and man, woman and woman wasn't. It just happens that the male or female couldn't reproduce. They were still meant to be. Intended by who? You said you aren't religious and intentionality requires an agent. If you mean intended by nature, that evidently isn't true, because nature isn't a sentient entity. If you mean intended by the state/people, well it is intended now. No I mean intended as all through history reproduction is the largest rule. Nowhere in history or species besides self sex species are same sex who can pro create. Just like man man, woman woman. This isn't religious based. This is based on the fact that male and female reproduce and follow the law that is survival. Gay and lesbians seem to be the human race falling off it's primary function intended by evolution. Survival... reproduction. It's kind of silly in my eyes.
Or, idk, maybe human survival transcends procreation into the realm of ensuring the safety of the race as a whole. This would include caring for others, possibly even sharing your life with somebody so you can pool resources and efforts, while providing one another with the emotional and physical comfort of a companion.
Or we can take your route, everybody just goes around having sex. To hell with marriage! Should spend all our time worrying about how to have more babies, not stupid rituals which bind ourselves to one mate, spitting on the very nature of evolution by restricting diversification!
|
On February 09 2012 13:45 vetinari 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 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?
|
On February 09 2012 13:43 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 13:40 bode927 wrote:On February 09 2012 13:28 rapidash88 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 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. Finally someone who realizes that opposing gay marriage =/= hating gay people. I agree with what you say. I oppose marriage for gay people because I believe that marriage is originally a religious idea, and the way that said religion defines marriage is between a man and a woman. I have absolutely no problem voting to legalize civil unions that give the exact same benefit as any marriage, just don't make it a church thing and don't call it marriage. The point is that it isn't a church thing. Every culture has some form of "marriage" just because the word has religious roots does not mean it is a religious word. The fact that non-religious people can get married makes this argument void. If you accept that in terms of "marriage" non religious and homosexuals are identical then why does one group have to use the words civil union whilst the other can use marriage?
To me, I believe it's a church thing before its a religious thing. To me, marriage means a sacred covenant that a man and a woman make together before God.
If I believe that, I have the right to vote against it just as much as you have the right to vote for it if you want to.
|
On February 09 2012 13:43 SafeAsCheese wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 13:40 bode927 wrote:On February 09 2012 13:28 rapidash88 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 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. Finally someone who realizes that opposing gay marriage =/= hating gay people. I agree with what you say. I oppose marriage for gay people because I believe that marriage is originally a religious idea, and the way that said religion defines marriage is between a man and a woman. I have absolutely no problem voting to legalize civil unions that give the exact same benefit as any marriage, just don't make it a church thing and don't call it marriage. Why not make it a church thing? Your logic is that gays are unable to ever call themselves Christians, or many other religions. That's illegal segregation in the US, even if "civil unions" are the same thing with a different name. "separate but equal" I don't follow this issue much, but if it is true that gays are not allowed to be Christians, it just makes me laugh all the more at religion and even more sad at how much governmental power they have.
It's about how the Bible defines marriage and what it says about homosexuality. As a Christian, I believe the definition of marriage is not something that man created, therefore, manmade law has no precedent over what it should or should not be. To me, marriage is a church thing before it is a government thing.
|
You silly kids being fooled into thinking gay marriage is actually an important issue. While the public is all worried about giving this tiny group some rights, these crooks are trying to STRIP US OF ALL OUR RIGHTS. SOPA, PIPA, and NDAA are actual issues. We need to protect the rights we already have.
So stop with this gay marriage nonsense. It doesn't matter to the 99% of us.
|
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.
So you want to spend a lot of tax payer money to treat gay people fairly, yet not the same?
Sounds like discrimination, discrimination against someone loving someone of their own choosing, disgusting. Sure you can give them the same benefits, but want to shove the fact that they're different down their throats as you do it. You'd rather waste a ton of money copying an already semi-working system simply because of YOUR definition of marriage, than choosing a more successful and obviously fair route.
|
On February 09 2012 13:45 wunsun wrote:
I have a Christian friend, and he explained it to me pretty well. I am for gay marriage, and we were discussing it. He said that he doesn't' really care what other people do, except that they should not use the term marriage. Marriage is term that is held dearly to them, and therefore, that is why he is against it. I asked him if he was OK if it was named something else (civil union) and he said that he is uncomfortable, but is OK with it.
I think the basic idea is that those of us that are not religious see marriage as a ceremony to declare love to each other, but Christians sees it something almost sacred. I think that is the primary issue.
Indeed it is, and I think you and your friend understand it perfectly. Just split them apart if you ask me. Then I'm fine with it.
|
On February 09 2012 13:50 bode927 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 13:43 SafeAsCheese wrote:On February 09 2012 13:40 bode927 wrote:On February 09 2012 13:28 rapidash88 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 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. Finally someone who realizes that opposing gay marriage =/= hating gay people. I agree with what you say. I oppose marriage for gay people because I believe that marriage is originally a religious idea, and the way that said religion defines marriage is between a man and a woman. I have absolutely no problem voting to legalize civil unions that give the exact same benefit as any marriage, just don't make it a church thing and don't call it marriage. Why not make it a church thing? Your logic is that gays are unable to ever call themselves Christians, or many other religions. That's illegal segregation in the US, even if "civil unions" are the same thing with a different name. "separate but equal" I don't follow this issue much, but if it is true that gays are not allowed to be Christians, it just makes me laugh all the more at religion and even more sad at how much governmental power they have. It's about how the Bible defines marriage and what it says about homosexuality. As a Christian, I believe the definition of marriage is not something that man created, therefore, manmade law has no precedent over what it should or should not be. To me, marriage is a church thing before it is a government thing.
Marriage is not a christian invention.
|
On February 09 2012 13:52 bode927 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 13:45 wunsun wrote:
I have a Christian friend, and he explained it to me pretty well. I am for gay marriage, and we were discussing it. He said that he doesn't' really care what other people do, except that they should not use the term marriage. Marriage is term that is held dearly to them, and therefore, that is why he is against it. I asked him if he was OK if it was named something else (civil union) and he said that he is uncomfortable, but is OK with it.
I think the basic idea is that those of us that are not religious see marriage as a ceremony to declare love to each other, but Christians sees it something almost sacred. I think that is the primary issue. Indeed it is, and I think you and your friend understand it perfectly. Just split them apart if you ask me. Then I'm fine with it.
Marriage was around before Christianity just so you know. So you, and the person you're quoting are wrong in your ways of thinking.
|
On February 09 2012 13:49 bode927 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 13:43 Probulous wrote:On February 09 2012 13:40 bode927 wrote:On February 09 2012 13:28 rapidash88 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 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. Finally someone who realizes that opposing gay marriage =/= hating gay people. I agree with what you say. I oppose marriage for gay people because I believe that marriage is originally a religious idea, and the way that said religion defines marriage is between a man and a woman. I have absolutely no problem voting to legalize civil unions that give the exact same benefit as any marriage, just don't make it a church thing and don't call it marriage. The point is that it isn't a church thing. Every culture has some form of "marriage" just because the word has religious roots does not mean it is a religious word. The fact that non-religious people can get married makes this argument void. If you accept that in terms of "marriage" non religious and homosexuals are identical then why does one group have to use the words civil union whilst the other can use marriage? To me, I believe it's a church thing before its a religious thing. To me, marriage means a sacred covenant that a man and a woman make together before God. If I believe that, I have the right to vote against it just as much as you have the right to vote for it if you want to.
That is most certainly true and I salute you on standing by your beliefs 
What I can't stand is people who say they are not religious but don't support the concept of gay marriage.
|
On February 09 2012 13:52 reincremate wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 13:50 bode927 wrote:On February 09 2012 13:43 SafeAsCheese wrote:On February 09 2012 13:40 bode927 wrote:On February 09 2012 13:28 rapidash88 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 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. Finally someone who realizes that opposing gay marriage =/= hating gay people. I agree with what you say. I oppose marriage for gay people because I believe that marriage is originally a religious idea, and the way that said religion defines marriage is between a man and a woman. I have absolutely no problem voting to legalize civil unions that give the exact same benefit as any marriage, just don't make it a church thing and don't call it marriage. Why not make it a church thing? Your logic is that gays are unable to ever call themselves Christians, or many other religions. That's illegal segregation in the US, even if "civil unions" are the same thing with a different name. "separate but equal" I don't follow this issue much, but if it is true that gays are not allowed to be Christians, it just makes me laugh all the more at religion and even more sad at how much governmental power they have. It's about how the Bible defines marriage and what it says about homosexuality. As a Christian, I believe the definition of marriage is not something that man created, therefore, manmade law has no precedent over what it should or should not be. To me, marriage is a church thing before it is a government thing. Marriage is not a christian invention.
That's why this phrase encompasses the phrase "To me" and to a lot of other people in this country. Like I said earlier in the thread, I have just as much right to vote against gay marriage due to my own worldview as anyone else has to vote for it.
|
On February 09 2012 13:54 bode927 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 13:52 reincremate wrote:On February 09 2012 13:50 bode927 wrote:On February 09 2012 13:43 SafeAsCheese wrote:On February 09 2012 13:40 bode927 wrote:On February 09 2012 13:28 rapidash88 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 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. Finally someone who realizes that opposing gay marriage =/= hating gay people. I agree with what you say. I oppose marriage for gay people because I believe that marriage is originally a religious idea, and the way that said religion defines marriage is between a man and a woman. I have absolutely no problem voting to legalize civil unions that give the exact same benefit as any marriage, just don't make it a church thing and don't call it marriage. Why not make it a church thing? Your logic is that gays are unable to ever call themselves Christians, or many other religions. That's illegal segregation in the US, even if "civil unions" are the same thing with a different name. "separate but equal" I don't follow this issue much, but if it is true that gays are not allowed to be Christians, it just makes me laugh all the more at religion and even more sad at how much governmental power they have. It's about how the Bible defines marriage and what it says about homosexuality. As a Christian, I believe the definition of marriage is not something that man created, therefore, manmade law has no precedent over what it should or should not be. To me, marriage is a church thing before it is a government thing. Marriage is not a christian invention. That's why this phrase encompasses the phrase "To me" and to a lot of other people in this country. Like I said earlier in the thread, I have just as much right to vote against gay marriage due to my own worldview as anyone else has to vote for it.
You can say "to me" all you want, but you're still wrong. Marriage isn't a "church thing before a government thing" because marriage predates it.
|
On February 09 2012 13:54 bode927 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 13:52 reincremate wrote:On February 09 2012 13:50 bode927 wrote:On February 09 2012 13:43 SafeAsCheese wrote:On February 09 2012 13:40 bode927 wrote:On February 09 2012 13:28 rapidash88 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 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. Finally someone who realizes that opposing gay marriage =/= hating gay people. I agree with what you say. I oppose marriage for gay people because I believe that marriage is originally a religious idea, and the way that said religion defines marriage is between a man and a woman. I have absolutely no problem voting to legalize civil unions that give the exact same benefit as any marriage, just don't make it a church thing and don't call it marriage. Why not make it a church thing? Your logic is that gays are unable to ever call themselves Christians, or many other religions. That's illegal segregation in the US, even if "civil unions" are the same thing with a different name. "separate but equal" I don't follow this issue much, but if it is true that gays are not allowed to be Christians, it just makes me laugh all the more at religion and even more sad at how much governmental power they have. It's about how the Bible defines marriage and what it says about homosexuality. As a Christian, I believe the definition of marriage is not something that man created, therefore, manmade law has no precedent over what it should or should not be. To me, marriage is a church thing before it is a government thing. Marriage is not a christian invention. That's why this phrase encompasses the phrase "To me" and to a lot of other people in this country. Like I said earlier in the thread, I have just as much right to vote against gay marriage due to my own worldview as anyone else has to vote for it.
Of course you have the right to speak up and vote against it, but you must also understand how this violates U.S. Constitutional law and common law.
|
I like how alot of people in a Country were 50% of marriages end in divorce are so fervent on defending it's God given sacredness.
|
I don't see what the big deal is...Nothing was stopping a gay couple from living together before but now that they have a slip of paper saying that its "official" so its a big deal?
Meanwhile Im going to get married to my dog...Dogs have rights too and I want to marry my dog and she wants to marry me also.
|
On February 09 2012 13:57 Ungrateful wrote:
I don't see what the big deal is...Nothing was stopping a gay couple from living together before but now that they have a slip of paper saying that its "official" so its a big deal?
Meanwhile Im going to get married to my dog...Dogs have rights too and I want to marry my dog and she wants to marry me also.
The big deal is when you're married you gain additional rights. One is pretty damn special, like oh I dunno being able to visit your loved one while they're sick / dying in the hospital.
Also your second comment wasn't amusing, it was pretty bland.
|
Nice! I hope people realize that there is nothing wrong with gays getting married
|
On February 09 2012 13:49 bode927 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 13:43 Probulous wrote:On February 09 2012 13:40 bode927 wrote:On February 09 2012 13:28 rapidash88 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 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. Finally someone who realizes that opposing gay marriage =/= hating gay people. I agree with what you say. I oppose marriage for gay people because I believe that marriage is originally a religious idea, and the way that said religion defines marriage is between a man and a woman. I have absolutely no problem voting to legalize civil unions that give the exact same benefit as any marriage, just don't make it a church thing and don't call it marriage. The point is that it isn't a church thing. Every culture has some form of "marriage" just because the word has religious roots does not mean it is a religious word. The fact that non-religious people can get married makes this argument void. If you accept that in terms of "marriage" non religious and homosexuals are identical then why does one group have to use the words civil union whilst the other can use marriage? To me, I believe it's a church thing before its a religious thing. To me, marriage means a sacred covenant that a man and a woman make together before God. If I believe that, I have the right to vote against it just as much as you have the right to vote for it if you want to.
Except as I said before, the concept isn't something that religion owns its a general term for a commitment two people make as life partners. By your reasoning then if someone doesn't believe in God then they can't marry.....oops religions already perform ceremonies for couples with one or more atheists!
Marriage existed before religion so they can't claim it EXCEPT in the context of their own religion.
Christianity defines marriage = man woman before God. Thats OK! Do your thing, if Christianity doesn't want to preform THEIR version of the ceremony for gay couples because it doesn't fly with their construct of it then whatever we can't tell them what they can or cannot do. This has to do with what the government can or cannot do and they should have 0 say in if gays can get married. Other peoples constructs say that its perfectly normal and fine for them to marry.
On the issue of "call it civil union"
No. Why? Because then it still is regulating them to second class citizen status because they can't get married they have to have a "union". The notion itself, while maybe not the biggest deal being one of semantics, still has a connotation of "not being normal".
|
On February 09 2012 13:51 steev wrote:
You silly kids being fooled into thinking gay marriage is actually an important issue. While the public is all worried about giving this tiny group some rights, these crooks are trying to STRIP US OF ALL OUR RIGHTS. SOPA, PIPA, and NDAA are actual issues. We need to protect the rights we already have.
So stop with this gay marriage nonsense. It doesn't matter to the 99% of us.
These issues are not mutually exclusive. Besides this about basic discrimination and as such should be paramount. Yes those acts are atrocious but they affect everyone equally. The problem with the marriage legislation is that it artifically separates the community based on outdated beliefs.
|
On February 09 2012 13:59 PanN wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 13:57 Ungrateful wrote:
I don't see what the big deal is...Nothing was stopping a gay couple from living together before but now that they have a slip of paper saying that its "official" so its a big deal?
Meanwhile Im going to get married to my dog...Dogs have rights too and I want to marry my dog and she wants to marry me also. The big deal is when you're married you gain additional rights. One is pretty damn special, like oh I dunno being able to visit your loved one while they're sick / dying in the hospital.
Also, the ability to file taxes jointly, which roughly doubles the total income the two can earn before being taxed at higher rates. This is especially a benefit when one spouse takes over non-income generating tasks (household chores, shopping, cooking, etc.)
|
On February 09 2012 13:40 bode927 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 13:28 rapidash88 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 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. Finally someone who realizes that opposing gay marriage =/= hating gay people. I agree with what you say. I oppose marriage for gay people because I believe that marriage is originally a religious idea, and the way that said religion defines marriage is between a man and a woman. I have absolutely no problem voting to legalize civil unions that give the exact same benefit as any marriage, just don't make it a church thing and don't call it marriage.
1. It almost certainly wasn't originally a religious idea, and even if it was it predates Christianity by at least a few dozen millenia,and
2. It definitely isn't a religious rite in the eyes of the state, seeing as how atheists and are able to get married.
You and your church are free to keep records of which government marriages you recognize as valid and which you don't. But forcing the entire population to adhere to your specific church's definition of marriage is you shoving your beliefs down our throats, not the other way around.
|
EDIT: You don't need to see this I am very passionate about some issues and have trouble keeping things civil.
|
Great news Three cheers for civil rights, equality, and common sense! ^^
|
Maybe it's just how I think, I would think that in a traditional sense, marriage is between a man and a woman. I always thing homosexuals are in unions or whatnot with each other.
My thing is that although I do not necessarily believe two homosexuals marrying is true marriage, just because of the family/society I have been raised in, I really don't have a problem with it. It may not be what i think of as marriage, but if Rent is Too Damn High wants to marry a shoe, or a monkey, or a man, who cares. Let them have it.
I frankly think that the "everything but marriage" law is adequate, but I'm not the one effected by it. If the minority sees it as discrimination, and I don't have to change anything to end it, why not do it?
In closing, I am definitely for this law, even though I really do associate homosexuals with being in union rather than marriage.
|
On February 09 2012 13:17 Yosho wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 13:13 reincremate wrote:On February 09 2012 13:09 Yosho wrote:On February 09 2012 13:08 Probulous wrote:On February 09 2012 13:07 Yosho wrote:On February 09 2012 13:06 Probulous wrote:On February 09 2012 13:02 Yosho wrote:On February 09 2012 13:00 1Eris1 wrote:On February 09 2012 12:55 Yosho wrote:On February 09 2012 12:49 bRiz wrote:
Don't know how I feel about this. On one hand, it's a positive answer to a problem being experienced in the GLT community, but I personally prefer to keep marriage between a man and a woman, though I don't think I'd vote for a restriction like that. Just a personal opinion. I wouldn't vote for this to pass but if I would vote to not let is pass. Although even in nature gay animals exist, I feel it's like any other deficiency that people / animals can be born with. One of the sole thing we rely on to define life is reproduction. You cannot do this naturally on gay people. Not to be rude but I don't count this as a step up, but as a step down. You say they are born with it, than why does it matter if they can get married? It's not like you're going to convince one of them to turn straight, and thus reproduce anyways. I figure it goes against nature. Why support it further? Mentally ill people who are born with deficiency's also should be restricted on what they can and can't do. I would not like a mentally handicapped person to operate extremely heavy machinery. And I don't think gay people should marry. I feel it's a defilement of what marriage is. Is menopause a deficieny? Cause if not why should women who can't reproduce be allowed to get married? Hell what about sterile men? Honestly this deficiency bullshit is just cover for bigotted religious views. I don't believe in religion. At all... So then how is two men getting married different in a biological sense from a sterile man marrying a women? Where would you draw the line though? Man and women was clearly intended. Man and man, woman and woman wasn't. It just happens that the male or female couldn't reproduce. They were still meant to be. Intended by who? You said you aren't religious and intentionality requires an agent. If you mean intended by nature, that evidently isn't true, because nature isn't a sentient entity. If you mean intended by the state/people, well it is intended now. No I mean intended as all through history reproduction is the largest rule. Nowhere in history or species besides self sex species are same sex who can pro create. Just like man man, woman woman. This isn't religious based. This is based on the fact that male and female reproduce and follow the law that is survival. Gay and lesbians seem to be the human race falling off it's primary function intended by evolution. Survival... reproduction. It's kind of silly in my eyes.
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...
Reading through your posts just solidifies the fact that there is no valid reason against being homosexual, since you continue to bring up stupid arguments, and as soon as someone shoots you down for that you bring up another...
|
Only 2 Republicans were for gay marriage. Sigh. Reality really does have a liberal bias. I wish they wouldn't hold us back.
|
Marriage has existed all around the world with AND without religion. Marriage is not a religious thing. Also marriage =/= reproduction to that genius that posted earlier.
Good job Washington! Let's keep the anti-ignorant movement going!
|
On February 09 2012 13:54 bode927 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 13:52 reincremate wrote:On February 09 2012 13:50 bode927 wrote:On February 09 2012 13:43 SafeAsCheese wrote:On February 09 2012 13:40 bode927 wrote:On February 09 2012 13:28 rapidash88 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 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. Finally someone who realizes that opposing gay marriage =/= hating gay people. I agree with what you say. I oppose marriage for gay people because I believe that marriage is originally a religious idea, and the way that said religion defines marriage is between a man and a woman. I have absolutely no problem voting to legalize civil unions that give the exact same benefit as any marriage, just don't make it a church thing and don't call it marriage. Why not make it a church thing? Your logic is that gays are unable to ever call themselves Christians, or many other religions. That's illegal segregation in the US, even if "civil unions" are the same thing with a different name. "separate but equal" I don't follow this issue much, but if it is true that gays are not allowed to be Christians, it just makes me laugh all the more at religion and even more sad at how much governmental power they have. It's about how the Bible defines marriage and what it says about homosexuality. As a Christian, I believe the definition of marriage is not something that man created, therefore, manmade law has no precedent over what it should or should not be. To me, marriage is a church thing before it is a government thing. Marriage is not a christian invention. That's why this phrase encompasses the phrase "To me" and to a lot of other people in this country. Like I said earlier in the thread, I have just as much right to vote against gay marriage due to my own worldview as anyone else has to vote for it.
Marriage is already determined in government sorts of situations. No one is saying that a government document fully encompasses all aspects to marriage, but marriage will always have a legal/government component to it. When two people get married, they don't simply say they are married and leave it at that. They get a marriage license, etc.
Legal recognition is also seen as a sign of respect and acceptance, which is of course important to someone. Obviously a lack of legal recognition is a sign of the opposite when legal recognition is given to others. I'm not homosexual, so I can't give a first hand account, but I would imagine it feels very secluded/shunned and disrespectful to be told your expression of love is not legally recognized, while most people you know have no such problems.
|
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.
|
On February 09 2012 14:12 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
I'd really appreciate it if homophobes would stop fucking comparing gay marriage vs marrying an animal. They are two people, they are humans. They are NOT dogs, or any other animal that can't speak a coherent language.
I've never understood the civil union vs marriage thing. You'd support the SAME legislation if they called it "civil union" rather than "marriage"? You'd vote no because of one word? That's very shallow in my opinion.
Seperation of church and state. Equal rights. The only argument against gay marriage (besides that stupid "it's against nature even though it happens in nature") is one based on religious values. Luckily, gays and lesbians wouldn't have to get married at a church! So that solves your problem!
Seriously, i can't stand when people actually think straight people are on some higher pedastal then gays. My best friends parents are gay/lesbian, and they are some of the nicest people i've ever met. They arent married so they don't have the same legal rights as straight people in their same situation. That isn't fair.
GOOD JOB WASHINGTON!
|
On February 09 2012 13:49 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On February 09 2012 14:07 Froadac wrote:
Maybe it's just how I think, I would think that in a traditional sense, marriage is between a man and a woman. I always thing homosexuals are in unions or whatnot with each other.
My thing is that although I do not necessarily believe two homosexuals marrying is true marriage, just because of the family/society I have been raised in, I really don't have a problem with it. It may not be what i think of as marriage, but if Rent is Too Damn High wants to marry a shoe, or a monkey, or a man, who cares. Let them have it.
I frankly think that the "everything but marriage" law is adequate, but I'm not the one effected by it. If the minority sees it as discrimination, and I don't have to change anything to end it, why not do it?
In closing, I am definitely for this law, even though I really do associate homosexuals with being in union rather than marriage.
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.
|
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.
|
On February 09 2012 14:16 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 14:07 Froadac wrote:
Maybe it's just how I think, I would think that in a traditional sense, marriage is between a man and a woman. I always thing homosexuals are in unions or whatnot with each other.
My thing is that although I do not necessarily believe two homosexuals marrying is true marriage, just because of the family/society I have been raised in, I really don't have a problem with it. It may not be what i think of as marriage, but if Rent is Too Damn High wants to marry a shoe, or a monkey, or a man, who cares. Let them have it.
I frankly think that the "everything but marriage" law is adequate, but I'm not the one effected by it. If the minority sees it as discrimination, and I don't have to change anything to end it, why not do it?
In closing, I am definitely for this law, even though I really do associate homosexuals with being in union rather than marriage. 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.
|
On February 09 2012 14:19 Froadac wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 14:16 Romantic wrote:On February 09 2012 14:07 Froadac wrote:
Maybe it's just how I think, I would think that in a traditional sense, marriage is between a man and a woman. I always thing homosexuals are in unions or whatnot with each other.
My thing is that although I do not necessarily believe two homosexuals marrying is true marriage, just because of the family/society I have been raised in, I really don't have a problem with it. It may not be what i think of as marriage, but if Rent is Too Damn High wants to marry a shoe, or a monkey, or a man, who cares. Let them have it.
I frankly think that the "everything but marriage" law is adequate, but I'm not the one effected by it. If the minority sees it as discrimination, and I don't have to change anything to end it, why not do it?
In closing, I am definitely for this law, even though I really do associate homosexuals with being in union rather than marriage. 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.
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.
|
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.
|
On February 09 2012 13:06 Probulous 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. 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...
|
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.
|
On February 09 2012 14:16 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On February 09 2012 14:22 danl9rm wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
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?
|
On February 09 2012 14:09 Ryder. wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 13:17 Yosho wrote:On February 09 2012 13:13 reincremate wrote:On February 09 2012 13:09 Yosho wrote:On February 09 2012 13:08 Probulous wrote:On February 09 2012 13:07 Yosho wrote:On February 09 2012 13:06 Probulous wrote:On February 09 2012 13:02 Yosho wrote:On February 09 2012 13:00 1Eris1 wrote:On February 09 2012 12:55 Yosho wrote:
[quote]
I wouldn't vote for this to pass but if I would vote to not let is pass. Although even in nature gay animals exist, I feel it's like any other deficiency that people / animals can be born with. One of the sole thing we rely on to define life is reproduction. You cannot do this naturally on gay people. Not to be rude but I don't count this as a step up, but as a step down. You say they are born with it, than why does it matter if they can get married? It's not like you're going to convince one of them to turn straight, and thus reproduce anyways. I figure it goes against nature. Why support it further? Mentally ill people who are born with deficiency's also should be restricted on what they can and can't do. I would not like a mentally handicapped person to operate extremely heavy machinery. And I don't think gay people should marry. I feel it's a defilement of what marriage is. Is menopause a deficieny? Cause if not why should women who can't reproduce be allowed to get married? Hell what about sterile men? Honestly this deficiency bullshit is just cover for bigotted religious views. I don't believe in religion. At all... So then how is two men getting married different in a biological sense from a sterile man marrying a women? Where would you draw the line though? Man and women was clearly intended. Man and man, woman and woman wasn't. It just happens that the male or female couldn't reproduce. They were still meant to be. Intended by who? You said you aren't religious and intentionality requires an agent. If you mean intended by nature, that evidently isn't true, because nature isn't a sentient entity. If you mean intended by the state/people, well it is intended now. No I mean intended as all through history reproduction is the largest rule. Nowhere in history or species besides self sex species are same sex who can pro create. Just like man man, woman woman. This isn't religious based. This is based on the fact that male and female reproduce and follow the law that is survival. Gay and lesbians seem to be the human race falling off it's primary function intended by evolution. Survival... reproduction. It's kind of silly in my eyes. 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.
|
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.
|
On February 09 2012 14:14 Froadac wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
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.
|
On February 09 2012 14:32 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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.
|
On February 09 2012 14:32 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On February 09 2012 14:31 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
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.
Both of you are dumb if you truely believe political ideology has anything to do with intellegence.
|
I could support that position. I have no idea why government is required to define marriage in the first place.
|
If marriage is a sacred institution, you should get on banning my upcoming marriage between me, an atheist, and my girlfriend, an atheist, which would take place in a state where gay marriage is currently illegal.
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.
|
On February 09 2012 14:40 Ungrateful 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. 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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
On February 09 2012 17:10 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 16:52 Rainmaker21 wrote: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.
Well, there are also a lot of people that pay more taxes because they're married (somewhere around 40% of married couples). These people tend to be in higher tax brackets anyhow, and thus contribute more to taxes. My wife and I get to pay $24,000 more (as in, on top of what we already would have paid) this year than if we had not gotten married (rich man's problems, I know). We actually talked about whether we should get divorced, for the tax benefits. I kid you not. It cuts both ways.
|
On February 09 2012 17:20 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I don't really see what the point of these statistics are. Gay marriage hasn't been around for very long, so it stands to reason that the marriage percentage isn't nearly up to the same level as for the group that has been able to get married since pretty much forever.
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).
Even if most homosexuals don't want to get married, we should allow those that do want it the opportunity to do so. Equal rights. Also, you don't "lose half your stuff" when you get married. A common way to get married in the Netherlands is not to share all posessions. In case of divorce, each keeps their own belongings.
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.
Repeat after me: Correlation does not imply causality.
To claim that the decline in marriage rates is due to the gay marriage debate and legalisation in the Netherlands just because they happened in the same timeframe without offering any further evidence is quite far fetched. Many people of my generation (I'm from '85) don't really want to get married because they consider it old fashioned.
I oppose gay marriage on ideological grounds, as opposed to abortion, which i support on pragmatic grounds.
I oppose of someones personal beliefs restricting the freedoms of others.
|
Another step to a brighter future! Still, 43 against 55 votes is still a bit disheartening.
|
Proud to be from Washington State! I live in capital hill in seattle which has a very large gay community, you should just see the smiles everywhere.
|
On February 09 2012 17:22 Rainmaker21 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 17:10 xM(Z wrote:On February 09 2012 16:52 Rainmaker21 wrote: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. Well, there are also a lot of people that pay more taxes because they're married (somewhere around 40% of married couples). These people tend to be in higher tax brackets anyhow, and thus contribute more to taxes. My wife and I get to pay $24,000 more (as in, on top of what we already would have paid) this year than if we had not gotten married (rich man's problems, I know). We actually talked about whether we should get divorced, for the tax benefits. I kid you not. It cuts both ways.
hmm, so basically marriage has nothing (under some circumstances) on singles and gays want to be married to pay more taxes...?
someone gets the shaft here imo.
|
Oh God, another step into demoralisation of people... Yet so many tl users approves. You have to look in your dictionary what marriage is... Then you'll find out that there cannot be a "gay marriage" unless you change the definition of marrige.
|
On February 09 2012 17:54 Krzycho wrote:
Oh God, another step into demoralisation of people... Yet so many tl users approves. You have to look in your dictionary what marriage is... Then you'll find out that there cannot be a "gay marriage" unless you change the definition of marrige.
Please enlighten me: Exactly how does this work to "demoralise" (note that demoralise means "to lose morale", not "to lose morals", which would be "immoralise") people? If anything, treating people equally and allowing everyone to get married should serve to strengthen social bonds.
|
Good for them! And at the same time a boot in the face to religious bigotry and stupidity.
|
On February 09 2012 18:03 Rannasha wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 17:54 Krzycho wrote:
Oh God, another step into demoralisation of people... Yet so many tl users approves. You have to look in your dictionary what marriage is... Then you'll find out that there cannot be a "gay marriage" unless you change the definition of marrige. Please enlighten me: Exactly how does this work to "demoralise" (note that demoralise means "to lose morale", not "to lose morals", which would be "immoralise") people? If anything, treating people equally and allowing everyone to get married should serve to strengthen social bonds.
Thanks for correcting me, I meant immoralise
And it's this way because sexuality is not something you show to everyone. I'm not against gay people, they've been here since ever and they don't harm anyone, but approving gay marrige is wrong, especially to children. Imagine a child who has 2 daddys or 2 moms. Is it right for you? And marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman supposed to give birth and raise kids. Oh and gay people can "create" a civil law partnership, but it's not marriage.
|
On February 09 2012 18:26 Krzycho wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 18:03 Rannasha wrote:On February 09 2012 17:54 Krzycho wrote:
Oh God, another step into demoralisation of people... Yet so many tl users approves. You have to look in your dictionary what marriage is... Then you'll find out that there cannot be a "gay marriage" unless you change the definition of marrige. Please enlighten me: Exactly how does this work to "demoralise" (note that demoralise means "to lose morale", not "to lose morals", which would be "immoralise") people? If anything, treating people equally and allowing everyone to get married should serve to strengthen social bonds. Thanks for correcting me, I meant immoralise And it's this way because sexuality is not something you show to everyone. I'm not against gay people, they've been here since ever and they don't harm anyone, but approving gay marrige is wrong, especially to children. Imagine a child who has 2 daddys or 2 moms. Is it right for you? And marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman supposed to give birth and raise kids. Oh and gay people can "create" a civil law partnership, but it's not marriage.
I don't see what's wrong with a kid having 2 moms or 2 dads. Yeah, it's pretty uncommon and it's obvious that the combination will not generate offspring without third party help, but what matters is that the child gets loving and caring parents. Regardless of which combination of moms and dads that is.
Also, your definition of marriage "between a man and a woman supposed to give birth" excludes infertile people from getting married, which was already mentioned several times in this thread.
But what it basically boils down to is that you want your restrictions on who can get married enforced for everyone, including people that do not share your views or beliefs.
And I still don't see how allowing gay marriage is going to immoralise society. Even unmarried gays can show their sexuality to everyone, which you objected to. The marriage almost exclusively affects the couple themselves (it can strengthen their bond) and how they're treated by the government (tax benefits for married couples, stuff like that). In neither of these two aspects I see any reason how a random stranger would be negatively affected by 2 gays getting married.
|
I think what makes the discussion so complicated is, that the same term, marriage, is used for the partnership endorsed by a religion and the partnership supported by the state.
I think that couples of whatever kind should have the same rights before the state, whereas each religious group should have the freedom to choose what they endorse and support. So I applaud the decision of the State of Washington.
In Christianity, the major religion in the region involved here and the region where I'm coming from, there are so many different interpretations of what's right according to their believes, that I ask myself that how a chrisitan can be so sure of his own position.
But I want to encourage everyone to not bash religion in general: In Germany the 'Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland', essentially the big protestant denomination to which almost 29% of the german population belong (at least on paper), gay persons of both genders can become ordained and in nearly half of the regional branches gay couples can get a so called 'Segnung' (blessing) but no marriage. So essentially this denomination sees homo- and heterosexuals as equal, but reserves the term marriage for different sex couples.
|
Its far more than tax benefits. Things like insurance and even being able to visit your partner in the hospital in some cases. It's completely fucked up that this is even an issue.
|
On February 09 2012 18:34 fiveop wrote:
I think what makes the discussion so complicated is, that the same term, marriage, is used for the partnership endorsed by a religion and the partnership supported by the state.
I think that couples of whatever kind should have the same rights before the state, whereas each religious group should have the freedom to choose what they endorse and support. So I applaud the decision of the State of Washington.
In Christianity, the major religion in the region involved here and the region where I'm coming from, there are so many different interpretations of what's right according to their believes, that I ask myself that how a chrisitan can be so sure of his own position.
But I want to encourage everyone to not bash religion in general: In Germany the 'Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland', essentially the big protestant denomination to which almost 29% of the german population belong (at least on paper), gay persons of both genders can become ordained and in nearly half of the regional branches gay couples can get a so called 'Segnung' (blessing) but no marriage. So essentially this denomination sees homo- and heterosexuals as equal, but reserves the term marriage for different sex couples.
That's why the government should only recognize unions period. You don't apply for a marriage license, the government doesn't recognize anyone as married. You apply for a union and it only recognizes people as being in unions.
Religions can call them marriages if they want, they can "keep" their term. They can recognize their kept term as whatever configuration of males per female they like. They don't have to allow any gays in their church.
But the government has to recognize everyone as exactly, 100% the same. We've had this "Separate but equal" thing before.
|
On February 09 2012 18:26 Krzycho wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 18:03 Rannasha wrote:On February 09 2012 17:54 Krzycho wrote:
Oh God, another step into demoralisation of people... Yet so many tl users approves. You have to look in your dictionary what marriage is... Then you'll find out that there cannot be a "gay marriage" unless you change the definition of marrige. Please enlighten me: Exactly how does this work to "demoralise" (note that demoralise means "to lose morale", not "to lose morals", which would be "immoralise") people? If anything, treating people equally and allowing everyone to get married should serve to strengthen social bonds. Thanks for correcting me, I meant immoralise And it's this way because sexuality is not something you show to everyone. I'm not against gay people, they've been here since ever and they don't harm anyone, but approving gay marrige is wrong, especially to children. Imagine a child who has 2 daddys or 2 moms. Is it right for you? And marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman supposed to give birth and raise kids. Oh and gay people can "create" a civil law partnership, but it's not marriage.
Stop contradicting yourself one sentence later. If you consider approving gay marriage wrong then you are indeed against gay people by trying to deny them their rights. Also, I've never seen any scientific study or evidence that suggests having 2 fathers or 2 mothers is harmful to a child. Are you against single parents? Is that right for a child? Oh my mistake, you don't actually care about a healthy environment for a child, you're just a bigot.
Now, you say that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman supposed to give birth and raise kids. This is a ridiculous statement, by this logic you are against sterile people marrying too?
It's not marriage in the eyes of some religions, but in the legal sense it has to be viewed as equally valid as a heterosexual marriage, or else it sends the message that homosexual relationships are inferior to heterosexual ones.
|
On February 09 2012 18:42 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 18:34 fiveop wrote:
I think what makes the discussion so complicated is, that the same term, marriage, is used for the partnership endorsed by a religion and the partnership supported by the state.
I think that couples of whatever kind should have the same rights before the state, whereas each religious group should have the freedom to choose what they endorse and support. So I applaud the decision of the State of Washington.
In Christianity, the major religion in the region involved here and the region where I'm coming from, there are so many different interpretations of what's right according to their believes, that I ask myself that how a chrisitan can be so sure of his own position.
But I want to encourage everyone to not bash religion in general: In Germany the 'Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland', essentially the big protestant denomination to which almost 29% of the german population belong (at least on paper), gay persons of both genders can become ordained and in nearly half of the regional branches gay couples can get a so called 'Segnung' (blessing) but no marriage. So essentially this denomination sees homo- and heterosexuals as equal, but reserves the term marriage for different sex couples. That's why the government should only recognize unions period. You don't apply for a marriage license, the government doesn't recognize anyone as married. You apply for a union and it only recognizes people as being in unions. Religions can call them marriages if they want, they can "keep" their term. They can recognize their kept term as whatever configuration of males per female they like. They don't have to allow any gays in their church. But the government has to recognize everyone as exactly, 100% the same. We've had this "Separate but equal" thing before.
I fully agree.
|
On February 09 2012 18:43 Olinimm wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 18:26 Krzycho wrote:On February 09 2012 18:03 Rannasha wrote:On February 09 2012 17:54 Krzycho wrote:
Oh God, another step into demoralisation of people... Yet so many tl users approves. You have to look in your dictionary what marriage is... Then you'll find out that there cannot be a "gay marriage" unless you change the definition of marrige. Please enlighten me: Exactly how does this work to "demoralise" (note that demoralise means "to lose morale", not "to lose morals", which would be "immoralise") people? If anything, treating people equally and allowing everyone to get married should serve to strengthen social bonds. Thanks for correcting me, I meant immoralise And it's this way because sexuality is not something you show to everyone. I'm not against gay people, they've been here since ever and they don't harm anyone, but approving gay marrige is wrong, especially to children. Imagine a child who has 2 daddys or 2 moms. Is it right for you? And marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman supposed to give birth and raise kids. Oh and gay people can "create" a civil law partnership, but it's not marriage. Stop contradicting yourself one sentence later. If you consider approving gay marriage wrong then you are indeed against gay people by trying to deny them their rights. Also, I've never seen any scientific study or evidence that suggests having 2 fathers or 2 mothers is harmful to a child. Are you against single parents? Is that right for a child? Oh my mistake, you don't actually care about a healthy environment for a child, you're just a bigot. Now, you say that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman supposed to give birth and raise kids. This is a ridiculous statement, by this logic you are against sterile people marrying too? It's not marriage in the eyes of some religions, but in the legal sense it has to be viewed as equally valid as a heterosexual marriage, or else it sends the message that homosexual relationships are inferior to heterosexual ones.
The only possible way to have missed the studies on single parenthood, absence of male role models, is by sticking your head in the sand. Children raised by single parents do worse on every possible measure than children raised by both parents . . .
As for marriage being for the purpose of raising children . . . do you seriously believe that it has been historically about anything other than the raising of children for the majority of people? In thousands of years of arranged marriages even between people who had basically nothing?
By the way, strictly speaking, homosexuals have exactly the same rights as heterosexual people. Gays have the right to marry one willing person of the opposite gender, exactly the same as straight people. If that's not equal rights, I don't know what is.
|
I live in Seattle and will be voting against gay marriage on this prop... For the record, I'm for gays in the military. I have nothing against gay people, I'm not religious, nor am I homophobic in the least. My political views are mostly liberal.
I think that marriage is something special between a man and a woman. A man and a woman are supposed to take their wedding vows to their grave. Society has begun to accept divorice as a perfectly normal and acceptable thing. It used to always be shunned. Often spouses are quick to file for divorice, without trying to work out their marital issues. It's becoming increasingly common for couples to get married way too early in their relationships without figuring out if they're truly compatable with their mate. It seems to be especially true amongst celebrities, which sets a sickening example for society. Thanks Kim Kardashian and the countless others. I really do hope that this is only a phase.
I believe the average length of a male homosexual relationship is around 1 month. It's common knowledge amongst the community that they don't last for long. I have a bisexual female friend that has been hooking up with only girls for around 6 years now. She has a new girlfriend every 6-12 months. So my point is, if a vast majority of homosexual relationships are shortlived, why do they want to get married in the first place? I understand the "Just so we can" reason, but really? If you've been with your partner for 5+ years and want to get married I could understand why. But a fraction of a percent of homosexual relationships last that long. I think if gay marriage is passed then homosexuals will get married and divoriced like it's absolutely nothing. Like Kim Kardashians. That's just harmful to the concept of marriage.
Marriage has become way too loose with it's standards. I believe that if society allows homosexuals to partake in traditional marriage then the fundamental meaning of marriage would be devalued further. I would recommend calling it something else but that would be discrimination and unconstitutional. The way marriage works now is not discriminatory, as the definition of marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Just because two homosexuals love each other and would like to spend the rest of their lives together doesnt mean they're entitled to marriage, because that's simply not what marriage is. Homosexual marriage would alter the true meaning of marriage, and I am against that.
Lastly I'd like to make the point of the loophole that gay marriage would create. Let's say I'm young, tight on my budget, and share an apartment with a friend. What prevents me from filing a marriage with my buddy so that we can reap the financial benefits that are given to married couples? Then once we move out of the apartment a year or 2 later we file divorice. Seems like just about everyone could do that right? How special is marriage now? Seriously. And the reason male+female friends don't abuse this with each other is because they realize that marriage is supposed to be special.
Gay marriage would simply make marriage even more meaningless than it already is. We need to be heading in the other direction, not completely throw out the sanctity of marriage altogether.
|
On February 09 2012 18:57 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 18:43 Olinimm wrote:On February 09 2012 18:26 Krzycho wrote:On February 09 2012 18:03 Rannasha wrote:On February 09 2012 17:54 Krzycho wrote:
Oh God, another step into demoralisation of people... Yet so many tl users approves. You have to look in your dictionary what marriage is... Then you'll find out that there cannot be a "gay marriage" unless you change the definition of marrige. Please enlighten me: Exactly how does this work to "demoralise" (note that demoralise means "to lose morale", not "to lose morals", which would be "immoralise") people? If anything, treating people equally and allowing everyone to get married should serve to strengthen social bonds. Thanks for correcting me, I meant immoralise And it's this way because sexuality is not something you show to everyone. I'm not against gay people, they've been here since ever and they don't harm anyone, but approving gay marrige is wrong, especially to children. Imagine a child who has 2 daddys or 2 moms. Is it right for you? And marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman supposed to give birth and raise kids. Oh and gay people can "create" a civil law partnership, but it's not marriage. Stop contradicting yourself one sentence later. If you consider approving gay marriage wrong then you are indeed against gay people by trying to deny them their rights. Also, I've never seen any scientific study or evidence that suggests having 2 fathers or 2 mothers is harmful to a child. Are you against single parents? Is that right for a child? Oh my mistake, you don't actually care about a healthy environment for a child, you're just a bigot. Now, you say that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman supposed to give birth and raise kids. This is a ridiculous statement, by this logic you are against sterile people marrying too? It's not marriage in the eyes of some religions, but in the legal sense it has to be viewed as equally valid as a heterosexual marriage, or else it sends the message that homosexual relationships are inferior to heterosexual ones. The only possible way to have missed the studies on single parenthood, absence of male role models, is by sticking your head in the sand. Children raised by single parents do worse on every possible measure than children raised by both parents . . . As for marriage being for the purpose of raising children . . . do you seriously believe that it has been historically about anything other than the raising of children for the majority of people? In thousands of years of arranged marriages even between people who had basically nothing? By the way, strictly speaking, homosexuals have exactly the same rights as heterosexual people. Gays have the right to marry one willing person of the opposite gender, exactly the same as straight people. If that's not equal rights, I don't know what is.
Link me to them then. Also I didn't say children raised being raised by a single parent is preferable in most cases, but that doesn't mean I OPPOSE it.
As for marriage being for the purpose of raising children . . . do you seriously believe that it has been historically about anything other than the raising of children for the majority of people? In thousands of years of arranged marriages even between people who had basically nothing?
So? It doesn't mean you should have to be able to produce children to be married, it's not an argument against gay marriage.
By the way, strictly speaking, homosexuals have exactly the same rights as heterosexual people. Gays have the right to marry one willing person of the opposite gender, exactly the same as straight people. If that's not equal rights, I don't know what is.
Oh wow aren't you clever hurr. Ok let me rephrase, homosexual people don't have the right to marry any person they want to that is willing.
|
On February 09 2012 17:54 Krzycho wrote:
Oh God, another step into demoralisation of people... Yet so many tl users approves. You have to look in your dictionary what marriage is... Then you'll find out that there cannot be a "gay marriage" unless you change the definition of marrige.
Then we just have to update every dictionary to the 21th century
Marriage is about love, its a commitment to spend and share your life with someone. Genitals/gender should not be in the way for that.
Also, a marriage doesnt really have to involve having kids. And even if it did, there are a ton of alternate ways to get one.
|
On February 09 2012 18:57 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 18:43 Olinimm wrote:On February 09 2012 18:26 Krzycho wrote:On February 09 2012 18:03 Rannasha wrote:On February 09 2012 17:54 Krzycho wrote:
Oh God, another step into demoralisation of people... Yet so many tl users approves. You have to look in your dictionary what marriage is... Then you'll find out that there cannot be a "gay marriage" unless you change the definition of marrige. Please enlighten me: Exactly how does this work to "demoralise" (note that demoralise means "to lose morale", not "to lose morals", which would be "immoralise") people? If anything, treating people equally and allowing everyone to get married should serve to strengthen social bonds. Thanks for correcting me, I meant immoralise And it's this way because sexuality is not something you show to everyone. I'm not against gay people, they've been here since ever and they don't harm anyone, but approving gay marrige is wrong, especially to children. Imagine a child who has 2 daddys or 2 moms. Is it right for you? And marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman supposed to give birth and raise kids. Oh and gay people can "create" a civil law partnership, but it's not marriage. Stop contradicting yourself one sentence later. If you consider approving gay marriage wrong then you are indeed against gay people by trying to deny them their rights. Also, I've never seen any scientific study or evidence that suggests having 2 fathers or 2 mothers is harmful to a child. Are you against single parents? Is that right for a child? Oh my mistake, you don't actually care about a healthy environment for a child, you're just a bigot. Now, you say that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman supposed to give birth and raise kids. This is a ridiculous statement, by this logic you are against sterile people marrying too? It's not marriage in the eyes of some religions, but in the legal sense it has to be viewed as equally valid as a heterosexual marriage, or else it sends the message that homosexual relationships are inferior to heterosexual ones. The only possible way to have missed the studies on single parenthood, absence of male role models, is by sticking your head in the sand. Children raised by single parents do worse on every possible measure than children raised by both parents . . . As for marriage being for the purpose of raising children . . . do you seriously believe that it has been historically about anything other than the raising of children for the majority of people? In thousands of years of arranged marriages even between people who had basically nothing? By the way, strictly speaking, homosexuals have exactly the same rights as heterosexual people. Gays have the right to marry one willing person of the opposite gender, exactly the same as straight people. If that's not equal rights, I don't know what is.
Except they don't have the same rights. Not by a long shot.
|
On February 09 2012 19:02 HypnotyZ wrote:
I live in Seattle and will be voting against gay marriage on this prop... For the record, I'm for gays in the military. I have nothing against gay people, I'm not religious, nor am I homophobic in the least. My political views are mostly liberal.
I think that marriage is something special between a man and a woman. A man and a woman are supposed to take their wedding vows to their grave. Society has begun to accept divorice as a perfectly normal and acceptable thing. It used to always be shunned. Often spouses are quick to file for divorice, without trying to work out their marital issues. It's becoming increasingly common for couples to get married way too early in their relationships without figuring out if they're truly compatable with their mate. It seems to be especially true amongst celebrities, which sets a sickening example for society. Thanks Kim Kardashian and the countless others. I really do hope that this is only a phase.
I believe the average length of a male homosexual relationship is around 1 month. It's common knowledge amongst the community that they don't last for long. I have a bisexual female friend that has been hooking up with only girls for around 6 years now. She has a new girlfriend every 6-12 months. So my point is, if a vast majority of homosexual relationships are shortlived, why do they want to get married in the first place? I understand the "Just so we can" reason, but really? If you've been with your partner for 5+ years and want to get married I could understand why. But a fraction of a percent of homosexual relationships last that long. I think if gay marriage is passed then homosexuals will get married and divoriced like it's absolutely nothing. Like Kim Kardashians. That's just harmful to the concept of marriage.
Marriage has become way too loose with it's standards. I believe that if society allows homosexuals to partake in traditional marriage then the fundamental meaning of marriage would be devalued further. I would recommend calling it something else but that would be discrimination and unconstitutional. The way marriage works now is not discriminatory, as the definition of marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Just because two homosexuals love each other and would like to spend the rest of their lives together doesnt mean they're entitled to marriage, because that's simply not what marriage is. Homosexual marriage would alter the true meaning of marriage, and I am against that.
Lastly I'd like to make the point of the loophole that gay marriage would create. Let's say I'm young, tight on my budget, and share an apartment with a friend. What prevents me from filing a marriage with my buddy so that we can reap the financial benefits that are given to married couples? Then once we move out of the apartment a year or 2 later we file divorice. Seems like just about everyone could do that right? How special is marriage now? Seriously. And the reason male+female friends don't abuse this with each other is because they realize that marriage is supposed to be special.
Gay marriage would simply make marriage even more meaningless than it already is. We need to be heading in the other direction, not completely throw out the sanctity of marriage altogether.
I think if gay marriage is passed then homosexuals will get married and divoriced like it's absolutely nothing.
So do straight people.
Look, I don't care if you want marriage to always be some sacred unity, that's not what it should be in the legal sense. All it is is a social contract or union, and the notion that homosexual marriage would even devalue marriage more is silly. It's not as if heterosexual marriages are anything like you want them to be anymore, or that one between a man and a woman is more "special".
|
On February 09 2012 19:05 Vinland wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 17:54 Krzycho wrote:
Oh God, another step into demoralisation of people... Yet so many tl users approves. You have to look in your dictionary what marriage is... Then you'll find out that there cannot be a "gay marriage" unless you change the definition of marrige. Then we just have to update every dictionary to the 21th century Marriage is about love, its a commitment to spend and share your life with someone. Genitals/gender should not be in the way for that. Also, a marriage doesnt really have to involve having kids. And even if it did, there are a ton of alternate ways to get one.
"Each new generation born is in effect an invasion of civilization by little barbarians, who must be civilized before it is too late"
Is what marriage is about, not love. If you think its not necessary, go into any suburb with very high illegitamacy rates . . .
|
What's stopping heteros from marrying and getting divorced like it's nothing? What actually makes marriage special? The fact that it's only available to a segregated few? BS. Give me a real argument.
|
On February 09 2012 19:02 HypnotyZ wrote:Lastly I'd like to make the point of the loophole that gay marriage would create. Let's say I'm young, tight on my budget, and share an apartment with a friend. What prevents me from filing a marriage with my buddy so that we can reap the financial benefits that are given to married couples? Then once we move out of the apartment a year or 2 later we file divorice. Seems like just about everyone could do that right? How special is marriage now? Seriously. And the reason male+female friends don't abuse this with each other is because they realize that marriage is supposed to be special.
You can't actually believe that can you?
So if they made it legal you and your buddies would just start marrying the hell out of each other. But you don't do it now with a female friend because of R-E-S-P-E-C-T?
You honestly believe it's going to turn into thunderdome?
I'm sorry but that has to be the absolute worst excuse I've ever heard. My mind can't even comprehend.
|
On February 09 2012 19:16 Olinimm wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 19:02 HypnotyZ wrote:
I live in Seattle and will be voting against gay marriage on this prop... For the record, I'm for gays in the military. I have nothing against gay people, I'm not religious, nor am I homophobic in the least. My political views are mostly liberal.
I think that marriage is something special between a man and a woman. A man and a woman are supposed to take their wedding vows to their grave. Society has begun to accept divorice as a perfectly normal and acceptable thing. It used to always be shunned. Often spouses are quick to file for divorice, without trying to work out their marital issues. It's becoming increasingly common for couples to get married way too early in their relationships without figuring out if they're truly compatable with their mate. It seems to be especially true amongst celebrities, which sets a sickening example for society. Thanks Kim Kardashian and the countless others. I really do hope that this is only a phase.
I believe the average length of a male homosexual relationship is around 1 month. It's common knowledge amongst the community that they don't last for long. I have a bisexual female friend that has been hooking up with only girls for around 6 years now. She has a new girlfriend every 6-12 months. So my point is, if a vast majority of homosexual relationships are shortlived, why do they want to get married in the first place? I understand the "Just so we can" reason, but really? If you've been with your partner for 5+ years and want to get married I could understand why. But a fraction of a percent of homosexual relationships last that long. I think if gay marriage is passed then homosexuals will get married and divoriced like it's absolutely nothing. Like Kim Kardashians. That's just harmful to the concept of marriage.
Marriage has become way too loose with it's standards. I believe that if society allows homosexuals to partake in traditional marriage then the fundamental meaning of marriage would be devalued further. I would recommend calling it something else but that would be discrimination and unconstitutional. The way marriage works now is not discriminatory, as the definition of marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Just because two homosexuals love each other and would like to spend the rest of their lives together doesnt mean they're entitled to marriage, because that's simply not what marriage is. Homosexual marriage would alter the true meaning of marriage, and I am against that.
Lastly I'd like to make the point of the loophole that gay marriage would create. Let's say I'm young, tight on my budget, and share an apartment with a friend. What prevents me from filing a marriage with my buddy so that we can reap the financial benefits that are given to married couples? Then once we move out of the apartment a year or 2 later we file divorice. Seems like just about everyone could do that right? How special is marriage now? Seriously. And the reason male+female friends don't abuse this with each other is because they realize that marriage is supposed to be special.
Gay marriage would simply make marriage even more meaningless than it already is. We need to be heading in the other direction, not completely throw out the sanctity of marriage altogether. Show nested quote +I think if gay marriage is passed then homosexuals will get married and divoriced like it's absolutely nothing. So do straight people. Look, I don't care if you want marriage to always be some sacred unity, that's not what it should be in the legal sense. All it is is a social contract or union, and the notion that homosexual marriage would even devalue marriage more is silly. It's not as if heterosexual marriages are anything like you want them to be anymore, or that one between a man and a woman is more "special".
Glad that you brought up that marriage is a social contract: between the couple and the rest of society. In return for the priveleges that society grants married couples, there also come a couple obligations, (that while difficult to legally enforce, are generally socially enforeced), such as have children, show your children how they are supposed to behave, both with respect to strangers and between husband and wife, contribute to the social, economic and cultural capital of the community.
If not, what are the obligations of marriage? Are there any? Is it just another thing that is all rights, entitlement and no duty? Do you believe that anyone has duties to society? Or do you believe you can be one of societies free riders, contributing to the destruction of the social, cultural and material capital of the west . . .
|
Having children is an obligation of marriage now?
What ever happened to minding your own damn business and just living your life?
|
On February 09 2012 19:28 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 19:16 Olinimm wrote:On February 09 2012 19:02 HypnotyZ wrote:
I live in Seattle and will be voting against gay marriage on this prop... For the record, I'm for gays in the military. I have nothing against gay people, I'm not religious, nor am I homophobic in the least. My political views are mostly liberal.
I think that marriage is something special between a man and a woman. A man and a woman are supposed to take their wedding vows to their grave. Society has begun to accept divorice as a perfectly normal and acceptable thing. It used to always be shunned. Often spouses are quick to file for divorice, without trying to work out their marital issues. It's becoming increasingly common for couples to get married way too early in their relationships without figuring out if they're truly compatable with their mate. It seems to be especially true amongst celebrities, which sets a sickening example for society. Thanks Kim Kardashian and the countless others. I really do hope that this is only a phase.
I believe the average length of a male homosexual relationship is around 1 month. It's common knowledge amongst the community that they don't last for long. I have a bisexual female friend that has been hooking up with only girls for around 6 years now. She has a new girlfriend every 6-12 months. So my point is, if a vast majority of homosexual relationships are shortlived, why do they want to get married in the first place? I understand the "Just so we can" reason, but really? If you've been with your partner for 5+ years and want to get married I could understand why. But a fraction of a percent of homosexual relationships last that long. I think if gay marriage is passed then homosexuals will get married and divoriced like it's absolutely nothing. Like Kim Kardashians. That's just harmful to the concept of marriage.
Marriage has become way too loose with it's standards. I believe that if society allows homosexuals to partake in traditional marriage then the fundamental meaning of marriage would be devalued further. I would recommend calling it something else but that would be discrimination and unconstitutional. The way marriage works now is not discriminatory, as the definition of marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Just because two homosexuals love each other and would like to spend the rest of their lives together doesnt mean they're entitled to marriage, because that's simply not what marriage is. Homosexual marriage would alter the true meaning of marriage, and I am against that.
Lastly I'd like to make the point of the loophole that gay marriage would create. Let's say I'm young, tight on my budget, and share an apartment with a friend. What prevents me from filing a marriage with my buddy so that we can reap the financial benefits that are given to married couples? Then once we move out of the apartment a year or 2 later we file divorice. Seems like just about everyone could do that right? How special is marriage now? Seriously. And the reason male+female friends don't abuse this with each other is because they realize that marriage is supposed to be special.
Gay marriage would simply make marriage even more meaningless than it already is. We need to be heading in the other direction, not completely throw out the sanctity of marriage altogether. I think if gay marriage is passed then homosexuals will get married and divoriced like it's absolutely nothing. So do straight people. Look, I don't care if you want marriage to always be some sacred unity, that's not what it should be in the legal sense. All it is is a social contract or union, and the notion that homosexual marriage would even devalue marriage more is silly. It's not as if heterosexual marriages are anything like you want them to be anymore, or that one between a man and a woman is more "special". Glad that you brought up that marriage is a social contract: between the couple and the rest of society. In return for the priveleges that society grants married couples, there also come a couple obligations, (that while difficult to legally enforce, are generally socially enforeced), such as have children, show your children how they are supposed to behave, both with respect to strangers and between husband and wife, contribute to the social, economic and cultural capital of the community. If not, what are the obligations of marriage? Are there any? Is it just another thing that is all rights, entitlement and no duty? Do you believe that anyone has duties to society? Or do you believe you can be one of societies free riders, contributing to the destruction of the social, cultural and material capital of the west . . .
The obligations that come with marriage mostly consist about the couple caring for eachother. It has nothing to do with raising children, because unmarried couples can have kids and there are plenty of single parents.
People that live as a couple generally require less welfare money and services and they are less of a burden on the medical system (since partners can take care of eachother). From a purely rational point of view, the marriage is an agreement between the 2 partners to remain a couple in exchange for tax benefits and things like the option to make life-or-death decisions for the other when the other is hospitalized and unable to act.
Your second obligation that married people should have is "contribute to the social, economic and cultural capital of the community" and I don't see how straight people can do this any better than gay people.
|
On February 09 2012 19:28 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 19:16 Olinimm wrote:On February 09 2012 19:02 HypnotyZ wrote:
I live in Seattle and will be voting against gay marriage on this prop... For the record, I'm for gays in the military. I have nothing against gay people, I'm not religious, nor am I homophobic in the least. My political views are mostly liberal.
I think that marriage is something special between a man and a woman. A man and a woman are supposed to take their wedding vows to their grave. Society has begun to accept divorice as a perfectly normal and acceptable thing. It used to always be shunned. Often spouses are quick to file for divorice, without trying to work out their marital issues. It's becoming increasingly common for couples to get married way too early in their relationships without figuring out if they're truly compatable with their mate. It seems to be especially true amongst celebrities, which sets a sickening example for society. Thanks Kim Kardashian and the countless others. I really do hope that this is only a phase.
I believe the average length of a male homosexual relationship is around 1 month. It's common knowledge amongst the community that they don't last for long. I have a bisexual female friend that has been hooking up with only girls for around 6 years now. She has a new girlfriend every 6-12 months. So my point is, if a vast majority of homosexual relationships are shortlived, why do they want to get married in the first place? I understand the "Just so we can" reason, but really? If you've been with your partner for 5+ years and want to get married I could understand why. But a fraction of a percent of homosexual relationships last that long. I think if gay marriage is passed then homosexuals will get married and divoriced like it's absolutely nothing. Like Kim Kardashians. That's just harmful to the concept of marriage.
Marriage has become way too loose with it's standards. I believe that if society allows homosexuals to partake in traditional marriage then the fundamental meaning of marriage would be devalued further. I would recommend calling it something else but that would be discrimination and unconstitutional. The way marriage works now is not discriminatory, as the definition of marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Just because two homosexuals love each other and would like to spend the rest of their lives together doesnt mean they're entitled to marriage, because that's simply not what marriage is. Homosexual marriage would alter the true meaning of marriage, and I am against that.
Lastly I'd like to make the point of the loophole that gay marriage would create. Let's say I'm young, tight on my budget, and share an apartment with a friend. What prevents me from filing a marriage with my buddy so that we can reap the financial benefits that are given to married couples? Then once we move out of the apartment a year or 2 later we file divorice. Seems like just about everyone could do that right? How special is marriage now? Seriously. And the reason male+female friends don't abuse this with each other is because they realize that marriage is supposed to be special.
Gay marriage would simply make marriage even more meaningless than it already is. We need to be heading in the other direction, not completely throw out the sanctity of marriage altogether. I think if gay marriage is passed then homosexuals will get married and divoriced like it's absolutely nothing. So do straight people. Look, I don't care if you want marriage to always be some sacred unity, that's not what it should be in the legal sense. All it is is a social contract or union, and the notion that homosexual marriage would even devalue marriage more is silly. It's not as if heterosexual marriages are anything like you want them to be anymore, or that one between a man and a woman is more "special". Glad that you brought up that marriage is a social contract: between the couple and the rest of society. In return for the priveleges that society grants married couples, there also come a couple obligations, (that while difficult to legally enforce, are generally socially enforeced), such as have children, show your children how they are supposed to behave, both with respect to strangers and between husband and wife, contribute to the social, economic and cultural capital of the community. If not, what are the obligations of marriage? Are there any? Is it just another thing that is all rights, entitlement and no duty? Do you believe that anyone has duties to society? Or do you believe you can be one of societies free riders, contributing to the destruction of the social, cultural and material capital of the west . . .
Since when was having children an obligation or even perceived obligation of marriage? If this was true then infertile people, women 50 and over and people who just don't want children wouldn't be allowed to marry any more than gay couples.
There ARE no obligations of marriage, there were in the past but this is not that time.
|
Should unmarried couples have kids? Cohabitating couples, as opposed to married couples are much more unstable, while single parents are terrible parents, ceteris paribus.
I would argue that from a purely rational point of view, the point of commitment, love and marriage is to provide a stable environment in which to raise children. I would point to the studies of "orchid" children vs "dandelion" children, to understand its importance. (dandelion children turn out ok almost no matter how bad their childhood environment. Orchid children go badly if they grow up in an unstable environment, but turn out better than dandelion children if they grow up in stable environments.) Hence, the reason why we subsidise marriage, but not roommates/cohabitating couples is because we want to encourage a behaviour that makes it feasible to raise the next generation effectively.
As I have stated before: it is no surprise that the highest rates of illegitimacy and divorce are within the ranks of the poor.
On February 09 2012 19:56 Darkong wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 19:28 vetinari wrote:On February 09 2012 19:16 Olinimm wrote:On February 09 2012 19:02 HypnotyZ wrote:
I live in Seattle and will be voting against gay marriage on this prop... For the record, I'm for gays in the military. I have nothing against gay people, I'm not religious, nor am I homophobic in the least. My political views are mostly liberal.
I think that marriage is something special between a man and a woman. A man and a woman are supposed to take their wedding vows to their grave. Society has begun to accept divorice as a perfectly normal and acceptable thing. It used to always be shunned. Often spouses are quick to file for divorice, without trying to work out their marital issues. It's becoming increasingly common for couples to get married way too early in their relationships without figuring out if they're truly compatable with their mate. It seems to be especially true amongst celebrities, which sets a sickening example for society. Thanks Kim Kardashian and the countless others. I really do hope that this is only a phase.
I believe the average length of a male homosexual relationship is around 1 month. It's common knowledge amongst the community that they don't last for long. I have a bisexual female friend that has been hooking up with only girls for around 6 years now. She has a new girlfriend every 6-12 months. So my point is, if a vast majority of homosexual relationships are shortlived, why do they want to get married in the first place? I understand the "Just so we can" reason, but really? If you've been with your partner for 5+ years and want to get married I could understand why. But a fraction of a percent of homosexual relationships last that long. I think if gay marriage is passed then homosexuals will get married and divoriced like it's absolutely nothing. Like Kim Kardashians. That's just harmful to the concept of marriage.
Marriage has become way too loose with it's standards. I believe that if society allows homosexuals to partake in traditional marriage then the fundamental meaning of marriage would be devalued further. I would recommend calling it something else but that would be discrimination and unconstitutional. The way marriage works now is not discriminatory, as the definition of marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Just because two homosexuals love each other and would like to spend the rest of their lives together doesnt mean they're entitled to marriage, because that's simply not what marriage is. Homosexual marriage would alter the true meaning of marriage, and I am against that.
Lastly I'd like to make the point of the loophole that gay marriage would create. Let's say I'm young, tight on my budget, and share an apartment with a friend. What prevents me from filing a marriage with my buddy so that we can reap the financial benefits that are given to married couples? Then once we move out of the apartment a year or 2 later we file divorice. Seems like just about everyone could do that right? How special is marriage now? Seriously. And the reason male+female friends don't abuse this with each other is because they realize that marriage is supposed to be special.
Gay marriage would simply make marriage even more meaningless than it already is. We need to be heading in the other direction, not completely throw out the sanctity of marriage altogether. I think if gay marriage is passed then homosexuals will get married and divoriced like it's absolutely nothing. So do straight people. Look, I don't care if you want marriage to always be some sacred unity, that's not what it should be in the legal sense. All it is is a social contract or union, and the notion that homosexual marriage would even devalue marriage more is silly. It's not as if heterosexual marriages are anything like you want them to be anymore, or that one between a man and a woman is more "special". Glad that you brought up that marriage is a social contract: between the couple and the rest of society. In return for the priveleges that society grants married couples, there also come a couple obligations, (that while difficult to legally enforce, are generally socially enforeced), such as have children, show your children how they are supposed to behave, both with respect to strangers and between husband and wife, contribute to the social, economic and cultural capital of the community. If not, what are the obligations of marriage? Are there any? Is it just another thing that is all rights, entitlement and no duty? Do you believe that anyone has duties to society? Or do you believe you can be one of societies free riders, contributing to the destruction of the social, cultural and material capital of the west . . . Since when was having children an obligation or even perceived obligation of marriage? If this was true then infertile people, women 50 and over and people who just don't want children wouldn't be allowed to marry any more than gay couples. There ARE no obligations of marriage, there were in the past but this is not that time.
I'm so glad that there weren't any riots in london lately.
|
On February 09 2012 20:03 vetinari wrote:
Should unmarried couples have kids? Cohabitating couples, as opposed to married couples are much more unstable, while single parents are terrible parents, ceteris paribus.
I would argue that from a purely rational point of view, the point of commitment, love and marriage is to provide a stable environment in which to raise children. I would point to the studies of "orchid" children vs "dandelion" children, to understand its importance. (dandelion children turn out ok almost no matter how bad their childhood environment. Orchid children go badly if they grow up in an unstable environment, but turn out better than dandelion children if they grow up in stable environments.) Hence, the reason why we subsidise marriage, but not roommates/cohabitating couples is because we want to encourage a behaviour that makes it feasible to raise the next generation effectively.
As I have stated before: it is no surprise that the highest rates of illegitimacy and divorce are within the ranks of the poor.
Should turtles have kids? Turtles are much more unstable, while rabbits are terrible parents, ceteris paribus.
Something about orchids...dandelions....blah blah blah. Subsidize instead of segregate...only straight people are effective...blah blah blah. Some random tangent to the poor...etc
Is there anything that isn't BS in your post?
|
On February 09 2012 20:08 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 20:03 vetinari wrote:
Should unmarried couples have kids? Cohabitating couples, as opposed to married couples are much more unstable, while single parents are terrible parents, ceteris paribus.
I would argue that from a purely rational point of view, the point of commitment, love and marriage is to provide a stable environment in which to raise children. I would point to the studies of "orchid" children vs "dandelion" children, to understand its importance. (dandelion children turn out ok almost no matter how bad their childhood environment. Orchid children go badly if they grow up in an unstable environment, but turn out better than dandelion children if they grow up in stable environments.) Hence, the reason why we subsidise marriage, but not roommates/cohabitating couples is because we want to encourage a behaviour that makes it feasible to raise the next generation effectively.
As I have stated before: it is no surprise that the highest rates of illegitimacy and divorce are within the ranks of the poor. Should turtles have kids? Turtles are much more unstable, while rabbits are terrible parents, ceteris paribus. Something about orchids...dandelions....blah blah blah. Subsidize instead of segregate...only straight people are effective...blah blah blah. Some random tangent to the poor...etc Is there anything that isn't BS in your post?
Yeah.
Everything. Troll elsewhere.
|
Just when I thought the side against gay marriage could not get any creepier, they start proffessing their love for societal engineering.
|
On February 09 2012 20:10 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 20:08 Roe wrote:On February 09 2012 20:03 vetinari wrote:
Should unmarried couples have kids? Cohabitating couples, as opposed to married couples are much more unstable, while single parents are terrible parents, ceteris paribus.
I would argue that from a purely rational point of view, the point of commitment, love and marriage is to provide a stable environment in which to raise children. I would point to the studies of "orchid" children vs "dandelion" children, to understand its importance. (dandelion children turn out ok almost no matter how bad their childhood environment. Orchid children go badly if they grow up in an unstable environment, but turn out better than dandelion children if they grow up in stable environments.) Hence, the reason why we subsidise marriage, but not roommates/cohabitating couples is because we want to encourage a behaviour that makes it feasible to raise the next generation effectively.
As I have stated before: it is no surprise that the highest rates of illegitimacy and divorce are within the ranks of the poor. Should turtles have kids? Turtles are much more unstable, while rabbits are terrible parents, ceteris paribus. Something about orchids...dandelions....blah blah blah. Subsidize instead of segregate...only straight people are effective...blah blah blah. Some random tangent to the poor...etc Is there anything that isn't BS in your post? Yeah. Everything. Troll elsewhere.
Classic irony
|
On February 09 2012 18:26 Krzycho wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 18:03 Rannasha wrote:On February 09 2012 17:54 Krzycho wrote:
Oh God, another step into demoralisation of people... Yet so many tl users approves. You have to look in your dictionary what marriage is... Then you'll find out that there cannot be a "gay marriage" unless you change the definition of marrige. Please enlighten me: Exactly how does this work to "demoralise" (note that demoralise means "to lose morale", not "to lose morals", which would be "immoralise") people? If anything, treating people equally and allowing everyone to get married should serve to strengthen social bonds. Thanks for correcting me, I meant immoralise And it's this way because sexuality is not something you show to everyone. I'm not against gay people, they've been here since ever and they don't harm anyone, but approving gay marrige is wrong, especially to children. Imagine a child who has 2 daddys or 2 moms. Is it right for you? And marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman supposed to give birth and raise kids. Oh and gay people can "create" a civil law partnership, but it's not marriage.
The argument that marriage always has been between a man and a woman and therefore gay people can't get married is a falacy. Gay marriage a demoralization, rofl...
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.
This post. Makes. Absolutely no sense. WHATSOEVER.
First off. You don't ''believe'' in evolution like you belief in god. Evolution is based on evidence. Believing in god is not. Not accepting evolution to me seems like not accepting the gravitational theory of Newton. Anyway, the bible isn't true, so yeah...
|
Marriage is a formal union between a man and WOman. It really takes the integrity of marriage away.
|
On February 09 2012 20:12 zalz wrote:
Just when I thought the side against gay marriage could not get any creepier, they start proffessing their love for societal engineering.
Because changing marriage from man + woman to man/woman + man/woman is not social engineering.
Liberals are the greatest hypocrits in existence. You have been conducting social engineering for the past 200 years.
|
On February 09 2012 20:25 Cubu wrote:
Marriage is a formal union between a man and WOman. It really takes the integrity of marriage away.
No, marriage is a word. Which in our very homophobic past meant a union between a man and a woman. However society and morals evolve with time, despite the efforts of many. Do you belive that a man and a woman should both be stoned if they have sex during her period? Or being stoned for working on the sabbath? (i mean stoned as in execution, not as in "get high" btw). You need to mind your own business, and let people do what the fuck they want. No one is gonna force unwilling churches to marry people.
On February 09 2012 20:31 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 20:12 zalz wrote:
Just when I thought the side against gay marriage could not get any creepier, they start proffessing their love for societal engineering. Because changing marriage from man + woman to man/woman + man/woman is not social engineering. Liberals are the greatest hypocrits in existence. You have been conducting social engineering for the past 200 years.
Engineering implies conscious intention. And that is not what is going on here.
|
On February 09 2012 20:25 Cubu wrote:
Marriage is a formal union between a man and WOman. It really takes the integrity of marriage away.
Says who? God? Sorry but marriage existed way before christianity.
|
On February 09 2012 20:31 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 20:12 zalz wrote:
Just when I thought the side against gay marriage could not get any creepier, they start proffessing their love for societal engineering. Because changing marriage from man + woman to man/woman + man/woman is not social engineering. Liberals are the greatest hypocrits in existence. You have been conducting social engineering for the past 200 years.
No you're right, it isn't social engineering to allow people to live how they want to live. Conservatives want to use the government to shape who we are, who we love, who we live with. That's what I call hypocrisy.
|
On February 09 2012 20:31 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 20:12 zalz wrote:
Just when I thought the side against gay marriage could not get any creepier, they start proffessing their love for societal engineering. Because changing marriage from man + woman to man/woman + man/woman is not social engineering. Liberals are the greatest hypocrits in existence. You have been conducting social engineering for the past 200 years.
You don't understand the term "social engineering."
That isn't a bad thing, but don't pretend that you do when it is incredibly obvious that you don't.
And to answer your question/confusion.
No, that is indeed, not social engineering.
|
On February 09 2012 20:25 Cubu wrote:
Marriage is a formal union between a man and WOman. It really takes the integrity of marriage away.
People so insecure that they even meddle with how other people live their lives.
Actually marriage was a crude religious scare tactic to ensure offspring not grow up with only a mother. The integrity of marriage comes from the two people being wed. I don't see any punishment against people that get a divorce.
It's already 2012 god damnit. When will people just let go and let people live?
|
On February 09 2012 20:35 Rabbitmaster wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 20:25 Cubu wrote:
Marriage is a formal union between a man and WOman. It really takes the integrity of marriage away. No, marriage is a word. Which in the past, very homophobic, western culture (i wont speak for other cultures in not as familiar with) meant a union between a man and a woman. However society and morals evolve with time, despite the efforts of many. Do you belive that a man and a woman should both be stoned if they have sex during her period? Or being stoned for working on the sabbath? (i mean stoned as in execution, not as in "get high" btw). You need to mind your own business, and let people do what the fuck they want. No one is gonna force unwilling churches to marry people. Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 20:31 vetinari wrote:On February 09 2012 20:12 zalz wrote:
Just when I thought the side against gay marriage could not get any creepier, they start proffessing their love for societal engineering. Because changing marriage from man + woman to man/woman + man/woman is not social engineering. Liberals are the greatest hypocrits in existence. You have been conducting social engineering for the past 200 years. Engineering implies conscious intention. And that is not what is going on here.
Because changing things without having any clue about what might be the consequences of your actions is somehow any better?
I don't object to social engineering. I just object to the liberal variety, since I believe that liberals do not place proper weight on loyalty, order or beauty, which cannot help but cause a worse society in the long run (even if its better in the short run. Its like running a car 3000 revs over the redline. It will be great for a bit, but then it breaks).
|
On February 09 2012 20:25 Cubu wrote:
Marriage is a formal union between a man and WOman. It really takes the integrity of marriage away.
There goes your integrity of marriage...
Britney Spears and high school friend Jason Allen Alexander, 2 days;
Dennis Rodman and Carmen Electra, 9 days;
Gregg Allman and Cher, 9 days;
Rudolph Valentino and Jean Acker, 6 hours;
Robert Evans and Catherine Oxenberg, 12 days;
Jeremy Thomas and Drew Barrymore, 29 days;
Ethel Merman and Ernest Borgnine, 38 days;
Janet Jackson and James DeBarge, 4 months.
Also, I want to add that by the logic of excluding people from marriage for 'birth deficiency' would mean that like 10% of Earth's population should be allowed to marry and have kids, because the other 90% would have died to some illness or another without medical treatment. So people with appendectomy should be banned as well. (That's an extreme example...I don't actually think that marriage should be an elite club for the chosen ones.)
|
I'm a Washingtonian by birth (from the Tri-Cities, did my undergrad at CWU), always pleased to see some happy news from back home! Marriage is an awesome thing, I'm glad to know my gay friends won't have to leave home to enjoy the privileges and happiness that I do :-D
|
On February 09 2012 20:45 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 20:35 Rabbitmaster wrote:On February 09 2012 20:25 Cubu wrote:
Marriage is a formal union between a man and WOman. It really takes the integrity of marriage away. No, marriage is a word. Which in the past, very homophobic, western culture (i wont speak for other cultures in not as familiar with) meant a union between a man and a woman. However society and morals evolve with time, despite the efforts of many. Do you belive that a man and a woman should both be stoned if they have sex during her period? Or being stoned for working on the sabbath? (i mean stoned as in execution, not as in "get high" btw). You need to mind your own business, and let people do what the fuck they want. No one is gonna force unwilling churches to marry people. On February 09 2012 20:31 vetinari wrote:On February 09 2012 20:12 zalz wrote:
Just when I thought the side against gay marriage could not get any creepier, they start proffessing their love for societal engineering. Because changing marriage from man + woman to man/woman + man/woman is not social engineering. Liberals are the greatest hypocrits in existence. You have been conducting social engineering for the past 200 years. Engineering implies conscious intention. And that is not what is going on here. Because changing things without having any clue about what might be the consequences of your actions is somehow any better? I don't object to social engineering. I just object to the liberal variety, since I believe that liberals do not place proper weight on loyalty, order or beauty, which cannot help but cause a worse society in the long run (even if its better in the short run. Its like running a car 3000 revs over the redline. It will be great for a bit, but then it breaks).
Who has no clue about the consequences?
Again, you're spewing nonsense. Order, beauty, those are as subjective as you can get. Loyalty is something anyone can have to anyone else. It's just so telling how you have no grasp of any of these 3 ideas if you need to segregate marriage in order to have them.
I know freedom makes you anxious, but you've gotta practice what you preach.
|
On February 09 2012 20:40 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 20:31 vetinari wrote:On February 09 2012 20:12 zalz wrote:
Just when I thought the side against gay marriage could not get any creepier, they start proffessing their love for societal engineering. Because changing marriage from man + woman to man/woman + man/woman is not social engineering. Liberals are the greatest hypocrits in existence. You have been conducting social engineering for the past 200 years. You don't understand the term "social engineering." That isn't a bad thing, but don't pretend that you do when it is incredibly obvious that you don't. And to answer your question/confusion. No, that is indeed, not social engineering.
"Social engineering" = efforts to influence societal attitudes and behaviours on a large scale. . .
|
On February 09 2012 19:02 HypnotyZ wrote:
I live in Seattle and will be voting against gay marriage on this prop... For the record, I'm for gays in the military. I have nothing against gay people, I'm not religious, nor am I homophobic in the least. My political views are mostly liberal.
I think that marriage is something special between a man and a woman. A man and a woman are supposed to take their wedding vows to their grave. Society has begun to accept divorice as a perfectly normal and acceptable thing. It used to always be shunned. Often spouses are quick to file for divorice, without trying to work out their marital issues. It's becoming increasingly common for couples to get married way too early in their relationships without figuring out if they're truly compatable with their mate. It seems to be especially true amongst celebrities, which sets a sickening example for society. Thanks Kim Kardashian and the countless others. I really do hope that this is only a phase.
I believe the average length of a male homosexual relationship is around 1 month. It's common knowledge amongst the community that they don't last for long. I have a bisexual female friend that has been hooking up with only girls for around 6 years now. She has a new girlfriend every 6-12 months. So my point is, if a vast majority of homosexual relationships are shortlived, why do they want to get married in the first place? I understand the "Just so we can" reason, but really? If you've been with your partner for 5+ years and want to get married I could understand why. But a fraction of a percent of homosexual relationships last that long. I think if gay marriage is passed then homosexuals will get married and divoriced like it's absolutely nothing. Like Kim Kardashians. That's just harmful to the concept of marriage.
Marriage has become way too loose with it's standards. I believe that if society allows homosexuals to partake in traditional marriage then the fundamental meaning of marriage would be devalued further. I would recommend calling it something else but that would be discrimination and unconstitutional. The way marriage works now is not discriminatory, as the definition of marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Just because two homosexuals love each other and would like to spend the rest of their lives together doesnt mean they're entitled to marriage, because that's simply not what marriage is. Homosexual marriage would alter the true meaning of marriage, and I am against that.
Lastly I'd like to make the point of the loophole that gay marriage would create. Let's say I'm young, tight on my budget, and share an apartment with a friend. What prevents me from filing a marriage with my buddy so that we can reap the financial benefits that are given to married couples? Then once we move out of the apartment a year or 2 later we file divorice. Seems like just about everyone could do that right? How special is marriage now? Seriously. And the reason male+female friends don't abuse this with each other is because they realize that marriage is supposed to be special.
Gay marriage would simply make marriage even more meaningless than it already is. We need to be heading in the other direction, not completely throw out the sanctity of marriage altogether.
"Hurr durr all homosexuals and bisexuals are nympho sluts and all heterosexuals are looking for long committed relationships I pull generalizations straight out of my ass."
Seriously how can you make such generalizations without feeling immense scrutiny?
How very lovely that you still have the oldschool, sugar coated, walt disney version of marriage up in your head, but in real life people have been getting married for an array of reasons for so long. Even if loving couples get married and change as time goes by and they don't match and get divorced, who gave you the right to judge?
Are you going to take this one step further and say you should only have sex when the aim is to conceive? This isn't a movie you know, it's the real world, and in the real world, some people are just born different from you. They may be shit out of luck belonging in the minority, but that doesn't make them freaks. What if you were born into a world where heterosexuality is the majority and holy fuck if you like women you're a sicko. How would that make you feel?
|
These threads always make me sad, though at least the important bit (Approval of gay marriage) is through, just a shame about some of the responses. A couple of responses to themes in the thread anyway:
1: Religious people don't get to claim every single heterosexual marriage as religious. Stop it. Non religious heterosexual marriage is just the same as non religious homosexual marriage. If you want your own special marriage that God cares about that you want to say gays cant have, that's fine, but the word and concept of 'marriage' is not your thing.
2: Historical opinion is no basis for deciding how things ought to be. The world isn't flat.
3: You have no right to other people's reproductive organs, whether is be forcing them to have children or be in heterosexual marriages, the abortion debate, or flat out homophobic 'reprogramming' camps. The 'continuation of the species' is not a forced duty.
4: People not married are also capable of having children just fine, you don't *need* marriage to force heterosexual couples to reproduce. Most people get married because they love their partner. 'Bastards' are children too and deserve to be treated the exact same, regardless of how you view society.
|
On February 09 2012 20:51 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 20:45 vetinari wrote:On February 09 2012 20:35 Rabbitmaster wrote:On February 09 2012 20:25 Cubu wrote:
Marriage is a formal union between a man and WOman. It really takes the integrity of marriage away. No, marriage is a word. Which in the past, very homophobic, western culture (i wont speak for other cultures in not as familiar with) meant a union between a man and a woman. However society and morals evolve with time, despite the efforts of many. Do you belive that a man and a woman should both be stoned if they have sex during her period? Or being stoned for working on the sabbath? (i mean stoned as in execution, not as in "get high" btw). You need to mind your own business, and let people do what the fuck they want. No one is gonna force unwilling churches to marry people. On February 09 2012 20:31 vetinari wrote:On February 09 2012 20:12 zalz wrote:
Just when I thought the side against gay marriage could not get any creepier, they start proffessing their love for societal engineering. Because changing marriage from man + woman to man/woman + man/woman is not social engineering. Liberals are the greatest hypocrits in existence. You have been conducting social engineering for the past 200 years. Engineering implies conscious intention. And that is not what is going on here. Because changing things without having any clue about what might be the consequences of your actions is somehow any better? I don't object to social engineering. I just object to the liberal variety, since I believe that liberals do not place proper weight on loyalty, order or beauty, which cannot help but cause a worse society in the long run (even if its better in the short run. Its like running a car 3000 revs over the redline. It will be great for a bit, but then it breaks). Who has no clue about the consequences? Again, you're spewing nonsense. Order, beauty, those are as subjective as you can get. Loyalty is something anyone can have to anyone else. It's just so telling how you have no grasp of any of these 3 ideas if you need to segregate marriage in order to have them. I know freedom makes you anxious, but you've gotta practice what you preach.
Liberals. Consider the diversity project: heterogenous societies are considered to be postive. Its just a shame that one of the formost liberal researches has found that ethnic and racial diversity are incredibly bad for the community and the happiness of all members of society . ( see : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_D._Putnam for an overview of his work.)
Oops. Too late.
Just one example of many...
In truth, the freedom of liberals is the most terrifying thing of all. No attempt to reflect on the consequences of your actions, just a naive belief that people are naturally good and that more freedom will make everything better...
|
On February 09 2012 20:55 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 20:40 zalz wrote:On February 09 2012 20:31 vetinari wrote:On February 09 2012 20:12 zalz wrote:
Just when I thought the side against gay marriage could not get any creepier, they start proffessing their love for societal engineering. Because changing marriage from man + woman to man/woman + man/woman is not social engineering. Liberals are the greatest hypocrits in existence. You have been conducting social engineering for the past 200 years. You don't understand the term "social engineering." That isn't a bad thing, but don't pretend that you do when it is incredibly obvious that you don't. And to answer your question/confusion. No, that is indeed, not social engineering. "Social engineering" = efforts to influence societal attitudes and behaviours on a large scale. . .
*Someone claims I don't understand the word Social Engineering.
*Quote Wikipedia to prove them wrong
I don't object to social engineering. I just object to the liberal variety, since I believe that liberals do not place proper weight on loyalty, order or beauty, which cannot help but cause a worse society in the long run (even if its better in the short run. Its like running a car 3000 revs over the redline. It will be great for a bit, but then it breaks).
What are you even talking about.
You switch between random and gibberish...
|
On February 09 2012 19:21 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 19:02 HypnotyZ wrote:Lastly I'd like to make the point of the loophole that gay marriage would create. Let's say I'm young, tight on my budget, and share an apartment with a friend. What prevents me from filing a marriage with my buddy so that we can reap the financial benefits that are given to married couples? Then once we move out of the apartment a year or 2 later we file divorice. Seems like just about everyone could do that right? How special is marriage now? Seriously. And the reason male+female friends don't abuse this with each other is because they realize that marriage is supposed to be special. You can't actually believe that can you? So if they made it legal you and your buddies would just start marrying the hell out of each other. But you don't do it now with a female friend because of R-E-S-P-E-C-T? You honestly believe it's going to turn into thunderdome? I'm sorry but that has to be the absolute worst excuse I've ever heard. My mind can't even comprehend.
You can do that with heterosexual marriage too. You just need a female friend.
|
On February 09 2012 21:09 Iyerbeth wrote:
These threads always make me sad, though at least the important bit (Approval of gay marriage) is through, just a shame about some of the responses. A couple of responses to themes in the thread anyway:
2: Historical opinion is no basis for deciding how things ought to be. The world isn't flat.
3: You have no right to other people's reproductive organs, whether is be forcing them to have children or be in heterosexual marriages, the abortion debate, or flat out homophobic 'reprogramming' camps. The 'continuation of the species' is not a forced duty.
4: People not married are also capable of having children just fine, you don't *need* marriage to force heterosexual couples to reproduce. Most people get married because they love their partner. 'Bastards' are children too and deserve to be treated the exact same, regardless of how you view society.
2: Why not? Do the people who built a society have no right to have their views considered? After all, they entrusted you to take care of the society they made, not to change it beyond all recognition.
3: Why not? You have the freedom to leave society if you don't like the rules. Why is societal requirement of reproductive effort illegitimate, while societal requirement of physical and cognitive effort legitimate (we call this taxation).
4: Sorry, but people not married are not capable of having children "just fine". The data points to exactly the opposite. Bastards are children too, but that does not mean they deserve to be treated exactly the same. They deserve nothing at all. Its why we have abortions, after all.
User was banned for this post.
|
On February 09 2012 21:11 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 20:51 Roe wrote:On February 09 2012 20:45 vetinari wrote:On February 09 2012 20:35 Rabbitmaster wrote:On February 09 2012 20:25 Cubu wrote:
Marriage is a formal union between a man and WOman. It really takes the integrity of marriage away. No, marriage is a word. Which in the past, very homophobic, western culture (i wont speak for other cultures in not as familiar with) meant a union between a man and a woman. However society and morals evolve with time, despite the efforts of many. Do you belive that a man and a woman should both be stoned if they have sex during her period? Or being stoned for working on the sabbath? (i mean stoned as in execution, not as in "get high" btw). You need to mind your own business, and let people do what the fuck they want. No one is gonna force unwilling churches to marry people. On February 09 2012 20:31 vetinari wrote:On February 09 2012 20:12 zalz wrote:
Just when I thought the side against gay marriage could not get any creepier, they start proffessing their love for societal engineering. Because changing marriage from man + woman to man/woman + man/woman is not social engineering. Liberals are the greatest hypocrits in existence. You have been conducting social engineering for the past 200 years. Engineering implies conscious intention. And that is not what is going on here. Because changing things without having any clue about what might be the consequences of your actions is somehow any better? I don't object to social engineering. I just object to the liberal variety, since I believe that liberals do not place proper weight on loyalty, order or beauty, which cannot help but cause a worse society in the long run (even if its better in the short run. Its like running a car 3000 revs over the redline. It will be great for a bit, but then it breaks). Who has no clue about the consequences? Again, you're spewing nonsense. Order, beauty, those are as subjective as you can get. Loyalty is something anyone can have to anyone else. It's just so telling how you have no grasp of any of these 3 ideas if you need to segregate marriage in order to have them. I know freedom makes you anxious, but you've gotta practice what you preach. Liberals. Consider the diversity project: homogenous societies are considered to be goods. Its just a shame that one of the formost liberal researches has found that ethnic and racial diversity are incredibly bad for the community and the happiness of all members of society . ( see : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_D._Putnam for an overview of his work.) Oops. Too late. Just one example of many... In truth, the freedom of liberals is the most terrifying thing of all. No attempt to reflect on the consequences of your actions, just a naive belief that people are naturally good and that more freedom will make everything better...
No you're right, I mean (and keep cherry picking my posts for ones you think you can beat) religious idiocy will always poison society if they are free to take hold of government or the minds of the people. This is exactly the case with homosexuality: there's nothing wrong with it but ancient ideas keep their grip on the mind of humanity, keeping it in an infant stage. I just love how conservatives always spew hypocritical nonsense about family values that don't even work and in turn destroy our western society. You still haven't given me any reasoning behind your arguments (and that study is terrible, any first year social science major would detect the BS right away, but your conservative agenda is keeping you from realizing how bad the study is), for example, what the hell does this mean?
Liberals. Consider the diversity project: homogenous societies are considered to be goods.
Maybe English isn't your first language, but even on the reasoning behind the statement you're wrong. The more diverse a society is, the stronger it is. This is true all the way from biology to sociology. It's true, people break down and kill each other because they can't handle anyone that isn't the same as them. But I'm not going to give in to barbarism and zealotry.
|
Good for them ! :-). I still find silly that it is up to states tough.
|
On February 09 2012 21:19 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 21:09 Iyerbeth wrote:
These threads always make me sad, though at least the important bit (Approval of gay marriage) is through, just a shame about some of the responses. A couple of responses to themes in the thread anyway:
2: Historical opinion is no basis for deciding how things ought to be. The world isn't flat.
3: You have no right to other people's reproductive organs, whether is be forcing them to have children or be in heterosexual marriages, the abortion debate, or flat out homophobic 'reprogramming' camps. The 'continuation of the species' is not a forced duty.
4: People not married are also capable of having children just fine, you don't *need* marriage to force heterosexual couples to reproduce. Most people get married because they love their partner. 'Bastards' are children too and deserve to be treated the exact same, regardless of how you view society. 2: Why not? Do the people who built a society have no right to have their views considered? After all, they entrusted you to take care of the society they made, not to change it beyond all recognition. 3: Why not? You have the freedom to leave society if you don't like the rules. Why is societal requirement of reproductive effort illegitimate, while societal requirement of physical and cognitive effort legitimate (we call this taxation). 4: Sorry, but people not married are not capable of having children "just fine". The data points to exactly the opposite. Bastards are children too, but that does not mean they deserve to be treated exactly the same. They deserve nothing at all. Its why we have abortions, after all.
2. Because historical opinions have mostly been wrong. You'd have to be incredibly ignorant to think otherwise.
3. yes, and you can leave too if you don't like our freedoms. I heard Saudi Arabia is a nice family values, religious state.
4. The data actually points to the fact that gays can raise children much better than heteros. You're wrong even without data. There's nothing in what makes a person homosexual that would make them a worse care giver. Other than of course the fact that society hates homos.
|
On February 09 2012 21:11 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 20:55 vetinari wrote:On February 09 2012 20:40 zalz wrote:On February 09 2012 20:31 vetinari wrote:On February 09 2012 20:12 zalz wrote:
Just when I thought the side against gay marriage could not get any creepier, they start proffessing their love for societal engineering. Because changing marriage from man + woman to man/woman + man/woman is not social engineering. Liberals are the greatest hypocrits in existence. You have been conducting social engineering for the past 200 years. You don't understand the term "social engineering." That isn't a bad thing, but don't pretend that you do when it is incredibly obvious that you don't. And to answer your question/confusion. No, that is indeed, not social engineering. "Social engineering" = efforts to influence societal attitudes and behaviours on a large scale. . . *Someone claims I don't understand the word Social Engineering. *Quote Wikipedia to prove them wrong Show nested quote +I don't object to social engineering. I just object to the liberal variety, since I believe that liberals do not place proper weight on loyalty, order or beauty, which cannot help but cause a worse society in the long run (even if its better in the short run. Its like running a car 3000 revs over the redline. It will be great for a bit, but then it breaks). What are you even talking about. You switch between random and gibberish...
You might want to put at least some content into your post...
I have no doubt that you did not even attempt to understand anything that I have posted. So I will advise you to look up theories of morality, and leave it at that.
|
On February 09 2012 21:33 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 21:11 zalz wrote:On February 09 2012 20:55 vetinari wrote:On February 09 2012 20:40 zalz wrote:On February 09 2012 20:31 vetinari wrote:On February 09 2012 20:12 zalz wrote:
Just when I thought the side against gay marriage could not get any creepier, they start proffessing their love for societal engineering. Because changing marriage from man + woman to man/woman + man/woman is not social engineering. Liberals are the greatest hypocrits in existence. You have been conducting social engineering for the past 200 years. You don't understand the term "social engineering." That isn't a bad thing, but don't pretend that you do when it is incredibly obvious that you don't. And to answer your question/confusion. No, that is indeed, not social engineering. "Social engineering" = efforts to influence societal attitudes and behaviours on a large scale. . . *Someone claims I don't understand the word Social Engineering. *Quote Wikipedia to prove them wrong I don't object to social engineering. I just object to the liberal variety, since I believe that liberals do not place proper weight on loyalty, order or beauty, which cannot help but cause a worse society in the long run (even if its better in the short run. Its like running a car 3000 revs over the redline. It will be great for a bit, but then it breaks). What are you even talking about. You switch between random and gibberish... You might want to put at least some content into your post... I have no doubt that you did not even attempt to understand anything that I have posted. So I will advise you to look up theories of morality, and leave it at that.
Its like talking to a wall...
Just because you copy paste some pseudo-science that anyone with a degree rejects, doesn't mean you are "informed."
But keep talking about Dandelion and Orchid children. Maybe write a piece on the benefits of re-alligning your chakras with an energy crystal? Don't forgot to act outraged when people point out that all your "theories" are ridiculous and without any basis in reality.
But of course, Liberals don't value beauty. I think if you would ask people their biggest problem with liberalism, its that they don't value beauty enough.
Pseudo-scientists are even worse then conspiracy theorists.
|
On February 09 2012 21:26 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 21:11 vetinari wrote:On February 09 2012 20:51 Roe wrote:On February 09 2012 20:45 vetinari wrote:On February 09 2012 20:35 Rabbitmaster wrote:On February 09 2012 20:25 Cubu wrote:
Marriage is a formal union between a man and WOman. It really takes the integrity of marriage away. No, marriage is a word. Which in the past, very homophobic, western culture (i wont speak for other cultures in not as familiar with) meant a union between a man and a woman. However society and morals evolve with time, despite the efforts of many. Do you belive that a man and a woman should both be stoned if they have sex during her period? Or being stoned for working on the sabbath? (i mean stoned as in execution, not as in "get high" btw). You need to mind your own business, and let people do what the fuck they want. No one is gonna force unwilling churches to marry people. On February 09 2012 20:31 vetinari wrote:On February 09 2012 20:12 zalz wrote:
Just when I thought the side against gay marriage could not get any creepier, they start proffessing their love for societal engineering. Because changing marriage from man + woman to man/woman + man/woman is not social engineering. Liberals are the greatest hypocrits in existence. You have been conducting social engineering for the past 200 years. Engineering implies conscious intention. And that is not what is going on here. Because changing things without having any clue about what might be the consequences of your actions is somehow any better? I don't object to social engineering. I just object to the liberal variety, since I believe that liberals do not place proper weight on loyalty, order or beauty, which cannot help but cause a worse society in the long run (even if its better in the short run. Its like running a car 3000 revs over the redline. It will be great for a bit, but then it breaks). Who has no clue about the consequences? Again, you're spewing nonsense. Order, beauty, those are as subjective as you can get. Loyalty is something anyone can have to anyone else. It's just so telling how you have no grasp of any of these 3 ideas if you need to segregate marriage in order to have them. I know freedom makes you anxious, but you've gotta practice what you preach. Liberals. Consider the diversity project: homogenous societies are considered to be goods. Its just a shame that one of the formost liberal researches has found that ethnic and racial diversity are incredibly bad for the community and the happiness of all members of society . ( see : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_D._Putnam for an overview of his work.) Oops. Too late. Just one example of many... In truth, the freedom of liberals is the most terrifying thing of all. No attempt to reflect on the consequences of your actions, just a naive belief that people are naturally good and that more freedom will make everything better... No you're right, I mean (and keep cherry picking my posts for ones you think you can beat) religious idiocy will always poison society if they are free to take hold of government or the minds of the people. This is exactly the case with homosexuality: there's nothing wrong with it but ancient ideas keep their grip on the mind of humanity, keeping it in an infant stage. I just love how conservatives always spew hypocritical nonsense about family values that don't even work and in turn destroy our western society. You still haven't given me any reasoning behind your arguments (and that study is terrible, any first year social science major would detect the BS right away, but your conservative agenda is keeping you from realizing how bad the study is), for example, what the hell does this mean? Show nested quote +
Liberals. Consider the diversity project: homogenous societies are considered to be goods.
Maybe English isn't your first language, but even on the reasoning behind the statement you're wrong. The more diverse a society is, the stronger it is. This is true all the way from biology to sociology. It's true, people break down and kill each other because they can't handle anyone that isn't the same as them. But I'm not going to give in to barbarism and zealotry.
Putnam is quite possibly the most highly regarded political scientist in america and he is most definitely NOT conservative.
Alien hand syndrome. It happens. And you are wrong. I wish that the liberal dream worked. But it is doomed to failure, just as communism failed, fascism failed, laissez faire capitalism failed. Hell, just as conservatism was killed by decadence.
|
On February 09 2012 21:39 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 21:33 vetinari wrote:On February 09 2012 21:11 zalz wrote:On February 09 2012 20:55 vetinari wrote:On February 09 2012 20:40 zalz wrote:On February 09 2012 20:31 vetinari wrote:On February 09 2012 20:12 zalz wrote:
Just when I thought the side against gay marriage could not get any creepier, they start proffessing their love for societal engineering. Because changing marriage from man + woman to man/woman + man/woman is not social engineering. Liberals are the greatest hypocrits in existence. You have been conducting social engineering for the past 200 years. You don't understand the term "social engineering." That isn't a bad thing, but don't pretend that you do when it is incredibly obvious that you don't. And to answer your question/confusion. No, that is indeed, not social engineering. "Social engineering" = efforts to influence societal attitudes and behaviours on a large scale. . . *Someone claims I don't understand the word Social Engineering. *Quote Wikipedia to prove them wrong I don't object to social engineering. I just object to the liberal variety, since I believe that liberals do not place proper weight on loyalty, order or beauty, which cannot help but cause a worse society in the long run (even if its better in the short run. Its like running a car 3000 revs over the redline. It will be great for a bit, but then it breaks). What are you even talking about. You switch between random and gibberish... You might want to put at least some content into your post... I have no doubt that you did not even attempt to understand anything that I have posted. So I will advise you to look up theories of morality, and leave it at that. Its like talking to a wall... Just because you copy paste some pseudo-science that anyone with a degree rejects, doesn't mean you are "informed." But keep talking about Dandelion and Orchid children. Maybe write a piece on the benefits of re-alligning your chakras with an energy crystal? Don't forgot to act outraged when people point out that all your "theories" are ridiculous and without any basis in reality. But of course, Liberals don't value beauty. I think if you would ask people their biggest problem with liberalism, its that they don't value beauty enough. Pseudo-scientists are even worse then conspiracy theorists.
You do realise that the genes behind dandelion and orchid children have been identified, right?
|
On February 09 2012 21:41 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 21:26 Roe wrote:On February 09 2012 21:11 vetinari wrote:On February 09 2012 20:51 Roe wrote:On February 09 2012 20:45 vetinari wrote:On February 09 2012 20:35 Rabbitmaster wrote:On February 09 2012 20:25 Cubu wrote:
Marriage is a formal union between a man and WOman. It really takes the integrity of marriage away. No, marriage is a word. Which in the past, very homophobic, western culture (i wont speak for other cultures in not as familiar with) meant a union between a man and a woman. However society and morals evolve with time, despite the efforts of many. Do you belive that a man and a woman should both be stoned if they have sex during her period? Or being stoned for working on the sabbath? (i mean stoned as in execution, not as in "get high" btw). You need to mind your own business, and let people do what the fuck they want. No one is gonna force unwilling churches to marry people. On February 09 2012 20:31 vetinari wrote:On February 09 2012 20:12 zalz wrote:
Just when I thought the side against gay marriage could not get any creepier, they start proffessing their love for societal engineering. Because changing marriage from man + woman to man/woman + man/woman is not social engineering. Liberals are the greatest hypocrits in existence. You have been conducting social engineering for the past 200 years. Engineering implies conscious intention. And that is not what is going on here. Because changing things without having any clue about what might be the consequences of your actions is somehow any better? I don't object to social engineering. I just object to the liberal variety, since I believe that liberals do not place proper weight on loyalty, order or beauty, which cannot help but cause a worse society in the long run (even if its better in the short run. Its like running a car 3000 revs over the redline. It will be great for a bit, but then it breaks). Who has no clue about the consequences? Again, you're spewing nonsense. Order, beauty, those are as subjective as you can get. Loyalty is something anyone can have to anyone else. It's just so telling how you have no grasp of any of these 3 ideas if you need to segregate marriage in order to have them. I know freedom makes you anxious, but you've gotta practice what you preach. Liberals. Consider the diversity project: homogenous societies are considered to be goods. Its just a shame that one of the formost liberal researches has found that ethnic and racial diversity are incredibly bad for the community and the happiness of all members of society . ( see : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_D._Putnam for an overview of his work.) Oops. Too late. Just one example of many... In truth, the freedom of liberals is the most terrifying thing of all. No attempt to reflect on the consequences of your actions, just a naive belief that people are naturally good and that more freedom will make everything better... No you're right, I mean (and keep cherry picking my posts for ones you think you can beat) religious idiocy will always poison society if they are free to take hold of government or the minds of the people. This is exactly the case with homosexuality: there's nothing wrong with it but ancient ideas keep their grip on the mind of humanity, keeping it in an infant stage. I just love how conservatives always spew hypocritical nonsense about family values that don't even work and in turn destroy our western society. You still haven't given me any reasoning behind your arguments (and that study is terrible, any first year social science major would detect the BS right away, but your conservative agenda is keeping you from realizing how bad the study is), for example, what the hell does this mean?
Liberals. Consider the diversity project: homogenous societies are considered to be goods.
Maybe English isn't your first language, but even on the reasoning behind the statement you're wrong. The more diverse a society is, the stronger it is. This is true all the way from biology to sociology. It's true, people break down and kill each other because they can't handle anyone that isn't the same as them. But I'm not going to give in to barbarism and zealotry. Putnam is quite possibly the most highly regarded political scientist in america and he is most definitely NOT conservative. Alien hand syndrome. It happens. And you are wrong. I wish that the liberal dream worked. But it is doomed to failure, just as communism failed, fascism failed, laissez faire capitalism failed. Hell, just as conservatism was killed by decadence.
It really is like talking to a wall. Oh well, I guess you've left the discussion already. It's not like you even made me reconsider my views let alone challenge them.
|
On February 09 2012 21:11 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 20:51 Roe wrote:On February 09 2012 20:45 vetinari wrote:On February 09 2012 20:35 Rabbitmaster wrote:On February 09 2012 20:25 Cubu wrote:
Marriage is a formal union between a man and WOman. It really takes the integrity of marriage away. No, marriage is a word. Which in the past, very homophobic, western culture (i wont speak for other cultures in not as familiar with) meant a union between a man and a woman. However society and morals evolve with time, despite the efforts of many. Do you belive that a man and a woman should both be stoned if they have sex during her period? Or being stoned for working on the sabbath? (i mean stoned as in execution, not as in "get high" btw). You need to mind your own business, and let people do what the fuck they want. No one is gonna force unwilling churches to marry people. On February 09 2012 20:31 vetinari wrote:On February 09 2012 20:12 zalz wrote:
Just when I thought the side against gay marriage could not get any creepier, they start proffessing their love for societal engineering. Because changing marriage from man + woman to man/woman + man/woman is not social engineering. Liberals are the greatest hypocrits in existence. You have been conducting social engineering for the past 200 years. Engineering implies conscious intention. And that is not what is going on here. Because changing things without having any clue about what might be the consequences of your actions is somehow any better? I don't object to social engineering. I just object to the liberal variety, since I believe that liberals do not place proper weight on loyalty, order or beauty, which cannot help but cause a worse society in the long run (even if its better in the short run. Its like running a car 3000 revs over the redline. It will be great for a bit, but then it breaks). Who has no clue about the consequences? Again, you're spewing nonsense. Order, beauty, those are as subjective as you can get. Loyalty is something anyone can have to anyone else. It's just so telling how you have no grasp of any of these 3 ideas if you need to segregate marriage in order to have them. I know freedom makes you anxious, but you've gotta practice what you preach. Liberals. Consider the diversity project: heterogenous societies are considered to be postive. Its just a shame that one of the formost liberal researches has found that ethnic and racial diversity are incredibly bad for the community and the happiness of all members of society . ( see : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_D._Putnam for an overview of his work.) Oops. Too late. Just one example of many... In truth, the freedom of liberals is the most terrifying thing of all. No attempt to reflect on the consequences of your actions, just a naive belief that people are naturally good and that more freedom will make everything better...
You realize Putnam argues that in the long term, diversity is beneficial. His data only covers short to mid term. His data compares metropolitan cities (which tend to be more diverse) to small towns (which tend to be less diverse). But there are other factors, like population density, that could explain the lack of trust. His sample size of diverse small towns is small and skews the results.
In truth, the most terrifying thing of all is the ability of people to act on half-information and conclude their own world-view to be correct.
|
On February 09 2012 20:39 Paperplane wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 20:25 Cubu wrote:
Marriage is a formal union between a man and WOman. It really takes the integrity of marriage away. Says who? God? Sorry but marriage existed way before christianity.
Yeah but the one in the law is based on christianity's version of marriage.
|
On February 09 2012 22:00 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 21:11 vetinari wrote:On February 09 2012 20:51 Roe wrote:On February 09 2012 20:45 vetinari wrote:On February 09 2012 20:35 Rabbitmaster wrote:On February 09 2012 20:25 Cubu wrote:
Marriage is a formal union between a man and WOman. It really takes the integrity of marriage away. No, marriage is a word. Which in the past, very homophobic, western culture (i wont speak for other cultures in not as familiar with) meant a union between a man and a woman. However society and morals evolve with time, despite the efforts of many. Do you belive that a man and a woman should both be stoned if they have sex during her period? Or being stoned for working on the sabbath? (i mean stoned as in execution, not as in "get high" btw). You need to mind your own business, and let people do what the fuck they want. No one is gonna force unwilling churches to marry people. On February 09 2012 20:31 vetinari wrote:On February 09 2012 20:12 zalz wrote:
Just when I thought the side against gay marriage could not get any creepier, they start proffessing their love for societal engineering. Because changing marriage from man + woman to man/woman + man/woman is not social engineering. Liberals are the greatest hypocrits in existence. You have been conducting social engineering for the past 200 years. Engineering implies conscious intention. And that is not what is going on here. Because changing things without having any clue about what might be the consequences of your actions is somehow any better? I don't object to social engineering. I just object to the liberal variety, since I believe that liberals do not place proper weight on loyalty, order or beauty, which cannot help but cause a worse society in the long run (even if its better in the short run. Its like running a car 3000 revs over the redline. It will be great for a bit, but then it breaks). Who has no clue about the consequences? Again, you're spewing nonsense. Order, beauty, those are as subjective as you can get. Loyalty is something anyone can have to anyone else. It's just so telling how you have no grasp of any of these 3 ideas if you need to segregate marriage in order to have them. I know freedom makes you anxious, but you've gotta practice what you preach. Liberals. Consider the diversity project: heterogenous societies are considered to be postive. Its just a shame that one of the formost liberal researches has found that ethnic and racial diversity are incredibly bad for the community and the happiness of all members of society . ( see : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_D._Putnam for an overview of his work.) Oops. Too late. Just one example of many... In truth, the freedom of liberals is the most terrifying thing of all. No attempt to reflect on the consequences of your actions, just a naive belief that people are naturally good and that more freedom will make everything better... You realize Putnam argues that in the long term, diversity is beneficial. His data only covers short to mid term. His data compares metropolitan cities (which tend to be more diverse) to small towns (which tend to be less diverse). But there are other factors, like population density, that could explain the lack of trust. His sample size of diverse small towns is small and skews the results. In truth, the most terrifying thing of all is the ability of people to act on half-information and conclude their own world-view to be correct.
I know that he argues its beneficial in the long term. However, in the short to medium term, it is not. Furthermore, there is nothing to suggest that it will ever improve. There is only hope.
I find it amusing, that you find it terrifying, when the left is responsible for acting on half information or no information at all, just ideology. After, conservatism by definition is biased towards preserving the status quo, when in doubt...
|
Seriously, this crap about marriage being 'sacred' or 'special' needs to stop. State-recognized marriage is a legal bonding between two people. Religious people do not own the act of bonding two people together. Religious marriage and state marriage are two different things.
Get this through your heads people. Gay marriage does not harm the integrity of your religious marriage in any way, shape or form. Your churches, mosques or whatever can still refuse to bond two gay people in a religious union.
|
On February 09 2012 22:03 Cubu wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 20:39 Paperplane wrote:On February 09 2012 20:25 Cubu wrote:
Marriage is a formal union between a man and WOman. It really takes the integrity of marriage away. Says who? God? Sorry but marriage existed way before christianity. Yeah but the one in the law is based on christianity's version of marriage.
Uhm. No. There's nothing in the law that requires the marriage to be performed by a religious figure. Neither is it required to be a christian to get married. On the other hand, there's nothing in the bible or other religious texts about how your taxes change when you're married.
In a secular country (which the US should be according to its constitution), the legal concept of marriage and the concept of marriage by a religious faction should be completely separate. And this is a step towards that.
If you want to rename marriage to "civil union" or something like that because using different words suddenly doesn't bruise your religious ego any more, then by all means go for it. But the union between two people that gives all the legal and fiscal benefits of what is currently considered as "marriage", regardless of what name you want to put on it, should be open to any pair of consenting and sound-minded individuals.
|
On February 09 2012 22:03 Cubu wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 20:39 Paperplane wrote:On February 09 2012 20:25 Cubu wrote:
Marriage is a formal union between a man and WOman. It really takes the integrity of marriage away. Says who? God? Sorry but marriage existed way before christianity. Yeah but the one in the law is based on christianity's version of marriage.
The seperation of church and state would make that illegal if it was true. Good thing it is not true.
|
People who insist on marriage being a Christian thing generally don't know a whole lot about Christianity.
In the very early days of Christianity, marriage was not encouraged, because Christianity has since its inception been a very apocalyptic religion; hence procreation in the current life was not considered as important, what with the apocalypse on your doorstep. Other monotheistic religions (I believe Judaism is one) have traditionally been much more supportive of marriage, and have started to consider it 'sacred' much earlier.
Within and outside of the Christian context, the definition of marriage has changed numerous times. Broadening it to include homosexuals and bisexuals wishing to marry someone of the same sex seems to be the next logical, and indeed, inevitable step.
Nothing I've seen so far has suggested to me that gay marriage isn't going to happen. 'Marriage' is and always has been a dynamic institution subject to many changes throughout history, and it's only a matter of time until opposing it will be viewed as outdated as opposing miscenegation.
(On a side note, I agree with what some of the other posters have said in that I really wish conservatives would stop using 'but then people will marry their dog! Or their shoes! Or kids!' as valid arguments. Animals, inanimate objects and kids aren't legally allowed to sign marriage papers or have all of the rights that an adult human being, including a gay one, has. Before you'd be allowed to enter into a legal marriage with your dog, it would first have to have the same legal rights as a human adult, and that's not going to happen. Probably ever).
|
Why would you actually oppose gay marriage? I can't see who's the victim?
|
what would happen if straight marriage became a minority?
|
On February 09 2012 22:33 Cubu wrote:
what would happen if straight marriage became a minority?
Not much. Also, I doubt it will happen unless marriage somehow goes out of fashion big time, at which point it hardly matters anymore who gets married and who doesn't.
|
On February 09 2012 22:33 Cubu wrote:
what would happen if straight marriage became a minority?
Well it won't, because on the contrary to popular fundamentalist beliefs, being around gay people DOES NOT make you gay, and the amount of gay people in society is around 10%
The arguments against this just seem to be getting more and more stupid
|
On February 09 2012 22:33 Cubu wrote:
what would happen if straight marriage became a minority?
Hanging around gay people will make you about as gay as hanging around tall people will make you tall.
Edit: 1Eris1, the gay population is usually estimated as being around 1% by conservative media outlets and as about 10% by liberal ones, so the scientific community usually goes with a moderate estimate of 5%. Either way, it doesn't negate your point. Just wanted to point it out.
|
On February 09 2012 12:55 Yosho wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 12:49 bRiz wrote:
Don't know how I feel about this. On one hand, it's a positive answer to a problem being experienced in the GLT community, but I personally prefer to keep marriage between a man and a woman, though I don't think I'd vote for a restriction like that. Just a personal opinion. I wouldn't vote for this to pass but if I would vote to not let is pass. Although even in nature gay animals exist, I feel it's like any other deficiency that people / animals can be born with. One of the sole thing we rely on to define life is reproduction. You cannot do this naturally on gay people. Not to be rude but I don't count this as a step up, but as a step down.
"Not to be rude".
Well, it is rude. Government has never encouraged reproduction via marriage. If they did, we wouldn't allow people incapable of having children to marry, and if we were worried about quality of offspring we wouldn't allow those with genetic disabilities to marry. Such a bogus argument. Furthermore, marriage is not a Christian institution. It's a legal institution (giving legal benefits, and it's discrimination if homosexuals are not allow access to those benefits) and Christianity didn't even come up with the concept. They basically stole it and monopolized its practice.
Anyway, this is fantastic news to hear. I've always been disturbed by the fact that we talk about freedom so much in this country and yet we have so little of it in so many aspects of life.
|
I wonder if polygamy should be allowed.
|
On February 09 2012 23:01 Cheerio wrote:
I wonder if polygamy should be allowed.
I think unlike 'lol then people will marry dogs lololol' this one is actually a valid debate. Probably off-topic in this thread, though. There was a discussion topic on polygamy a while ago on tl.net, if you're interested: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=296092
|
For all those claiming marriage is a religious thing, historically it was a property agreement so it makes no sense to call it religious.
|
It's actually rather ironic that Christians argue that homosexuality is immoral when in fact the Bible offers marriage as a solution to sexual immorality:
1 Corinthians 7:1 It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman. 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Corinthians 7&version=NIV
Those verses pretty much say that sex, in general, is bad. It's actually quite sad how many people still genuinely believe that the Bible is some sort of sacred word of God on which they should base their lives. If you look at the context, these are the types of marriages that occurred and were approved (if not altogether ignored) by their deity:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/HcrGG.jpg)
|
I don't understand why they call it marriage. Marriage is and has always been a union of religion the only reason courts are even involved is because they decided they needed to marry couples for monetary reasons though who arn't religious or wish to not waste time with it (which is the whole point) I don't care if gays wanna "marry" and what not but don't call it marriage there's no major religion of the big 3-5 that advocate gays being wed and in the end that's what this is a religious issue that the government shouldn't have gotten its nose in. I wish gays who wish to be wed would call it something different hopefully they advocate civil unions or calling it something like that because it is not marriage in the traditional sense.
On February 09 2012 23:01 Cheerio wrote:
I wonder if polygamy should be allowed.
If your first wife says ya hell ya hook me up with some polygamy.
|
I grew up Southern Baptist. My mom was a Sunday School teacher and up until my parents divorce when I was 10 I wanted to be a preacher. That said, I've always had a certain amount of uncomfortableness with gay people from my upbringing. Even after leaving the church, no longer believing in god, and getting older I've always been a little on the homophobe side. It's shameful for me to admit though, I've never made fun of nor abused gay people I haven't defended them either. Even after I was married and had my own children I never outgrew it. To this day I still feel uncomfortable around gay people. I've always defended the debate that only Man+Woman=Marriage with no real logical reason for it other than my own upbringing. My older step-brother is gay and it still bothers me. For me, I don't think I'll ever be comfortable with it though I am trying very hard. I know that it's wrong to feel this way that gay=wrong because logically I know that there isn't anything wrong with it. I've tried growing up and acting like I don't care one way or the other. I've made gay friends, listened to their points of view and silently supported their way of life though never openly and even defended people who they have attacked their way of life by saying that they are as much allowed to oppose your way of life as you are to live it. This all changed just a few weeks ago.
My wife and I spend a lot of time with a lesbian couple that live nearby us. They call each other "wife" though they are not legally married. They fight, bicker, argue, and make up just like a "normal" couple. Recently one of them was diagnosed with cancer and started to go through treatment. The very real pain that her "wife" is feeling is very real. It was the first time I felt a real connection with anyone who was gay. I cried with them, tried to console and comfort them, and part way through realized that their relationship is no different than mine. They love, I mean truely deeply love each other on a level that only married people can understand. The pain and shock is no different than if a straight man or woman went through the same thing. It may seem basic or simple to many of you but for me it was a huge shock to realize it. I cried my eyes out, apologized for not giving my more vocal support and basically begged them to forgive me for not giving them a fair shake or taking their "marriage" seriously.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that we are all the same. Gay couples don't love each other any less than straight couples and in fact their relationships are pretty much the exact same. There is no difference at all. I support this bill. I want my kids to grow up and fall in love and get married whether it is a gay or straight marriage, I don't care.
|
The case for polygamy often dies out quickly when you suggest that women should be allowed to marry multiple men. For some reason, no frail male ego can entertain the notion.
I don't understand why they call it marriage. Marriage is and has always been a union of religion the only reason courts are even involved is because they decided they needed to marry couples for monetary reasons though who arn't religious or wish to not waste time with it (which is the whole point) I don't care if gays wanna "marry" and what not but don't call it marriage there's no major religion of the big 3-5 that advocate gays being wed and in the end that's what this is a religious issue that the government shouldn't have gotten its nose in. I wish gays who wish to be wed would call it something different hopefully they advocate civil unions or calling it something like that because it is not marriage in the traditional sense.
But government did get involved.
And the moment that the government started to give perks to being married, it ceased to be a religious ceremony.
Marriage can be religious-only if it has no perks attached to it and was not recognized by the state.
So, kind of like a mormon celestial marriage. Nobody is asking for gays to be allowed to be celestially married.
|
On February 09 2012 23:44 CajunMan wrote:I don't understand why they call it marriage. Marriage is and has always been a union of religion the only reason courts are even involved is because they decided they needed to marry couples for monetary reasons though who arn't religious or wish to not waste time with it (which is the whole point) I don't care if gays wanna "marry" and what not but don't call it marriage there's no major religion of the big 3-5 that advocate gays being wed and in the end that's what this is a religious issue that the government shouldn't have gotten its nose in. I wish gays who wish to be wed would call it something different hopefully they advocate civil unions or calling it something like that because it is not marriage in the traditional sense. Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 23:01 Cheerio wrote:
I wonder if polygamy should be allowed. If your first wife says ya hell ya hook me up with some polygamy.
There are Christians that disagree on this point though. Really all this says is if you don't think gay unions are marriage, then YOU should not get gay married. We do have religious freedom in this country so I can religiously marry whatever I want anyway.
If the word marriage is the only issue, then really your argument comes down to pointlessly insulting the dignity of other peoples relationships. Unless you're arguing that they shouldn't get marriage benefits either.
|
Very good. I fully support everyone's right to express their sexuality as they deem necessary as long as it does not hurt anybody else.
This is a big step forward.
|
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.
If this isn't religious "zealotry" , then i don't know what is..
You talk like your beliefs about God are a fixed state that everyone , even non -believers, must submit too. You talk about the Bible like it are proven facts, while in many people's opinion it is just another book and God doesn't exist.
Do they attack you for your beliefs or deny you in practising them?
Why would you oppose them from marriage then? it's not like are going to, or want to , marry for your "church"'
|
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.
Not trying to derail the thread, but atheism does not imply morals are relative. You can still have moral objectivity, you just have to figure it out. Just because morals arent explicitly said doesnt mean they dont exist. I'm not really sure where this attitude comes from because it just seems like non sequitur to me.
Look up some Sam Harris who suggests that science can actually say a lot about morality.
Edit: not gonna lie MagicMike, your post depressed me. It seems to be a theme that people wont fight for gay marriage unless they are forced to recognize that gays are the same as everyone else. I'm glad you changed your mind, and I hope you'll be more open minded about other things as well.
|
On February 09 2012 23:58 RetroAspect 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. If this isn't religious "zealotry" , then i don't know what is.. You talk like your beliefs about God are a fixed state that everyone , even non -believers, must submit too. You talk about the Bible like it are proven facts, while in many people's opinion it is just another book and God doesn't exist. Do they attack you for your beliefs or deny you in practising them? Why would you oppose them from marriage then? it's not like are going to, or want to , marry for your "church"'
This isn't zealotry at all. What he said is that there is no reason to oppose gay marriage other than religion and if you don't have a religion that you can't really oppose gay marriage.
|
“[Those] who vote against gay marriage are not, nor should they be accused of bigotry. Those of us who support this legislation are not, and we should not be accused of, undermining family life or religious freedom.”
- State Senator Ed Murray, sponsor of bill legalizing gay marriage in Washington State
I think its worth noting the words of Murray (a gay man) before hurling accusations of bigotry, zealotry, fundamentalism etc around.
|
On February 10 2012 00:09 DoubleReed wrote:
Edit: not gonna lie MagicMike, your post depressed me. It seems to be a theme that people wont fight for gay marriage unless they are forced to recognize that gays are the same as everyone else. I'm glad you changed your mind, and I hope you'll be more open minded about other things as well.
Sadly, most people, myself included are largely victims of their upbringing and will never change the ideals their parents raised them with barring drastic occurances in their life.
|
On February 10 2012 00:28 VediVeci wrote:
“[Those] who vote against gay marriage are not, nor should they be accused of bigotry. Those of us who support this legislation are not, and we should not be accused of, undermining family life or religious freedom.”
- State Senator Ed Murray, sponsor of bill legalizing gay marriage in Washington State
I think its worth noting the words of Murray (a gay man) before hurling accusations of bigotry, zealotry, fundamentalism etc around.
At the end of the day, history will call those who opposed gay marriage bigots. Just as history calls those who opposed interracial marriage racists. After reading this discussion, I'm totally okay with that.
|
Faith in America restored hope the rest of the states follow this example!
|
On February 09 2012 23:44 CajunMan wrote:I don't understand why they call it marriage. Marriage is and has always been a union of religion the only reason courts are even involved is because they decided they needed to marry couples for monetary reasons though who arn't religious or wish to not waste time with it (which is the whole point) I don't care if gays wanna "marry" and what not but don't call it marriage there's no major religion of the big 3-5 that advocate gays being wed and in the end that's what this is a religious issue that the government shouldn't have gotten its nose in. I wish gays who wish to be wed would call it something different hopefully they advocate civil unions or calling it something like that because it is not marriage in the traditional sense. Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 23:01 Cheerio wrote:
I wonder if polygamy should be allowed. If your first wife says ya hell ya hook me up with some polygamy.
Historically, marriage has been a legal matter. Religion only monopolized its practice later. It has definitely not always been a religious issue.
|
good step... let people marry so they are happy. no one gets hurt, just more people are happy. why the fuck do people mind so much if other people marry each other. will they go to hell? i just dont understand
|
On February 10 2012 00:49 Rainmaker21 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 00:28 VediVeci wrote:
“[Those] who vote against gay marriage are not, nor should they be accused of bigotry. Those of us who support this legislation are not, and we should not be accused of, undermining family life or religious freedom.”
- State Senator Ed Murray, sponsor of bill legalizing gay marriage in Washington State
I think its worth noting the words of Murray (a gay man) before hurling accusations of bigotry, zealotry, fundamentalism etc around. At the end of the day, history will call those who opposed gay marriage bigots. Just as history calls those who opposed interracial marriage racists. After reading this discussion, I'm totally okay with that.
I think there are two discussions happening simultaneously here. One about gay-rights and one about the exact definition of marriage. If you oppose gay marriage because you think marriage is a heterosexual institution but support an equivalent one for homosexuality, then you are not necessarily bigoted. If you oppose gay marriage because you don't think gays should have rights, then you are (almost certainly) bigoted. I hope history recognizes that nuance, but I am more inclined to think that you're correct.
|
Gays should get marriage benefits, but not the title of marriage, sorry gays.
|
On February 10 2012 01:44 VediVeci wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 00:49 Rainmaker21 wrote:On February 10 2012 00:28 VediVeci wrote:
“[Those] who vote against gay marriage are not, nor should they be accused of bigotry. Those of us who support this legislation are not, and we should not be accused of, undermining family life or religious freedom.”
- State Senator Ed Murray, sponsor of bill legalizing gay marriage in Washington State
I think its worth noting the words of Murray (a gay man) before hurling accusations of bigotry, zealotry, fundamentalism etc around. At the end of the day, history will call those who opposed gay marriage bigots. Just as history calls those who opposed interracial marriage racists. After reading this discussion, I'm totally okay with that. I think there are two discussions happening simultaneously here. One about gay-rights and one about the exact definition of marriage. If you oppose gay marriage because you think marriage is a heterosexual institution but support an equivalent one for homosexuality, then you are not necessarily bigoted. If you oppose gay marriage because you don't think gays should have rights, then you are (almost certainly) bigoted. I hope history recognizes that nuance, but I am more inclined to think that you're correct.
Its still being bigoted because it is someone saying that their definition of marriage should be the one that all other people must live their lives by. Its pushing their views on the personal lives of other people. Religious terms vary a lot from religion to religion. People don't necessarily agree on that definition and people should be allowed to live their lives based on their own definitions of spiritual terms.
Even despite all of this, the term marriage has managed to migrate to government matters as well. There is nothing unnatural or unheard of for a religious term to eventually make its way into non-religious situations. A marriage license is a legal document. Marriage is no longer a religious-exclusive term.
|
On February 10 2012 01:55 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 01:44 VediVeci wrote:On February 10 2012 00:49 Rainmaker21 wrote:On February 10 2012 00:28 VediVeci wrote:
“[Those] who vote against gay marriage are not, nor should they be accused of bigotry. Those of us who support this legislation are not, and we should not be accused of, undermining family life or religious freedom.”
- State Senator Ed Murray, sponsor of bill legalizing gay marriage in Washington State
I think its worth noting the words of Murray (a gay man) before hurling accusations of bigotry, zealotry, fundamentalism etc around. At the end of the day, history will call those who opposed gay marriage bigots. Just as history calls those who opposed interracial marriage racists. After reading this discussion, I'm totally okay with that. I think there are two discussions happening simultaneously here. One about gay-rights and one about the exact definition of marriage. If you oppose gay marriage because you think marriage is a heterosexual institution but support an equivalent one for homosexuality, then you are not necessarily bigoted. If you oppose gay marriage because you don't think gays should have rights, then you are (almost certainly) bigoted. I hope history recognizes that nuance, but I am more inclined to think that you're correct. Its still being bigoted because it is someone saying that their definition of marriage should be the one that all other people must live their lives by. Its pushing their views on the personal lives of other people. Religious terms vary a lot from religion to religion. People don't necessarily agree on that definition and people should be allowed to live their lives based on their own definitions of spiritual terms. Even despite all of this, the term marriage has managed to migrate to government matters as well. There is nothing unnatural or unheard of for a religious term to eventually make its way into non-religious situations. A marriage license is a legal document. Marriage is no longer a religious-exclusive term.
Marriage as a heterosexual institution has been around for thousands of years. It is possible to be simultaneously for preserving the traditional definition of marriage and for giving gays equal rights. If all we are talking about is an issue of semantics (what is the exact definition of marriage), then it isn't an issue of bigotry. You call people from Africa and Asia African and Asian not because they don't have equal rights but because Africa and Asia aren't the same thing. That doesn't mean you are discriminating against either group. It (can be) the same thing with gay rights. If there is an equivalent institution to marriage available to homosexuals, that's not necessarily discriminatory, and those calling for it aren't ipso facto bigoted.
Edited conclusion
|
On February 10 2012 02:04 VediVeci wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 01:55 Mohdoo wrote:On February 10 2012 01:44 VediVeci wrote:On February 10 2012 00:49 Rainmaker21 wrote:On February 10 2012 00:28 VediVeci wrote:
“[Those] who vote against gay marriage are not, nor should they be accused of bigotry. Those of us who support this legislation are not, and we should not be accused of, undermining family life or religious freedom.”
- State Senator Ed Murray, sponsor of bill legalizing gay marriage in Washington State
I think its worth noting the words of Murray (a gay man) before hurling accusations of bigotry, zealotry, fundamentalism etc around. At the end of the day, history will call those who opposed gay marriage bigots. Just as history calls those who opposed interracial marriage racists. After reading this discussion, I'm totally okay with that. I think there are two discussions happening simultaneously here. One about gay-rights and one about the exact definition of marriage. If you oppose gay marriage because you think marriage is a heterosexual institution but support an equivalent one for homosexuality, then you are not necessarily bigoted. If you oppose gay marriage because you don't think gays should have rights, then you are (almost certainly) bigoted. I hope history recognizes that nuance, but I am more inclined to think that you're correct. Its still being bigoted because it is someone saying that their definition of marriage should be the one that all other people must live their lives by. Its pushing their views on the personal lives of other people. Religious terms vary a lot from religion to religion. People don't necessarily agree on that definition and people should be allowed to live their lives based on their own definitions of spiritual terms. Even despite all of this, the term marriage has managed to migrate to government matters as well. There is nothing unnatural or unheard of for a religious term to eventually make its way into non-religious situations. A marriage license is a legal document. Marriage is no longer a religious-exclusive term. Marriage as a heterosexual institution has been around for thousands of years. It is possible to be simultaneously for preserving the traditional definition of marriage and for giving gays equal rights. If all we are talking about is an issue of semantics (what is the exact definition of marriage), then it isn't an issue of bigotry. You call people from Africa and Asia African and Asian not because they don't have equal rights but because Africa and Asia aren't the same thing. That doesn't mean you are discriminating against either group. It (can be) the same thing with gay rights. If there is an equivalent institution to marriage available to homosexuals, that's not necessarily discriminatory, and those calling for it aren't ipso facto bigoted. Edited conclusion
The reason it's bigotry isn't what they want it's why they want it. There are no reasons to be against gay marriage that aren't bigotry at some point.
|
Marriage as a heterosexual institution has been around for thousands of years. It is possible to be simultaneously for preserving the traditional definition of marriage and for giving gays equal rights. If all we are talking about is an issue of semantics (what is the exact definition of marriage), then it isn't an issue of bigotry. You call people from Africa and Asia African and Asian not because they don't have equal rights but because Africa and Asia aren't the same thing. That doesn't mean you are discriminating against either group.
Perhaps not exactly bigoted but definitely authoritarian and theocratic though.
I mean what's the point of calling something different if it's the same. All it does is insult and degrade the dignity of their relationships. Human dignity does count for something in my book.
|
On February 10 2012 01:50 Saltydizzle wrote:
Gays should get marriage benefits, but not the title of marriage, sorry gays.
I don't understand why this bothers you? Why does the title of marriage matter to you... that some gay should not recieve it? Is it a word that dictates hetrosexuality. No. So therefore we should give it to them...
Origins of the word(wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage) : + Show Spoiler +The modern English word "marriage" derives from Middle English mariage, which first appears in 1250–1300 C.E. This in turn is derived from Old French marier (to marry) and ultimately Latin marītāre meaning to provide with a husband or wife and marītāri meaning to get married. (The adjective marīt-us -a, -um meaning matrimonial or nuptial could also be used in the masculine form as a noun for "husband" and in the feminine form for "wife."
- There is no necessary conditions of which both people have to be of opposite sexs.
C'mon, Let's beat this stigma. As a race, we are better than this. It's a rediculious notion not to allow homosexuals marriage, especially for those whose faith does not require stupidity and bigotry. If you're God is not telling you that this is wrong, then don't precieve it to be wrong, you never know, in a billion years time we may have evolved so that homosexuality actually allows reproduction. For what is evolution, random "mutation" followed by natural selection. What if people being born homosexual is just that next step, obviously there are flaws with that concept, but It was just to get you thinking.
If you're God is telling you that it is wrong. Then get a new God.. or even better, non at all. To be honest, anyone against this to me is a bigot, and somebody who needs to look at themselves, and why they have this social stigma. It's not promoting people to go against reproduction (seen that argument in here). Hey, I've got nothing wrong with gay marriage, but it doesn't mean I now like boys... Especially with that argument the biggest problem with stopping reproduction is actually the emancipation of women. The fact that in the 20th and 21st century woman have started to want to get a career and not be a housewife has lead to a lot of marriages leading to having no children at all, or very late. So if you're worried about our species dying out... Well why don't you go chain your wife to the kitchen, make her cook you a sandwhich and then give you babies, but nobody in there right mind these days thinks like that seriously, and it should be the same for homosexuals.
I sigh with relief after reading this thread, seeing that America is slowly becoming a place of rationality and freedom, something it told its people they had on its creation.
I also think the starcraft community especially could learn a lesson or two from not being homophobic, the amount of people, especially on NA server who use "fag" as a BM term... I feel like we're still living in the 50's. But I guess i am not really used to it as normally its just the uneducated here in Britian whom say such things as religion doesn't play as big a role in our country as America.
Sorry for the TL;DR post.
<3 Gay rights.
|
Seperate but equal. Lol.
History really does seem to repeat itself at times.
|
On February 10 2012 02:04 VediVeci wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 01:55 Mohdoo wrote:On February 10 2012 01:44 VediVeci wrote:On February 10 2012 00:49 Rainmaker21 wrote:On February 10 2012 00:28 VediVeci wrote:
“[Those] who vote against gay marriage are not, nor should they be accused of bigotry. Those of us who support this legislation are not, and we should not be accused of, undermining family life or religious freedom.”
- State Senator Ed Murray, sponsor of bill legalizing gay marriage in Washington State
I think its worth noting the words of Murray (a gay man) before hurling accusations of bigotry, zealotry, fundamentalism etc around. At the end of the day, history will call those who opposed gay marriage bigots. Just as history calls those who opposed interracial marriage racists. After reading this discussion, I'm totally okay with that. I think there are two discussions happening simultaneously here. One about gay-rights and one about the exact definition of marriage. If you oppose gay marriage because you think marriage is a heterosexual institution but support an equivalent one for homosexuality, then you are not necessarily bigoted. If you oppose gay marriage because you don't think gays should have rights, then you are (almost certainly) bigoted. I hope history recognizes that nuance, but I am more inclined to think that you're correct. Its still being bigoted because it is someone saying that their definition of marriage should be the one that all other people must live their lives by. Its pushing their views on the personal lives of other people. Religious terms vary a lot from religion to religion. People don't necessarily agree on that definition and people should be allowed to live their lives based on their own definitions of spiritual terms. Even despite all of this, the term marriage has managed to migrate to government matters as well. There is nothing unnatural or unheard of for a religious term to eventually make its way into non-religious situations. A marriage license is a legal document. Marriage is no longer a religious-exclusive term. Marriage as a heterosexual institution has been around for thousands of years. It is possible to be simultaneously for preserving the traditional definition of marriage and for giving gays equal rights. If all we are talking about is an issue of semantics (what is the exact definition of marriage), then it isn't an issue of bigotry. You call people from Africa and Asia African and Asian not because they don't have equal rights but because Africa and Asia aren't the same thing. That doesn't mean you are discriminating against either group. It (can be) the same thing with gay rights. If there is an equivalent institution to marriage available to homosexuals, that's not necessarily discriminatory, and those calling for it aren't ipso facto bigoted. Edited conclusion
It being around for thousands of years as a form of reasoning is an appeal to tradition, which is a logical fallacy. You can't use that in an argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition
There was also opposition to blood transfusions and pain medications in the past because it was considered playing god. It was too big of a change from how things used to be, but that isn't a good reason. Your example of African vs Asian is not comparable because its not like we would fight to refer to them as that. If Africans wanted to be known as something else, we wouldn't fight it. Sure, call yourselves whatever you want. What outlawing gay marriage does is remove someone's capability to recognize their personal relationship as what they wish to.
Legal recognition is also seen as a sign of respect and acceptance, which is of course important to someone. Obviously a lack of legal recognition is a sign of the opposite when legal recognition is given to others. I'm not homosexual, so I can't give a first hand account, but I would imagine it feels very secluded/shunned and disrespectful to be told your expression of love is not legally recognized, while most people you know have no such problems.
|
United States5162 Posts
Personally, I think they should get the word marriage out of government completely. If you want to get married, go to a church. If you want to be recognized by the government, go to a courthouse.
|
On February 09 2012 23:55 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 23:44 CajunMan wrote:I don't understand why they call it marriage. Marriage is and has always been a union of religion the only reason courts are even involved is because they decided they needed to marry couples for monetary reasons though who arn't religious or wish to not waste time with it (which is the whole point) I don't care if gays wanna "marry" and what not but don't call it marriage there's no major religion of the big 3-5 that advocate gays being wed and in the end that's what this is a religious issue that the government shouldn't have gotten its nose in. I wish gays who wish to be wed would call it something different hopefully they advocate civil unions or calling it something like that because it is not marriage in the traditional sense. On February 09 2012 23:01 Cheerio wrote:
I wonder if polygamy should be allowed. If your first wife says ya hell ya hook me up with some polygamy. There are Christians that disagree on this point though. Really all this says is if you don't think gay unions are marriage, then YOU should not get gay married. We do have religious freedom in this country so I can religiously marry whatever I want anyway. If the word marriage is the only issue, then really your argument comes down to pointlessly insulting the dignity of other peoples relationships. Unless you're arguing that they shouldn't get marriage benefits either.
but thats not the point he has. How many gay people arn't religious and don't want to be religiously married? a lot of Christians see it as them giveing the whole church the middle finger for no reason and thats why people fight it so much.
|
On February 09 2012 22:03 Cubu wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 20:39 Paperplane wrote:On February 09 2012 20:25 Cubu wrote:
Marriage is a formal union between a man and WOman. It really takes the integrity of marriage away. Says who? God? Sorry but marriage existed way before christianity. Yeah but the one in the law is based on christianity's version of marriage.
and marriage was a property contract before it became a religious thing.
|
On February 10 2012 02:04 VediVeci wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 01:55 Mohdoo wrote:On February 10 2012 01:44 VediVeci wrote:On February 10 2012 00:49 Rainmaker21 wrote:On February 10 2012 00:28 VediVeci wrote:
“[Those] who vote against gay marriage are not, nor should they be accused of bigotry. Those of us who support this legislation are not, and we should not be accused of, undermining family life or religious freedom.”
- State Senator Ed Murray, sponsor of bill legalizing gay marriage in Washington State
I think its worth noting the words of Murray (a gay man) before hurling accusations of bigotry, zealotry, fundamentalism etc around. At the end of the day, history will call those who opposed gay marriage bigots. Just as history calls those who opposed interracial marriage racists. After reading this discussion, I'm totally okay with that. I think there are two discussions happening simultaneously here. One about gay-rights and one about the exact definition of marriage. If you oppose gay marriage because you think marriage is a heterosexual institution but support an equivalent one for homosexuality, then you are not necessarily bigoted. If you oppose gay marriage because you don't think gays should have rights, then you are (almost certainly) bigoted. I hope history recognizes that nuance, but I am more inclined to think that you're correct. Its still being bigoted because it is someone saying that their definition of marriage should be the one that all other people must live their lives by. Its pushing their views on the personal lives of other people. Religious terms vary a lot from religion to religion. People don't necessarily agree on that definition and people should be allowed to live their lives based on their own definitions of spiritual terms. Even despite all of this, the term marriage has managed to migrate to government matters as well. There is nothing unnatural or unheard of for a religious term to eventually make its way into non-religious situations. A marriage license is a legal document. Marriage is no longer a religious-exclusive term. Marriage as a heterosexual institution has been around for thousands of years. It is possible to be simultaneously for preserving the traditional definition of marriage and for giving gays equal rights. If all we are talking about is an issue of semantics (what is the exact definition of marriage), then it isn't an issue of bigotry. You call people from Africa and Asia African and Asian not because they don't have equal rights but because Africa and Asia aren't the same thing. That doesn't mean you are discriminating against either group. It (can be) the same thing with gay rights. If there is an equivalent institution to marriage available to homosexuals, that's not necessarily discriminatory, and those calling for it aren't ipso facto bigoted. Edited conclusion
Let me ask you this then - and also to all the other Christians in this thread who claim not to be bigoted: Would you be opposed to marriage for gay people being called 'gay marriages' instead of 'civil unions' then? So like being called Asian-American instead of American, you get gay married instead of just married.
|
On February 10 2012 02:12 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 02:04 VediVeci wrote:On February 10 2012 01:55 Mohdoo wrote:On February 10 2012 01:44 VediVeci wrote:On February 10 2012 00:49 Rainmaker21 wrote:On February 10 2012 00:28 VediVeci wrote:
“[Those] who vote against gay marriage are not, nor should they be accused of bigotry. Those of us who support this legislation are not, and we should not be accused of, undermining family life or religious freedom.”
- State Senator Ed Murray, sponsor of bill legalizing gay marriage in Washington State
I think its worth noting the words of Murray (a gay man) before hurling accusations of bigotry, zealotry, fundamentalism etc around. At the end of the day, history will call those who opposed gay marriage bigots. Just as history calls those who opposed interracial marriage racists. After reading this discussion, I'm totally okay with that. I think there are two discussions happening simultaneously here. One about gay-rights and one about the exact definition of marriage. If you oppose gay marriage because you think marriage is a heterosexual institution but support an equivalent one for homosexuality, then you are not necessarily bigoted. If you oppose gay marriage because you don't think gays should have rights, then you are (almost certainly) bigoted. I hope history recognizes that nuance, but I am more inclined to think that you're correct. Its still being bigoted because it is someone saying that their definition of marriage should be the one that all other people must live their lives by. Its pushing their views on the personal lives of other people. Religious terms vary a lot from religion to religion. People don't necessarily agree on that definition and people should be allowed to live their lives based on their own definitions of spiritual terms. Even despite all of this, the term marriage has managed to migrate to government matters as well. There is nothing unnatural or unheard of for a religious term to eventually make its way into non-religious situations. A marriage license is a legal document. Marriage is no longer a religious-exclusive term. Marriage as a heterosexual institution has been around for thousands of years. It is possible to be simultaneously for preserving the traditional definition of marriage and for giving gays equal rights. If all we are talking about is an issue of semantics (what is the exact definition of marriage), then it isn't an issue of bigotry. You call people from Africa and Asia African and Asian not because they don't have equal rights but because Africa and Asia aren't the same thing. That doesn't mean you are discriminating against either group. It (can be) the same thing with gay rights. If there is an equivalent institution to marriage available to homosexuals, that's not necessarily discriminatory, and those calling for it aren't ipso facto bigoted. Edited conclusion It being around for thousands of years as a form of reasoning is an appeal to tradition, which is a logical fallacy. You can't use that in an argument. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_traditionThere was also opposition to blood transfusions and pain medications in the past because it was considered playing god. It was too big of a change from how things used to be, but that isn't a good reason. Your example of African vs Asian is not comparable because its not like we would fight to refer to them as that. If Africans wanted to be known as something else, we wouldn't fight it. Sure, call yourselves whatever you want. What outlawing gay marriage does is remove someone's capability to recognize their personal relationship as what they wish to. Legal recognition is also seen as a sign of respect and acceptance, which is of course important to someone. Obviously a lack of legal recognition is a sign of the opposite when legal recognition is given to others. I'm not homosexual, so I can't give a first hand account, but I would imagine it feels very secluded/shunned and disrespectful to be told your expression of love is not legally recognized, while most people you know have no such problems.
The African/Asian thing is comparable in some ways. We don't let Asians say they are African or Native American on college applications, even though they might like too, because we recognize that these things aren't the same. But those categorizations are not meant to demean, belittle, or persecute on group, they just help differentiate so that we can make more precise statements etc. The same could be argued about marriage as a heterosexual institution and something else as a homosexual one, which would also be legally recognized.
|
On February 10 2012 02:24 Greater Spire wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 02:04 VediVeci wrote:On February 10 2012 01:55 Mohdoo wrote:On February 10 2012 01:44 VediVeci wrote:On February 10 2012 00:49 Rainmaker21 wrote:On February 10 2012 00:28 VediVeci wrote:
“[Those] who vote against gay marriage are not, nor should they be accused of bigotry. Those of us who support this legislation are not, and we should not be accused of, undermining family life or religious freedom.”
- State Senator Ed Murray, sponsor of bill legalizing gay marriage in Washington State
I think its worth noting the words of Murray (a gay man) before hurling accusations of bigotry, zealotry, fundamentalism etc around. At the end of the day, history will call those who opposed gay marriage bigots. Just as history calls those who opposed interracial marriage racists. After reading this discussion, I'm totally okay with that. I think there are two discussions happening simultaneously here. One about gay-rights and one about the exact definition of marriage. If you oppose gay marriage because you think marriage is a heterosexual institution but support an equivalent one for homosexuality, then you are not necessarily bigoted. If you oppose gay marriage because you don't think gays should have rights, then you are (almost certainly) bigoted. I hope history recognizes that nuance, but I am more inclined to think that you're correct. Its still being bigoted because it is someone saying that their definition of marriage should be the one that all other people must live their lives by. Its pushing their views on the personal lives of other people. Religious terms vary a lot from religion to religion. People don't necessarily agree on that definition and people should be allowed to live their lives based on their own definitions of spiritual terms. Even despite all of this, the term marriage has managed to migrate to government matters as well. There is nothing unnatural or unheard of for a religious term to eventually make its way into non-religious situations. A marriage license is a legal document. Marriage is no longer a religious-exclusive term. Marriage as a heterosexual institution has been around for thousands of years. It is possible to be simultaneously for preserving the traditional definition of marriage and for giving gays equal rights. If all we are talking about is an issue of semantics (what is the exact definition of marriage), then it isn't an issue of bigotry. You call people from Africa and Asia African and Asian not because they don't have equal rights but because Africa and Asia aren't the same thing. That doesn't mean you are discriminating against either group. It (can be) the same thing with gay rights. If there is an equivalent institution to marriage available to homosexuals, that's not necessarily discriminatory, and those calling for it aren't ipso facto bigoted. Edited conclusion Let me ask you this then - and also to all the other Christians in this thread who claim not to be bigoted: Would you be opposed to marriage for gay people being called 'gay marriages' instead of 'civil unions' then? So like being called Asian-American instead of American, you get gay married instead of just married.
Of course not. thats the biggest thing about it. Christians feel threatened by all these people who want to take something thats special to them and force them to accept that it doesn't mean anything and that they should feel bad for ever thinking that it was something that they liked. If it had any name other then marriage it wouldn't have been a problem but the gay rights movement keep trying to poke the religious right and constantly try and fight them. Thats why black people who supported civil rights in the day don't support gay marriage.
People keep asking like the Christians are being a dick in this case but they arn't trying to change anything. being against something and talking about it is freedom of speech but forcing things on people is just bad. its real funny how you can assume the moral high ground when you are calling everyone else bigots.
|
On February 10 2012 02:27 VediVeci wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 02:12 Mohdoo wrote:On February 10 2012 02:04 VediVeci wrote:On February 10 2012 01:55 Mohdoo wrote:On February 10 2012 01:44 VediVeci wrote:On February 10 2012 00:49 Rainmaker21 wrote:On February 10 2012 00:28 VediVeci wrote:
“[Those] who vote against gay marriage are not, nor should they be accused of bigotry. Those of us who support this legislation are not, and we should not be accused of, undermining family life or religious freedom.”
- State Senator Ed Murray, sponsor of bill legalizing gay marriage in Washington State
I think its worth noting the words of Murray (a gay man) before hurling accusations of bigotry, zealotry, fundamentalism etc around. At the end of the day, history will call those who opposed gay marriage bigots. Just as history calls those who opposed interracial marriage racists. After reading this discussion, I'm totally okay with that. I think there are two discussions happening simultaneously here. One about gay-rights and one about the exact definition of marriage. If you oppose gay marriage because you think marriage is a heterosexual institution but support an equivalent one for homosexuality, then you are not necessarily bigoted. If you oppose gay marriage because you don't think gays should have rights, then you are (almost certainly) bigoted. I hope history recognizes that nuance, but I am more inclined to think that you're correct. Its still being bigoted because it is someone saying that their definition of marriage should be the one that all other people must live their lives by. Its pushing their views on the personal lives of other people. Religious terms vary a lot from religion to religion. People don't necessarily agree on that definition and people should be allowed to live their lives based on their own definitions of spiritual terms. Even despite all of this, the term marriage has managed to migrate to government matters as well. There is nothing unnatural or unheard of for a religious term to eventually make its way into non-religious situations. A marriage license is a legal document. Marriage is no longer a religious-exclusive term. Marriage as a heterosexual institution has been around for thousands of years. It is possible to be simultaneously for preserving the traditional definition of marriage and for giving gays equal rights. If all we are talking about is an issue of semantics (what is the exact definition of marriage), then it isn't an issue of bigotry. You call people from Africa and Asia African and Asian not because they don't have equal rights but because Africa and Asia aren't the same thing. That doesn't mean you are discriminating against either group. It (can be) the same thing with gay rights. If there is an equivalent institution to marriage available to homosexuals, that's not necessarily discriminatory, and those calling for it aren't ipso facto bigoted. Edited conclusion It being around for thousands of years as a form of reasoning is an appeal to tradition, which is a logical fallacy. You can't use that in an argument. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_traditionThere was also opposition to blood transfusions and pain medications in the past because it was considered playing god. It was too big of a change from how things used to be, but that isn't a good reason. Your example of African vs Asian is not comparable because its not like we would fight to refer to them as that. If Africans wanted to be known as something else, we wouldn't fight it. Sure, call yourselves whatever you want. What outlawing gay marriage does is remove someone's capability to recognize their personal relationship as what they wish to. Legal recognition is also seen as a sign of respect and acceptance, which is of course important to someone. Obviously a lack of legal recognition is a sign of the opposite when legal recognition is given to others. I'm not homosexual, so I can't give a first hand account, but I would imagine it feels very secluded/shunned and disrespectful to be told your expression of love is not legally recognized, while most people you know have no such problems. The African/Asian thing is comparable in some ways. We don't let Asians say they are African or Native American on college applications, even though they might like too, because we recognize that these things aren't the same. But those categorizations are not meant to demean, belittle, or persecute on group, they just help differentiate so that we can make more precise statements etc. The same could be argued about marriage as a heterosexual institution and something else as a homosexual one, which would also be legally recognized.
We allow Asians to say they are Americans if they have American citizenship. Ethnicity is something they are born with. Marriage is a contract granted by the law, just as citizenship is a right granted by your nation of birth. A gay person cannot say they are straight. But they should be allowed to say they are married.
|
On February 10 2012 02:30 sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 02:24 Greater Spire wrote:On February 10 2012 02:04 VediVeci wrote:On February 10 2012 01:55 Mohdoo wrote:On February 10 2012 01:44 VediVeci wrote:On February 10 2012 00:49 Rainmaker21 wrote:On February 10 2012 00:28 VediVeci wrote:
“[Those] who vote against gay marriage are not, nor should they be accused of bigotry. Those of us who support this legislation are not, and we should not be accused of, undermining family life or religious freedom.”
- State Senator Ed Murray, sponsor of bill legalizing gay marriage in Washington State
I think its worth noting the words of Murray (a gay man) before hurling accusations of bigotry, zealotry, fundamentalism etc around. At the end of the day, history will call those who opposed gay marriage bigots. Just as history calls those who opposed interracial marriage racists. After reading this discussion, I'm totally okay with that. I think there are two discussions happening simultaneously here. One about gay-rights and one about the exact definition of marriage. If you oppose gay marriage because you think marriage is a heterosexual institution but support an equivalent one for homosexuality, then you are not necessarily bigoted. If you oppose gay marriage because you don't think gays should have rights, then you are (almost certainly) bigoted. I hope history recognizes that nuance, but I am more inclined to think that you're correct. Its still being bigoted because it is someone saying that their definition of marriage should be the one that all other people must live their lives by. Its pushing their views on the personal lives of other people. Religious terms vary a lot from religion to religion. People don't necessarily agree on that definition and people should be allowed to live their lives based on their own definitions of spiritual terms. Even despite all of this, the term marriage has managed to migrate to government matters as well. There is nothing unnatural or unheard of for a religious term to eventually make its way into non-religious situations. A marriage license is a legal document. Marriage is no longer a religious-exclusive term. Marriage as a heterosexual institution has been around for thousands of years. It is possible to be simultaneously for preserving the traditional definition of marriage and for giving gays equal rights. If all we are talking about is an issue of semantics (what is the exact definition of marriage), then it isn't an issue of bigotry. You call people from Africa and Asia African and Asian not because they don't have equal rights but because Africa and Asia aren't the same thing. That doesn't mean you are discriminating against either group. It (can be) the same thing with gay rights. If there is an equivalent institution to marriage available to homosexuals, that's not necessarily discriminatory, and those calling for it aren't ipso facto bigoted. Edited conclusion Let me ask you this then - and also to all the other Christians in this thread who claim not to be bigoted: Would you be opposed to marriage for gay people being called 'gay marriages' instead of 'civil unions' then? So like being called Asian-American instead of American, you get gay married instead of just married. Of course not. thats the biggest thing about it. Christians feel threatened by all these people who want to take something thats special to them and force them to accept that it doesn't mean anything and that they should feel bad for ever thinking that it was something that they liked. If it had any name other then marriage it wouldn't have been a problem but the gay rights movement keep trying to poke the religious right and constantly try and fight them. Thats why black people who supported civil rights in the day don't support gay marriage. People keep asking like the Christians are being a dick in this case but they arn't trying to change anything. being against something and talking about it is freedom of speech but forcing things on people is just bad. its real funny how you can assume the moral high ground when you are calling everyone else bigots.
Wha wha wha? How is legalising marriage for homosexuals forcing it upon anyone? And why are you comparing it to civil rights for blacks? We grant them equal citizenship - this is not forcing black rights upon white people who are racist, just as giving gay people equal rights would not be forcing gay rights upon Christians who are bigots.
|
On February 10 2012 02:27 VediVeci wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 02:12 Mohdoo wrote:On February 10 2012 02:04 VediVeci wrote:On February 10 2012 01:55 Mohdoo wrote:On February 10 2012 01:44 VediVeci wrote:On February 10 2012 00:49 Rainmaker21 wrote:On February 10 2012 00:28 VediVeci wrote:
“[Those] who vote against gay marriage are not, nor should they be accused of bigotry. Those of us who support this legislation are not, and we should not be accused of, undermining family life or religious freedom.”
- State Senator Ed Murray, sponsor of bill legalizing gay marriage in Washington State
I think its worth noting the words of Murray (a gay man) before hurling accusations of bigotry, zealotry, fundamentalism etc around. At the end of the day, history will call those who opposed gay marriage bigots. Just as history calls those who opposed interracial marriage racists. After reading this discussion, I'm totally okay with that. I think there are two discussions happening simultaneously here. One about gay-rights and one about the exact definition of marriage. If you oppose gay marriage because you think marriage is a heterosexual institution but support an equivalent one for homosexuality, then you are not necessarily bigoted. If you oppose gay marriage because you don't think gays should have rights, then you are (almost certainly) bigoted. I hope history recognizes that nuance, but I am more inclined to think that you're correct. Its still being bigoted because it is someone saying that their definition of marriage should be the one that all other people must live their lives by. Its pushing their views on the personal lives of other people. Religious terms vary a lot from religion to religion. People don't necessarily agree on that definition and people should be allowed to live their lives based on their own definitions of spiritual terms. Even despite all of this, the term marriage has managed to migrate to government matters as well. There is nothing unnatural or unheard of for a religious term to eventually make its way into non-religious situations. A marriage license is a legal document. Marriage is no longer a religious-exclusive term. Marriage as a heterosexual institution has been around for thousands of years. It is possible to be simultaneously for preserving the traditional definition of marriage and for giving gays equal rights. If all we are talking about is an issue of semantics (what is the exact definition of marriage), then it isn't an issue of bigotry. You call people from Africa and Asia African and Asian not because they don't have equal rights but because Africa and Asia aren't the same thing. That doesn't mean you are discriminating against either group. It (can be) the same thing with gay rights. If there is an equivalent institution to marriage available to homosexuals, that's not necessarily discriminatory, and those calling for it aren't ipso facto bigoted. Edited conclusion It being around for thousands of years as a form of reasoning is an appeal to tradition, which is a logical fallacy. You can't use that in an argument. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_traditionThere was also opposition to blood transfusions and pain medications in the past because it was considered playing god. It was too big of a change from how things used to be, but that isn't a good reason. Your example of African vs Asian is not comparable because its not like we would fight to refer to them as that. If Africans wanted to be known as something else, we wouldn't fight it. Sure, call yourselves whatever you want. What outlawing gay marriage does is remove someone's capability to recognize their personal relationship as what they wish to. Legal recognition is also seen as a sign of respect and acceptance, which is of course important to someone. Obviously a lack of legal recognition is a sign of the opposite when legal recognition is given to others. I'm not homosexual, so I can't give a first hand account, but I would imagine it feels very secluded/shunned and disrespectful to be told your expression of love is not legally recognized, while most people you know have no such problems. The African/Asian thing is comparable in some ways. We don't let Asians say they are African or Native American on college applications, even though they might like too, because we recognize that these things aren't the same. But those categorizations are not meant to demean, belittle, or persecute on group, they just help differentiate so that we can make more precise statements etc. The same could be argued about marriage as a heterosexual institution and something else as a homosexual one, which would also be legally recognized.
They can't change genetics, but they can change the name. If Asians as a whole wanted to change their name to...Pineapple, we wouldn't think we have the right to say "No, ASIAN people, you can not change your name. You have to be called Asian, because that's what we've been calling you for thousands of years". Similarly, we shouldn't care what gay people call their love-life. We are taking away their right to label an aspect of their life. We're not taking anything away from everyone else. This is simply a case of one group of people wanting other groups to conform to their opinions. Obviously there are cases where this is unavoidable, in the case of taxes, war, etc. But I would classify someone's personal love life as very independent and not an instance where it is appropriate to command others.
Its like this:
Person 1 and 2: hey, government, can you call us, person 1 and 2 this word?
Person 5: NO! NO, GOVERNMENT DO NOT CALL THEM THAT
Government: Sorry, person 1 and 2, but person 5 doesn't want me to call you that.
|
On February 10 2012 02:34 Greater Spire wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 02:30 sermokala wrote:On February 10 2012 02:24 Greater Spire wrote:On February 10 2012 02:04 VediVeci wrote:On February 10 2012 01:55 Mohdoo wrote:On February 10 2012 01:44 VediVeci wrote:On February 10 2012 00:49 Rainmaker21 wrote:On February 10 2012 00:28 VediVeci wrote:
“[Those] who vote against gay marriage are not, nor should they be accused of bigotry. Those of us who support this legislation are not, and we should not be accused of, undermining family life or religious freedom.”
- State Senator Ed Murray, sponsor of bill legalizing gay marriage in Washington State
I think its worth noting the words of Murray (a gay man) before hurling accusations of bigotry, zealotry, fundamentalism etc around. At the end of the day, history will call those who opposed gay marriage bigots. Just as history calls those who opposed interracial marriage racists. After reading this discussion, I'm totally okay with that. I think there are two discussions happening simultaneously here. One about gay-rights and one about the exact definition of marriage. If you oppose gay marriage because you think marriage is a heterosexual institution but support an equivalent one for homosexuality, then you are not necessarily bigoted. If you oppose gay marriage because you don't think gays should have rights, then you are (almost certainly) bigoted. I hope history recognizes that nuance, but I am more inclined to think that you're correct. Its still being bigoted because it is someone saying that their definition of marriage should be the one that all other people must live their lives by. Its pushing their views on the personal lives of other people. Religious terms vary a lot from religion to religion. People don't necessarily agree on that definition and people should be allowed to live their lives based on their own definitions of spiritual terms. Even despite all of this, the term marriage has managed to migrate to government matters as well. There is nothing unnatural or unheard of for a religious term to eventually make its way into non-religious situations. A marriage license is a legal document. Marriage is no longer a religious-exclusive term. Marriage as a heterosexual institution has been around for thousands of years. It is possible to be simultaneously for preserving the traditional definition of marriage and for giving gays equal rights. If all we are talking about is an issue of semantics (what is the exact definition of marriage), then it isn't an issue of bigotry. You call people from Africa and Asia African and Asian not because they don't have equal rights but because Africa and Asia aren't the same thing. That doesn't mean you are discriminating against either group. It (can be) the same thing with gay rights. If there is an equivalent institution to marriage available to homosexuals, that's not necessarily discriminatory, and those calling for it aren't ipso facto bigoted. Edited conclusion Let me ask you this then - and also to all the other Christians in this thread who claim not to be bigoted: Would you be opposed to marriage for gay people being called 'gay marriages' instead of 'civil unions' then? So like being called Asian-American instead of American, you get gay married instead of just married. Of course not. thats the biggest thing about it. Christians feel threatened by all these people who want to take something thats special to them and force them to accept that it doesn't mean anything and that they should feel bad for ever thinking that it was something that they liked. If it had any name other then marriage it wouldn't have been a problem but the gay rights movement keep trying to poke the religious right and constantly try and fight them. Thats why black people who supported civil rights in the day don't support gay marriage. People keep asking like the Christians are being a dick in this case but they arn't trying to change anything. being against something and talking about it is freedom of speech but forcing things on people is just bad. its real funny how you can assume the moral high ground when you are calling everyone else bigots. Wha wha wha? How is legalising marriage for homosexuals forcing it upon anyone? And why are you comparing it to civil rights for blacks? We grant them equal citizenship - this is not forcing black rights upon white people who are racist, just as giving gay people equal rights would not be forcing gay rights upon Christians who are bigots.
Its not legalizing marriage its the state recognizable it as equal. The only thing that gays give a shit about marriage is the name of it and what it does. They don't care at all about the religious significance of it so why should they feel the need to force that they are called married?
Its a civil rights issue, thats really not something that needs to be explained. And again stop calling christians bigots and expecting that you keep the moral high ground. Thats another big problem I have with the movement. you don't get to automatically assume that everyone thinks you're right.
|
This board is very, very liberal, and I'm super liberal too, but a friend brought up a good question.
What is your definition of marriage? Personally, I am opposed to banning gay marriages ONLY because it takes away from their basic rights - right every couple gets when they marry. Even partial rights given to gay unions I oppose because I feel they should have full rights.
However, I am opposed to terming a union between two men or two women a "marriage". To me, the word is so specific - a union between a man and a women - that I can't imagine myself labeling the union of two men or two women a "marriage".
I'll probably get alot of flak for this, but that's just my opinion.
tl;dr
I support giving gay unions full rights given to married couples, but oppose calling gay unions "marriage".
|
People keep asking like the Christians are being a dick in this case but they arn't trying to change anything. being against something and talking about it is freedom of speech but forcing things on people is just bad. its real funny how you can assume the moral high ground when you are calling everyone else bigots.
What? Is calling someone a bigot who is a bigot immoral?
Freedom of speech? No one saying you're not allowed to have your views. We're condemning you for your views. That's how freedom of speech works. Nazis can say whatever they want and nonNazis call them out on their bullshit. There's no issue with freedom of speech here.
I don't understand how christians are being attacked by this. What changes about their lives at all?? I don't understand how you can use the law to impose your beliefs on others and then play the victim!! Oh no you poor Christians! Not being able to enforce your power on others! Woe is you!! I can only imagine the torment!
|
+ Show Spoiler +On February 10 2012 02:24 Greater Spire wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 02:04 VediVeci wrote:On February 10 2012 01:55 Mohdoo wrote:On February 10 2012 01:44 VediVeci wrote:On February 10 2012 00:49 Rainmaker21 wrote:On February 10 2012 00:28 VediVeci wrote:
“[Those] who vote against gay marriage are not, nor should they be accused of bigotry. Those of us who support this legislation are not, and we should not be accused of, undermining family life or religious freedom.”
- State Senator Ed Murray, sponsor of bill legalizing gay marriage in Washington State
I think its worth noting the words of Murray (a gay man) before hurling accusations of bigotry, zealotry, fundamentalism etc around. At the end of the day, history will call those who opposed gay marriage bigots. Just as history calls those who opposed interracial marriage racists. After reading this discussion, I'm totally okay with that. I think there are two discussions happening simultaneously here. One about gay-rights and one about the exact definition of marriage. If you oppose gay marriage because you think marriage is a heterosexual institution but support an equivalent one for homosexuality, then you are not necessarily bigoted. If you oppose gay marriage because you don't think gays should have rights, then you are (almost certainly) bigoted. I hope history recognizes that nuance, but I am more inclined to think that you're correct. Its still being bigoted because it is someone saying that their definition of marriage should be the one that all other people must live their lives by. Its pushing their views on the personal lives of other people. Religious terms vary a lot from religion to religion. People don't necessarily agree on that definition and people should be allowed to live their lives based on their own definitions of spiritual terms. Even despite all of this, the term marriage has managed to migrate to government matters as well. There is nothing unnatural or unheard of for a religious term to eventually make its way into non-religious situations. A marriage license is a legal document. Marriage is no longer a religious-exclusive term. Marriage as a heterosexual institution has been around for thousands of years. It is possible to be simultaneously for preserving the traditional definition of marriage and for giving gays equal rights. If all we are talking about is an issue of semantics (what is the exact definition of marriage), then it isn't an issue of bigotry. You call people from Africa and Asia African and Asian not because they don't have equal rights but because Africa and Asia aren't the same thing. That doesn't mean you are discriminating against either group. It (can be) the same thing with gay rights. If there is an equivalent institution to marriage available to homosexuals, that's not necessarily discriminatory, and those calling for it aren't ipso facto bigoted. Edited conclusion Let me ask you this then - and also to all the other Christians in this thread who claim not to be bigoted: Would you be opposed to marriage for gay people being called 'gay marriages' instead of 'civil unions' then? So like being called Asian-American instead of American, you get gay married instead of just married.
I'm pretty sure Christians are opposed to gay relationships/marriage in general, as the Bible calls homosexuality imooral, an abomination. And to recognize the union of two same gender through marriage means that Christianity acknowledges and accepts homosexuals on equal footings of heterosexuals.
I think the whole issue on gay marriage is ridiculous. People have a right to be happy and i thought only God can judge them? I dont see so-called Christians fightig as intently for the sanctity of marriage by combating divorce and pre-marital sex. The purpose of a marriage is to raise a child through a good environment. I don't see straight couples raising regular saints.
|
On February 10 2012 02:40 sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 02:34 Greater Spire wrote:On February 10 2012 02:30 sermokala wrote:On February 10 2012 02:24 Greater Spire wrote:On February 10 2012 02:04 VediVeci wrote:On February 10 2012 01:55 Mohdoo wrote:On February 10 2012 01:44 VediVeci wrote:On February 10 2012 00:49 Rainmaker21 wrote:On February 10 2012 00:28 VediVeci wrote:
“[Those] who vote against gay marriage are not, nor should they be accused of bigotry. Those of us who support this legislation are not, and we should not be accused of, undermining family life or religious freedom.”
- State Senator Ed Murray, sponsor of bill legalizing gay marriage in Washington State
I think its worth noting the words of Murray (a gay man) before hurling accusations of bigotry, zealotry, fundamentalism etc around. At the end of the day, history will call those who opposed gay marriage bigots. Just as history calls those who opposed interracial marriage racists. After reading this discussion, I'm totally okay with that. I think there are two discussions happening simultaneously here. One about gay-rights and one about the exact definition of marriage. If you oppose gay marriage because you think marriage is a heterosexual institution but support an equivalent one for homosexuality, then you are not necessarily bigoted. If you oppose gay marriage because you don't think gays should have rights, then you are (almost certainly) bigoted. I hope history recognizes that nuance, but I am more inclined to think that you're correct. Its still being bigoted because it is someone saying that their definition of marriage should be the one that all other people must live their lives by. Its pushing their views on the personal lives of other people. Religious terms vary a lot from religion to religion. People don't necessarily agree on that definition and people should be allowed to live their lives based on their own definitions of spiritual terms. Even despite all of this, the term marriage has managed to migrate to government matters as well. There is nothing unnatural or unheard of for a religious term to eventually make its way into non-religious situations. A marriage license is a legal document. Marriage is no longer a religious-exclusive term. Marriage as a heterosexual institution has been around for thousands of years. It is possible to be simultaneously for preserving the traditional definition of marriage and for giving gays equal rights. If all we are talking about is an issue of semantics (what is the exact definition of marriage), then it isn't an issue of bigotry. You call people from Africa and Asia African and Asian not because they don't have equal rights but because Africa and Asia aren't the same thing. That doesn't mean you are discriminating against either group. It (can be) the same thing with gay rights. If there is an equivalent institution to marriage available to homosexuals, that's not necessarily discriminatory, and those calling for it aren't ipso facto bigoted. Edited conclusion Let me ask you this then - and also to all the other Christians in this thread who claim not to be bigoted: Would you be opposed to marriage for gay people being called 'gay marriages' instead of 'civil unions' then? So like being called Asian-American instead of American, you get gay married instead of just married. Of course not. thats the biggest thing about it. Christians feel threatened by all these people who want to take something thats special to them and force them to accept that it doesn't mean anything and that they should feel bad for ever thinking that it was something that they liked. If it had any name other then marriage it wouldn't have been a problem but the gay rights movement keep trying to poke the religious right and constantly try and fight them. Thats why black people who supported civil rights in the day don't support gay marriage. People keep asking like the Christians are being a dick in this case but they arn't trying to change anything. being against something and talking about it is freedom of speech but forcing things on people is just bad. its real funny how you can assume the moral high ground when you are calling everyone else bigots. Wha wha wha? How is legalising marriage for homosexuals forcing it upon anyone? And why are you comparing it to civil rights for blacks? We grant them equal citizenship - this is not forcing black rights upon white people who are racist, just as giving gay people equal rights would not be forcing gay rights upon Christians who are bigots. Its not legalizing marriage its the state recognizable it as equal. The only thing that gays give a shit about marriage is the name of it and what it does. They don't care at all about the religious significance of it so why should they feel the need to force that they are called married?
The term "marriage" is so deeply intertwined with every day life that it would be silly to call it something else for a small group of people. If you'd have a separate term for gay-marriage, how do you refer to your civil-union-partner? Husband? When defining your relationship status, are you single, in a relationship, married or... what? civil-unified? Gay-married?
If you're going to use a separate term for the bonding of two people for the government, then apply it to everyone: gay and straight alike. Civil unions for all.
However, marriage is not solely a religious matter. It's a legal concept first. Christians hijacked it and are now claiming it for their own. That's cool, but don't come stampeding in when the legal concept is being extended to something that might not suit with your particular beliefs.
|
The problem is that the whole world uses the word marriage (or some form of it), not just the Christian world so they don't get to define it for everyone, no matter how much it may make some of them them feel less special when they can't deny it to certain people.
|
Islam allows polygamy, but we don't allow that. (for tax reasons actually, do don't start this whole if gays get married what comes next, because animals cannot consent to marriage and polygamy would cheat the system)
Why then should Christianity get to hold sway over a concept they didn't even invent? (yes they're probably Jews and muslims that oppose gay marriage, but the vast majority are fundamentalist Christians)
|
On February 10 2012 02:40 sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 02:34 Greater Spire wrote:On February 10 2012 02:30 sermokala wrote:On February 10 2012 02:24 Greater Spire wrote:On February 10 2012 02:04 VediVeci wrote:On February 10 2012 01:55 Mohdoo wrote:On February 10 2012 01:44 VediVeci wrote:On February 10 2012 00:49 Rainmaker21 wrote:On February 10 2012 00:28 VediVeci wrote:
“[Those] who vote against gay marriage are not, nor should they be accused of bigotry. Those of us who support this legislation are not, and we should not be accused of, undermining family life or religious freedom.”
- State Senator Ed Murray, sponsor of bill legalizing gay marriage in Washington State
I think its worth noting the words of Murray (a gay man) before hurling accusations of bigotry, zealotry, fundamentalism etc around. At the end of the day, history will call those who opposed gay marriage bigots. Just as history calls those who opposed interracial marriage racists. After reading this discussion, I'm totally okay with that. I think there are two discussions happening simultaneously here. One about gay-rights and one about the exact definition of marriage. If you oppose gay marriage because you think marriage is a heterosexual institution but support an equivalent one for homosexuality, then you are not necessarily bigoted. If you oppose gay marriage because you don't think gays should have rights, then you are (almost certainly) bigoted. I hope history recognizes that nuance, but I am more inclined to think that you're correct. Its still being bigoted because it is someone saying that their definition of marriage should be the one that all other people must live their lives by. Its pushing their views on the personal lives of other people. Religious terms vary a lot from religion to religion. People don't necessarily agree on that definition and people should be allowed to live their lives based on their own definitions of spiritual terms. Even despite all of this, the term marriage has managed to migrate to government matters as well. There is nothing unnatural or unheard of for a religious term to eventually make its way into non-religious situations. A marriage license is a legal document. Marriage is no longer a religious-exclusive term. Marriage as a heterosexual institution has been around for thousands of years. It is possible to be simultaneously for preserving the traditional definition of marriage and for giving gays equal rights. If all we are talking about is an issue of semantics (what is the exact definition of marriage), then it isn't an issue of bigotry. You call people from Africa and Asia African and Asian not because they don't have equal rights but because Africa and Asia aren't the same thing. That doesn't mean you are discriminating against either group. It (can be) the same thing with gay rights. If there is an equivalent institution to marriage available to homosexuals, that's not necessarily discriminatory, and those calling for it aren't ipso facto bigoted. Edited conclusion Let me ask you this then - and also to all the other Christians in this thread who claim not to be bigoted: Would you be opposed to marriage for gay people being called 'gay marriages' instead of 'civil unions' then? So like being called Asian-American instead of American, you get gay married instead of just married. Of course not. thats the biggest thing about it. Christians feel threatened by all these people who want to take something thats special to them and force them to accept that it doesn't mean anything and that they should feel bad for ever thinking that it was something that they liked. If it had any name other then marriage it wouldn't have been a problem but the gay rights movement keep trying to poke the religious right and constantly try and fight them. Thats why black people who supported civil rights in the day don't support gay marriage. People keep asking like the Christians are being a dick in this case but they arn't trying to change anything. being against something and talking about it is freedom of speech but forcing things on people is just bad. its real funny how you can assume the moral high ground when you are calling everyone else bigots. Wha wha wha? How is legalising marriage for homosexuals forcing it upon anyone? And why are you comparing it to civil rights for blacks? We grant them equal citizenship - this is not forcing black rights upon white people who are racist, just as giving gay people equal rights would not be forcing gay rights upon Christians who are bigots. Its not legalizing marriage its the state recognizable it as equal. The only thing that gays give a shit about marriage is the name of it and what it does. They don't care at all about the religious significance of it so why should they feel the need to force that they are called married? Its a civil rights issue, thats really not something that needs to be explained. And again stop calling christians bigots and expecting that you keep the moral high ground. Thats another big problem I have with the movement. you don't get to automatically assume that everyone thinks you're right.
Wow... You need to learn how to think logically.
The state recognising marriage is legalising it. The gays don't "give a shit" (as you so Christianly phrase it) about the religious significance, as with millions of heterosexual atheists who get married, because religion does not have a monopoly over the phrase.
Why are you not calling for marriage to be banned for straight, atheist, Muslim, Buddhist, spiritualist people who do not believe in the Christian significance of marriage?
Christians are bigots (at least the ones who are against gay rights). I mean, I just can't think of any other way to put it. Just as I would call someone who disagrees with giving black people rights racists, just as I would call someone who disagrees with giving women rights sexists, I also call Christians who disagree with giving homosexuals rights bigots.
|
On February 10 2012 02:44 StyLeD wrote:
This board is very, very liberal, and I'm super liberal too, but a friend brought up a good question.
What is your definition of marriage? Personally, I am opposed to banning gay marriages ONLY because it takes away from their basic rights - right every couple gets when they marry. Even partial rights given to gay unions I oppose because I feel they should have full rights.
However, I am opposed to terming a union between two men or two women a "marriage". To me, the word is so specific - a union between a man and a women - that I can't imagine myself labeling the union of two men or two women a "marriage".
I'll probably get alot of flak for this, but that's just my opinion.
tl;dr
I support giving gay unions full rights given to married couples, but oppose calling gay unions "marriage".
We've been over this argument a million times. Marriage used to mean ownership, that changed. After that, marriage meant the subjugation, but not necessarily ownership of the woman. Eventually that changed. Sure, it continued being a man and a woman through those changes, but it totally blows apart the idea of marriage being this invincible, never changing concept. Further, marriage lost its exclusivity as a term once government began legally marrying people. A marriage can be performed without a priest or whatever, which is also a huge change. People don't just go to a church and call it good. They get a marriage license.
In summary: Marriage has not only changed in a purely spiritual sense substantially, it has also lost its exclusivity. Marriage no longer operates under the authority of religion alone.
|
On February 10 2012 02:45 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +People keep asking like the Christians are being a dick in this case but they arn't trying to change anything. being against something and talking about it is freedom of speech but forcing things on people is just bad. its real funny how you can assume the moral high ground when you are calling everyone else bigots. What? Is calling someone a bigot who is a bigot immoral? Freedom of speech? No one saying you're not allowed to have your views. We're condemning you for your views. That's how freedom of speech works. Nazis can say whatever they want and nonNazis call them out on their bullshit. There's no issue with freedom of speech here. I don't understand how christians are being attacked by this. What changes about their lives at all?? I don't understand how you can use the law to impose your beliefs on others and then play the victim!! Oh no you poor Christians! Not being able to enforce your power on others! Woe is you!!
Look at this. now your calling Christians the same as nazis and bigots. Do you think that this might make them a little unhappy and treat you a little worse then if you where respectful of them?
Look marriage is a big deal to us. You act like a complete dick to things that are important to us and you wonder why we feel that we are being attacked? are you anyway aware of how you sound right now?
Let me try and help you understand it in a different way. What if when people are able to design their offspring that we find out that being gay is a genetic thing? Do you think that gay people will become extinct?
|
On February 10 2012 02:57 sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 02:45 DoubleReed wrote:People keep asking like the Christians are being a dick in this case but they arn't trying to change anything. being against something and talking about it is freedom of speech but forcing things on people is just bad. its real funny how you can assume the moral high ground when you are calling everyone else bigots. What? Is calling someone a bigot who is a bigot immoral? Freedom of speech? No one saying you're not allowed to have your views. We're condemning you for your views. That's how freedom of speech works. Nazis can say whatever they want and nonNazis call them out on their bullshit. There's no issue with freedom of speech here. I don't understand how christians are being attacked by this. What changes about their lives at all?? I don't understand how you can use the law to impose your beliefs on others and then play the victim!! Oh no you poor Christians! Not being able to enforce your power on others! Woe is you!! Look marriage is a big deal to us. You act like a complete dick to things that are important to us and you wonder why we feel that we are being attacked? are you anyway aware of how you sound right now?
Seems that marriage is a big deal to gays too.
|
On February 10 2012 02:57 sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 02:45 DoubleReed wrote:People keep asking like the Christians are being a dick in this case but they arn't trying to change anything. being against something and talking about it is freedom of speech but forcing things on people is just bad. its real funny how you can assume the moral high ground when you are calling everyone else bigots. What? Is calling someone a bigot who is a bigot immoral? Freedom of speech? No one saying you're not allowed to have your views. We're condemning you for your views. That's how freedom of speech works. Nazis can say whatever they want and nonNazis call them out on their bullshit. There's no issue with freedom of speech here. I don't understand how christians are being attacked by this. What changes about their lives at all?? I don't understand how you can use the law to impose your beliefs on others and then play the victim!! Oh no you poor Christians! Not being able to enforce your power on others! Woe is you!! Look at this. now your calling Christians the same as nazis and bigots. Do you think that this might make them a little unhappy and treat you a little worse then if you where respectful of them? Look marriage is a big deal to us. You act like a complete dick to things that are important to us and you wonder why we feel that we are being attacked? are you anyway aware of how you sound right now? Let me try and help you understand it in a different way. What if when people are able to design their offspring that we find out that being gay is a genetic thing? Do you think that gay people will become extinct?
+ Show Spoiler +
You say marriage is a big deal to you. Why is it a big deal to you? Can you cite for me the books and verses of the Bible which explain this? Besides 1 Corinthians 7, which is basically Paul going on a big rant against sex in general, probably because he was single.
You say it is important to you and you feel attacked - do you also feel attacked by the millions of straight atheists who are getting married every year? Do you think they have the right to call their legal partnerships marriages?
|
On February 10 2012 03:01 Greater Spire wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 02:57 sermokala wrote:On February 10 2012 02:45 DoubleReed wrote:People keep asking like the Christians are being a dick in this case but they arn't trying to change anything. being against something and talking about it is freedom of speech but forcing things on people is just bad. its real funny how you can assume the moral high ground when you are calling everyone else bigots. What? Is calling someone a bigot who is a bigot immoral? Freedom of speech? No one saying you're not allowed to have your views. We're condemning you for your views. That's how freedom of speech works. Nazis can say whatever they want and nonNazis call them out on their bullshit. There's no issue with freedom of speech here. I don't understand how christians are being attacked by this. What changes about their lives at all?? I don't understand how you can use the law to impose your beliefs on others and then play the victim!! Oh no you poor Christians! Not being able to enforce your power on others! Woe is you!! Look at this. now your calling Christians the same as nazis and bigots. Do you think that this might make them a little unhappy and treat you a little worse then if you where respectful of them? Look marriage is a big deal to us. You act like a complete dick to things that are important to us and you wonder why we feel that we are being attacked? are you anyway aware of how you sound right now? Let me try and help you understand it in a different way. What if when people are able to design their offspring that we find out that being gay is a genetic thing? Do you think that gay people will become extinct? + Show Spoiler +You say marriage is a big deal to you. Why is it a big deal to you? Can you cite for me the books and verses of the Bible which explain this? Besides 1 Corinthians 7, which is basically Paul going on a big rant against sex in general, probably because he was single. You say it is important to you and you feel attacked - do you also feel attacked by the millions of straight atheists who are getting married every year? Do you think they have the right to call their legal partnerships marriages?
Image macro standard copy paste anti religious rhetoric. Just wonderful. amazing how low quality low post count users are with stuff like this.
Why is this thread still open btw mods? I reported it at the start for being a news report religious thread both things that I thought weren't allows and useualy get closed pretty quickly.
|
On February 10 2012 02:40 sermokala wrote: If it had any name other then marriage it wouldn't have been a problem but the gay rights movement keep trying to poke the religious right and constantly try and fight them.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, what? There is such a thing as gay Christians. I highly doubt that the only reason why gay people are seeking the right to marry is because they want to start a verbal mudslinging match with the religious right.
Plenty of homosexuals are religious and/or conservative. To them it's not just a matter of picking a fight, but wanting to get married because the word 'marriage' has a meaning and value to them. I'm not even gay but I find it pretty offensive you're trying to put it as if all gay people were only seeking the right to marry to piss off other people.
|
Here's another thought. What if I say to you sermokala - that because marriage has been around for longer than Christianity (to give you an idea of when Christianity started compared to earlier religions that had already been practicing marriage, see this graphical image: http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/history-of-religion.html)... To me, the idea that Christians can marry is offensive. Marriage is important to me and my family of atheists, so therefore I am against Christians calling their relationship marriages, because I've grown up with the idea that because my parents aren't married and their relationship is special, the fact that you Christians call it a union between a man and a woman and God, I find to be disgusting and shitting all over my definition of two atheists.
See how ridiculous your argument looks?
|
On February 10 2012 03:07 sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 03:01 Greater Spire wrote:On February 10 2012 02:57 sermokala wrote:On February 10 2012 02:45 DoubleReed wrote:People keep asking like the Christians are being a dick in this case but they arn't trying to change anything. being against something and talking about it is freedom of speech but forcing things on people is just bad. its real funny how you can assume the moral high ground when you are calling everyone else bigots. What? Is calling someone a bigot who is a bigot immoral? Freedom of speech? No one saying you're not allowed to have your views. We're condemning you for your views. That's how freedom of speech works. Nazis can say whatever they want and nonNazis call them out on their bullshit. There's no issue with freedom of speech here. I don't understand how christians are being attacked by this. What changes about their lives at all?? I don't understand how you can use the law to impose your beliefs on others and then play the victim!! Oh no you poor Christians! Not being able to enforce your power on others! Woe is you!! Look at this. now your calling Christians the same as nazis and bigots. Do you think that this might make them a little unhappy and treat you a little worse then if you where respectful of them? Look marriage is a big deal to us. You act like a complete dick to things that are important to us and you wonder why we feel that we are being attacked? are you anyway aware of how you sound right now? Let me try and help you understand it in a different way. What if when people are able to design their offspring that we find out that being gay is a genetic thing? Do you think that gay people will become extinct? + Show Spoiler +You say marriage is a big deal to you. Why is it a big deal to you? Can you cite for me the books and verses of the Bible which explain this? Besides 1 Corinthians 7, which is basically Paul going on a big rant against sex in general, probably because he was single. You say it is important to you and you feel attacked - do you also feel attacked by the millions of straight atheists who are getting married every year? Do you think they have the right to call their legal partnerships marriages? Image macro standard copy paste anti religious rhetoric. Just wonderful. amazing how low quality low post count users are with stuff like this. Why is this thread still open btw mods? I reported it at the start for being a news report religious thread both things that I thought weren't allows and useualy get closed pretty quickly.
Care to address any of the questions or were they too hard for you to justifiably defend?
Edit: This is not a religious thread - it is a gay rights thread. The fact that Christians have a problem with it is their problem. If Christians suddenly decided they do not like My Little Pony, that doesn't make the My Little Pony thread a religious thread.
|
On February 10 2012 03:07 Sawajiri wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 02:40 sermokala wrote: If it had any name other then marriage it wouldn't have been a problem but the gay rights movement keep trying to poke the religious right and constantly try and fight them.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, what? There is such a thing as gay Christians. I highly doubt that the only reason why gay people are seeking the right to marry is because they want to start a verbal mudslinging match with the religious right. Plenty of homosexuals are religious and/or conservative. To them it's not just a matter of picking a fight, but wanting to get married because the word 'marriage' has a meaning and value to them. I'm not even gay but I find it pretty offensive you're trying to put it as if all gay people were only seeking the right to marry to piss off other people.
Its not gay people that are causing the problem. the leading protestant organization is now allowing gay pastors to serve. Its all the anti religious people coming out of the woodwork to shit on religious people with easy ammunition. we either object to it and get called bigots or don't and get called hypocrites.
|
Some ideas for you to consider (pics):
+ Show Spoiler +
User was warned for this post
|
On February 10 2012 03:09 Greater Spire wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 03:07 sermokala wrote:On February 10 2012 03:01 Greater Spire wrote:On February 10 2012 02:57 sermokala wrote:On February 10 2012 02:45 DoubleReed wrote:People keep asking like the Christians are being a dick in this case but they arn't trying to change anything. being against something and talking about it is freedom of speech but forcing things on people is just bad. its real funny how you can assume the moral high ground when you are calling everyone else bigots. What? Is calling someone a bigot who is a bigot immoral? Freedom of speech? No one saying you're not allowed to have your views. We're condemning you for your views. That's how freedom of speech works. Nazis can say whatever they want and nonNazis call them out on their bullshit. There's no issue with freedom of speech here. I don't understand how christians are being attacked by this. What changes about their lives at all?? I don't understand how you can use the law to impose your beliefs on others and then play the victim!! Oh no you poor Christians! Not being able to enforce your power on others! Woe is you!! Look at this. now your calling Christians the same as nazis and bigots. Do you think that this might make them a little unhappy and treat you a little worse then if you where respectful of them? Look marriage is a big deal to us. You act like a complete dick to things that are important to us and you wonder why we feel that we are being attacked? are you anyway aware of how you sound right now? Let me try and help you understand it in a different way. What if when people are able to design their offspring that we find out that being gay is a genetic thing? Do you think that gay people will become extinct? + Show Spoiler +You say marriage is a big deal to you. Why is it a big deal to you? Can you cite for me the books and verses of the Bible which explain this? Besides 1 Corinthians 7, which is basically Paul going on a big rant against sex in general, probably because he was single. You say it is important to you and you feel attacked - do you also feel attacked by the millions of straight atheists who are getting married every year? Do you think they have the right to call their legal partnerships marriages? Image macro standard copy paste anti religious rhetoric. Just wonderful. amazing how low quality low post count users are with stuff like this. Why is this thread still open btw mods? I reported it at the start for being a news report religious thread both things that I thought weren't allows and useualy get closed pretty quickly. Care to address any of the questions or were they too hard for you to justifiably defend?
why should I address the arguments you copy paste off of reddit when you don't address any of my questions? you can't play the "why are you avoiding my questions" when this whole time you're avoiding mine.
|
Hurray for humanity! There is no reason why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed everywhere. Religion :/
|
Look at this. now your calling Christians the same as nazis and bigots. Do you think that this might make them a little unhappy and treat you a little worse then if you where respectful of them?
Look marriage is a big deal to us. You act like a complete dick to things that are important to us and you wonder why we feel that we are being attacked? are you anyway aware of how you sound right now?
Let me try and help you understand it in a different way. What if when people are able to design their offspring that we find out that being gay is a genetic thing? Do you think that gay people will become extinct?
Actually I wasn't comparing you to nazis I was just explaining freedom of speech. I didn't mean for you take to it that way.
I'm acting like a complete dick? I'm not advocating against you believing what you believe. I'm advocating against you imposing your beliefs on others. You don't think gays should call it marriage then don't get married to someone of the same sex. Bam. That's a great solution for you.
But no. Thats not good enough. You have tell to people how to live their lives. And when they fight back you have the gall to play the victim??? What a fucking joke.
|
On February 10 2012 03:10 sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 03:07 Sawajiri wrote:On February 10 2012 02:40 sermokala wrote: If it had any name other then marriage it wouldn't have been a problem but the gay rights movement keep trying to poke the religious right and constantly try and fight them.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, what? There is such a thing as gay Christians. I highly doubt that the only reason why gay people are seeking the right to marry is because they want to start a verbal mudslinging match with the religious right. Plenty of homosexuals are religious and/or conservative. To them it's not just a matter of picking a fight, but wanting to get married because the word 'marriage' has a meaning and value to them. I'm not even gay but I find it pretty offensive you're trying to put it as if all gay people were only seeking the right to marry to piss off other people. Its not gay people that are causing the problem. the leading protestant organization is now allowing gay pastors to serve. Its all the anti religious people coming out of the woodwork to shit on religious people with easy ammunition. we either object to it and get called bigots or don't and get called hypocrites.
Then leave the leading Protestant organisation. Nobody is forcing you to be a part of it. The fact that there are Church services every Sunday that I disagree with does not mean I am forced to attend.
I can "shit on religious people" even without gay marriage - there are many things religious people can be reasonably attacked on - the fact that they are against abortion, the fact that they are against euthanasia, the fact that they are against evolution, the fact that they are against contraception, etc. And furthermore - why are you using words like shit when you are supposedly a Christian? Isn't that rather unChristian?
|
On February 10 2012 03:14 sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 03:09 Greater Spire wrote:On February 10 2012 03:07 sermokala wrote:On February 10 2012 03:01 Greater Spire wrote:On February 10 2012 02:57 sermokala wrote:On February 10 2012 02:45 DoubleReed wrote:People keep asking like the Christians are being a dick in this case but they arn't trying to change anything. being against something and talking about it is freedom of speech but forcing things on people is just bad. its real funny how you can assume the moral high ground when you are calling everyone else bigots. What? Is calling someone a bigot who is a bigot immoral? Freedom of speech? No one saying you're not allowed to have your views. We're condemning you for your views. That's how freedom of speech works. Nazis can say whatever they want and nonNazis call them out on their bullshit. There's no issue with freedom of speech here. I don't understand how christians are being attacked by this. What changes about their lives at all?? I don't understand how you can use the law to impose your beliefs on others and then play the victim!! Oh no you poor Christians! Not being able to enforce your power on others! Woe is you!! Look at this. now your calling Christians the same as nazis and bigots. Do you think that this might make them a little unhappy and treat you a little worse then if you where respectful of them? Look marriage is a big deal to us. You act like a complete dick to things that are important to us and you wonder why we feel that we are being attacked? are you anyway aware of how you sound right now? Let me try and help you understand it in a different way. What if when people are able to design their offspring that we find out that being gay is a genetic thing? Do you think that gay people will become extinct? + Show Spoiler +You say marriage is a big deal to you. Why is it a big deal to you? Can you cite for me the books and verses of the Bible which explain this? Besides 1 Corinthians 7, which is basically Paul going on a big rant against sex in general, probably because he was single. You say it is important to you and you feel attacked - do you also feel attacked by the millions of straight atheists who are getting married every year? Do you think they have the right to call their legal partnerships marriages? Image macro standard copy paste anti religious rhetoric. Just wonderful. amazing how low quality low post count users are with stuff like this. Why is this thread still open btw mods? I reported it at the start for being a news report religious thread both things that I thought weren't allows and useualy get closed pretty quickly. Care to address any of the questions or were they too hard for you to justifiably defend? why should I address the arguments you copy paste off of reddit when you don't address any of my questions? you can't play the "why are you avoiding my questions" when this whole time you're avoiding mine.
Uhh, I have replied to every single one of your posts and all you've done, instead of addressing anything I say, is ignore the argument and then raise another equally ridiculous one for me to rebut.
|
On February 10 2012 02:57 sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 02:45 DoubleReed wrote:People keep asking like the Christians are being a dick in this case but they arn't trying to change anything. being against something and talking about it is freedom of speech but forcing things on people is just bad. its real funny how you can assume the moral high ground when you are calling everyone else bigots. What? Is calling someone a bigot who is a bigot immoral? Freedom of speech? No one saying you're not allowed to have your views. We're condemning you for your views. That's how freedom of speech works. Nazis can say whatever they want and nonNazis call them out on their bullshit. There's no issue with freedom of speech here. I don't understand how christians are being attacked by this. What changes about their lives at all?? I don't understand how you can use the law to impose your beliefs on others and then play the victim!! Oh no you poor Christians! Not being able to enforce your power on others! Woe is you!! Look at this. now your calling Christians the same as nazis and bigots. Do you think that this might make them a little unhappy and treat you a little worse then if you where respectful of them? Look marriage is a big deal to us. You act like a complete dick to things that are important to us and you wonder why we feel that we are being attacked? are you anyway aware of how you sound right now? Let me try and help you understand it in a different way. What if when people are able to design their offspring that we find out that being gay is a genetic thing? Do you think that gay people will become extinct?
Why is marriage a big deal to you christians when it actually has little if anything to do with christianity? Marriage is sanctioned by the state not the church, the church involvement is purely ceremonial. Marriage pre-dates christanity by many thousands of years and has existed in one name or another in almost every culture, its a bit late in the day to try and lay sole claim to it now.
|
On February 10 2012 02:57 sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 02:45 DoubleReed wrote:People keep asking like the Christians are being a dick in this case but they arn't trying to change anything. being against something and talking about it is freedom of speech but forcing things on people is just bad. its real funny how you can assume the moral high ground when you are calling everyone else bigots. What? Is calling someone a bigot who is a bigot immoral? Freedom of speech? No one saying you're not allowed to have your views. We're condemning you for your views. That's how freedom of speech works. Nazis can say whatever they want and nonNazis call them out on their bullshit. There's no issue with freedom of speech here. I don't understand how christians are being attacked by this. What changes about their lives at all?? I don't understand how you can use the law to impose your beliefs on others and then play the victim!! Oh no you poor Christians! Not being able to enforce your power on others! Woe is you!! Look at this. now your calling Christians the same as nazis and bigots. Do you think that this might make them a little unhappy and treat you a little worse then if you where respectful of them? Look marriage is a big deal to us. You act like a complete dick to things that are important to us and you wonder why we feel that we are being attacked? are you anyway aware of how you sound right now? Let me try and help you understand it in a different way. What if when people are able to design their offspring that we find out that being gay is a genetic thing? Do you think that gay people will become extinct?
Marriage is a big deal to everyone, not just Christians. Many religions have very different views of how marriage should go down and each type of person deserves to have it go how they wish. The problem is that Christians are trying to make *other* people conform to Christian standards of marriage. As you said, marriage is important. That is why people are so outraged that other people's views are able to override their own, in a personal matter.
Being gay is certainly a natural thing and I hope you weren't trying to imply people make some kinda conscious decision to be gay. People are definitely born that way and you will only find scientific literature supporting that. I'm not even sure what you're getting at with asking if gay people would become extinct...
|
On February 10 2012 03:15 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +Look at this. now your calling Christians the same as nazis and bigots. Do you think that this might make them a little unhappy and treat you a little worse then if you where respectful of them?
Look marriage is a big deal to us. You act like a complete dick to things that are important to us and you wonder why we feel that we are being attacked? are you anyway aware of how you sound right now?
Let me try and help you understand it in a different way. What if when people are able to design their offspring that we find out that being gay is a genetic thing? Do you think that gay people will become extinct? Actually I wasn't comparing you to nazis I was just explaining freedom of speech. I didn't mean for you take to it that way. I'm acting like a complete dick? I'm not advocating against you believing what you believe. I'm advocating against you imposing your beliefs on others. You don't think gays should call it marriage then don't get married to someone of the same sex. Bam. That's a great solution for you. But no. Thats not good enough. You have tell people how to live their lives. And when they fight back you have the gall to play the victim??? What a fucking joke.
Okay first when you quote someone you can just click on the quote button and it has their name and the whole post on there. it makes it a lot better and take less time.
Being against gay marriage isn't imposing our beliefs on other people. Stop reading propaganda on the issue all the time and think about it for yourself. if you want a shout fest on things your in the wrong place. At the very least if you want to debate someone start by being respectful and address all their points. its a real shame when the side that has a clear shared ideology is the one that thinks for themself and doesn't use pointless stawman arguments that they saw on some random site.
|
I would like everyone to realize that I'm the only one on the other side of this argument and all but one post on page 15 have been about me in some way. I'll try and get to everyones posts but I'll need some time if this thread stays open.
|
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.
I feel that religion is the most nonsensical myth perpetrated by those who wish to use man's fear of the unknown and uncertainty of existence to manipulate and control him. Religion is not only legal, but it's virtually mandatory in several facets of life (Try getting elected being an atheist or agnostic, heck, even talking to the wrong invisible man is a no-go in most cases as well)
So basically, even thought I think a major part of your life and up-bringing, is ludicrous hocus-pocus, I still somewhat support your right to be delusional. If I wanted to believe I was a giant glass of OJ, I am well within my right to do so. You're clamming however, that two people who live together and are in love, shouldn't be allowed to get married because it offense your definition of a word?
Jesus Christ....
|
On February 10 2012 03:23 sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 03:15 DoubleReed wrote:Look at this. now your calling Christians the same as nazis and bigots. Do you think that this might make them a little unhappy and treat you a little worse then if you where respectful of them?
Look marriage is a big deal to us. You act like a complete dick to things that are important to us and you wonder why we feel that we are being attacked? are you anyway aware of how you sound right now?
Let me try and help you understand it in a different way. What if when people are able to design their offspring that we find out that being gay is a genetic thing? Do you think that gay people will become extinct? Actually I wasn't comparing you to nazis I was just explaining freedom of speech. I didn't mean for you take to it that way. I'm acting like a complete dick? I'm not advocating against you believing what you believe. I'm advocating against you imposing your beliefs on others. You don't think gays should call it marriage then don't get married to someone of the same sex. Bam. That's a great solution for you. But no. Thats not good enough. You have tell people how to live their lives. And when they fight back you have the gall to play the victim??? What a fucking joke. Okay first when you quote someone you can just click on the quote button and it has their name and the whole post on there. it makes it a lot better and take less time. Being against gay marriage isn't imposing our beliefs on other people. Stop reading propaganda on the issue all the time and think about it for yourself. if you want a shout fest on things your in the wrong place. At the very least if you want to debate someone start by being respectful and address all their points. its a real shame when the side that has a clear shared ideology is the one that thinks for themself and doesn't use pointless stawman arguments that they saw on some random site.
Except it is when you try to block them from gaining their rights.
|
I know several religious homosexuals. I seriously don't understand why they shouldn't be able to marry if all that's required to be a Christian is to believe that Jesus is God's son.
|
On February 10 2012 03:23 sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 03:15 DoubleReed wrote:Look at this. now your calling Christians the same as nazis and bigots. Do you think that this might make them a little unhappy and treat you a little worse then if you where respectful of them?
Look marriage is a big deal to us. You act like a complete dick to things that are important to us and you wonder why we feel that we are being attacked? are you anyway aware of how you sound right now?
Let me try and help you understand it in a different way. What if when people are able to design their offspring that we find out that being gay is a genetic thing? Do you think that gay people will become extinct? Actually I wasn't comparing you to nazis I was just explaining freedom of speech. I didn't mean for you take to it that way. I'm acting like a complete dick? I'm not advocating against you believing what you believe. I'm advocating against you imposing your beliefs on others. You don't think gays should call it marriage then don't get married to someone of the same sex. Bam. That's a great solution for you. But no. Thats not good enough. You have tell people how to live their lives. And when they fight back you have the gall to play the victim??? What a fucking joke. Okay first when you quote someone you can just click on the quote button and it has their name and the whole post on there. it makes it a lot better and take less time. Being against gay marriage isn't imposing our beliefs on other people. Stop reading propaganda on the issue all the time and think about it for yourself. if you want a shout fest on things your in the wrong place. At the very least if you want to debate someone start by being respectful and address all their points. its a real shame when the side that has a clear shared ideology is the one that thinks for themself and doesn't use pointless stawman arguments that they saw on some random site.
Explain please.
You don't think gays should be married. You want to enact laws saying gays (who are other people) can't be married, regardless whether or not they disagree with you. That's what imposing your beliefs on others is.
|
On February 10 2012 03:10 sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 03:07 Sawajiri wrote:On February 10 2012 02:40 sermokala wrote: If it had any name other then marriage it wouldn't have been a problem but the gay rights movement keep trying to poke the religious right and constantly try and fight them.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, what? There is such a thing as gay Christians. I highly doubt that the only reason why gay people are seeking the right to marry is because they want to start a verbal mudslinging match with the religious right. Plenty of homosexuals are religious and/or conservative. To them it's not just a matter of picking a fight, but wanting to get married because the word 'marriage' has a meaning and value to them. I'm not even gay but I find it pretty offensive you're trying to put it as if all gay people were only seeking the right to marry to piss off other people. Its not gay people that are causing the problem. the leading protestant organization is now allowing gay pastors to serve. Its all the anti religious people coming out of the woodwork to shit on religious people with easy ammunition. we either object to it and get called bigots or don't and get called hypocrites.
Blacks aren't people
Women can't vote
Gay's can't marry
Are you noticing a trend? You're on the wrong side of the fence here pal. Jesus wouldn't be on your side FYI. I know that sounds CRAZY but he wouldn't. It's so funny to see religious people arguing about the sanctity of marriage, when they should know full well how their MESSIAH wouldn't care about two guys splitting the rent. Marriage isn't a religious thing anymore, let go of it
|
On February 10 2012 03:23 sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 03:15 DoubleReed wrote:Look at this. now your calling Christians the same as nazis and bigots. Do you think that this might make them a little unhappy and treat you a little worse then if you where respectful of them?
Look marriage is a big deal to us. You act like a complete dick to things that are important to us and you wonder why we feel that we are being attacked? are you anyway aware of how you sound right now?
Let me try and help you understand it in a different way. What if when people are able to design their offspring that we find out that being gay is a genetic thing? Do you think that gay people will become extinct? Actually I wasn't comparing you to nazis I was just explaining freedom of speech. I didn't mean for you take to it that way. I'm acting like a complete dick? I'm not advocating against you believing what you believe. I'm advocating against you imposing your beliefs on others. You don't think gays should call it marriage then don't get married to someone of the same sex. Bam. That's a great solution for you. But no. Thats not good enough. You have tell people how to live their lives. And when they fight back you have the gall to play the victim??? What a fucking joke. Okay first when you quote someone you can just click on the quote button and it has their name and the whole post on there. it makes it a lot better and take less time. Being against gay marriage isn't imposing our beliefs on other people. Stop reading propaganda on the issue all the time and think about it for yourself. if you want a shout fest on things your in the wrong place. At the very least if you want to debate someone start by being respectful and address all their points. its a real shame when the side that has a clear shared ideology is the one that thinks for themself and doesn't use pointless stawman arguments that they saw on some random site.
Are you straight (i.e. not gay)? Are you against gay marriage? Then you are imposing your belief on other people.
|
On February 10 2012 03:40 Klipsys wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 03:10 sermokala wrote:On February 10 2012 03:07 Sawajiri wrote:On February 10 2012 02:40 sermokala wrote: If it had any name other then marriage it wouldn't have been a problem but the gay rights movement keep trying to poke the religious right and constantly try and fight them.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, what? There is such a thing as gay Christians. I highly doubt that the only reason why gay people are seeking the right to marry is because they want to start a verbal mudslinging match with the religious right. Plenty of homosexuals are religious and/or conservative. To them it's not just a matter of picking a fight, but wanting to get married because the word 'marriage' has a meaning and value to them. I'm not even gay but I find it pretty offensive you're trying to put it as if all gay people were only seeking the right to marry to piss off other people. Its not gay people that are causing the problem. the leading protestant organization is now allowing gay pastors to serve. Its all the anti religious people coming out of the woodwork to shit on religious people with easy ammunition. we either object to it and get called bigots or don't and get called hypocrites. Blacks aren't people Women can't vote Gay's can't marry Are you noticing a trend? You're on the wrong side of the fence here pal. Jesus wouldn't be on your side FYI. I know that sounds CRAZY but he wouldn't. It's so funny to see religious people arguing about the sanctity of marriage, when they should know full well how their MESSIAH wouldn't care about two guys splitting the rent. Marriage isn't a religious thing anymore, let go of it
It was never a religious thing in the first place.
|
All Jesus cared about with regard to weddings was making sure the bridesmaids brought enough oil for their lamps.
Practical advice, but not necessarily helpful in this situation.
|
On February 10 2012 03:42 Sufficiency wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 03:23 sermokala wrote:On February 10 2012 03:15 DoubleReed wrote:Look at this. now your calling Christians the same as nazis and bigots. Do you think that this might make them a little unhappy and treat you a little worse then if you where respectful of them?
Look marriage is a big deal to us. You act like a complete dick to things that are important to us and you wonder why we feel that we are being attacked? are you anyway aware of how you sound right now?
Let me try and help you understand it in a different way. What if when people are able to design their offspring that we find out that being gay is a genetic thing? Do you think that gay people will become extinct? Actually I wasn't comparing you to nazis I was just explaining freedom of speech. I didn't mean for you take to it that way. I'm acting like a complete dick? I'm not advocating against you believing what you believe. I'm advocating against you imposing your beliefs on others. You don't think gays should call it marriage then don't get married to someone of the same sex. Bam. That's a great solution for you. But no. Thats not good enough. You have tell people how to live their lives. And when they fight back you have the gall to play the victim??? What a fucking joke. Okay first when you quote someone you can just click on the quote button and it has their name and the whole post on there. it makes it a lot better and take less time. Being against gay marriage isn't imposing our beliefs on other people. Stop reading propaganda on the issue all the time and think about it for yourself. if you want a shout fest on things your in the wrong place. At the very least if you want to debate someone start by being respectful and address all their points. its a real shame when the side that has a clear shared ideology is the one that thinks for themself and doesn't use pointless stawman arguments that they saw on some random site. Are you straight (i.e. not gay)? Are you against gay marriage? Then you are imposing your belief on other people.
Even if he is gay he would be imposing his beliefs on other gay people.
|
I'll just do this all in one post and spoiler the quote so they don't' get out of control. I'll do them in order of post date so greater spire is first.
+ Show Spoiler +On February 10 2012 03:17 Greater Spire wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 03:10 sermokala wrote:On February 10 2012 03:07 Sawajiri wrote:On February 10 2012 02:40 sermokala wrote: If it had any name other then marriage it wouldn't have been a problem but the gay rights movement keep trying to poke the religious right and constantly try and fight them.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, what? There is such a thing as gay Christians. I highly doubt that the only reason why gay people are seeking the right to marry is because they want to start a verbal mudslinging match with the religious right. Plenty of homosexuals are religious and/or conservative. To them it's not just a matter of picking a fight, but wanting to get married because the word 'marriage' has a meaning and value to them. I'm not even gay but I find it pretty offensive you're trying to put it as if all gay people were only seeking the right to marry to piss off other people. Its not gay people that are causing the problem. the leading protestant organization is now allowing gay pastors to serve. Its all the anti religious people coming out of the woodwork to shit on religious people with easy ammunition. we either object to it and get called bigots or don't and get called hypocrites. Then leave the leading Protestant organisation. Nobody is forcing you to be a part of it. The fact that there are Church services every Sunday that I disagree with does not mean I am forced to attend. I can "shit on religious people" even without gay marriage - there are many things religious people can be reasonably attacked on - the fact that they are against abortion, the fact that they are against euthanasia, the fact that they are against evolution, the fact that they are against contraception, etc. And furthermore - why are you using words like shit when you are supposedly a Christian? Isn't that rather unChristian?
You've had some pretty low quality posts other then this train but I'll ignore them for the sake of coherency. Most of your posts come from this very thread so I really wonder how you came on tl at all. I was making a point and you decide to automatically attack it? you didn't even talk about it in any way just tried to twist it into your narrow arguments. this whole time I've tried to spread out what we are talking about and you refuse to elaborate on any of them other then attacking me. you're not going to get anywhere by attacking someone in a debate and I'm really not going to try anymore if thats all you are going to try and do. its junk posters like you that we can't have religious threads. the fact that you can't see that is saddening but I really hope that if you ever want to talk to someone about this that you care for and don't have the same viewpoint as you that you understand this and try to change that.
This is darkong's
+ Show Spoiler +On February 10 2012 03:18 Darkong wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 02:57 sermokala wrote:On February 10 2012 02:45 DoubleReed wrote:People keep asking like the Christians are being a dick in this case but they arn't trying to change anything. being against something and talking about it is freedom of speech but forcing things on people is just bad. its real funny how you can assume the moral high ground when you are calling everyone else bigots. What? Is calling someone a bigot who is a bigot immoral? Freedom of speech? No one saying you're not allowed to have your views. We're condemning you for your views. That's how freedom of speech works. Nazis can say whatever they want and nonNazis call them out on their bullshit. There's no issue with freedom of speech here. I don't understand how christians are being attacked by this. What changes about their lives at all?? I don't understand how you can use the law to impose your beliefs on others and then play the victim!! Oh no you poor Christians! Not being able to enforce your power on others! Woe is you!! Look at this. now your calling Christians the same as nazis and bigots. Do you think that this might make them a little unhappy and treat you a little worse then if you where respectful of them? Look marriage is a big deal to us. You act like a complete dick to things that are important to us and you wonder why we feel that we are being attacked? are you anyway aware of how you sound right now? Let me try and help you understand it in a different way. What if when people are able to design their offspring that we find out that being gay is a genetic thing? Do you think that gay people will become extinct? Why is marriage a big deal to you christians when it actually has little if anything to do with christianity? Marriage is sanctioned by the state not the church, the church involvement is purely ceremonial. Marriage pre-dates christanity by many thousands of years and has existed in one name or another in almost every culture, its a bit late in the day to try and lay sole claim to it now.
Just because someone was created by someone else doesn't mean that someone else can't make it significant to them. during the reformation and middle ages it became a much bigger deal. It doesn't take that much to understand this point in a modern age but I'm pretty sure thats where it started. there isn't really anything else that cares about marriage other then the church. everything that the state has done with it was mearly a cooperation with it and to help out middle class families and other economic things. Obama wants civil unions because he doesn't want to fight the religious right over it for one and its pretty funny that in this case I support him and you are against him. Its not really a sole claim thing. even if the Scientology had a new thing about combining a male and a female into a single being under Cthulhu or whatever then it would be perfectly fine if they called it Cuchulain. ( I spell checked it and that was close) marriage becoming something other then a property contract really started with the church as well. Loving your wife and respecting your husband being something that god said is kinda important.
the problem is that they arn't trying to debate the religious reasoning for gay marriage they are just trying to get the state to decide what it is and isn't which should be a point of separation of church and state but really isn't in this case. marriage in this case at the least was started by the church coming over first and then the government adopting it. I'm very confused why the movement trys to be so argumentative and confrontational about the whole thing when there are so many roads that wouldn't that would have accomplished the same thing. could you lay off the you Christians it just sounds offensive and doesn't get across anything
this last one is mohdoo
+ Show Spoiler +On February 10 2012 03:19 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 02:57 sermokala wrote:On February 10 2012 02:45 DoubleReed wrote:People keep asking like the Christians are being a dick in this case but they arn't trying to change anything. being against something and talking about it is freedom of speech but forcing things on people is just bad. its real funny how you can assume the moral high ground when you are calling everyone else bigots. What? Is calling someone a bigot who is a bigot immoral? Freedom of speech? No one saying you're not allowed to have your views. We're condemning you for your views. That's how freedom of speech works. Nazis can say whatever they want and nonNazis call them out on their bullshit. There's no issue with freedom of speech here. I don't understand how christians are being attacked by this. What changes about their lives at all?? I don't understand how you can use the law to impose your beliefs on others and then play the victim!! Oh no you poor Christians! Not being able to enforce your power on others! Woe is you!! Look at this. now your calling Christians the same as nazis and bigots. Do you think that this might make them a little unhappy and treat you a little worse then if you where respectful of them? Look marriage is a big deal to us. You act like a complete dick to things that are important to us and you wonder why we feel that we are being attacked? are you anyway aware of how you sound right now? Let me try and help you understand it in a different way. What if when people are able to design their offspring that we find out that being gay is a genetic thing? Do you think that gay people will become extinct? Marriage is a big deal to everyone, not just Christians. Many religions have very different views of how marriage should go down and each type of person deserves to have it go how they wish. The problem is that Christians are trying to make *other* people conform to Christian standards of marriage. As you said, marriage is important. That is why people are so outraged that other people's views are able to override their own, in a personal matter. Being gay is certainly a natural thing and I hope you weren't trying to imply people make some kinda conscious decision to be gay. People are definitely born that way and you will only find scientific literature supporting that. I'm not even sure what you're getting at with asking if gay people would become extinct...
I was making a hypothetical point and we don't really know that for sure. the fact that it occurs in natural circumstances (animals) makes it not a cultural thing or some weird psychological thing. its just a little something that I was wondering myself that once we get to procreate programming or something it might come up. I'm not sure about it myself though. its more of a choice thing by the parents to decide more about how successful their children are. just because someone was born some way doesn't mean that we can't change how they are born.
Name me a religion thats open to gay marriage. otherwise your argument is pretty void. and I would charge your argument to support mine. I don't want other peoples beliefs on marriage affecting my own.
|
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.
then don't marry a man?
ZING
|
On February 10 2012 03:43 PanN wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 03:40 Klipsys wrote:On February 10 2012 03:10 sermokala wrote:On February 10 2012 03:07 Sawajiri wrote:On February 10 2012 02:40 sermokala wrote: If it had any name other then marriage it wouldn't have been a problem but the gay rights movement keep trying to poke the religious right and constantly try and fight them.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, what? There is such a thing as gay Christians. I highly doubt that the only reason why gay people are seeking the right to marry is because they want to start a verbal mudslinging match with the religious right. Plenty of homosexuals are religious and/or conservative. To them it's not just a matter of picking a fight, but wanting to get married because the word 'marriage' has a meaning and value to them. I'm not even gay but I find it pretty offensive you're trying to put it as if all gay people were only seeking the right to marry to piss off other people. Its not gay people that are causing the problem. the leading protestant organization is now allowing gay pastors to serve. Its all the anti religious people coming out of the woodwork to shit on religious people with easy ammunition. we either object to it and get called bigots or don't and get called hypocrites. Blacks aren't people Women can't vote Gay's can't marry Are you noticing a trend? You're on the wrong side of the fence here pal. Jesus wouldn't be on your side FYI. I know that sounds CRAZY but he wouldn't. It's so funny to see religious people arguing about the sanctity of marriage, when they should know full well how their MESSIAH wouldn't care about two guys splitting the rent. Marriage isn't a religious thing anymore, let go of it It was never a religious thing in the first place.
I always thought that was the purpose of having a ceremony was "Pronouncing your intent to God" or whatever.
|
On February 10 2012 03:54 sermokala wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 10 2012 03:19 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 02:57 sermokala wrote:On February 10 2012 02:45 DoubleReed wrote:People keep asking like the Christians are being a dick in this case but they arn't trying to change anything. being against something and talking about it is freedom of speech but forcing things on people is just bad. its real funny how you can assume the moral high ground when you are calling everyone else bigots. What? Is calling someone a bigot who is a bigot immoral? Freedom of speech? No one saying you're not allowed to have your views. We're condemning you for your views. That's how freedom of speech works. Nazis can say whatever they want and nonNazis call them out on their bullshit. There's no issue with freedom of speech here. I don't understand how christians are being attacked by this. What changes about their lives at all?? I don't understand how you can use the law to impose your beliefs on others and then play the victim!! Oh no you poor Christians! Not being able to enforce your power on others! Woe is you!! Look at this. now your calling Christians the same as nazis and bigots. Do you think that this might make them a little unhappy and treat you a little worse then if you where respectful of them? Look marriage is a big deal to us. You act like a complete dick to things that are important to us and you wonder why we feel that we are being attacked? are you anyway aware of how you sound right now? Let me try and help you understand it in a different way. What if when people are able to design their offspring that we find out that being gay is a genetic thing? Do you think that gay people will become extinct? Marriage is a big deal to everyone, not just Christians. Many religions have very different views of how marriage should go down and each type of person deserves to have it go how they wish. The problem is that Christians are trying to make *other* people conform to Christian standards of marriage. As you said, marriage is important. That is why people are so outraged that other people's views are able to override their own, in a personal matter. Being gay is certainly a natural thing and I hope you weren't trying to imply people make some kinda conscious decision to be gay. People are definitely born that way and you will only find scientific literature supporting that. I'm not even sure what you're getting at with asking if gay people would become extinct... I was making a hypothetical point and we don't really know that for sure. the fact that it occurs in natural circumstances (animals) makes it not a cultural thing or some weird psychological thing. its just a little something that I was wondering myself that once we get to procreate programming or something it might come up. I'm not sure about it myself though. its more of a choice thing by the parents to decide more about how successful their children are. just because someone was born some way doesn't mean that we can't change how they are born. Name me a religion thats open to gay marriage. otherwise your argument is pretty void. and I would charge your argument to support mine. I don't want other peoples beliefs on marriage affecting my own.
There are plenty of churches in the united states that consider themselves Christian and perform homosexual marriages. There are also ones that do not. Its really arrogant to say that one is more correct than the other, since Christian religions as a whole have segregated themselves a lot. Christians, Jews, Catholics, Mormons, etc. And even within those, as I pointed out, some do homosexual marriages and some don't.
What if there was a movement by a church that considered its self Christian to disallow heterosexual marriages? I know it sounds silly, but from what I have seen, since we can't possibly say one Christian is more "right" than the other, it becomes a simple matter of population: How many people believe this should be? If there was a huge movement against heterosexual marriage, we'd see stuff like Prop 8 against heterosexual marriages. But I don't think that would be right either, since that would be people trying to make other Christians be the type of Christian that they do not wish to be.
Do you think that Christian identified churches you disagree with should not be considered Christian? How can we possibly decide which one is right and which is wrong? If we were to say it is the one that follows the bible most closely, it would be one where women hardly have any rights at all, which I don't think you'd find appealing. So if it is not a matter of which follows the bible most closely, how can we determine which specific breed of Christian is the most noble? How do we know which should be the one we force everyone to comply with? Why not, instead, skip all of that determination and just let them deal with their own issues? Allowing gay marriages to happen will not force people against gay marriage to partake in gay marriages. But disallowing it across the board forces homosexuals to not participate in marriage, by the order of other people. It is interference in their personal lives, justified by the correctness of a specific breed of Christianity. But how can we verify it is the best?
|
On February 10 2012 03:23 sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 03:15 DoubleReed wrote:Look at this. now your calling Christians the same as nazis and bigots. Do you think that this might make them a little unhappy and treat you a little worse then if you where respectful of them?
Look marriage is a big deal to us. You act like a complete dick to things that are important to us and you wonder why we feel that we are being attacked? are you anyway aware of how you sound right now?
Let me try and help you understand it in a different way. What if when people are able to design their offspring that we find out that being gay is a genetic thing? Do you think that gay people will become extinct? Actually I wasn't comparing you to nazis I was just explaining freedom of speech. I didn't mean for you take to it that way. I'm acting like a complete dick? I'm not advocating against you believing what you believe. I'm advocating against you imposing your beliefs on others. You don't think gays should call it marriage then don't get married to someone of the same sex. Bam. That's a great solution for you. But no. Thats not good enough. You have tell people how to live their lives. And when they fight back you have the gall to play the victim??? What a fucking joke. Okay first when you quote someone you can just click on the quote button and it has their name and the whole post on there. it makes it a lot better and take less time. Being against gay marriage isn't imposing our beliefs on other people. Stop reading propaganda on the issue all the time and think about it for yourself. if you want a shout fest on things your in the wrong place. At the very least if you want to debate someone start by being respectful and address all their points. its a real shame when the side that has a clear shared ideology is the one that thinks for themself and doesn't use pointless stawman arguments that they saw on some random site.
Dude, that is EXACTLY what it is, you're advocating denying one group the right which is available to another based, not on any good secular reason, but on your beliefs. Which is also why your argument will fail, in the US at least, because it fails the Lemon Test, its why Prop 8 was ultimately doomed from the start.
|
On February 10 2012 03:36 TS-Rupbar wrote:
I know several religious homosexuals. I seriously don't understand why they shouldn't be able to marry if all that's required to be a Christian is to believe that Jesus is God's son.
I had a discussion in my church about this not to far back. the thing is that you have to believe that he was the son of god that he died for your sins and that you want to folow in Christs path (thus Christ ianity).
doublereeds post
+ Show Spoiler +On February 10 2012 03:37 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 03:23 sermokala wrote:On February 10 2012 03:15 DoubleReed wrote:Look at this. now your calling Christians the same as nazis and bigots. Do you think that this might make them a little unhappy and treat you a little worse then if you where respectful of them?
Look marriage is a big deal to us. You act like a complete dick to things that are important to us and you wonder why we feel that we are being attacked? are you anyway aware of how you sound right now?
Let me try and help you understand it in a different way. What if when people are able to design their offspring that we find out that being gay is a genetic thing? Do you think that gay people will become extinct? Actually I wasn't comparing you to nazis I was just explaining freedom of speech. I didn't mean for you take to it that way. I'm acting like a complete dick? I'm not advocating against you believing what you believe. I'm advocating against you imposing your beliefs on others. You don't think gays should call it marriage then don't get married to someone of the same sex. Bam. That's a great solution for you. But no. Thats not good enough. You have tell people how to live their lives. And when they fight back you have the gall to play the victim??? What a fucking joke. Okay first when you quote someone you can just click on the quote button and it has their name and the whole post on there. it makes it a lot better and take less time. Being against gay marriage isn't imposing our beliefs on other people. Stop reading propaganda on the issue all the time and think about it for yourself. if you want a shout fest on things your in the wrong place. At the very least if you want to debate someone start by being respectful and address all their points. its a real shame when the side that has a clear shared ideology is the one that thinks for themself and doesn't use pointless stawman arguments that they saw on some random site. Explain please. You don't think gays should be married. You want to enact laws saying gays (who are other people) can't be married, regardless whether or not they disagree with you. That's what imposing your beliefs on others is.
thanks for singling out a single sentence. someone else posted on it but yours is better so I'll respond to it. I think its quite funny that you took off on one of my sentences and then posted a whole bunch of propaganda when I ask to stop folowing it.
Now just like in iowa the whole thing is a state vote thing right? Iowa voted to ban gay marriage and it failed. The courts used it as an excuse to legalize gay marriage in the state. (these judges lost their jobs for it but oh well) I would see it as a public conversation about the issue and which way that the people decide on it. If you want more I'm going to have to ask what you mean by enacting laws saying they can't be "married".
|
Guys, Sermokala isnt imposing their beliefs on anyone, theyre just telling people what they can or cannot do based on their beliefs. Stop listening to the propeganda!
The fact of the matter is, like the suffrage movement, like the civil rights movement, like any movement where a group in society was witheld rights due to some biological trait, we as a society, need to realize our follies in the past, and move forward in an effort to make everyone feel equal and appreciated.
Gay marriage hurts nobody. The argument that only Christians understand the true value and sanctity of marriage is completely ludicrous. In fact, christians have the highest divorce rates because they create such a false value for it, that people enter it unprepared. Why dont you spend all your time and resources worrying about fixing your own problems, and leave people that love each other alone.
I cant believe this is actually still an issue in American politics. Theres so much shit going on, and this still gets air time. Sad.
Good job people of Washington though!
|
On February 10 2012 04:07 Focuspants wrote:
Guys, Sermokala isnt imposing their beliefs on anyone, theyre just telling people what they can or cannot do based on their beliefs. Stop listening to the propeganda!
The fact of the matter is, like the suffrage movement, like the civil rights movement, like any movement where a group in society was witheld rights due to some biological trait, we as a society, need to realize our follies in the past, and move forward in an effort to make everyone feel equal and appreciated.
Gay marriage hurts nobody. The argument that only Christians understand the true value and sanctity of marriage is completely ludicrous. In fact, christians have the highest divorce rates because they create such a false value for it, that people enter it unprepared. Why dont you spend all your time and resources worrying about fixing your own problems, and leave people that love each other alone.
I cant believe this is actually still an issue in American politics. Theres so much shit going on, and this still gets air time. Sad.
Good job people of Washington though!
so what your saying is that there is some biological difference to gay people and by definition normal people? Thats a pretty hilarious way to start your argument. it amazes me how many people treat team liquid general like a cnn comment section.
|
On February 10 2012 03:54 sermokala wrote:This is darkong's + Show Spoiler +On February 10 2012 03:18 Darkong wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 02:57 sermokala wrote:On February 10 2012 02:45 DoubleReed wrote:People keep asking like the Christians are being a dick in this case but they arn't trying to change anything. being against something and talking about it is freedom of speech but forcing things on people is just bad. its real funny how you can assume the moral high ground when you are calling everyone else bigots. What? Is calling someone a bigot who is a bigot immoral? Freedom of speech? No one saying you're not allowed to have your views. We're condemning you for your views. That's how freedom of speech works. Nazis can say whatever they want and nonNazis call them out on their bullshit. There's no issue with freedom of speech here. I don't understand how christians are being attacked by this. What changes about their lives at all?? I don't understand how you can use the law to impose your beliefs on others and then play the victim!! Oh no you poor Christians! Not being able to enforce your power on others! Woe is you!! Look at this. now your calling Christians the same as nazis and bigots. Do you think that this might make them a little unhappy and treat you a little worse then if you where respectful of them? Look marriage is a big deal to us. You act like a complete dick to things that are important to us and you wonder why we feel that we are being attacked? are you anyway aware of how you sound right now? Let me try and help you understand it in a different way. What if when people are able to design their offspring that we find out that being gay is a genetic thing? Do you think that gay people will become extinct? Why is marriage a big deal to you christians when it actually has little if anything to do with christianity? Marriage is sanctioned by the state not the church, the church involvement is purely ceremonial. Marriage pre-dates christanity by many thousands of years and has existed in one name or another in almost every culture, its a bit late in the day to try and lay sole claim to it now. Just because someone was created by someone else doesn't mean that someone else can't make it significant to them. during the reformation and middle ages it became a much bigger deal. It doesn't take that much to understand this point in a modern age but I'm pretty sure thats where it started. there isn't really anything else that cares about marriage other then the church. everything that the state has done with it was mearly a cooperation with it and to help out middle class families and other economic things. Obama wants civil unions because he doesn't want to fight the religious right over it for one and its pretty funny that in this case I support him and you are against him. Its not really a sole claim thing. even if the Scientology had a new thing about combining a male and a female into a single being under Cthulhu or whatever then it would be perfectly fine if they called it Cuchulain. ( I spell checked it and that was close) marriage becoming something other then a property contract really started with the church as well. Loving your wife and respecting your husband being something that god said is kinda important. the problem is that they arn't trying to debate the religious reasoning for gay marriage they are just trying to get the state to decide what it is and isn't which should be a point of separation of church and state but really isn't in this case. marriage in this case at the least was started by the church coming over first and then the government adopting it. I'm very confused why the movement trys to be so argumentative and confrontational about the whole thing when there are so many roads that wouldn't that would have accomplished the same thing. could you lay off the you Christians it just sounds offensive and doesn't get across anything
You realise that what you say at the beginning there torpedo's your whole argument right?
You say that just because something was created by someone else doesn't mean it can't become meaningful, and that's exactly true, so who are you to deny it to the LGBT community for whom it will certainly be a meaningful thing? Basically you're saying that religion should be allowed to hijack it and withhold it from others on a whim, again, this is wrong both in the sense that marriage is sanctioned by the state (a point I already raised but which your second paragraph shows you have either missed or ignored) and not by the church and ethically from the point of view that you are denying equal rights to another group.
|
Well done Washington. Thankfully, as society progresses, in a few decades people will look at the anti-gay marriage crowd with the same disdain we now use to look at the people who protested interracial marriage.
|
On February 10 2012 04:12 sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 04:07 Focuspants wrote:
Guys, Sermokala isnt imposing their beliefs on anyone, theyre just telling people what they can or cannot do based on their beliefs. Stop listening to the propeganda!
The fact of the matter is, like the suffrage movement, like the civil rights movement, like any movement where a group in society was witheld rights due to some biological trait, we as a society, need to realize our follies in the past, and move forward in an effort to make everyone feel equal and appreciated.
Gay marriage hurts nobody. The argument that only Christians understand the true value and sanctity of marriage is completely ludicrous. In fact, christians have the highest divorce rates because they create such a false value for it, that people enter it unprepared. Why dont you spend all your time and resources worrying about fixing your own problems, and leave people that love each other alone.
I cant believe this is actually still an issue in American politics. Theres so much shit going on, and this still gets air time. Sad.
Good job people of Washington though! so what your saying is that there is some biological difference to gay people and by definition normal people? Thats a pretty hilarious way to start your argument. it amazes me how many people treat team liquid general like a cnn comment section.
Umm... yes, they are biologically different. Not in their gender, like with women, not in their skin colour like with blacks, but with their sexual preference. You actually believe that being gay is a choice?
And what do you mean "normal people". Everyone is "normal" in the sense that they are born human, and are biologically predisposed to be what they are. Normal, does not mean "not gay" to most people. But apparently it does to you.
|
On February 10 2012 03:17 Greater Spire wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 03:10 sermokala wrote:On February 10 2012 03:07 Sawajiri wrote:On February 10 2012 02:40 sermokala wrote: If it had any name other then marriage it wouldn't have been a problem but the gay rights movement keep trying to poke the religious right and constantly try and fight them.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, what? There is such a thing as gay Christians. I highly doubt that the only reason why gay people are seeking the right to marry is because they want to start a verbal mudslinging match with the religious right. Plenty of homosexuals are religious and/or conservative. To them it's not just a matter of picking a fight, but wanting to get married because the word 'marriage' has a meaning and value to them. I'm not even gay but I find it pretty offensive you're trying to put it as if all gay people were only seeking the right to marry to piss off other people. Its not gay people that are causing the problem. the leading protestant organization is now allowing gay pastors to serve. Its all the anti religious people coming out of the woodwork to shit on religious people with easy ammunition. we either object to it and get called bigots or don't and get called hypocrites. Then leave the leading Protestant organisation. Nobody is forcing you to be a part of it. The fact that there are Church services every Sunday that I disagree with does not mean I am forced to attend. I can "shit on religious people" even without gay marriage - there are many things religious people can be reasonably attacked on - the fact that they are against abortion, the fact that they are against euthanasia, the fact that they are against evolution, the fact that they are against contraception, etc. And furthermore - why are you using words like shit when you are supposedly a Christian? Isn't that rather unChristian?
Are you kidding me? You can't just lump all Christians into one monolithic mass, much less all religious people. Within Christianity there are many different sects, and within those sects many different churches, and within those churches many different people. And even Christians of the same denomination worshiping at the same church aren't required to believe the same thing. I know pro-choice, anti-capital punishment, liberal Christians, and pro-life, pro-capital punishment, conservative atheists. You're resorting to stereotyping and implying that all Christians must conform to your understanding of Christianity or else be classified (by your definition) as non Christian. Your hypocrisy is seemingly only matched by your ignorance and arrogance.
|
On February 10 2012 04:12 sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 04:07 Focuspants wrote:
Guys, Sermokala isnt imposing their beliefs on anyone, theyre just telling people what they can or cannot do based on their beliefs. Stop listening to the propeganda!
The fact of the matter is, like the suffrage movement, like the civil rights movement, like any movement where a group in society was witheld rights due to some biological trait, we as a society, need to realize our follies in the past, and move forward in an effort to make everyone feel equal and appreciated.
Gay marriage hurts nobody. The argument that only Christians understand the true value and sanctity of marriage is completely ludicrous. In fact, christians have the highest divorce rates because they create such a false value for it, that people enter it unprepared. Why dont you spend all your time and resources worrying about fixing your own problems, and leave people that love each other alone.
I cant believe this is actually still an issue in American politics. Theres so much shit going on, and this still gets air time. Sad.
Good job people of Washington though! so what your saying is that there is some biological difference to gay people and by definition normal people? Thats a pretty hilarious way to start your argument. it amazes me how many people treat team liquid general like a cnn comment section.
Are you suggesting that there isn't a biological explanation for attraction to the same sex? I get hard when I see naked girls, and there is a biological reason for this. Are you implying that a man who gets similar arousal from another man is...lying? Pretending? I don't understand your logic sir... then again, you are clutching that bible rather tightly....
|
IMO fundamentalists should be more concerned about attack adulterers (cough newt cough).
It's actually against one of the ten commandments, where as the "evil" of homosexuality is based off a few very ambiguous quotes.
|
A little step closer to a world of freedom.
|
On February 10 2012 04:14 Focuspants wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 04:12 sermokala wrote:On February 10 2012 04:07 Focuspants wrote:
Guys, Sermokala isnt imposing their beliefs on anyone, theyre just telling people what they can or cannot do based on their beliefs. Stop listening to the propeganda!
The fact of the matter is, like the suffrage movement, like the civil rights movement, like any movement where a group in society was witheld rights due to some biological trait, we as a society, need to realize our follies in the past, and move forward in an effort to make everyone feel equal and appreciated.
Gay marriage hurts nobody. The argument that only Christians understand the true value and sanctity of marriage is completely ludicrous. In fact, christians have the highest divorce rates because they create such a false value for it, that people enter it unprepared. Why dont you spend all your time and resources worrying about fixing your own problems, and leave people that love each other alone.
I cant believe this is actually still an issue in American politics. Theres so much shit going on, and this still gets air time. Sad.
Good job people of Washington though! so what your saying is that there is some biological difference to gay people and by definition normal people? Thats a pretty hilarious way to start your argument. it amazes me how many people treat team liquid general like a cnn comment section. Umm... yes, they are biologically different. Not in their gender, like with women, not in their skin colour like with blacks, but with their sexual preference. You actually believe that being gay is a choice? And what do you mean "normal people". Everyone is "normal" in the sense that they are born human, and are biologically predisposed to be what they are. Normal, does not mean "not gay" to most people. But apparently it does to you.
If being gay was a choice it wouldn't be biological. by being something you are born with say being black it is in fact biological. tell me that you aren't serious with thinking this.
you're acting like being gay makes you different from everyone else. the difference between me and an alcoholic is larger then me and my black friend. you specifically are saying that they are a different group in your post.
|
On February 10 2012 04:24 sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 04:14 Focuspants wrote:On February 10 2012 04:12 sermokala wrote:On February 10 2012 04:07 Focuspants wrote:
Guys, Sermokala isnt imposing their beliefs on anyone, theyre just telling people what they can or cannot do based on their beliefs. Stop listening to the propeganda!
The fact of the matter is, like the suffrage movement, like the civil rights movement, like any movement where a group in society was witheld rights due to some biological trait, we as a society, need to realize our follies in the past, and move forward in an effort to make everyone feel equal and appreciated.
Gay marriage hurts nobody. The argument that only Christians understand the true value and sanctity of marriage is completely ludicrous. In fact, christians have the highest divorce rates because they create such a false value for it, that people enter it unprepared. Why dont you spend all your time and resources worrying about fixing your own problems, and leave people that love each other alone.
I cant believe this is actually still an issue in American politics. Theres so much shit going on, and this still gets air time. Sad.
Good job people of Washington though! so what your saying is that there is some biological difference to gay people and by definition normal people? Thats a pretty hilarious way to start your argument. it amazes me how many people treat team liquid general like a cnn comment section. Umm... yes, they are biologically different. Not in their gender, like with women, not in their skin colour like with blacks, but with their sexual preference. You actually believe that being gay is a choice? And what do you mean "normal people". Everyone is "normal" in the sense that they are born human, and are biologically predisposed to be what they are. Normal, does not mean "not gay" to most people. But apparently it does to you. If being gay was a choice it wouldn't be biological. by being something you are born with say being black it is in fact biological. tell me that you aren't serious with thinking this. you're acting like being gay makes you different from everyone else. the difference between me and an alcoholic is larger then me and my black friend. you specifically are saying that they are a different group in your post.
Your reading comprehension is absolutely terrible. I said they are BIOLOGICALLY gay. Having a biological trait that differs from someone else DOES NOT make you "abnormal". You are the one that defined them as gay and others as "normal", not me. If you think me saying that them having a biological trait that is different means I think they are not normal, then there would be no normal, because everyone has different biological traits.
The fact is, EVERYONE deserves the same rights and freedoms, because EVERYONE is human. Unless what you are doing wil cause harm to someone else, or infringe upon their freedoms (much like what youre doing), people should be allowed to pursue happiness in an equal fashion.
You are trying to argue from a position of intellectual superiority, and all of your posts wreak of ignorance. Get a grip.
|
I'm just going to stop trying to debate in this thread. no one else is trying to do anything but spread what they think with the propaganda that they can find. Its a real shame that I'm the one that has actually questioned what I believe in and all of you care about is trying to make everyone else think the same as you.
If anyone wants to actually debate about this pm me. I doubt I'll get one. you all can just act like believing the same thing as the people around you without question is the smart thing to do.
|
i'm fine with gays marrying, but i really don't like it when people flaunt their homosexuality like they deserve more respect etc than any other person (not saying this thread is an example at all i'm just saying). i know this may be offensive but i view homosexuality as something that is just not quite normal with your brain, just like any other "disorder" that people may have, because of the whole continuation of the human race thing...
(i'm straight myself)
|
Guys it's that simple:
People who are against gay marriage are just exactly like theists. They don't have any argument that has not been disproven thousands of times. But it's not worth discussing with them, as you wouldn't discuss with kitten not to hunt the mouse. Similar to animals, their lack of intellect makes it impossible for them to comprehend the fact that their beliefs are what they are: beliefs and nothing more. I, as an open-minded person ( read: atheist ), see, that gay marriage is obviously not a problem for anyone who is not gay, so there is no reason whatsoever to prohibit it.
|
United States7488 Posts
Please don't make this thread a debate about religion. If you do I will close it.
|
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.
This argument is flawed because marriage goes against the idea of living to procreate, it limits you to one partner. If procreation is the name of the game then you want many partners. Also there's no laws saying sterile people cannot marry.
|
On February 10 2012 04:29 sermokala wrote:
I'm just going to stop trying to debate in this thread. no one else is trying to do anything but spread what they think with the propaganda that they can find. Its a real shame that I'm the one that has actually questioned what I believe in and all of you care about is trying to make everyone else think the same as you.
If anyone wants to actually debate about this pm me. I doubt I'll get one. you all can just act like believing the same thing as the people around you without question is the smart thing to do.
The irony is delicious.
|
Wait, sermolka, I asked you to explain yourself and you went off on a tangent. Majority minority doesn't matter. I asked to explain further on how being against gay marriage is not imposing your beliefs on others. I still didn't get an explanation or perhaps I didn't understand it. I'm not understanding you.
|
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.
Time for me to go south
|
On February 09 2012 12:55 Yosho wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 12:49 bRiz wrote:
Don't know how I feel about this. On one hand, it's a positive answer to a problem being experienced in the GLT community, but I personally prefer to keep marriage between a man and a woman, though I don't think I'd vote for a restriction like that. Just a personal opinion. I wouldn't vote for this to pass but if I would vote to not let is pass. Although even in nature gay animals exist, I feel it's like any other deficiency that people / animals can be born with. One of the sole thing we rely on to define life is reproduction. You cannot do this naturally on gay people. Not to be rude but I don't count this as a step up, but as a step down.
The way i see this is that the world i kind of over populated as it is and our species is pretty secure in its survival at least for now that the whole reproductive thing becomes mute to me, if anything its good to have non-reproductive couples so that orphaned or unwanted kids can still have a home with parents that will care for them and so they won't become a burden upon society because they had no support otherwise.
|
People keep regurgitating the same trite arguments against gay marriage even after they've been thoroughly disproved. I am personally a little repulsed by two men kissing. I also don't like turnip greens. So guess what... I don't kiss guys and I don't eat turnip greens. Taking other people's rights because YOU don't find it appropriate is simply wrong.
Allow me to use your bigot logic: Anyone who is opposed to gay marriage should be castrated because I THINK that anyone that painfully stupid should not be allowed to procreate. Get it? Probably not... because you're an idiot.
|
United States1411 Posts
On February 10 2012 04:31 AlphaWhale 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. This argument is flawed because marriage goes against the idea of living to procreate, it limits you to one partner. If procreation is the name of the game then you want many partners. Also there's no laws saying sterile people cannot marry.
Don't even dignify that bigot with a response
This is basically your argument Yosho:
"I don't think black people should be citizens. I feel it's a defilement of what citizenship is."
See I can be a bigot too ^^
Or "I don't think short people should be able to vote. There are options available for a short person to "fix" their shortness, so they should do that and then they can vote."
Those are completely invalid arguments because you are denying someone a right based a simple biological characteristic that has no bearing on the issue at hand. Yes there is plenty of empirical evidence suggesting that a highly cognitive deficient person should not operate machinery as it would endanger the individual and others. There is no such danger to society at large or the individual in question in allowing them to have a legal marriage.
Congratulations to Washington! One more step towards ending our generations civil rights movement.
|
What an awful thread, but a great thing for Washington. As said many times here, an atheist can have a marriage in a church, obviously the bible can be ignored in that case, so why not a few others. Go and marry and have a good time, I say.
Random pic I found. No atheists but the point remains.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
United States1411 Posts
On February 10 2012 05:13 Chibithor wrote:What an awful thread, but a great thing for Washington. As said many times here, an atheist can have a marriage in a church, obviously the bible can be ignored in that case, so why not a few others. Go and marry and have a good time, I say. Random pic I found. No atheists but the point remains. + Show Spoiler +
Its not even about getting married in a church, its about getting married in the eyes of the law (that whole separation of church and state thing)
Like I couldn't care less about clergy allowing gays to marry in their churches. But for a state or federal government to say you can't get legally married; is nothing but a violation of their rights.
off topic: I'm surprised no one (that I've seen) has used the Rick Santorum argument, my personal favorite:
If you let two guys marry what's to stop a guy from marrying a horse?
EDIT: also, nice picture. Support love^^
|
off topic: I'm surprised no one (that I've seen) has used the Rick Santorum argument, my personal favorite:
If you let two guys marry what's to stop a guy from marrying a horse? That's a joke, right? A serious presidential candidate of arguably the mightiest country in the world did not really say that, right?
|
I personally think the government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage.
|
On February 10 2012 05:33 Thorakh wrote:Show nested quote +off topic: I'm surprised no one (that I've seen) has used the Rick Santorum argument, my personal favorite:
If you let two guys marry what's to stop a guy from marrying a horse? That's a joke, right? A serious presidential candidate of arguably the mightiest country in the world did not really say that, right?
Actually i think he said dog not horse. Prompting Dan Savage to googlebomb him.
|
United States1411 Posts
On February 10 2012 05:54 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 05:33 Thorakh wrote:off topic: I'm surprised no one (that I've seen) has used the Rick Santorum argument, my personal favorite:
If you let two guys marry what's to stop a guy from marrying a horse? That's a joke, right? A serious presidential candidate of arguably the mightiest country in the world did not really say that, right? Actually i think he said dog not horse. Prompting Dan Savage to googlebomb him.
Point being, Yes Rick Santorum used the same style of argument
2 men being allows to marry will inevitably lead the way (or prevent our ability to stop) a man from marrying an animal.
The Youtube clip is readily available. Jon Stewart has aired the clip more than once.
EDIT: before someone jumps down my throat, I brought his argument up sarcastically because people have used every other absurd baseless anti gay marriage argument already. I don't endorse Rick's argument lol.
|
On February 10 2012 04:30 Silidons wrote:i'm fine with gays marrying, but i really don't like it when people flaunt their homosexuality like they deserve more respect etc than any other person (not saying this thread is an example at all i'm just saying). i know this may be offensive but i v iew homosexuality as something that is just not quite normal with your brain, just like any other "disorder" that people may have, because of the whole continuation of the human race thing... (i'm straight myself)
This is highly offensive. You really think that gays will end the reproduction of the human race? No. We are reproducing just fine as the vast majority of people are straight. If anything, there's too many people here. Do some research and actually learn about being gay. Then you wouldn't spout such arrogant remarks.
|
On February 10 2012 06:11 LambtrOn wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 04:30 Silidons wrote:i'm fine with gays marrying, but i really don't like it when people flaunt their homosexuality like they deserve more respect etc than any other person (not saying this thread is an example at all i'm just saying). i know this may be offensive but i v iew homosexuality as something that is just not quite normal with your brain, just like any other "disorder" that people may have, because of the whole continuation of the human race thing... (i'm straight myself) This is highly offensive. You really think that gays will end the reproduction of the human race? No. We are reproducing just fine as the vast majority of people are straight. If anything, there's too many people here. Do some research and actually learn about being gay. Then you wouldn't spout such arrogant remarks.
Also, there were gay people from the very beginning of mankind. And does this fact support 'the end of reproduction'? No! We are reproducing just like 10,000 years ago.
|
On February 10 2012 04:31 AlphaWhale wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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. This argument is flawed because marriage goes against the idea of living to procreate, it limits you to one partner. If procreation is the name of the game then you want many partners. Also there's no laws saying sterile people cannot marry.
You must forget the fact that people cho(o)se only one partner, because it's safest method for procreation. The human infants are quite vulnerable compared to any other species' , and people figured out (that's why having a big brain helps) that having only 1 partner is good for the female (she can easily bring up her child since she has someone who can support them) and also for the male (100% chance for reproducing). So you can't really say it's against procreation. [before anyone said "but you don't need to live your whole live with someone 'cause your child grows up pretty fast and you could move on to a new partner", but why would you do it? you have someone, who'd most likely have more children; and people those days when marriage was invented didn't live for 60+ years]
But dunno why marriage, as it now is, was invented. Guess people had too much time and money to kill. Noone really has any direct benefit from it. Still, it's an old cultural custom, and should be treated like that. This is the main reason I'm against gay marriage. It was invented for a man and a woman. Would you ban christmas trees, since those trees could hinder global warming? Or what about any (inter)national holidays?
I've spoken to a lot of gay people and none of them could explain me, why is gay marriage good? Why is it even worth debating?
|
I don't understand why the government was ever saying who can get married and who can't in the first place. Why does the government sponsor marriage at all?
Deciding who to marry is a deeply personal, and for many people, religious decision. The government needs to keep its nose out of these issues. That means no government sponsored marriage at all, not for heterosexuals or homosexuals or anyone else.
If marriage was based on some secular 'property contact' before it was a religious idea, then let's move it back to that secular idea. Call it a property contract, not marriage.
|
On February 10 2012 04:30 Silidons wrote:
i'm fine with gays marrying, but i really don't like it when people flaunt their homosexuality like they deserve more respect etc than any other person (not saying this thread is an example at all i'm just saying).
(i'm straight myself)
hmm i feel similarly. i certainly don't think we should ever discriminate against homosexuals but rather they should be treated as equals, not people who are super special. i think they should be allow to marry, it's america, if they can't marry then what is freedom derp, so this is definitely good and something i hope other states will follow. discrimination against people who are different will probably never cease to exist but in this day and age, i feel like everyone should be treated equally (duh) but people's fucked up mindsets will always exist i guess t.t.
|
On February 10 2012 06:33 Antyee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 04:31 AlphaWhale wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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. This argument is flawed because marriage goes against the idea of living to procreate, it limits you to one partner. If procreation is the name of the game then you want many partners. Also there's no laws saying sterile people cannot marry. You must forget the fact that people cho(o)se only one partner, because it's safest method for procreation. The human infants are quite vulnerable compared to any other species' , and people figured out (that's why having a big brain helps) that having only 1 partner is good for the female (she can easily bring up her child since she has someone who can support them) and also for the male (100% chance for reproducing). So you can't really say it's against procreation. [before anyone said "but you don't need to live your whole live with someone 'cause your child grows up pretty fast and you could move on to a new partner", but why would you do it? you have someone, who'd most likely have more children; and people those days when marriage was invented didn't live for 60+ years] But dunno why marriage, as it now is, was invented. Guess people had too much time and money to kill. Noone really has any direct benefit from it. Still, it's an old cultural custom, and should be treated like that. This is the main reason I'm against gay marriage. It was invented for a man and a woman. Would you ban christmas trees, since those trees could hinder global warming? Or what about any (inter)national holidays? I've spoken to a lot of gay people and none of them could explain me, why is gay marriage good? Why is it even worth debating?
Because marriage gives a lot of social benefits etc.? It's fine if religious bigots don't approve of marriage in church "in front of God" or whatever, but not allowing 2 individuals of the same sex who love and care for each other to form a union and gain same benefits as 2 individuals of opposite sex is dumb.
|
Gay couples definately should not be able to adopt children, I know I would resent my parents if they were gay. It's genetics, sorry. The reason you are gay is because of a genetic disorder.
|
On February 10 2012 06:33 Antyee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 04:31 AlphaWhale wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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. This argument is flawed because marriage goes against the idea of living to procreate, it limits you to one partner. If procreation is the name of the game then you want many partners. Also there's no laws saying sterile people cannot marry. You must forget the fact that people cho(o)se only one partner, because it's safest method for procreation. The human infants are quite vulnerable compared to any other species' , and people figured out (that's why having a big brain helps) that having only 1 partner is good for the female (she can easily bring up her child since she has someone who can support them) and also for the male (100% chance for reproducing). So you can't really say it's against procreation. [before anyone said "but you don't need to live your whole live with someone 'cause your child grows up pretty fast and you could move on to a new partner", but why would you do it? you have someone, who'd most likely have more children; and people those days when marriage was invented didn't live for 60+ years] But dunno why marriage, as it now is, was invented. Guess people had too much time and money to kill. Noone really has any direct benefit from it. Still, it's an old cultural custom, and should be treated like that. This is the main reason I'm against gay marriage. It was invented for a man and a woman. Would you ban christmas trees, since those trees could hinder global warming? Or what about any (inter)national holidays? I've spoken to a lot of gay people and none of them could explain me, why is gay marriage good? Why is it even worth debating?
Why are you stuck in the past? Social customs change. Women weren't able to vote not that long ago? Do you disagree with that since it was an old fashioned tradition? You can't pick it choose which parts of the past are acceptable and which aren't. Gay marriage is good for all the reasons straight marriage is good, mainly It creates a loving family where gays are able to enjoy the benefits of marriage. Look how far our society has progressed. Gay marriage will be legal, history has already told us that. Answer this, how is it bad?
|
On February 10 2012 06:48 Saltydizzle wrote:
Gay couples definately should not be able to adopt children, I know I would resent my parents if they were gay. It's genetics, sorry. The reason you are gay is because of a genetic disorder.
And this should prevent them from adopting because? You act like they are inhumane and unfit to raise kids because of this so called 'genetic disorder'. Just because you don't approve doesn't make it ok.
|
On February 10 2012 06:48 Saltydizzle wrote:
Gay couples definately should not be able to adopt children, I know I would resent my parents if they were gay. It's genetics, sorry. The reason you are gay is because of a genetic disorder.
Haha wow, the amount of hate and stupidity. Oh man.
I'd rather have a gay couple raising my children than couple full of hate and bigotry
|
I'm really astounding be the amount of intolerance in this thread.
|
On February 10 2012 06:48 Saltydizzle wrote:
Gay couples definately should not be able to adopt children, I know I would resent my parents if they were gay. It's genetics, sorry. The reason you are gay is because of a genetic disorder. Yes of course you would currently resent your parents if they were gay seeing as you're a bigot.
If you grew up with your gay parents you would love them however, and be a normal, openminded individual.
|
On February 10 2012 06:48 Saltydizzle wrote:
Gay couples definately should not be able to adopt children, I know I would resent my parents if they were gay. It's genetics, sorry. The reason you are gay is because of a genetic disorder.
So people also should not be cured when they have cancer or aids because its a genetic disorder?
Its completly false and there is no scientific evidence for it at all.
|
On February 10 2012 06:52 LambtrOn wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 06:48 Saltydizzle wrote:
Gay couples definately should not be able to adopt children, I know I would resent my parents if they were gay. It's genetics, sorry. The reason you are gay is because of a genetic disorder. And this should prevent them from adopting because? You act like they are inhumane and unfit to raise kids because of this so called 'genetic disorder'. Just because you don't approve doesn't make it ok.
Like Antyee wrote, its genetics that you have a parter that is stable will raise your children in a responsible same way. Being raised thinking being gay normal, is just wrong, sorry.
|
Like Antyee wrote, its genetics that you have a parter that is stable will raise your childrena responsibe same way. Being raised thinking being gay normal, is just wrong, sorry. So if your mother or father had a genetic disability that would limit his or her ability to raise you, you would resent them 'because it's wrong'? My god.
|
On February 10 2012 06:54 Saltydizzle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 06:52 LambtrOn wrote:On February 10 2012 06:48 Saltydizzle wrote:
Gay couples definately should not be able to adopt children, I know I would resent my parents if they were gay. It's genetics, sorry. The reason you are gay is because of a genetic disorder. And this should prevent them from adopting because? You act like they are inhumane and unfit to raise kids because of this so called 'genetic disorder'. Just because you don't approve doesn't make it ok. Like Antyee wrote, its genetics that you have a parter that is stable will raise your children in a responsible same way. Being raised thinking being gay normal, is just wrong, sorry.
At what point is having a forum for free discussion just pandering to bigots? And at what point should we silence them?
|
On February 10 2012 06:54 Saltydizzle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 06:52 LambtrOn wrote:On February 10 2012 06:48 Saltydizzle wrote:
Gay couples definately should not be able to adopt children, I know I would resent my parents if they were gay. It's genetics, sorry. The reason you are gay is because of a genetic disorder. And this should prevent them from adopting because? You act like they are inhumane and unfit to raise kids because of this so called 'genetic disorder'. Just because you don't approve doesn't make it ok. Like Antyee wrote, its genetics that you have a parter that is stable will raise your childrena responsibe same way. Being raised thinking being gay normal, is just wrong, sorry.
Do have any sort of evidence to back this up at all? I'm assuming you're just pulling this out of your ass. I know some children who were raised by a lesbian couple and there's absolutely no way to tell by talking to them. They are completely normal. They are loving, caring and tolerant. You could probably learn a few things from them.
|
On February 10 2012 06:57 Thorakh wrote:Show nested quote +Like Antyee wrote, its genetics that you have a parter that is stable will raise your childrena responsibe same way. Being raised thinking being gay normal, is just wrong, sorry. So if your mother or father had a genetic disability that would limit his or her ability to raise you, you would resent her 'because it's wrong'? My god.
Well aids and cancer are something you develop. Married gay people cannot reproduce, therefore are at a disadvantage to regular married people.
|
On February 10 2012 06:59 LambtrOn wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 06:54 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 06:52 LambtrOn wrote:On February 10 2012 06:48 Saltydizzle wrote:
Gay couples definately should not be able to adopt children, I know I would resent my parents if they were gay. It's genetics, sorry. The reason you are gay is because of a genetic disorder. And this should prevent them from adopting because? You act like they are inhumane and unfit to raise kids because of this so called 'genetic disorder'. Just because you don't approve doesn't make it ok. Like Antyee wrote, its genetics that you have a parter that is stable will raise your childrena responsibe same way. Being raised thinking being gay normal, is just wrong, sorry. Do have any sort of evidence to back this up at all? I'm assuming you're just pulling this out of your ass. I know some children who were raised by a lesbian couple and there's absolutely no way to tell by talking to them. They are completely normal. They are loving, caring and tolerant. You could probably learn a few things from them.
My neighbors had children, then the man had a sex change, and they are now lesbian. You can see the effects it has on the kids.
|
On February 10 2012 07:00 Saltydizzle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 06:57 Thorakh wrote:Like Antyee wrote, its genetics that you have a parter that is stable will raise your childrena responsibe same way. Being raised thinking being gay normal, is just wrong, sorry. So if your mother or father had a genetic disability that would limit his or her ability to raise you, you would resent her 'because it's wrong'? My god. Well aids and cancer are something you develop. Married gay people cannot reproduce, therefore are at a disadvantage to regular married people.
So are infertile people. What's your point?
|
On February 10 2012 07:00 Saltydizzle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 06:57 Thorakh wrote:Like Antyee wrote, its genetics that you have a parter that is stable will raise your childrena responsibe same way. Being raised thinking being gay normal, is just wrong, sorry. So if your mother or father had a genetic disability that would limit his or her ability to raise you, you would resent her 'because it's wrong'? My god. Well aids and cancer are something you develop. Married gay people cannot reproduce, therefore are at a disadvantage to regular married people. And your point is?
I believe being gay is some sort of disorder as well, but that does not mean they are not human beings that deserve the same rights as every other human being, and just like every other person with a genetic disorder.
My neighbors had children, then the man had a sex change, and they are now lesbian. You can see the effects it has on the kids. I wonder whether this is because it genuinely affected the kids, or because it affected the kids due to social stigmas surrounding the matter due to people like you, kids at school bullying them for it, people telling them their parents will go to hell, etc.
|
On February 10 2012 07:02 Saltydizzle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 06:59 LambtrOn wrote:On February 10 2012 06:54 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 06:52 LambtrOn wrote:On February 10 2012 06:48 Saltydizzle wrote:
Gay couples definately should not be able to adopt children, I know I would resent my parents if they were gay. It's genetics, sorry. The reason you are gay is because of a genetic disorder. And this should prevent them from adopting because? You act like they are inhumane and unfit to raise kids because of this so called 'genetic disorder'. Just because you don't approve doesn't make it ok. Like Antyee wrote, its genetics that you have a parter that is stable will raise your childrena responsibe same way. Being raised thinking being gay normal, is just wrong, sorry. Do have any sort of evidence to back this up at all? I'm assuming you're just pulling this out of your ass. I know some children who were raised by a lesbian couple and there's absolutely no way to tell by talking to them. They are completely normal. They are loving, caring and tolerant. You could probably learn a few things from them. My neighbors had children, then the man had a sex change, and they are now lesbian. You can see the effects it has on the kids.
A sex change is completely different.
|
On February 10 2012 07:02 LambtrOn wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:00 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 06:57 Thorakh wrote:Like Antyee wrote, its genetics that you have a parter that is stable will raise your childrena responsibe same way. Being raised thinking being gay normal, is just wrong, sorry. So if your mother or father had a genetic disability that would limit his or her ability to raise you, you would resent her 'because it's wrong'? My god. Well aids and cancer are something you develop. Married gay people cannot reproduce, therefore are at a disadvantage to regular married people. So are infertile people. What's your point?
They are unfortunately at a disadvantage, and cannot pass on their genes. Gay people choose to be at a disadvantage.
I don't think it's right, it's just my opinion. Personally I feel sick thinking about gay couples, and I wouldn't want anyone else to be in an uncomfortable position.
|
On February 10 2012 07:04 Saltydizzle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:02 LambtrOn wrote:On February 10 2012 07:00 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 06:57 Thorakh wrote:Like Antyee wrote, its genetics that you have a parter that is stable will raise your childrena responsibe same way. Being raised thinking being gay normal, is just wrong, sorry. So if your mother or father had a genetic disability that would limit his or her ability to raise you, you would resent her 'because it's wrong'? My god. Well aids and cancer are something you develop. Married gay people cannot reproduce, therefore are at a disadvantage to regular married people. So are infertile people. What's your point? I don't think it's right, it's just my opinion. Personally I feel sick thinking about gay couples, and I wouldn't want anyone else to be in an uncomfortable position.
Well that's your opinion, and luckily you can keep it yourself and not impede on anyone's right to a happy life. It's fine to have your opinion, just don't take away equal rights from people you don't agree with. Keep your intolerance to yourself and let people be people.
|
On February 10 2012 07:06 LambtrOn wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:04 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:02 LambtrOn wrote:On February 10 2012 07:00 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 06:57 Thorakh wrote:Like Antyee wrote, its genetics that you have a parter that is stable will raise your childrena responsibe same way. Being raised thinking being gay normal, is just wrong, sorry. So if your mother or father had a genetic disability that would limit his or her ability to raise you, you would resent her 'because it's wrong'? My god. Well aids and cancer are something you develop. Married gay people cannot reproduce, therefore are at a disadvantage to regular married people. So are infertile people. What's your point? I don't think it's right, it's just my opinion. Personally I feel sick thinking about gay couples, and I wouldn't want anyone else to be in an uncomfortable position. Well that's your opinion, and luckily you can keep it yourself and not impede on anyone's right to a happy life. It's fine to have your opinion, just don't take away equal rights from people you don't agree with. Keep your intolerance to yourself and let people be people.
Well seeing as I live in WA, and will be voting on it, it does effect me. I understand your point, but I am given the option to vote, and it's my responsibity to vote(on what i think is right).
|
On February 10 2012 07:00 Saltydizzle wrote:
Married gay people cannot reproduce, therefore are at a disadvantage to regular married people.
Um, sure they can reproduce. It's quite common for lesbians to get sperm donations, or for gay men to look for a surrogate mother to carry a biological child for them. Sure, they can't both be the parent of the child, but millions of straight people are living with a similar arrangement, where the children in the household are only the biological descendants of one of the spouses.
|
On February 10 2012 07:04 Saltydizzle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:02 LambtrOn wrote:On February 10 2012 07:00 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 06:57 Thorakh wrote:Like Antyee wrote, its genetics that you have a parter that is stable will raise your childrena responsibe same way. Being raised thinking being gay normal, is just wrong, sorry. So if your mother or father had a genetic disability that would limit his or her ability to raise you, you would resent her 'because it's wrong'? My god. Well aids and cancer are something you develop. Married gay people cannot reproduce, therefore are at a disadvantage to regular married people. So are infertile people. What's your point? They are unfortunately at a disadvantage, and cannot pass on their genes. Gay people choose to be at a disadvantage. I don't think it's right, it's just my opinion. Personally I feel sick thinking about gay couples, and I wouldn't want anyone else to be in an uncomfortable position.
Haha choose to be at a disadvantage...WHY THE HELL WOULD ANYONE CHOOSE TO BE AT A DISADVANTAGE? That is honestly the dumbest arguement used by people like you
Also. My opinion is that people like you shouldn't be able to speak because I find your thoughts make me disgusted. Should you not have a voice?
|
On February 10 2012 07:10 Saltydizzle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:06 LambtrOn wrote:On February 10 2012 07:04 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:02 LambtrOn wrote:On February 10 2012 07:00 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 06:57 Thorakh wrote:Like Antyee wrote, its genetics that you have a parter that is stable will raise your childrena responsibe same way. Being raised thinking being gay normal, is just wrong, sorry. So if your mother or father had a genetic disability that would limit his or her ability to raise you, you would resent her 'because it's wrong'? My god. Well aids and cancer are something you develop. Married gay people cannot reproduce, therefore are at a disadvantage to regular married people. So are infertile people. What's your point? I don't think it's right, it's just my opinion. Personally I feel sick thinking about gay couples, and I wouldn't want anyone else to be in an uncomfortable position. Well that's your opinion, and luckily you can keep it yourself and not impede on anyone's right to a happy life. It's fine to have your opinion, just don't take away equal rights from people you don't agree with. Keep your intolerance to yourself and let people be people. Well seeing as I live in WA, and will be voting on it, it does effect me. I understand your point, but I am given the option to vote, and it's my responsibity to vote(on what i think is right).
See it actually doesn't affect you. There are already gay couples that you can see in public. How does them marrying affect you at all? It doesn't. You are saying that since YOU don't agree with it, that OTHER PEOPLE that have no connection to you whatsoever can't enjoy the benefits of marriage. It's bigotry at its finest.
|
On February 10 2012 07:11 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:04 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:02 LambtrOn wrote:On February 10 2012 07:00 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 06:57 Thorakh wrote:Like Antyee wrote, its genetics that you have a parter that is stable will raise your childrena responsibe same way. Being raised thinking being gay normal, is just wrong, sorry. So if your mother or father had a genetic disability that would limit his or her ability to raise you, you would resent her 'because it's wrong'? My god. Well aids and cancer are something you develop. Married gay people cannot reproduce, therefore are at a disadvantage to regular married people. So are infertile people. What's your point? They are unfortunately at a disadvantage, and cannot pass on their genes. Gay people choose to be at a disadvantage. I don't think it's right, it's just my opinion. Personally I feel sick thinking about gay couples, and I wouldn't want anyone else to be in an uncomfortable position. Haha choose to be at a disadvantage...WHY THE HELL WOULD ANYONE CHOOSE TO BE AT A DISADVANTAGE? That is honestly the dumbest arguement used by people like you Also. My opinion is that people like you shouldn't be able to speak because I find your thoughts make me disgusted. Should you not have a voice?
When your state can vote on that decision to limit my free speech, feel free to. Right now I am given the option to vote, and will do accordingly
|
On February 10 2012 07:13 Saltydizzle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:11 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:04 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:02 LambtrOn wrote:On February 10 2012 07:00 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 06:57 Thorakh wrote:Like Antyee wrote, its genetics that you have a parter that is stable will raise your childrena responsibe same way. Being raised thinking being gay normal, is just wrong, sorry. So if your mother or father had a genetic disability that would limit his or her ability to raise you, you would resent her 'because it's wrong'? My god. Well aids and cancer are something you develop. Married gay people cannot reproduce, therefore are at a disadvantage to regular married people. So are infertile people. What's your point? They are unfortunately at a disadvantage, and cannot pass on their genes. Gay people choose to be at a disadvantage. I don't think it's right, it's just my opinion. Personally I feel sick thinking about gay couples, and I wouldn't want anyone else to be in an uncomfortable position. Haha choose to be at a disadvantage...WHY THE HELL WOULD ANYONE CHOOSE TO BE AT A DISADVANTAGE? That is honestly the dumbest arguement used by people like you Also. My opinion is that people like you shouldn't be able to speak because I find your thoughts make me disgusted. Should you not have a voice? When your state can vote on that decision to limit my free speech, feel free to. Right now I am given the option to vote, and will do accordingly
You didn't answer my main question though.
Why would someone chose to be at a disadvantage? Would you turn down a 10% raise at work in favor of a 5% one? No you wouldn't, because it's idiotic.
|
Can someone at least try to give a somewhat rational argument as how gay marriage would hurt society?
I think about it over and over and I just can't see it.
|
On February 10 2012 07:15 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:13 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:11 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:04 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:02 LambtrOn wrote:On February 10 2012 07:00 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 06:57 Thorakh wrote:Like Antyee wrote, its genetics that you have a parter that is stable will raise your childrena responsibe same way. Being raised thinking being gay normal, is just wrong, sorry. So if your mother or father had a genetic disability that would limit his or her ability to raise you, you would resent her 'because it's wrong'? My god. Well aids and cancer are something you develop. Married gay people cannot reproduce, therefore are at a disadvantage to regular married people. So are infertile people. What's your point? They are unfortunately at a disadvantage, and cannot pass on their genes. Gay people choose to be at a disadvantage. I don't think it's right, it's just my opinion. Personally I feel sick thinking about gay couples, and I wouldn't want anyone else to be in an uncomfortable position. Haha choose to be at a disadvantage...WHY THE HELL WOULD ANYONE CHOOSE TO BE AT A DISADVANTAGE? That is honestly the dumbest arguement used by people like you Also. My opinion is that people like you shouldn't be able to speak because I find your thoughts make me disgusted. Should you not have a voice? When your state can vote on that decision to limit my free speech, feel free to. Right now I am given the option to vote, and will do accordingly You didn't answer my main question though. Why would someone chose to be at a disadvantage? Would you turn down a 10% raise at work in favor of a 5% one? No you wouldn't, because it's idiotic.
Your right, they didn't "choose", they were "born" with the disadvantage. You can see the effects of divorced and single parents on children. When a man and a woman marry, and raise a children, it gives the kid the best chance. compared to someone having a kid, say their gay and get a divorce, and ruin the family envoirnment that is so essential.
|
On February 10 2012 07:17 CrimsonLotus wrote:
Can someone at least try to give a somewhat rational argument as how gay marriage would hurt society?
I think about it over and over and I just can't see it.
From Antyee
You must forget the fact that people cho(o)se only one partner, because it's safest method for procreation. The human infants are quite vulnerable compared to any other species' , and people figured out (that's why having a big brain helps) that having only 1 partner is good for the female (she can easily bring up her child since she has someone who can support them) and also for the male (100% chance for reproducing). So you can't really say it's against procreation. [before anyone said "but you don't need to live your whole live with someone 'cause your child grows up pretty fast and you could move on to a new partner", but why would you do it? you have someone, who'd most likely have more children; and people those days when marriage was invented didn't live for 60+ years]
This is why society pushed not having sex till marriage, so that you would find someone that you will have a family with and raise correctly. look at the effects of divorce.
|
On February 10 2012 07:02 Saltydizzle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 06:59 LambtrOn wrote:On February 10 2012 06:54 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 06:52 LambtrOn wrote:On February 10 2012 06:48 Saltydizzle wrote:
Gay couples definately should not be able to adopt children, I know I would resent my parents if they were gay. It's genetics, sorry. The reason you are gay is because of a genetic disorder. And this should prevent them from adopting because? You act like they are inhumane and unfit to raise kids because of this so called 'genetic disorder'. Just because you don't approve doesn't make it ok. Like Antyee wrote, its genetics that you have a parter that is stable will raise your childrena responsibe same way. Being raised thinking being gay normal, is just wrong, sorry. Do have any sort of evidence to back this up at all? I'm assuming you're just pulling this out of your ass. I know some children who were raised by a lesbian couple and there's absolutely no way to tell by talking to them. They are completely normal. They are loving, caring and tolerant. You could probably learn a few things from them. My neighbors had children, then the man had a sex change, and they are now lesbian. You can see the effects it has on the kids.
This is not the same as a same-sex couple adopting kids. Generally speaking, same-sex couples adopt children that are very young (a year old or younger). In your example, the couple already had kids when the man decided to have a sex change, so the kids then had to change their entire view of that person they've known as dad.
|
So many american states so many law changes, and a thread for every one of them..
|
On February 10 2012 07:18 Saltydizzle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:15 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:13 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:11 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:04 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:02 LambtrOn wrote:On February 10 2012 07:00 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 06:57 Thorakh wrote:Like Antyee wrote, its genetics that you have a parter that is stable will raise your childrena responsibe same way. Being raised thinking being gay normal, is just wrong, sorry. So if your mother or father had a genetic disability that would limit his or her ability to raise you, you would resent her 'because it's wrong'? My god. Well aids and cancer are something you develop. Married gay people cannot reproduce, therefore are at a disadvantage to regular married people. So are infertile people. What's your point? They are unfortunately at a disadvantage, and cannot pass on their genes. Gay people choose to be at a disadvantage. I don't think it's right, it's just my opinion. Personally I feel sick thinking about gay couples, and I wouldn't want anyone else to be in an uncomfortable position. Haha choose to be at a disadvantage...WHY THE HELL WOULD ANYONE CHOOSE TO BE AT A DISADVANTAGE? That is honestly the dumbest arguement used by people like you Also. My opinion is that people like you shouldn't be able to speak because I find your thoughts make me disgusted. Should you not have a voice? When your state can vote on that decision to limit my free speech, feel free to. Right now I am given the option to vote, and will do accordingly You didn't answer my main question though. Why would someone chose to be at a disadvantage? Would you turn down a 10% raise at work in favor of a 5% one? No you wouldn't, because it's idiotic. Your right, they didn't "choose", they were "born" with the disadvantage. You can see the effects of divorced and single parents on children. When a man and a woman marry, and raise a children, it gives the kid the best chance. compared to someone having a kid, say their gay and get a divorce, and ruin the family envoirnment that is so essential.
Right, because heterosexual people only ever divorce because one of them is gay, and not because of money, work, mutual dislike, etc or anything like that.
|
I actually can buy that someone somewhere out there who is mostly straight but has some bisexual leanings could choose to identify as gay because of past severe trauma with someone of the opposite sex, to fit into a group, to adopt an alternative lifestyle, or any number of the reasons. Maybe. In very liberal cities in the US or in parts of Europe, maybe a small minority would.
But I still always find it silly when people try to say gay people choose to be gay. Homosexuality exists in considerably less tolerant countries like Uganda, Iran or South Korea, and I'd bet you my left tit not a single Iranian, Ugandan or Korean man ever thought, "Hey, I should be gay so I can get hated by my society and shunned by my family, and severely hurt my chances in life! That's a brilliant idea! I'ma be attracted to men from tomorrow on! Why haven't I thought of this earlier?"
|
The progress of human rights marches on; great job, Washington lawmakers!
On February 10 2012 07:18 Saltydizzle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:15 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:13 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:11 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:04 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:02 LambtrOn wrote:On February 10 2012 07:00 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 06:57 Thorakh wrote:Like Antyee wrote, its genetics that you have a parter that is stable will raise your childrena responsibe same way. Being raised thinking being gay normal, is just wrong, sorry. So if your mother or father had a genetic disability that would limit his or her ability to raise you, you would resent her 'because it's wrong'? My god. Well aids and cancer are something you develop. Married gay people cannot reproduce, therefore are at a disadvantage to regular married people. So are infertile people. What's your point? They are unfortunately at a disadvantage, and cannot pass on their genes. Gay people choose to be at a disadvantage. I don't think it's right, it's just my opinion. Personally I feel sick thinking about gay couples, and I wouldn't want anyone else to be in an uncomfortable position. Haha choose to be at a disadvantage...WHY THE HELL WOULD ANYONE CHOOSE TO BE AT A DISADVANTAGE? That is honestly the dumbest arguement used by people like you Also. My opinion is that people like you shouldn't be able to speak because I find your thoughts make me disgusted. Should you not have a voice? When your state can vote on that decision to limit my free speech, feel free to. Right now I am given the option to vote, and will do accordingly You didn't answer my main question though. Why would someone chose to be at a disadvantage? Would you turn down a 10% raise at work in favor of a 5% one? No you wouldn't, because it's idiotic. Your right, they didn't "choose", they were "born" with the disadvantage. You can see the effects of divorced and single parents on children. When a man and a woman marry, and raise a children, it gives the kid the best chance. compared to someone having a kid, say their gay and get a divorce, and ruin the family envoirnment that is so essential.
You're not making a fair comparison.
A regular gay couple is a couple of two homosexual persons, not a faux marriage between persons of opposite sexes destined to divorce. So, if you want to compare the average would-be child reading heterosexual and homosexual marriages/relationships, you have to compare gay-gay and straight-straight relationships.
I don't recall the source, but I recall a study finding that gay couples' children were raised better, because it is harder for gay couples to get children (adoption or some other method is required), whereas straight couples can get children accidentally, making them less motivated to rear them (compared to the gay couples who need to go through a lot of hurdles to get children).
|
On February 10 2012 07:18 Saltydizzle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:15 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:13 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:11 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:04 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:02 LambtrOn wrote:On February 10 2012 07:00 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 06:57 Thorakh wrote:Like Antyee wrote, its genetics that you have a parter that is stable will raise your childrena responsibe same way. Being raised thinking being gay normal, is just wrong, sorry. So if your mother or father had a genetic disability that would limit his or her ability to raise you, you would resent her 'because it's wrong'? My god. Well aids and cancer are something you develop. Married gay people cannot reproduce, therefore are at a disadvantage to regular married people. So are infertile people. What's your point? They are unfortunately at a disadvantage, and cannot pass on their genes. Gay people choose to be at a disadvantage. I don't think it's right, it's just my opinion. Personally I feel sick thinking about gay couples, and I wouldn't want anyone else to be in an uncomfortable position. Haha choose to be at a disadvantage...WHY THE HELL WOULD ANYONE CHOOSE TO BE AT A DISADVANTAGE? That is honestly the dumbest arguement used by people like you Also. My opinion is that people like you shouldn't be able to speak because I find your thoughts make me disgusted. Should you not have a voice? When your state can vote on that decision to limit my free speech, feel free to. Right now I am given the option to vote, and will do accordingly You didn't answer my main question though. Why would someone chose to be at a disadvantage? Would you turn down a 10% raise at work in favor of a 5% one? No you wouldn't, because it's idiotic. Your right, they didn't "choose", they were "born" with the disadvantage. You can see the effects of divorced and single parents on children. When a man and a woman marry, and raise a children, it gives the kid the best chance. compared to someone having a kid, say their gay and get a divorce, and ruin the family envoirnment that is so essential.
...you guys should really vote on banning divorce then....
|
On February 10 2012 07:20 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:18 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:15 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:13 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:11 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:04 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:02 LambtrOn wrote:On February 10 2012 07:00 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 06:57 Thorakh wrote:Like Antyee wrote, its genetics that you have a parter that is stable will raise your childrena responsibe same way. Being raised thinking being gay normal, is just wrong, sorry. So if your mother or father had a genetic disability that would limit his or her ability to raise you, you would resent her 'because it's wrong'? My god. Well aids and cancer are something you develop. Married gay people cannot reproduce, therefore are at a disadvantage to regular married people. So are infertile people. What's your point? They are unfortunately at a disadvantage, and cannot pass on their genes. Gay people choose to be at a disadvantage. I don't think it's right, it's just my opinion. Personally I feel sick thinking about gay couples, and I wouldn't want anyone else to be in an uncomfortable position. Haha choose to be at a disadvantage...WHY THE HELL WOULD ANYONE CHOOSE TO BE AT A DISADVANTAGE? That is honestly the dumbest arguement used by people like you Also. My opinion is that people like you shouldn't be able to speak because I find your thoughts make me disgusted. Should you not have a voice? When your state can vote on that decision to limit my free speech, feel free to. Right now I am given the option to vote, and will do accordingly You didn't answer my main question though. Why would someone chose to be at a disadvantage? Would you turn down a 10% raise at work in favor of a 5% one? No you wouldn't, because it's idiotic. Your right, they didn't "choose", they were "born" with the disadvantage. You can see the effects of divorced and single parents on children. When a man and a woman marry, and raise a children, it gives the kid the best chance. compared to someone having a kid, say their gay and get a divorce, and ruin the family envoirnment that is so essential. Right, because heterosexual people only ever divorce because one of them is gay, and not because of money, work, mutual dislike, etc or anything like that.
You are supporting the society you hate. Marriage is between a man and a woman. The reason they say don't have sex until marriage is so you find someone that will be there. That makes the family have a huge chance for success, increasing the chance that the child will grow up in a stable family. Sex is for PROCREATION, not for the sake of pleasure. So if you want to be with a "partner" then so be it because thats all it will ever be, you cannot start a family (other than an artificial one)
|
On February 10 2012 07:21 Sawajiri wrote:
I actually can buy that someone somewhere out there who is mostly straight but has some bisexual leanings could choose to identify as gay because of past severe trauma with someone of the opposite sex, to fit into a group, to adopt an alternative lifestyle, or any number of the reasons. Maybe. In very liberal cities in the US or in parts of Europe, maybe a small minority would.
But I still always find it silly when people try to say gay people choose to be gay. Homosexuality exists in considerably less tolerant countries like Uganda, Iran or South Korea, and I'd bet you my left tit not a single Iranian, Ugandan or Korean man ever thought, "Hey, I should be gay so I can get hated by my society and shunned by my family, and severely hurt my chances in life! That's a brilliant idea! I'ma be attracted to men from tomorrow on! Why haven't I thought of this earlier?"
Indeed. Also, homosexuality has been observed in over 700 animal species IIRC, and there are records of homosexual relationships throughout the ages, even though homosexuality has often been repressed, from ancient Greece, to China of old, to samurai Japan, to the cultures of Native Americans, etc., etc.
Also the conception of homosexuality as a "lifestyle" annoys me to no end.
I don't lead a "heterosexual lifestyle" - I've always been straight, as long as I remember. I never chose to be heterosexual, I've never been "tempted" to engage in a homosexual relationship or whatever, etc.
|
On February 10 2012 07:26 Saltydizzle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:20 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:18 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:15 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:13 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:11 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:04 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:02 LambtrOn wrote:On February 10 2012 07:00 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 06:57 Thorakh wrote:
[quote]So if your mother or father had a genetic disability that would limit his or her ability to raise you, you would resent her 'because it's wrong'? My god. Well aids and cancer are something you develop. Married gay people cannot reproduce, therefore are at a disadvantage to regular married people. So are infertile people. What's your point? They are unfortunately at a disadvantage, and cannot pass on their genes. Gay people choose to be at a disadvantage. I don't think it's right, it's just my opinion. Personally I feel sick thinking about gay couples, and I wouldn't want anyone else to be in an uncomfortable position. Haha choose to be at a disadvantage...WHY THE HELL WOULD ANYONE CHOOSE TO BE AT A DISADVANTAGE? That is honestly the dumbest arguement used by people like you Also. My opinion is that people like you shouldn't be able to speak because I find your thoughts make me disgusted. Should you not have a voice? When your state can vote on that decision to limit my free speech, feel free to. Right now I am given the option to vote, and will do accordingly You didn't answer my main question though. Why would someone chose to be at a disadvantage? Would you turn down a 10% raise at work in favor of a 5% one? No you wouldn't, because it's idiotic. Your right, they didn't "choose", they were "born" with the disadvantage. You can see the effects of divorced and single parents on children. When a man and a woman marry, and raise a children, it gives the kid the best chance. compared to someone having a kid, say their gay and get a divorce, and ruin the family envoirnment that is so essential. Right, because heterosexual people only ever divorce because one of them is gay, and not because of money, work, mutual dislike, etc or anything like that. You are supporting the society you hate. Marriage is between a man and a woman. The reason they say don't have sex until marriage is so you find someone that will be there. That makes the family have a huge chance for success, increasing the chance that the child will grow up in a stable family. Sex is for PROCREATION, not for the sake of pleasure.
I don't want to turn this into a religious debate, but thats basically what your arguement is stemming to so...
If it's for procreation why did "god" make it pleasurable? (and why is masturbation even possible by that arguement)
Fact is, your arguing based on religious terms, and the concept of Gay Marriage is a government function. Religion is supposed to be seperate from Government, so this shouldn't have anything to do with Religion. No one is forcing your church to start marrying gay couples, nor is this bill forcing you to marry a gay guy.
|
The state should stay out of marriage.
Have people sign a document that says 'civil union' and gives whatever rights marriage currently does, and that's your contract with the state and each other, and then it's up to you and whatever church / service you use, to get 'married' or not - and it has no legal or economic impact on anything.
|
On February 10 2012 07:26 Saltydizzle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:20 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:18 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:15 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:13 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:11 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:04 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:02 LambtrOn wrote:On February 10 2012 07:00 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 06:57 Thorakh wrote:
[quote]So if your mother or father had a genetic disability that would limit his or her ability to raise you, you would resent her 'because it's wrong'? My god. Well aids and cancer are something you develop. Married gay people cannot reproduce, therefore are at a disadvantage to regular married people. So are infertile people. What's your point? They are unfortunately at a disadvantage, and cannot pass on their genes. Gay people choose to be at a disadvantage. I don't think it's right, it's just my opinion. Personally I feel sick thinking about gay couples, and I wouldn't want anyone else to be in an uncomfortable position. Haha choose to be at a disadvantage...WHY THE HELL WOULD ANYONE CHOOSE TO BE AT A DISADVANTAGE? That is honestly the dumbest arguement used by people like you Also. My opinion is that people like you shouldn't be able to speak because I find your thoughts make me disgusted. Should you not have a voice? When your state can vote on that decision to limit my free speech, feel free to. Right now I am given the option to vote, and will do accordingly You didn't answer my main question though. Why would someone chose to be at a disadvantage? Would you turn down a 10% raise at work in favor of a 5% one? No you wouldn't, because it's idiotic. Your right, they didn't "choose", they were "born" with the disadvantage. You can see the effects of divorced and single parents on children. When a man and a woman marry, and raise a children, it gives the kid the best chance. compared to someone having a kid, say their gay and get a divorce, and ruin the family envoirnment that is so essential. Right, because heterosexual people only ever divorce because one of them is gay, and not because of money, work, mutual dislike, etc or anything like that. The reason they say don't have sex until marriage is so you find someone that will be there. That makes the family have a huge chance for success, increasing the chance that the child will grow up in a stable family. Sex is for PROCREATION, not for the sake of pleasure. So if you want to be with a "partner" then so be it because thats all it will ever be, you cannot start a family (other than an artificial one)
That's your opinion. Why should everyone else be forced to accept your opinion?
Also, do you have any actual EVIDENCE to back up your claim? As far as I can recall, the divorce rates for fundie Christians are similar to those of other social groups in the US.
|
On February 10 2012 07:26 Saltydizzle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:20 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:18 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:15 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:13 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:11 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:04 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:02 LambtrOn wrote:On February 10 2012 07:00 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 06:57 Thorakh wrote:
[quote]So if your mother or father had a genetic disability that would limit his or her ability to raise you, you would resent her 'because it's wrong'? My god. Well aids and cancer are something you develop. Married gay people cannot reproduce, therefore are at a disadvantage to regular married people. So are infertile people. What's your point? They are unfortunately at a disadvantage, and cannot pass on their genes. Gay people choose to be at a disadvantage. I don't think it's right, it's just my opinion. Personally I feel sick thinking about gay couples, and I wouldn't want anyone else to be in an uncomfortable position. Haha choose to be at a disadvantage...WHY THE HELL WOULD ANYONE CHOOSE TO BE AT A DISADVANTAGE? That is honestly the dumbest arguement used by people like you Also. My opinion is that people like you shouldn't be able to speak because I find your thoughts make me disgusted. Should you not have a voice? When your state can vote on that decision to limit my free speech, feel free to. Right now I am given the option to vote, and will do accordingly You didn't answer my main question though. Why would someone chose to be at a disadvantage? Would you turn down a 10% raise at work in favor of a 5% one? No you wouldn't, because it's idiotic. Your right, they didn't "choose", they were "born" with the disadvantage. You can see the effects of divorced and single parents on children. When a man and a woman marry, and raise a children, it gives the kid the best chance. compared to someone having a kid, say their gay and get a divorce, and ruin the family envoirnment that is so essential. Right, because heterosexual people only ever divorce because one of them is gay, and not because of money, work, mutual dislike, etc or anything like that. You are supporting the society you hate. Marriage is between a man and a woman. The reason they say don't have sex until marriage is so you find someone that will be there. That makes the family have a huge chance for success, increasing the chance that the child will grow up in a stable family. Sex is for PROCREATION, not for the sake of pleasure. So if you want to be with a "partner" then so be it because thats all it will ever be, you cannot start a family (other than an artificial one)
Nope, just plain wrong.
|
On February 10 2012 07:19 Saltydizzle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:17 CrimsonLotus wrote:
Can someone at least try to give a somewhat rational argument as how gay marriage would hurt society?
I think about it over and over and I just can't see it. From Antyee You must forget the fact that people cho(o)se only one partner, because it's safest method for procreation. The human infants are quite vulnerable compared to any other species' , and people figured out (that's why having a big brain helps) that having only 1 partner is good for the female (she can easily bring up her child since she has someone who can support them) and also for the male (100% chance for reproducing). So you can't really say it's against procreation. [before anyone said "but you don't need to live your whole live with someone 'cause your child grows up pretty fast and you could move on to a new partner", but why would you do it? you have someone, who'd most likely have more children; and people those days when marriage was invented didn't live for 60+ years] This is why society pushed not having sex till marriage, so that you would find someone that you will have a family with and raise correctly. look at the effects of divorce.
You really seem to want to control how people live their lives. You have absolutely no entitlement to that. Stop believing you do.
|
On February 10 2012 07:26 Saltydizzle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:20 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:18 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:15 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:13 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:11 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:04 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:02 LambtrOn wrote:On February 10 2012 07:00 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 06:57 Thorakh wrote:
[quote]So if your mother or father had a genetic disability that would limit his or her ability to raise you, you would resent her 'because it's wrong'? My god. Well aids and cancer are something you develop. Married gay people cannot reproduce, therefore are at a disadvantage to regular married people. So are infertile people. What's your point? They are unfortunately at a disadvantage, and cannot pass on their genes. Gay people choose to be at a disadvantage. I don't think it's right, it's just my opinion. Personally I feel sick thinking about gay couples, and I wouldn't want anyone else to be in an uncomfortable position. Haha choose to be at a disadvantage...WHY THE HELL WOULD ANYONE CHOOSE TO BE AT A DISADVANTAGE? That is honestly the dumbest arguement used by people like you Also. My opinion is that people like you shouldn't be able to speak because I find your thoughts make me disgusted. Should you not have a voice? When your state can vote on that decision to limit my free speech, feel free to. Right now I am given the option to vote, and will do accordingly You didn't answer my main question though. Why would someone chose to be at a disadvantage? Would you turn down a 10% raise at work in favor of a 5% one? No you wouldn't, because it's idiotic. Your right, they didn't "choose", they were "born" with the disadvantage. You can see the effects of divorced and single parents on children. When a man and a woman marry, and raise a children, it gives the kid the best chance. compared to someone having a kid, say their gay and get a divorce, and ruin the family envoirnment that is so essential. Right, because heterosexual people only ever divorce because one of them is gay, and not because of money, work, mutual dislike, etc or anything like that. You are supporting the society you hate. Marriage is between a man and a woman. The reason they say don't have sex until marriage is so you find someone that will be there. That makes the family have a huge chance for success, increasing the chance that the child will grow up in a stable family. Sex is for PROCREATION, not for the sake of pleasure. So if you want to be with a "partner" then so be it because thats all it will ever be, you cannot start a family (other than an artificial one)
You do realize that there are studies that show that homosexual couples are better parents then heterosexual couples, right?
|
On February 10 2012 07:30 aebriol wrote:
The state should stay out of marriage.
Have people sign a document that says 'civil union' and gives whatever rights marriage currently does, and that's your contract with the state and each other, and then it's up to you and whatever church / service you use, to get 'married' or not - and it has no legal or economic impact on anything.
This. There should be no discrimination in government. Religious people have their own little ceremonies, but legally the only thing that should matter is a civil union between two consenting adults.
|
If we're all about happy family and all that, I think you should focus on making sure heterosexual marriages work out and not result in horrible divorces from reasons such as - adultery, inability to commit, inane reasons like many celebrity marriages, etc. Also you should focus on helping families who have been left stranded by heterosexual partners doing such things.
It seems a little disingenuous to criticize a group that hasn't shown an inclination to being worse family-wise than heterosexual couples when they haven't even been given a chance to prove themselves. And theorycrafting, like in starcraft, means relatively little.
|
On February 10 2012 07:30 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:26 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:20 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:18 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:15 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:13 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:11 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:04 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:02 LambtrOn wrote:On February 10 2012 07:00 Saltydizzle wrote:
[quote]
Well aids and cancer are something you develop. Married gay people cannot reproduce, therefore are at a disadvantage to regular married people. So are infertile people. What's your point? They are unfortunately at a disadvantage, and cannot pass on their genes. Gay people choose to be at a disadvantage. I don't think it's right, it's just my opinion. Personally I feel sick thinking about gay couples, and I wouldn't want anyone else to be in an uncomfortable position. Haha choose to be at a disadvantage...WHY THE HELL WOULD ANYONE CHOOSE TO BE AT A DISADVANTAGE? That is honestly the dumbest arguement used by people like you Also. My opinion is that people like you shouldn't be able to speak because I find your thoughts make me disgusted. Should you not have a voice? When your state can vote on that decision to limit my free speech, feel free to. Right now I am given the option to vote, and will do accordingly You didn't answer my main question though. Why would someone chose to be at a disadvantage? Would you turn down a 10% raise at work in favor of a 5% one? No you wouldn't, because it's idiotic. Your right, they didn't "choose", they were "born" with the disadvantage. You can see the effects of divorced and single parents on children. When a man and a woman marry, and raise a children, it gives the kid the best chance. compared to someone having a kid, say their gay and get a divorce, and ruin the family envoirnment that is so essential. Right, because heterosexual people only ever divorce because one of them is gay, and not because of money, work, mutual dislike, etc or anything like that. You are supporting the society you hate. Marriage is between a man and a woman. The reason they say don't have sex until marriage is so you find someone that will be there. That makes the family have a huge chance for success, increasing the chance that the child will grow up in a stable family. Sex is for PROCREATION, not for the sake of pleasure. I don't want to turn this into a religious debate, but thats basically what your arguement is stemming to so... If it's for procreation why did "god" make it pleasurable? (and why is masturbation even possible by that arguement) Fact is, your arguing based on religious terms, and the concept of Gay Marriage is a government function. Religion is supposed to be seperate from Government, so this shouldn't have anything to do with Religion. No one is forcing your church to start marrying gay couples, nor is this bill forcing you to marry a gay guy.
I'm athiest thank you for assuming im religious though. The pleasure side of sex is to trick humans into doing it (lust) the side which harbors a strong relationship and bonds familys is (love). It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with giving the best chance for the child. If your gay, it would be your partner, not your husband/wife.
|
As this thread has been going I am going to be flamed for this.
I am against gay marriage because it is a religious thing. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman and if these specific denominational churches don't want to marry two men that is their decision. The issue comes with the fact that certain benefits come from being married. As such I propose something like a civil union where you get the exact same rights without the title of marriage. Save divorce proceedings, same everything, just not marriage.
Theres no reason why this could not happen. It does not offend either side, or shouldn't offend either side. The symbolic aspect comes from the religious significance of marriage and how important it was in the past.
Edit: FYI I am athiest
|
On February 10 2012 07:34 Saltydizzle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:30 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:26 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:20 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:18 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:15 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:13 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:11 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:04 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:02 LambtrOn wrote:
[quote]
So are infertile people. What's your point? They are unfortunately at a disadvantage, and cannot pass on their genes. Gay people choose to be at a disadvantage. I don't think it's right, it's just my opinion. Personally I feel sick thinking about gay couples, and I wouldn't want anyone else to be in an uncomfortable position. Haha choose to be at a disadvantage...WHY THE HELL WOULD ANYONE CHOOSE TO BE AT A DISADVANTAGE? That is honestly the dumbest arguement used by people like you Also. My opinion is that people like you shouldn't be able to speak because I find your thoughts make me disgusted. Should you not have a voice? When your state can vote on that decision to limit my free speech, feel free to. Right now I am given the option to vote, and will do accordingly You didn't answer my main question though. Why would someone chose to be at a disadvantage? Would you turn down a 10% raise at work in favor of a 5% one? No you wouldn't, because it's idiotic. Your right, they didn't "choose", they were "born" with the disadvantage. You can see the effects of divorced and single parents on children. When a man and a woman marry, and raise a children, it gives the kid the best chance. compared to someone having a kid, say their gay and get a divorce, and ruin the family envoirnment that is so essential. Right, because heterosexual people only ever divorce because one of them is gay, and not because of money, work, mutual dislike, etc or anything like that. You are supporting the society you hate. Marriage is between a man and a woman. The reason they say don't have sex until marriage is so you find someone that will be there. That makes the family have a huge chance for success, increasing the chance that the child will grow up in a stable family. Sex is for PROCREATION, not for the sake of pleasure. I don't want to turn this into a religious debate, but thats basically what your arguement is stemming to so... If it's for procreation why did "god" make it pleasurable? (and why is masturbation even possible by that arguement) Fact is, your arguing based on religious terms, and the concept of Gay Marriage is a government function. Religion is supposed to be seperate from Government, so this shouldn't have anything to do with Religion. No one is forcing your church to start marrying gay couples, nor is this bill forcing you to marry a gay guy. I'm athiest thank you for assuming im religious though. The pleasure side of sex is to trick humans into doing it (lust) the side which harbors a strong relationship and bonds familys is (love). It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with giving the best chance for the child. If your gay, it would be your partner, not your husband/wife.
Wtf. Tricking humans? Why the hell are humans being tricked?
You just said you don't believe in god....and your statement goes completely against evolutionary concepts...
I'm just going to concede you're deluded
edit: haha, lol@ all the "btw I'm an athiest, but it's important for religion" 
|
Fine, if you think that Marriage is only for man/woman, then call it something else for shits sake. The point of this is not about having an arbitrary label attached to their love, it's about having it official. That they can get their rightful economic and legal rights because of their dedication to each other, and that their relationship can be solidified into something. If you want to keep your precious marriage between man and woman, fine, don't marry Gay people in your Church. No one gives two shits. However, denying them the legal ability to solidify their dedication is straight up stupid and ignorant.
|
On February 10 2012 07:36 Blurry wrote:
As this thread has been going I am going to be flamed for this.
I am against gay marriage because it is a religious thing. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman and if these specific denominational churches don't want to marry two men that is their decision. The issue comes with the fact that certain benefits come from being married. As such I propose something like a civil union where you get the exact same rights without the title of marriage. Save divorce proceedings, same everything, just not marriage.
Theres no reason why this could not happen. It does not offend either side, or shouldn't offend either side. The symbolic aspect comes from the religious significance of marriage and how important it was in the past.
Edit: FYI I am athiest
The problem is that the government calls it marriage too. If this wasn't the case, I think almost everyone here would agree with you.
|
On February 10 2012 07:36 Blurry wrote:
As this thread has been going I am going to be flamed for this.
I am against gay marriage because it is a religious thing. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman and if these specific denominational churches don't want to marry two men that is their decision. The issue comes with the fact that certain benefits come from being married. As such I propose something like a civil union where you get the exact same rights without the title of marriage. Save divorce proceedings, same everything, just not marriage.
Theres no reason why this could not happen. It does not offend either side, or shouldn't offend either side. The symbolic aspect comes from the religious significance of marriage and how important it was in the past.
Edit: FYI I am athiest
This is understandable - unfortunately for people to lobby to make civil unions acquire the same rights as marriage will probably cause the same amount of uproar.
|
On February 10 2012 07:31 Ercster wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:26 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:20 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:18 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:15 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:13 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:11 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:04 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:02 LambtrOn wrote:On February 10 2012 07:00 Saltydizzle wrote:
[quote]
Well aids and cancer are something you develop. Married gay people cannot reproduce, therefore are at a disadvantage to regular married people. So are infertile people. What's your point? They are unfortunately at a disadvantage, and cannot pass on their genes. Gay people choose to be at a disadvantage. I don't think it's right, it's just my opinion. Personally I feel sick thinking about gay couples, and I wouldn't want anyone else to be in an uncomfortable position. Haha choose to be at a disadvantage...WHY THE HELL WOULD ANYONE CHOOSE TO BE AT A DISADVANTAGE? That is honestly the dumbest arguement used by people like you Also. My opinion is that people like you shouldn't be able to speak because I find your thoughts make me disgusted. Should you not have a voice? When your state can vote on that decision to limit my free speech, feel free to. Right now I am given the option to vote, and will do accordingly You didn't answer my main question though. Why would someone chose to be at a disadvantage? Would you turn down a 10% raise at work in favor of a 5% one? No you wouldn't, because it's idiotic. Your right, they didn't "choose", they were "born" with the disadvantage. You can see the effects of divorced and single parents on children. When a man and a woman marry, and raise a children, it gives the kid the best chance. compared to someone having a kid, say their gay and get a divorce, and ruin the family envoirnment that is so essential. Right, because heterosexual people only ever divorce because one of them is gay, and not because of money, work, mutual dislike, etc or anything like that. You are supporting the society you hate. Marriage is between a man and a woman. The reason they say don't have sex until marriage is so you find someone that will be there. That makes the family have a huge chance for success, increasing the chance that the child will grow up in a stable family. Sex is for PROCREATION, not for the sake of pleasure. So if you want to be with a "partner" then so be it because thats all it will ever be, you cannot start a family (other than an artificial one) You do realize that there are studies that show that homosexual couples are better parents then heterosexual couples, right?
My respect for people's arguments usually ends when I see the phrase ' studies have shown'.
I don't see why parents orientation would matter (insofar as bullying(?) from other kids would affect the child), there are good and bad homosexual parents just like there are good and bad heterosexual parents.
|
On February 10 2012 07:37 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:34 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:30 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:26 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:20 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:18 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:15 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:13 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:11 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:04 Saltydizzle wrote:
[quote]
They are unfortunately at a disadvantage, and cannot pass on their genes. Gay people choose to be at a disadvantage.
I don't think it's right, it's just my opinion. Personally I feel sick thinking about gay couples, and I wouldn't want anyone else to be in an uncomfortable position. Haha choose to be at a disadvantage...WHY THE HELL WOULD ANYONE CHOOSE TO BE AT A DISADVANTAGE? That is honestly the dumbest arguement used by people like you Also. My opinion is that people like you shouldn't be able to speak because I find your thoughts make me disgusted. Should you not have a voice? When your state can vote on that decision to limit my free speech, feel free to. Right now I am given the option to vote, and will do accordingly You didn't answer my main question though. Why would someone chose to be at a disadvantage? Would you turn down a 10% raise at work in favor of a 5% one? No you wouldn't, because it's idiotic. Your right, they didn't "choose", they were "born" with the disadvantage. You can see the effects of divorced and single parents on children. When a man and a woman marry, and raise a children, it gives the kid the best chance. compared to someone having a kid, say their gay and get a divorce, and ruin the family envoirnment that is so essential. Right, because heterosexual people only ever divorce because one of them is gay, and not because of money, work, mutual dislike, etc or anything like that. You are supporting the society you hate. Marriage is between a man and a woman. The reason they say don't have sex until marriage is so you find someone that will be there. That makes the family have a huge chance for success, increasing the chance that the child will grow up in a stable family. Sex is for PROCREATION, not for the sake of pleasure. I don't want to turn this into a religious debate, but thats basically what your arguement is stemming to so... If it's for procreation why did "god" make it pleasurable? (and why is masturbation even possible by that arguement) Fact is, your arguing based on religious terms, and the concept of Gay Marriage is a government function. Religion is supposed to be seperate from Government, so this shouldn't have anything to do with Religion. No one is forcing your church to start marrying gay couples, nor is this bill forcing you to marry a gay guy. I'm athiest thank you for assuming im religious though. The pleasure side of sex is to trick humans into doing it (lust) the side which harbors a strong relationship and bonds familys is (love). It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with giving the best chance for the child. If your gay, it would be your partner, not your husband/wife. Wtf. Tricking humans? Why the hell are humans being tricked? You just said you don't believe in god....and your statement goes completely against evolutionary concepts... I'm just going to concede you're deluded
I'll summarize every up for you so maybe you will understand.
People have no sense of responsibility. Sex until marriage is so that you will find a long lasting partner that can support your family. With all of the young pregnancys and marrying so young it makes a huge single parent/divorce rate. Stable marriage always results in better chances for your child to develop properly. Waiting and finding the right person later in life, instead of giving into pleasures, will always be better for the child. This is why society has pushed all of the ideals.
|
On February 10 2012 07:34 Saltydizzle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:30 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:26 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:20 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:18 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:15 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:13 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:11 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:04 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:02 LambtrOn wrote:
[quote]
So are infertile people. What's your point? They are unfortunately at a disadvantage, and cannot pass on their genes. Gay people choose to be at a disadvantage. I don't think it's right, it's just my opinion. Personally I feel sick thinking about gay couples, and I wouldn't want anyone else to be in an uncomfortable position. Haha choose to be at a disadvantage...WHY THE HELL WOULD ANYONE CHOOSE TO BE AT A DISADVANTAGE? That is honestly the dumbest arguement used by people like you Also. My opinion is that people like you shouldn't be able to speak because I find your thoughts make me disgusted. Should you not have a voice? When your state can vote on that decision to limit my free speech, feel free to. Right now I am given the option to vote, and will do accordingly You didn't answer my main question though. Why would someone chose to be at a disadvantage? Would you turn down a 10% raise at work in favor of a 5% one? No you wouldn't, because it's idiotic. Your right, they didn't "choose", they were "born" with the disadvantage. You can see the effects of divorced and single parents on children. When a man and a woman marry, and raise a children, it gives the kid the best chance. compared to someone having a kid, say their gay and get a divorce, and ruin the family envoirnment that is so essential. Right, because heterosexual people only ever divorce because one of them is gay, and not because of money, work, mutual dislike, etc or anything like that. You are supporting the society you hate. Marriage is between a man and a woman. The reason they say don't have sex until marriage is so you find someone that will be there. That makes the family have a huge chance for success, increasing the chance that the child will grow up in a stable family. Sex is for PROCREATION, not for the sake of pleasure. I don't want to turn this into a religious debate, but thats basically what your arguement is stemming to so... If it's for procreation why did "god" make it pleasurable? (and why is masturbation even possible by that arguement) Fact is, your arguing based on religious terms, and the concept of Gay Marriage is a government function. Religion is supposed to be seperate from Government, so this shouldn't have anything to do with Religion. No one is forcing your church to start marrying gay couples, nor is this bill forcing you to marry a gay guy. I'm athiest thank you for assuming im religious though. The pleasure side of sex is to trick humans into doing it (lust) the side which harbors a strong relationship and bonds familys is (love). It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with giving the best chance for the child. If your gay, it would be your partner, not your husband/wife.
You do know that many many couples divorce because of sexual issues right? Having sex before marriage would allow you to avoid being in a long term relationship with somebody who you are sexually incompatible with.
What do you mean "trick" humans into doing it? That implies a conscious choice of deception, which is obviously not what an atheist would believe. So I'm confused. The fact is that sex is pleasurable, and nothing more. That's the end of the statement.
All the recent studies have shown that same-sex parents are just as capable as hetero parents. That's not a valid argument. If anything the argument shows that homosexuals are better, but this is usually considered by the fact that they can't have accidental children.
I should also mention that it is pretty much impossible for homosexual couples to marry because of accidental children. If that's a serious issue for you, then it clearly shouldn't be for homosexual couples. They would only be marrying for financial stability and for their relationship.
|
On February 10 2012 07:36 Blurry wrote:Marriage has always been between a man and a woman
I say we need to go back to the notion of a biblical marriage: one man, 700 wives and 300 concubines.
|
On February 10 2012 07:40 fortheGG wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:31 Ercster wrote:On February 10 2012 07:26 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:20 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:18 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:15 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:13 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:11 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:04 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:02 LambtrOn wrote:
[quote]
So are infertile people. What's your point? They are unfortunately at a disadvantage, and cannot pass on their genes. Gay people choose to be at a disadvantage. I don't think it's right, it's just my opinion. Personally I feel sick thinking about gay couples, and I wouldn't want anyone else to be in an uncomfortable position. Haha choose to be at a disadvantage...WHY THE HELL WOULD ANYONE CHOOSE TO BE AT A DISADVANTAGE? That is honestly the dumbest arguement used by people like you Also. My opinion is that people like you shouldn't be able to speak because I find your thoughts make me disgusted. Should you not have a voice? When your state can vote on that decision to limit my free speech, feel free to. Right now I am given the option to vote, and will do accordingly You didn't answer my main question though. Why would someone chose to be at a disadvantage? Would you turn down a 10% raise at work in favor of a 5% one? No you wouldn't, because it's idiotic. Your right, they didn't "choose", they were "born" with the disadvantage. You can see the effects of divorced and single parents on children. When a man and a woman marry, and raise a children, it gives the kid the best chance. compared to someone having a kid, say their gay and get a divorce, and ruin the family envoirnment that is so essential. Right, because heterosexual people only ever divorce because one of them is gay, and not because of money, work, mutual dislike, etc or anything like that. You are supporting the society you hate. Marriage is between a man and a woman. The reason they say don't have sex until marriage is so you find someone that will be there. That makes the family have a huge chance for success, increasing the chance that the child will grow up in a stable family. Sex is for PROCREATION, not for the sake of pleasure. So if you want to be with a "partner" then so be it because thats all it will ever be, you cannot start a family (other than an artificial one) You do realize that there are studies that show that homosexual couples are better parents then heterosexual couples, right? My respect for people's arguments usually ends when I see the phrase ' studies have shown'. I don't see why parents orientation would matter (insofar as bullying(?) from other kids would affect the child), there are good and bad homosexual parents just like there are good and bad heterosexual parents.
I'm not saying there aren't bad same-sex parents, I'm just saying statistically they're better parents than straight parents.
|
On February 10 2012 07:42 Saltydizzle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:37 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:34 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:30 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:26 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:20 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:18 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:15 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:13 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:11 1Eris1 wrote:
[quote]
Haha choose to be at a disadvantage...WHY THE HELL WOULD ANYONE CHOOSE TO BE AT A DISADVANTAGE? That is honestly the dumbest arguement used by people like you
Also. My opinion is that people like you shouldn't be able to speak because I find your thoughts make me disgusted. Should you not have a voice? When your state can vote on that decision to limit my free speech, feel free to. Right now I am given the option to vote, and will do accordingly You didn't answer my main question though. Why would someone chose to be at a disadvantage? Would you turn down a 10% raise at work in favor of a 5% one? No you wouldn't, because it's idiotic. Your right, they didn't "choose", they were "born" with the disadvantage. You can see the effects of divorced and single parents on children. When a man and a woman marry, and raise a children, it gives the kid the best chance. compared to someone having a kid, say their gay and get a divorce, and ruin the family envoirnment that is so essential. Right, because heterosexual people only ever divorce because one of them is gay, and not because of money, work, mutual dislike, etc or anything like that. You are supporting the society you hate. Marriage is between a man and a woman. The reason they say don't have sex until marriage is so you find someone that will be there. That makes the family have a huge chance for success, increasing the chance that the child will grow up in a stable family. Sex is for PROCREATION, not for the sake of pleasure. I don't want to turn this into a religious debate, but thats basically what your arguement is stemming to so... If it's for procreation why did "god" make it pleasurable? (and why is masturbation even possible by that arguement) Fact is, your arguing based on religious terms, and the concept of Gay Marriage is a government function. Religion is supposed to be seperate from Government, so this shouldn't have anything to do with Religion. No one is forcing your church to start marrying gay couples, nor is this bill forcing you to marry a gay guy. I'm athiest thank you for assuming im religious though. The pleasure side of sex is to trick humans into doing it (lust) the side which harbors a strong relationship and bonds familys is (love). It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with giving the best chance for the child. If your gay, it would be your partner, not your husband/wife. Wtf. Tricking humans? Why the hell are humans being tricked? You just said you don't believe in god....and your statement goes completely against evolutionary concepts... I'm just going to concede you're deluded I'll summarize every up for you so maybe you will understand. People have no sense of responsibility. Sex until marriage is so that you will find a long lasting partner that can support your family. With all of the young pregnancys and marrying so young it makes a huge single parent/divorce rate. Stable marriage always results in better chances for your child to develop properly. Waiting and finding the right person later in life, instead of giving into pleasures, will always be better later in life.
you just made a great argument for homosexual civil unions. lol.
|
On February 10 2012 07:34 Saltydizzle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:30 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:26 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:20 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:18 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:15 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:13 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:11 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:04 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:02 LambtrOn wrote:
[quote]
So are infertile people. What's your point? They are unfortunately at a disadvantage, and cannot pass on their genes. Gay people choose to be at a disadvantage. I don't think it's right, it's just my opinion. Personally I feel sick thinking about gay couples, and I wouldn't want anyone else to be in an uncomfortable position. Haha choose to be at a disadvantage...WHY THE HELL WOULD ANYONE CHOOSE TO BE AT A DISADVANTAGE? That is honestly the dumbest arguement used by people like you Also. My opinion is that people like you shouldn't be able to speak because I find your thoughts make me disgusted. Should you not have a voice? When your state can vote on that decision to limit my free speech, feel free to. Right now I am given the option to vote, and will do accordingly You didn't answer my main question though. Why would someone chose to be at a disadvantage? Would you turn down a 10% raise at work in favor of a 5% one? No you wouldn't, because it's idiotic. Your right, they didn't "choose", they were "born" with the disadvantage. You can see the effects of divorced and single parents on children. When a man and a woman marry, and raise a children, it gives the kid the best chance. compared to someone having a kid, say their gay and get a divorce, and ruin the family envoirnment that is so essential. Right, because heterosexual people only ever divorce because one of them is gay, and not because of money, work, mutual dislike, etc or anything like that. You are supporting the society you hate. Marriage is between a man and a woman. The reason they say don't have sex until marriage is so you find someone that will be there. That makes the family have a huge chance for success, increasing the chance that the child will grow up in a stable family. Sex is for PROCREATION, not for the sake of pleasure. I don't want to turn this into a religious debate, but thats basically what your arguement is stemming to so... If it's for procreation why did "god" make it pleasurable? (and why is masturbation even possible by that arguement) Fact is, your arguing based on religious terms, and the concept of Gay Marriage is a government function. Religion is supposed to be seperate from Government, so this shouldn't have anything to do with Religion. No one is forcing your church to start marrying gay couples, nor is this bill forcing you to marry a gay guy. I'm athiest thank you for assuming im religious though. The pleasure side of sex is to trick humans into doing it (lust) the side which harbors a strong relationship and bonds familys is (love). It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with giving the best chance for the child. If your gay, it would be your partner, not your husband/wife.
No athiest would ever think that. We're too rational.
|
On February 10 2012 07:40 fortheGG wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:31 Ercster wrote:On February 10 2012 07:26 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:20 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:18 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:15 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:13 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:11 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:04 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:02 LambtrOn wrote:
[quote]
So are infertile people. What's your point? They are unfortunately at a disadvantage, and cannot pass on their genes. Gay people choose to be at a disadvantage. I don't think it's right, it's just my opinion. Personally I feel sick thinking about gay couples, and I wouldn't want anyone else to be in an uncomfortable position. Haha choose to be at a disadvantage...WHY THE HELL WOULD ANYONE CHOOSE TO BE AT A DISADVANTAGE? That is honestly the dumbest arguement used by people like you Also. My opinion is that people like you shouldn't be able to speak because I find your thoughts make me disgusted. Should you not have a voice? When your state can vote on that decision to limit my free speech, feel free to. Right now I am given the option to vote, and will do accordingly You didn't answer my main question though. Why would someone chose to be at a disadvantage? Would you turn down a 10% raise at work in favor of a 5% one? No you wouldn't, because it's idiotic. Your right, they didn't "choose", they were "born" with the disadvantage. You can see the effects of divorced and single parents on children. When a man and a woman marry, and raise a children, it gives the kid the best chance. compared to someone having a kid, say their gay and get a divorce, and ruin the family envoirnment that is so essential. Right, because heterosexual people only ever divorce because one of them is gay, and not because of money, work, mutual dislike, etc or anything like that. You are supporting the society you hate. Marriage is between a man and a woman. The reason they say don't have sex until marriage is so you find someone that will be there. That makes the family have a huge chance for success, increasing the chance that the child will grow up in a stable family. Sex is for PROCREATION, not for the sake of pleasure. So if you want to be with a "partner" then so be it because thats all it will ever be, you cannot start a family (other than an artificial one) You do realize that there are studies that show that homosexual couples are better parents then heterosexual couples, right? My respect for people's arguments usually ends when I see the phrase ' studies have shown'. I don't see why parents orientation would matter (insofar as bullying(?) from other kids would affect the child), there are good and bad homosexual parents just like there are good and bad heterosexual parents.
It's got to do with the difficulty of getting children. Straight couples will get kids accidentally and will be less motivated to rear them, whereas gay couples who want children have to go through a lot of trouble to actually get kids, so they're very likely to be very motivated to be good parents.
|
On February 10 2012 07:43 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:34 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:30 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:26 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:20 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:18 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:15 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:13 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:11 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:04 Saltydizzle wrote:
[quote]
They are unfortunately at a disadvantage, and cannot pass on their genes. Gay people choose to be at a disadvantage.
I don't think it's right, it's just my opinion. Personally I feel sick thinking about gay couples, and I wouldn't want anyone else to be in an uncomfortable position. Haha choose to be at a disadvantage...WHY THE HELL WOULD ANYONE CHOOSE TO BE AT A DISADVANTAGE? That is honestly the dumbest arguement used by people like you Also. My opinion is that people like you shouldn't be able to speak because I find your thoughts make me disgusted. Should you not have a voice? When your state can vote on that decision to limit my free speech, feel free to. Right now I am given the option to vote, and will do accordingly You didn't answer my main question though. Why would someone chose to be at a disadvantage? Would you turn down a 10% raise at work in favor of a 5% one? No you wouldn't, because it's idiotic. Your right, they didn't "choose", they were "born" with the disadvantage. You can see the effects of divorced and single parents on children. When a man and a woman marry, and raise a children, it gives the kid the best chance. compared to someone having a kid, say their gay and get a divorce, and ruin the family envoirnment that is so essential. Right, because heterosexual people only ever divorce because one of them is gay, and not because of money, work, mutual dislike, etc or anything like that. You are supporting the society you hate. Marriage is between a man and a woman. The reason they say don't have sex until marriage is so you find someone that will be there. That makes the family have a huge chance for success, increasing the chance that the child will grow up in a stable family. Sex is for PROCREATION, not for the sake of pleasure. I don't want to turn this into a religious debate, but thats basically what your arguement is stemming to so... If it's for procreation why did "god" make it pleasurable? (and why is masturbation even possible by that arguement) Fact is, your arguing based on religious terms, and the concept of Gay Marriage is a government function. Religion is supposed to be seperate from Government, so this shouldn't have anything to do with Religion. No one is forcing your church to start marrying gay couples, nor is this bill forcing you to marry a gay guy. I'm athiest thank you for assuming im religious though. The pleasure side of sex is to trick humans into doing it (lust) the side which harbors a strong relationship and bonds familys is (love). It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with giving the best chance for the child. If your gay, it would be your partner, not your husband/wife. You do know that many many couples divorce because of sexual issues right? Having sex before marriage would allow you to avoid being in a long term relationship with somebody who you are sexually incompatible with. What do you mean "trick" humans into doing it? That implies a conscious choice of deception, which is obviously not what an atheist would believe. So I'm confused. The fact is that sex is pleasurable, and nothing more. That's the end of the statement. All the recent studies have shown that same-sex parents are just as capable as hetero parents. That's not a valid argument.
They will never have the connection that you get from your blood parents. Sex feels good so we will do it and reproduce. what does that have to do with god?
|
On February 10 2012 07:34 Saltydizzle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:30 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:26 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:20 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:18 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:15 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:13 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:11 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:04 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:02 LambtrOn wrote:
[quote]
So are infertile people. What's your point? They are unfortunately at a disadvantage, and cannot pass on their genes. Gay people choose to be at a disadvantage. I don't think it's right, it's just my opinion. Personally I feel sick thinking about gay couples, and I wouldn't want anyone else to be in an uncomfortable position. Haha choose to be at a disadvantage...WHY THE HELL WOULD ANYONE CHOOSE TO BE AT A DISADVANTAGE? That is honestly the dumbest arguement used by people like you Also. My opinion is that people like you shouldn't be able to speak because I find your thoughts make me disgusted. Should you not have a voice? When your state can vote on that decision to limit my free speech, feel free to. Right now I am given the option to vote, and will do accordingly You didn't answer my main question though. Why would someone chose to be at a disadvantage? Would you turn down a 10% raise at work in favor of a 5% one? No you wouldn't, because it's idiotic. Your right, they didn't "choose", they were "born" with the disadvantage. You can see the effects of divorced and single parents on children. When a man and a woman marry, and raise a children, it gives the kid the best chance. compared to someone having a kid, say their gay and get a divorce, and ruin the family envoirnment that is so essential. Right, because heterosexual people only ever divorce because one of them is gay, and not because of money, work, mutual dislike, etc or anything like that. You are supporting the society you hate. Marriage is between a man and a woman. The reason they say don't have sex until marriage is so you find someone that will be there. That makes the family have a huge chance for success, increasing the chance that the child will grow up in a stable family. Sex is for PROCREATION, not for the sake of pleasure. I don't want to turn this into a religious debate, but thats basically what your arguement is stemming to so... If it's for procreation why did "god" make it pleasurable? (and why is masturbation even possible by that arguement) Fact is, your arguing based on religious terms, and the concept of Gay Marriage is a government function. Religion is supposed to be seperate from Government, so this shouldn't have anything to do with Religion. No one is forcing your church to start marrying gay couples, nor is this bill forcing you to marry a gay guy. I'm athiest thank you for assuming im religious though. The pleasure side of sex is to trick humans into doing it (lust) the side which harbors a strong relationship and bonds familys is (love). It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with giving the best chance for the child. If your gay, it would be your partner, not your husband/wife.
... No.
Sex is for procreation, yes, but it's not only for that.
If you think that human capabilities, biological functions, organs etc. which developed for some evolutionary purposes should ONLY EVER be used to do those things, most of human culture would be wiped away.
Starcraft serves no evolutionary purpose, now does it?
|
On February 10 2012 07:42 Saltydizzle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:37 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:34 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:30 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:26 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:20 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:18 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:15 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:13 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:11 1Eris1 wrote:
[quote]
Haha choose to be at a disadvantage...WHY THE HELL WOULD ANYONE CHOOSE TO BE AT A DISADVANTAGE? That is honestly the dumbest arguement used by people like you
Also. My opinion is that people like you shouldn't be able to speak because I find your thoughts make me disgusted. Should you not have a voice? When your state can vote on that decision to limit my free speech, feel free to. Right now I am given the option to vote, and will do accordingly You didn't answer my main question though. Why would someone chose to be at a disadvantage? Would you turn down a 10% raise at work in favor of a 5% one? No you wouldn't, because it's idiotic. Your right, they didn't "choose", they were "born" with the disadvantage. You can see the effects of divorced and single parents on children. When a man and a woman marry, and raise a children, it gives the kid the best chance. compared to someone having a kid, say their gay and get a divorce, and ruin the family envoirnment that is so essential. Right, because heterosexual people only ever divorce because one of them is gay, and not because of money, work, mutual dislike, etc or anything like that. You are supporting the society you hate. Marriage is between a man and a woman. The reason they say don't have sex until marriage is so you find someone that will be there. That makes the family have a huge chance for success, increasing the chance that the child will grow up in a stable family. Sex is for PROCREATION, not for the sake of pleasure. I don't want to turn this into a religious debate, but thats basically what your arguement is stemming to so... If it's for procreation why did "god" make it pleasurable? (and why is masturbation even possible by that arguement) Fact is, your arguing based on religious terms, and the concept of Gay Marriage is a government function. Religion is supposed to be seperate from Government, so this shouldn't have anything to do with Religion. No one is forcing your church to start marrying gay couples, nor is this bill forcing you to marry a gay guy. I'm athiest thank you for assuming im religious though. The pleasure side of sex is to trick humans into doing it (lust) the side which harbors a strong relationship and bonds familys is (love). It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with giving the best chance for the child. If your gay, it would be your partner, not your husband/wife. Wtf. Tricking humans? Why the hell are humans being tricked? You just said you don't believe in god....and your statement goes completely against evolutionary concepts... I'm just going to concede you're deluded I'll summarize every up for you so maybe you will understand. People have no sense of responsibility. Sex until marriage is so that you will find a long lasting partner that can support your family. With all of the young pregnancys and marrying so young it makes a huge single parent/divorce rate. Stable marriage always results in better chances for your child to develop properly. Waiting and finding the right person later in life, instead of giving into pleasures, will always be better later in life.
So by that logic you'd support bills that outlaw sex until marriage, masturbation, and that require people to "be in love" before they get married?
Sounds like you'd be better off in Saudi Arabia or something buddy. Here in the United States we have things called freedom of expression and privacy.
|
On February 10 2012 07:45 Saltydizzle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:43 DoubleReed wrote:On February 10 2012 07:34 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:30 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:26 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:20 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:18 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:15 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:13 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:11 1Eris1 wrote:
[quote]
Haha choose to be at a disadvantage...WHY THE HELL WOULD ANYONE CHOOSE TO BE AT A DISADVANTAGE? That is honestly the dumbest arguement used by people like you
Also. My opinion is that people like you shouldn't be able to speak because I find your thoughts make me disgusted. Should you not have a voice? When your state can vote on that decision to limit my free speech, feel free to. Right now I am given the option to vote, and will do accordingly You didn't answer my main question though. Why would someone chose to be at a disadvantage? Would you turn down a 10% raise at work in favor of a 5% one? No you wouldn't, because it's idiotic. Your right, they didn't "choose", they were "born" with the disadvantage. You can see the effects of divorced and single parents on children. When a man and a woman marry, and raise a children, it gives the kid the best chance. compared to someone having a kid, say their gay and get a divorce, and ruin the family envoirnment that is so essential. Right, because heterosexual people only ever divorce because one of them is gay, and not because of money, work, mutual dislike, etc or anything like that. You are supporting the society you hate. Marriage is between a man and a woman. The reason they say don't have sex until marriage is so you find someone that will be there. That makes the family have a huge chance for success, increasing the chance that the child will grow up in a stable family. Sex is for PROCREATION, not for the sake of pleasure. I don't want to turn this into a religious debate, but thats basically what your arguement is stemming to so... If it's for procreation why did "god" make it pleasurable? (and why is masturbation even possible by that arguement) Fact is, your arguing based on religious terms, and the concept of Gay Marriage is a government function. Religion is supposed to be seperate from Government, so this shouldn't have anything to do with Religion. No one is forcing your church to start marrying gay couples, nor is this bill forcing you to marry a gay guy. I'm athiest thank you for assuming im religious though. The pleasure side of sex is to trick humans into doing it (lust) the side which harbors a strong relationship and bonds familys is (love). It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with giving the best chance for the child. If your gay, it would be your partner, not your husband/wife. You do know that many many couples divorce because of sexual issues right? Having sex before marriage would allow you to avoid being in a long term relationship with somebody who you are sexually incompatible with. What do you mean "trick" humans into doing it? That implies a conscious choice of deception, which is obviously not what an atheist would believe. So I'm confused. The fact is that sex is pleasurable, and nothing more. That's the end of the statement. All the recent studies have shown that same-sex parents are just as capable as hetero parents. That's not a valid argument. They will never have the connection that you get from your blood parents. Sex feels good so we will do it and reproduce. what does that have to do with god?
????
It's adoption! Usually the assumption is they don't have parents, or their parents don't want them.
That's an incredibly offensive thing to say. Do you have anything to back up the assertion that adopted children are loved less? Because my anecdotal evidence says you're a idiot.
|
On February 10 2012 07:47 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:42 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:37 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:34 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:30 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:26 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:20 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:18 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:15 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:13 Saltydizzle wrote:
[quote]
When your state can vote on that decision to limit my free speech, feel free to. Right now I am given the option to vote, and will do accordingly You didn't answer my main question though. Why would someone chose to be at a disadvantage? Would you turn down a 10% raise at work in favor of a 5% one? No you wouldn't, because it's idiotic. Your right, they didn't "choose", they were "born" with the disadvantage. You can see the effects of divorced and single parents on children. When a man and a woman marry, and raise a children, it gives the kid the best chance. compared to someone having a kid, say their gay and get a divorce, and ruin the family envoirnment that is so essential. Right, because heterosexual people only ever divorce because one of them is gay, and not because of money, work, mutual dislike, etc or anything like that. You are supporting the society you hate. Marriage is between a man and a woman. The reason they say don't have sex until marriage is so you find someone that will be there. That makes the family have a huge chance for success, increasing the chance that the child will grow up in a stable family. Sex is for PROCREATION, not for the sake of pleasure. I don't want to turn this into a religious debate, but thats basically what your arguement is stemming to so... If it's for procreation why did "god" make it pleasurable? (and why is masturbation even possible by that arguement) Fact is, your arguing based on religious terms, and the concept of Gay Marriage is a government function. Religion is supposed to be seperate from Government, so this shouldn't have anything to do with Religion. No one is forcing your church to start marrying gay couples, nor is this bill forcing you to marry a gay guy. I'm athiest thank you for assuming im religious though. The pleasure side of sex is to trick humans into doing it (lust) the side which harbors a strong relationship and bonds familys is (love). It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with giving the best chance for the child. If your gay, it would be your partner, not your husband/wife. Wtf. Tricking humans? Why the hell are humans being tricked? You just said you don't believe in god....and your statement goes completely against evolutionary concepts... I'm just going to concede you're deluded I'll summarize every up for you so maybe you will understand. People have no sense of responsibility. Sex until marriage is so that you will find a long lasting partner that can support your family. With all of the young pregnancys and marrying so young it makes a huge single parent/divorce rate. Stable marriage always results in better chances for your child to develop properly. Waiting and finding the right person later in life, instead of giving into pleasures, will always be better later in life. So by that logic you'd support bills that outlaw sex until marriage, masturbation, and that require people to "be in love" before they get married? Sounds like you'd be better off in Saudi Arabia or something buddy. Here in the United States we have things called freedom of expression and privacy.
Calm down buddy...
Im saying that it gives them the best chance. there is more than one way to skin a cat. The changes in society have caused divorce to be seen as "acceptable" which has turned the american family to shit. I don't believe in god or believe any story from the bible truly happened, but its all about the morals of the bible. The morals are the only thing to be taken seriously.
|
On February 10 2012 07:51 Saltydizzle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:47 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:42 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:37 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:34 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:30 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:26 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:20 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:18 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:15 1Eris1 wrote:
[quote]
You didn't answer my main question though.
Why would someone chose to be at a disadvantage? Would you turn down a 10% raise at work in favor of a 5% one? No you wouldn't, because it's idiotic. Your right, they didn't "choose", they were "born" with the disadvantage. You can see the effects of divorced and single parents on children. When a man and a woman marry, and raise a children, it gives the kid the best chance. compared to someone having a kid, say their gay and get a divorce, and ruin the family envoirnment that is so essential. Right, because heterosexual people only ever divorce because one of them is gay, and not because of money, work, mutual dislike, etc or anything like that. You are supporting the society you hate. Marriage is between a man and a woman. The reason they say don't have sex until marriage is so you find someone that will be there. That makes the family have a huge chance for success, increasing the chance that the child will grow up in a stable family. Sex is for PROCREATION, not for the sake of pleasure. I don't want to turn this into a religious debate, but thats basically what your arguement is stemming to so... If it's for procreation why did "god" make it pleasurable? (and why is masturbation even possible by that arguement) Fact is, your arguing based on religious terms, and the concept of Gay Marriage is a government function. Religion is supposed to be seperate from Government, so this shouldn't have anything to do with Religion. No one is forcing your church to start marrying gay couples, nor is this bill forcing you to marry a gay guy. I'm athiest thank you for assuming im religious though. The pleasure side of sex is to trick humans into doing it (lust) the side which harbors a strong relationship and bonds familys is (love). It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with giving the best chance for the child. If your gay, it would be your partner, not your husband/wife. Wtf. Tricking humans? Why the hell are humans being tricked? You just said you don't believe in god....and your statement goes completely against evolutionary concepts... I'm just going to concede you're deluded I'll summarize every up for you so maybe you will understand. People have no sense of responsibility. Sex until marriage is so that you will find a long lasting partner that can support your family. With all of the young pregnancys and marrying so young it makes a huge single parent/divorce rate. Stable marriage always results in better chances for your child to develop properly. Waiting and finding the right person later in life, instead of giving into pleasures, will always be better later in life. So by that logic you'd support bills that outlaw sex until marriage, masturbation, and that require people to "be in love" before they get married? Sounds like you'd be better off in Saudi Arabia or something buddy. Here in the United States we have things called freedom of expression and privacy. Calm down buddy... Im saying that it gives them the best chance. there is more than one way to skin a cat. The changes in society have caused divorce to be seen as "acceptable" which has turned the american family to shit. I don't believe in god or believe any story from the bible truly happened, but its all about the morals of the bible. The morals are the only thing to be taken seriously.
So divorce is unacceptable?
What if my partner turns out to be incredibly abusive? Should I stay with him, at danger to my life, to keep up the image of "marriage or the american family"?
|
On February 10 2012 07:48 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:45 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:43 DoubleReed wrote:On February 10 2012 07:34 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:30 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:26 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:20 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:18 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:15 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:13 Saltydizzle wrote:
[quote]
When your state can vote on that decision to limit my free speech, feel free to. Right now I am given the option to vote, and will do accordingly You didn't answer my main question though. Why would someone chose to be at a disadvantage? Would you turn down a 10% raise at work in favor of a 5% one? No you wouldn't, because it's idiotic. Your right, they didn't "choose", they were "born" with the disadvantage. You can see the effects of divorced and single parents on children. When a man and a woman marry, and raise a children, it gives the kid the best chance. compared to someone having a kid, say their gay and get a divorce, and ruin the family envoirnment that is so essential. Right, because heterosexual people only ever divorce because one of them is gay, and not because of money, work, mutual dislike, etc or anything like that. You are supporting the society you hate. Marriage is between a man and a woman. The reason they say don't have sex until marriage is so you find someone that will be there. That makes the family have a huge chance for success, increasing the chance that the child will grow up in a stable family. Sex is for PROCREATION, not for the sake of pleasure. I don't want to turn this into a religious debate, but thats basically what your arguement is stemming to so... If it's for procreation why did "god" make it pleasurable? (and why is masturbation even possible by that arguement) Fact is, your arguing based on religious terms, and the concept of Gay Marriage is a government function. Religion is supposed to be seperate from Government, so this shouldn't have anything to do with Religion. No one is forcing your church to start marrying gay couples, nor is this bill forcing you to marry a gay guy. I'm athiest thank you for assuming im religious though. The pleasure side of sex is to trick humans into doing it (lust) the side which harbors a strong relationship and bonds familys is (love). It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with giving the best chance for the child. If your gay, it would be your partner, not your husband/wife. You do know that many many couples divorce because of sexual issues right? Having sex before marriage would allow you to avoid being in a long term relationship with somebody who you are sexually incompatible with. What do you mean "trick" humans into doing it? That implies a conscious choice of deception, which is obviously not what an atheist would believe. So I'm confused. The fact is that sex is pleasurable, and nothing more. That's the end of the statement. All the recent studies have shown that same-sex parents are just as capable as hetero parents. That's not a valid argument. They will never have the connection that you get from your blood parents. Sex feels good so we will do it and reproduce. what does that have to do with god? ???? It's adoption! Usually the assumption is they don't have parents, or their parents don't want them. That's an incredibly offensive thing to say. Do you have anything to back up the assertion that adopted children are loved less? Because my anecdotal evidence says you're a idiot.
Why were they abandoned? If they had a good family in the first place, it wouldn't happen. Why do you think adopted people try to find their blood parents, it will never be the same.
|
Saltydizzle and Yosho, your understanding of biology is akin to that of 10 year olds. If anyone thinks that gay marriage should not be allowed because it goes against nature, you're wrong. It actually is the epitome of biological replication.
Selection occurs at the level of the gene, not the organism. Homosexuality, although seemingly limiting the reproduction of its gay bearer, does well to propagate its own self (whatever that biological factor is, it has not been discovered due to limits in technology) in straight bearers; there are studies showing that female relatives of gay men are more fecund, for example.
Also, given that homosexuality is a behavioural trait, there must be a genetic link involved, and given the prevalence of the trait, it is likely to be very strong.
If you think gay marriage should be disallowed for religious reasons... well, then you're either young, dumb, or both.
|
On February 10 2012 07:51 Saltydizzle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:47 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:42 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:37 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:34 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:30 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:26 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:20 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:18 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:15 1Eris1 wrote:
[quote]
You didn't answer my main question though.
Why would someone chose to be at a disadvantage? Would you turn down a 10% raise at work in favor of a 5% one? No you wouldn't, because it's idiotic. Your right, they didn't "choose", they were "born" with the disadvantage. You can see the effects of divorced and single parents on children. When a man and a woman marry, and raise a children, it gives the kid the best chance. compared to someone having a kid, say their gay and get a divorce, and ruin the family envoirnment that is so essential. Right, because heterosexual people only ever divorce because one of them is gay, and not because of money, work, mutual dislike, etc or anything like that. You are supporting the society you hate. Marriage is between a man and a woman. The reason they say don't have sex until marriage is so you find someone that will be there. That makes the family have a huge chance for success, increasing the chance that the child will grow up in a stable family. Sex is for PROCREATION, not for the sake of pleasure. I don't want to turn this into a religious debate, but thats basically what your arguement is stemming to so... If it's for procreation why did "god" make it pleasurable? (and why is masturbation even possible by that arguement) Fact is, your arguing based on religious terms, and the concept of Gay Marriage is a government function. Religion is supposed to be seperate from Government, so this shouldn't have anything to do with Religion. No one is forcing your church to start marrying gay couples, nor is this bill forcing you to marry a gay guy. I'm athiest thank you for assuming im religious though. The pleasure side of sex is to trick humans into doing it (lust) the side which harbors a strong relationship and bonds familys is (love). It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with giving the best chance for the child. If your gay, it would be your partner, not your husband/wife. Wtf. Tricking humans? Why the hell are humans being tricked? You just said you don't believe in god....and your statement goes completely against evolutionary concepts... I'm just going to concede you're deluded I'll summarize every up for you so maybe you will understand. People have no sense of responsibility. Sex until marriage is so that you will find a long lasting partner that can support your family. With all of the young pregnancys and marrying so young it makes a huge single parent/divorce rate. Stable marriage always results in better chances for your child to develop properly. Waiting and finding the right person later in life, instead of giving into pleasures, will always be better later in life. So by that logic you'd support bills that outlaw sex until marriage, masturbation, and that require people to "be in love" before they get married? Sounds like you'd be better off in Saudi Arabia or something buddy. Here in the United States we have things called freedom of expression and privacy. Calm down buddy... Im saying that it gives them the best chance. there is more than one way to skin a cat. The changes in society have caused divorce to be seen as "acceptable" which has turned the american family to shit. I don't believe in god or believe any story from the bible truly happened, but its all about the morals of the bible. The morals are the only thing to be taken seriously.
Oh so it is a religious argument. The morals from the bible are pretty terrible too you know. Like "rape" refers to the father or brother not consenting for someone to have sex with the woman. The woman has no choice at all. Oh, and of course the fact that the wife was basically the property of the husband for all intents and purposes. I mean, if you're going to get morals from somewhere, you might want to pick something less sexist and immoral.
No the morals are some of the most terrible parts. Sorry. But let's try to veer away from religion, shall we?
Either way, people didn't have to be married for nearly as long back in the old days. Seriously, you were only like married for 15-20 years before you died. And considering the woman was property, many people attribute female rights as a reason for higher divorce rates. Honestly, the "American Family" was pretty shit before. There was just no escape from it.
|
Australia8532 Posts
On February 10 2012 07:51 Saltydizzle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:47 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:42 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:37 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:34 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:30 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:26 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:20 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:18 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:15 1Eris1 wrote:
[quote]
You didn't answer my main question though.
Why would someone chose to be at a disadvantage? Would you turn down a 10% raise at work in favor of a 5% one? No you wouldn't, because it's idiotic. Your right, they didn't "choose", they were "born" with the disadvantage. You can see the effects of divorced and single parents on children. When a man and a woman marry, and raise a children, it gives the kid the best chance. compared to someone having a kid, say their gay and get a divorce, and ruin the family envoirnment that is so essential. Right, because heterosexual people only ever divorce because one of them is gay, and not because of money, work, mutual dislike, etc or anything like that. You are supporting the society you hate. Marriage is between a man and a woman. The reason they say don't have sex until marriage is so you find someone that will be there. That makes the family have a huge chance for success, increasing the chance that the child will grow up in a stable family. Sex is for PROCREATION, not for the sake of pleasure. I don't want to turn this into a religious debate, but thats basically what your arguement is stemming to so... If it's for procreation why did "god" make it pleasurable? (and why is masturbation even possible by that arguement) Fact is, your arguing based on religious terms, and the concept of Gay Marriage is a government function. Religion is supposed to be seperate from Government, so this shouldn't have anything to do with Religion. No one is forcing your church to start marrying gay couples, nor is this bill forcing you to marry a gay guy. I'm athiest thank you for assuming im religious though. The pleasure side of sex is to trick humans into doing it (lust) the side which harbors a strong relationship and bonds familys is (love). It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with giving the best chance for the child. If your gay, it would be your partner, not your husband/wife. Wtf. Tricking humans? Why the hell are humans being tricked? You just said you don't believe in god....and your statement goes completely against evolutionary concepts... I'm just going to concede you're deluded I'll summarize every up for you so maybe you will understand. People have no sense of responsibility. Sex until marriage is so that you will find a long lasting partner that can support your family. With all of the young pregnancys and marrying so young it makes a huge single parent/divorce rate. Stable marriage always results in better chances for your child to develop properly. Waiting and finding the right person later in life, instead of giving into pleasures, will always be better later in life. So by that logic you'd support bills that outlaw sex until marriage, masturbation, and that require people to "be in love" before they get married? Sounds like you'd be better off in Saudi Arabia or something buddy. Here in the United States we have things called freedom of expression and privacy. Calm down buddy... Im saying that it gives them the best chance. there is more than one way to skin a cat. The changes in society have caused divorce to be seen as "acceptable" which has turned the american family to shit. I don't believe in god or believe any story from the bible truly happened, but its all about the morals of the bible. The morals are the only thing to be taken seriously.
+ Show Spoiler +One can argue that things aren't moral because they are in the "bible", they are in the "bible" because they are moral..
If the bible says 2 + 2 = 4, it isn't so because it is in the bible, it is in the bible because it is so.
Sex before marriage is because religiously the only reason you should be having sex is to procreate, sex before marriage directly contradicts this. Having sex before marriage has nothing to do with "finding a partner that can support your family."
Sorry, but is your argument that homosexuals cannot make a "good" family? And therefore any child would suffer in that environment?
|
On February 10 2012 06:47 MidKnight wrote:
Because marriage gives a lot of social benefits etc.? It's fine if religious bigots don't approve of marriage in church "in front of God" or whatever, but not allowing 2 individuals of the same sex who love and care for each other to form a union and gain same benefits as 2 individuals of opposite sex is dumb.
Maybe you are true, but I really feel like that the marriage in church "in front of God" and the civil marriages shouldn't share the same name, since they aren't the same thing.This bothers a lot of people (especially religious people). (see aedriol's post)
And calling them bigots, only because they truly believe in something, is quite rude and I don't see why is it better than protesting against gay marriage. To be honest, at least here, in Hungary, gay protesters cause way bigger uproar and they don't care about other people who might not like what they're doing. Why would anyone want to change anything, if he/they just can't make a compromise?
On February 10 2012 06:50 LambtrOn wrote:
Why are you stuck in the past? Social customs change. Women weren't able to vote not that long ago? Do you disagree with that since it was an old fashioned tradition? You can't pick it choose which parts of the past are acceptable and which aren't. Gay marriage is good for all the reasons straight marriage is good, mainly It creates a loving family where gays are able to enjoy the benefits of marriage. Look how far our society has progressed. Gay marriage will be legal, history has already told us that. Answer this, how is it bad?
The question of voting is very interesting imo. Before women weren't able to vote, men voted for those who offered the the most things that are not yet entirely unbelievable. Nowdays, the same thing happens. I can't decide which one is better, maybe the former one, since less votes means less work with them. Nothing has really changed with that, just some people has more work to do.
As for the social benefits that both of you are stressing out:
I'm pretty sure, one of the most important "benefits" of it is adoption (correct me, if I'm wrong).
Other than that, why would you use the word "love" to get (partly monetary) benefits? I mean, why would you want to marry anyone, if it's not for love (which doesn't need marriage), or having children?
Adoption is something that can't be labeled nor good nor bad, since there are countless examples for both. Adoption should be harsher regulated, since a lot of children become victim of it.
You do realize that there are studies that show that homosexual couples are better parents then heterosexual couples, right?
Read Murphy's Lawbook on statistics.
I don't think that there's a big enough sample size or time elapsed to state anything like this.
I wouldn't really like to write anything pro/contra gay couples adopting children, because in my opinion it's more on the mentality of the parents, which doesn't really have anything to do with their personal "preferences", but I'm not sure if it doesn't affect the child if both his/her parents are of the same sex. At least since it's not publically totally accepted, and being hated for something you can't do anything about just feels bad for anyone.
|
Here's my thought on how to solve all gay marriage bickering:
The main argument against it, both in this thread and elsewhere, is that "marriage is defined as between a man and a woman." The validity of this argument is moot for what I'm about to propose, so let's just take it at face value and ignore our feelings about it.
So, since we've determined that the word "marriage" itself is the problem, because many religions hold it to be sacred, why exactly is a government that believes in separating church and state in the business of marrying anyone, even straight couples? By applying religious connotations to the word, they've invalidated it as something a secular government should be able to do.
So no one gets married by the government. The government will approve civil unions, with all the rights currently given by marriage, to all kinds of couples. If they then want to take that union to a church for marriage, that's their own business. The main issue people have with this is the word "marriage," so let's remove it from the equation completely.
|
On February 10 2012 08:04 Antyee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 06:50 LambtrOn wrote:
Why are you stuck in the past? Social customs change. Women weren't able to vote not that long ago? Do you disagree with that since it was an old fashioned tradition? You can't pick it choose which parts of the past are acceptable and which aren't. Gay marriage is good for all the reasons straight marriage is good, mainly It creates a loving family where gays are able to enjoy the benefits of marriage. Look how far our society has progressed. Gay marriage will be legal, history has already told us that. Answer this, how is it bad? The question of voting is very interesting imo. Before women weren't able to vote, men voted for those who offered the the most things that are not yet entirely unbelievable. Nowdays, the same thing happens. I can't decide which one is better, maybe the former one, since less votes means less work with them. Nothing has really changed with that, just some people has more work to do.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Less votes so less work? What the fuck is that? People shouldn't have a voice because it's too much work? Are you fucking kidding me?
|
Great, now that you guys finally resolve silly issues like this, you can start to think about how to deal with real issues everyone overlooked, like the big ass debt you are swimming in, excessive government spending, failing education, religious influence in schools, corrupt and inefficient and overbearing law enforcement going after easy prey like demonstrators and stoners, biased and overloaded justice system punishing slight offenses more than hardcore criminals, excessive prison population, lobbying by mega corporations and repeated attempts at the subversion of the free and open nature of the internet, your trigger-happy military, violence and lack of security in several large cities, rape hysteria, terrorism hysteria, etc etc etc
You guys are on the fast track to becoming a third world country and you are arguing whether or not to restrict a capable adult's right to choose a partner freely or how to punish soft drug users even more. Seriously??
"If we as a state are going to take the position that mothers and fathers are interchangeable and replaceable, if we are going to send a message to fathers and potential fathers in this state that it isn't important to be in the lives of their children because dads specifically don't matter, that is something we should all do together," he said last month.
This is exactly what you are doing now, with your highly discriminatory divorce, alimony, child support laws and insanely ant-male family courts. Just ask any divorced father how does he like the treatment he gets. You do not value fathers at all, and it does have its consequences. Hypocrite populist idiot.
|
On February 10 2012 08:13 Frigo wrote:Great, now that you guys finally resolve silly issues like this, you can start to think about how to deal with real issues everyone overlooked, like the big ass debt you are swimming in, excessive government spending, failing education, religious influence in schools, corrupt and inefficient and overbearing law enforcement going after easy prey like demonstrators and stoners, biased and overloaded justice system punishing slight offenses more than hardcore criminals, excessive prison population, lobbying by mega corporations and repeated attempts at the subversion of the free and open nature of the internet, your trigger-happy military, violence and lack of security in several large cities, rape hysteria, terrorism hysteria, etc etc etc You guys are on the fast track to becoming a third world country and you are arguing whether or not to restrict a capable adult's right to choose a partner freely or how to punish soft drug users even more. Seriously??Show nested quote +"If we as a state are going to take the position that mothers and fathers are interchangeable and replaceable, if we are going to send a message to fathers and potential fathers in this state that it isn't important to be in the lives of their children because dads specifically don't matter, that is something we should all do together," he said last month. This is exactly what you are doing now, with your highly discriminatory divorce, alimony, child support laws and insanely ant-male family courts. Just ask any divorced father how does he like the treatment he gets. You do not value fathers at all, and it does have its consequences. Hypocrite populist idiot.
This is at the state level, dude. Chill.
|
On February 10 2012 07:51 Saltydizzle wrote:
Calm down buddy...
Im saying that it gives them the best chance. there is more than one way to skin a cat. The changes in society have caused divorce to be seen as "acceptable" which has turned the american family to shit. I don't believe in god or believe any story from the bible truly happened, but its all about the morals of the bible. The morals are the only thing to be taken seriously.
Wow, really? "Morals of the bible"? Have you even read a chapter of that book? The bible is a fucking monstrosity. "Morals of the bible", seriously, you do not want to open that can of shit.
|
On February 10 2012 07:36 Blurry wrote:
As this thread has been going I am going to be flamed for this.
I am against gay marriage because it is a religious thing. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman and if these specific denominational churches don't want to marry two men that is their decision. The issue comes with the fact that certain benefits come from being married. As such I propose something like a civil union where you get the exact same rights without the title of marriage. Save divorce proceedings, same everything, just not marriage.
Theres no reason why this could not happen. It does not offend either side, or shouldn't offend either side. The symbolic aspect comes from the religious significance of marriage and how important it was in the past.
Edit: FYI I am athiest
Marriage is not a religious thing. It's a contract between (usually) two individuals, and has existed long before christianity hijacked it.
|
As a gay man, I'm very happy to see strides in the right direction.
|
On February 10 2012 07:47 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:42 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:37 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:34 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:30 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:26 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:20 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:18 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:15 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:13 Saltydizzle wrote:
[quote]
When your state can vote on that decision to limit my free speech, feel free to. Right now I am given the option to vote, and will do accordingly You didn't answer my main question though. Why would someone chose to be at a disadvantage? Would you turn down a 10% raise at work in favor of a 5% one? No you wouldn't, because it's idiotic. Your right, they didn't "choose", they were "born" with the disadvantage. You can see the effects of divorced and single parents on children. When a man and a woman marry, and raise a children, it gives the kid the best chance. compared to someone having a kid, say their gay and get a divorce, and ruin the family envoirnment that is so essential. Right, because heterosexual people only ever divorce because one of them is gay, and not because of money, work, mutual dislike, etc or anything like that. You are supporting the society you hate. Marriage is between a man and a woman. The reason they say don't have sex until marriage is so you find someone that will be there. That makes the family have a huge chance for success, increasing the chance that the child will grow up in a stable family. Sex is for PROCREATION, not for the sake of pleasure. I don't want to turn this into a religious debate, but thats basically what your arguement is stemming to so... If it's for procreation why did "god" make it pleasurable? (and why is masturbation even possible by that arguement) Fact is, your arguing based on religious terms, and the concept of Gay Marriage is a government function. Religion is supposed to be seperate from Government, so this shouldn't have anything to do with Religion. No one is forcing your church to start marrying gay couples, nor is this bill forcing you to marry a gay guy. I'm athiest thank you for assuming im religious though. The pleasure side of sex is to trick humans into doing it (lust) the side which harbors a strong relationship and bonds familys is (love). It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with giving the best chance for the child. If your gay, it would be your partner, not your husband/wife. Wtf. Tricking humans? Why the hell are humans being tricked? You just said you don't believe in god....and your statement goes completely against evolutionary concepts... I'm just going to concede you're deluded I'll summarize every up for you so maybe you will understand. People have no sense of responsibility. Sex until marriage is so that you will find a long lasting partner that can support your family. With all of the young pregnancys and marrying so young it makes a huge single parent/divorce rate. Stable marriage always results in better chances for your child to develop properly. Waiting and finding the right person later in life, instead of giving into pleasures, will always be better later in life. So by that logic you'd support bills that outlaw sex until marriage, masturbation, and that require people to "be in love" before they get married? Sounds like you'd be better off in Saudi Arabia or something buddy. Here in the United States we have things called freedom of expression and privacy.
That reminds me an episode of South Park. Cartoon wars part 1 hehe.
I think that we're as human are all equal. Even the bible points it afaik.Therefore gay marriage should be allowed or we wouldn't be equal. So i'm happy with those news.
|
I can't believe there are still places where gay marriage isn't recognized as valid. Oh well, there's one less now!
|
On February 10 2012 07:51 Saltydizzle wrote:Im saying that it gives them the best chance. there is more than one way to skin a cat. The changes in society have caused divorce to be seen as "acceptable" which has turned the american family to shit. I don't believe in god or believe any story from the bible truly happened, but its all about the morals of the bible. The morals are the only thing to be taken seriously.
The "morals" of the bible tell us that working on Sunday is abomination and that you should stone anyone who does so. They tell us to stone to death any woman who has sex before marriage.
You really want to take those seriously?
|
On February 10 2012 08:42 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:51 Saltydizzle wrote:Im saying that it gives them the best chance. there is more than one way to skin a cat. The changes in society have caused divorce to be seen as "acceptable" which has turned the american family to shit. I don't believe in god or believe any story from the bible truly happened, but its all about the morals of the bible. The morals are the only thing to be taken seriously. The "morals" of the bible tell us that working on Sunday is abomination and that you should stone anyone who does so. They tell us to stone to death any woman who has sex before marriage. You really want to take those seriously?
You can mix my words all you want. But the morals in the bible are for the most part good. Obviously wars are all about religion but religion has its good sides. I don't believe any of the stories are real, but like greek mythology, there are lessons to be learned.
|
one would think that young/semi-young people with enough brains to go to through the registration process at TL would be either smart enough not to spew anti-gay arguments which have been disputed millions of times before, or just refrain from arguing outside their areas of expertise. apparently not. i'm happy for our washington state friends, and hope to see things like this spread like the plague all around the world.
but, seeing an alarming number of young minds being void of elementary reasoning, sadly, speaks for itself and we still have a very long way to go.
|
United States1411 Posts
On February 10 2012 08:46 Saltydizzle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 08:42 sunprince wrote:On February 10 2012 07:51 Saltydizzle wrote:Im saying that it gives them the best chance. there is more than one way to skin a cat. The changes in society have caused divorce to be seen as "acceptable" which has turned the american family to shit. I don't believe in god or believe any story from the bible truly happened, but its all about the morals of the bible. The morals are the only thing to be taken seriously. The "morals" of the bible tell us that working on Sunday is abomination and that you should stone anyone who does so. They tell us to stone to death any woman who has sex before marriage. You really want to take those seriously? You can mix my words all you want. But the morals in the bible are for the most part good. Obviously wars are all about religion but religion has its good sides. I don't believe any of the stories are real, but like greek mythology, there are lessons to be learned.
So the lesson you learned from the bible is that we should arbitrarily deny someone legal rights because of a biological factor?
Or was it to burn a woman who wears a garment made of 2 threads.
I'm sure 1 of those is in the bible.....
|
On February 10 2012 08:46 Saltydizzle wrote:You can mix my words all you want. But the morals in the bible are for the most part good. Obviously wars are all about religion but religion has its good sides.
If you admit that not all the "morals" of the bible are good, then why are you incapable of understanding that the homophobia of the bible is a bad thing?
Look, either the bible is a moral authority or it isn't. If some of the shit in the bible is bad, then you can't use it as a moral authority. It's complete bullshit to say that something is wrong because the bible says so, when you've already admitted that the bible isn't always right!
On February 10 2012 08:46 Saltydizzle wrote:I don't believe any of the stories are real, but like greek mythology, there are lessons to be learned.
If there's any lesson to be learned from the bible, it's that religious people do immoral things in the name of god.
I don't disagree that there are some good moral lessons to be learned from the bible, but if the one you took away was "deprive gays/lesbians" of their rights, then you're just despicable.
|
|
|
So this makes seven States and only 42 left. The Mormon Church and Evangelicals, I'm sure, are preparing to go into overdrive.
|
United States1411 Posts
On February 10 2012 10:00 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 08:46 Saltydizzle wrote:You can mix my words all you want. But the morals in the bible are for the most part good. Obviously wars are all about religion but religion has its good sides. If you admit that not all the "morals" of the bible are good, then why are you incapable of understanding that the homophobia of the bible is a bad thing? Look, either the bible is a moral authority or it isn't. If some of the shit in the bible is bad, then you can't use it as a moral authority. It's complete bullshit to say that something is wrong because the bible says so, when you've already admitted that the bible isn't always right! Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 08:46 Saltydizzle wrote:I don't believe any of the stories are real, but like greek mythology, there are lessons to be learned. If there's any lesson to be learned from the bible, it's that religious people do immoral things in the name of god.
I mean its not unreasonable to pick and choose certain stories and morals from the bible and teach them to your children (or your parish as a priest) There are good morals and lessons in the bible, I think anyone would agree that is objectively true. But I understand your frustration, trust me lol.
By the same token:
It is unreasonable to pick and choose certain stories and morals from the bible and use them as a basis to deny someone their rights.
|
On February 10 2012 08:46 Saltydizzle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 08:42 sunprince wrote:On February 10 2012 07:51 Saltydizzle wrote:Im saying that it gives them the best chance. there is more than one way to skin a cat. The changes in society have caused divorce to be seen as "acceptable" which has turned the american family to shit. I don't believe in god or believe any story from the bible truly happened, but its all about the morals of the bible. The morals are the only thing to be taken seriously. The "morals" of the bible tell us that working on Sunday is abomination and that you should stone anyone who does so. They tell us to stone to death any woman who has sex before marriage. You really want to take those seriously? You can mix my words all you want. But the morals in the bible are for the most part good. Obviously wars are all about religion but religion has its good sides. I don't believe any of the stories are real, but like greek mythology, there are lessons to be learned.
You can have morals without religion casting a code of law down in stone.
|
The debate on the first few pages is so annoying. Maybe they should start not allowing gay marriage opponents from marrying and spreading on their genes to prevent future stupidity. (sort of similar logic to what I read in this thread)
If you have to pick and choose from the bible to find good morals then you already have a moral center independent of the bible, by the way.
|
On February 10 2012 07:32 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:30 aebriol wrote:
The state should stay out of marriage.
Have people sign a document that says 'civil union' and gives whatever rights marriage currently does, and that's your contract with the state and each other, and then it's up to you and whatever church / service you use, to get 'married' or not - and it has no legal or economic impact on anything. This. There should be no discrimination in government. Religious people have their own little ceremonies, but legally the only thing that should matter is a civil union between two consenting adults.
If people had any sense, they would do this. Let those who want to be married religiously be married religiously, but the benefits of a civil union should be available to two consenting adults, regardless of orientation.
|
The Christian's believe that marriage is between man, woman, and God. They believe whether gay or straight a marriage without God is not technically a marriage. So it makes sense to me why they won't recognize gay marriage. Seems to me this is an attack on Christianity more than it is about establishing rights. They could just use the term "civil union" like many other countries with all the same rights as married couples and not offend the Christian groups.
|
United States1411 Posts
On February 10 2012 10:27 steev wrote:
The Christian's believe that marriage is between man, woman, and God. They believe whether gay or straight a marriage without God is not technically a marriage. So it makes sense to me why they won't recognize gay marriage. Seems to me this is an attack on Christianity more than it is about establishing rights. They could just use the term "civil union" like many other countries with all the same rights as married couples and not offend the Christian groups.
Um, marriage isn't a christian institution sir. You can get married in plenty of places beyond a christian church.
This ruling says that 2 consenting adults of the same gender can be legally married. That means a judge performs the nuptials (or a captain i suppose^^)
Since marriage is a legal institution,-basically a legal right adults have to get legally married- not allowing a certain percentage of the population to exercise this right because of something that is biological determined (just like your skin color) is a violation of the 14th amendment. The precedent for this is the well known supreme court case Brown Vs Board of ED, which ruled that separate but equal (aka civil union and marriage or black school and white school or gay marriage and straight marriage) is unconstitutional.
|
On February 10 2012 10:35 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 10:27 steev wrote:
The Christian's believe that marriage is between man, woman, and God. They believe whether gay or straight a marriage without God is not technically a marriage. So it makes sense to me why they won't recognize gay marriage. Seems to me this is an attack on Christianity more than it is about establishing rights. They could just use the term "civil union" like many other countries with all the same rights as married couples and not offend the Christian groups. Um, marriage isn't a christian institution sir. You can get married in plenty of places beyond a christian church. This ruling says that 2 consenting adults of the same gender can be legally married. That means a judge performs the nuptials (or a captain i suppose^^) Since marriage is a legal institution,-basically a legal right adults have to get legally married- not allowing a certain percentage of the population to exercise this right because of something that is biological determined (just like your skin color) is a violation of the 14th amendment. The precedent for this is the well known supreme court case Brown Vs Board of ED, which ruled that separate but equal (aka civil union and marriage or black school and white school or gay marriage and straight marriage) is unconstitutional.
Except it's not a violation of the 14th amendment, which states equal protection for all. As it is now in most states, all male citizens have the right to marry a woman. Gay people have this exact same right. The problem here is, marriage isn't something the government should be interfering with in the first place.
|
On February 10 2012 10:27 steev wrote:
The Christian's believe that marriage is between man, woman, and God. They believe whether gay or straight a marriage without God is not technically a marriage. So it makes sense to me why they won't recognize gay marriage. Seems to me this is an attack on Christianity more than it is about establishing rights. They could just use the term "civil union" like many other countries with all the same rights as married couples and not offend the Christian groups.
Because marriage involves the government from a legal standpoint. If you have the government acknowledging two things that are the same you've essentially just made it "Separate but equal". You've segregated the two for absolutely no logical reason. The government must acknowledge every legal pairing of people as the same exact thing with the same exact rights. Then people can call it anything they like.
|
On February 09 2012 13:43 SafeAsCheese wrote:
Why not make it a church thing?
Your logic is that gays are unable to ever call themselves Christians, or many other religions.
That's illegal segregation in the US, even if "civil unions" are the same thing with a different name. "separate but equal"
I don't follow this issue much, but if it is true that gays are not allowed to be Christians, it just makes me laugh all the more at religion and even more sad at how much governmental power they have.
There have been a few gay Christians tho, having homosexual tenancies is just like any other sin, such as Pornography or Sex before marriage. And since in Romans 3:23 it says "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". When you become a saved christian you are still tempted with sin. So basically I believe you can be a christian and still struggle with having homosexual tendencies.
Just my two cents.
|
On February 10 2012 10:39 Bonkerz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 13:43 SafeAsCheese wrote:
Why not make it a church thing?
Your logic is that gays are unable to ever call themselves Christians, or many other religions.
That's illegal segregation in the US, even if "civil unions" are the same thing with a different name. "separate but equal"
I don't follow this issue much, but if it is true that gays are not allowed to be Christians, it just makes me laugh all the more at religion and even more sad at how much governmental power they have. So basically I believe you can be a christian and still struggle with having homosexual tendencies. Just my two cents.
Why would anyone want to be part of a religion that believes because the people they are attracted to are of the same gender, they have to fight this "sin" for their whole lives, live alone, without ever physically connecting with anyone, due to a genetic trait. Its disgusting that people are subjected to this kind of treatment, and its even more disgusting that people whole heartedly believe that that is what some supreme LOVING being would want a persons life to be.
|
United States1411 Posts
On February 10 2012 10:38 ampson wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 10:35 stokes17 wrote:On February 10 2012 10:27 steev wrote:
The Christian's believe that marriage is between man, woman, and God. They believe whether gay or straight a marriage without God is not technically a marriage. So it makes sense to me why they won't recognize gay marriage. Seems to me this is an attack on Christianity more than it is about establishing rights. They could just use the term "civil union" like many other countries with all the same rights as married couples and not offend the Christian groups. Um, marriage isn't a christian institution sir. You can get married in plenty of places beyond a christian church. This ruling says that 2 consenting adults of the same gender can be legally married. That means a judge performs the nuptials (or a captain i suppose^^) Since marriage is a legal institution,-basically a legal right adults have to get legally married- not allowing a certain percentage of the population to exercise this right because of something that is biological determined (just like your skin color) is a violation of the 14th amendment. The precedent for this is the well known supreme court case Brown Vs Board of ED, which ruled that separate but equal (aka civil union and marriage or black school and white school or gay marriage and straight marriage) is unconstitutional. Except it's not a violation of the 14th amendment, which states equal protection for all. As it is now in most states, all male citizens have the right to marry a woman. Gay people have this exact same right. The problem here is, marriage isn't something the government should be interfering with in the first place.
Well, one could argue that marriage should be legally defined as "a legally binding union between 2 consenting adults." Which is basically what was argued in Wash. (and everywhere else that has legalized gay marriage.) and their argument for why it must be worded that way is: One's sexual orientation is something that is biologically determined. So by the same logic that arraigned marriages are frowned upon in the US in general, forcing someone to marry someone to whom they feel no attraction just for the legal benefits of a marriage does not seem to be a satisfactory fulfillment of a homosexual's right to enjoy the benefits of marriage. Since we are now working under this assumption.
Allowing homosexuals to enjoy the legal benefits of marriage but calling it something different (I think the south park parody where they call it "Gay butt buddies" articulates the argument beautifully) basically falls under the Brown V BoE ruling-- and would be seen as a violation of the 14th amendment
So since forcing gays to marry someone of the opposite sex (to whom they are by their biology not attracted to) is unsatisfactory, and allowing them to marry but calling it something else is a violation of the 14th amendment,
the only reasonable way to give homosexuals full 14th amendment coverage is to redefine marriage, as a legal term, to a binding union between 2 consenting adults.
Edit: wait what do you mean government shouldn't interfere with marriage. There are plenty of legal benefits to being married that's why the government should interfere with marriage.
|
On February 10 2012 10:38 ampson wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 10:35 stokes17 wrote:On February 10 2012 10:27 steev wrote:
The Christian's believe that marriage is between man, woman, and God. They believe whether gay or straight a marriage without God is not technically a marriage. So it makes sense to me why they won't recognize gay marriage. Seems to me this is an attack on Christianity more than it is about establishing rights. They could just use the term "civil union" like many other countries with all the same rights as married couples and not offend the Christian groups. Um, marriage isn't a christian institution sir. You can get married in plenty of places beyond a christian church. This ruling says that 2 consenting adults of the same gender can be legally married. That means a judge performs the nuptials (or a captain i suppose^^) Since marriage is a legal institution,-basically a legal right adults have to get legally married- not allowing a certain percentage of the population to exercise this right because of something that is biological determined (just like your skin color) is a violation of the 14th amendment. The precedent for this is the well known supreme court case Brown Vs Board of ED, which ruled that separate but equal (aka civil union and marriage or black school and white school or gay marriage and straight marriage) is unconstitutional. Except it's not a violation of the 14th amendment, which states equal protection for all. As it is now in most states, all male citizens have the right to marry a woman. Gay people have this exact same right. The problem here is, marriage isn't something the government should be interfering with in the first place.
It is, because it's giving heterosexuals an unfair legal boon. Furthermore, the idea that marriage is something the government shouldn't be interfering with is just weird. Marriage has always been a legal issue, even before it was a religious one.
Also, Brown v. Board set the precedent that separate is inherently unequal, so having "civil unions" for homosexuals and "marriage" for heterosexuals probably would never fly.
|
Excellent, finally homosexual couples can be just as miserable as heterosexual couples :D, Jokes aside this is great step towards real equality, nearly 40 years after it stopped being illegal, took a while but society is gradually getting better.
|
Very cool, glad to see it.
|
we found the solution to our economic problems. gay wedding registry
+ Show Spoiler +ok, I read this one on some prop 8 demonstration signs article. lost the link 
|
Live in Seattle and i bet this years gay pride parade will be even more festive. I mean last year the go the space needle to fly a HUGE rainbow flag (a big deal because it is privately owned). But the anti gays have promised to put a repeal attempt on the the ballot next November but i doubt it will pass in a presidential election year. Also you have to remember Washington state still has the more conservative agricultural part on the other side of the mountains and in the sparsely populated south.
|
On February 10 2012 10:51 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 10:38 ampson wrote:On February 10 2012 10:35 stokes17 wrote:On February 10 2012 10:27 steev wrote:
The Christian's believe that marriage is between man, woman, and God. They believe whether gay or straight a marriage without God is not technically a marriage. So it makes sense to me why they won't recognize gay marriage. Seems to me this is an attack on Christianity more than it is about establishing rights. They could just use the term "civil union" like many other countries with all the same rights as married couples and not offend the Christian groups. Um, marriage isn't a christian institution sir. You can get married in plenty of places beyond a christian church. This ruling says that 2 consenting adults of the same gender can be legally married. That means a judge performs the nuptials (or a captain i suppose^^) Since marriage is a legal institution,-basically a legal right adults have to get legally married- not allowing a certain percentage of the population to exercise this right because of something that is biological determined (just like your skin color) is a violation of the 14th amendment. The precedent for this is the well known supreme court case Brown Vs Board of ED, which ruled that separate but equal (aka civil union and marriage or black school and white school or gay marriage and straight marriage) is unconstitutional. Except it's not a violation of the 14th amendment, which states equal protection for all. As it is now in most states, all male citizens have the right to marry a woman. Gay people have this exact same right. The problem here is, marriage isn't something the government should be interfering with in the first place. Well, one could argue that marriage should be legally defined as "a legally binding union between 2 consenting adults." Which is basically what was argued in Wash. (and everywhere else that has legalized gay marriage.) and their argument for why it must be worded that way is: One's sexual orientation is something that is biologically determined. So by the same logic that arraigned marriages are frowned upon in the US in general, forcing someone to marry someone to whom they feel no attraction just for the legal benefits of a marriage does not seem to be a satisfactory fulfillment of a homosexual's right to enjoy the benefits of marriage. Since we are now working under this assumption. Allowing homosexuals to enjoy the legal benefits of marriage but calling it something different (I think the south park parody where they call it "Gay butt buddies" articulates the argument beautifully) basically falls under the Brown V BoE ruling-- and would be seen as a violation of the 14th amendment So since forcing gays to marry someone of the opposite sex (to whom they are by their biology not attracted to) is unsatisfactory, and allowing them to marry but calling it something else is a violation of the 14th amendment, the only reasonable way to give homosexuals full 14th amendment coverage is to redefine marriage, as a legal term, to a binding union between 2 consenting adults. Edit: wait what do you mean government shouldn't interfere with marriage. There are plenty of legal benefits to being married that's why the government should interfere with marriage.
I think that the government should take all the benefits of marriages that they give now and call it a civil union. Define a civil union as a legally binding relationship between two consenting adults. Let anybody get one. Then, for the actual ceremony, let the church decide whether they will marry two people, and have the government stay out of it.
|
On February 10 2012 11:46 ampson wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 10:51 stokes17 wrote:On February 10 2012 10:38 ampson wrote:On February 10 2012 10:35 stokes17 wrote:On February 10 2012 10:27 steev wrote:
The Christian's believe that marriage is between man, woman, and God. They believe whether gay or straight a marriage without God is not technically a marriage. So it makes sense to me why they won't recognize gay marriage. Seems to me this is an attack on Christianity more than it is about establishing rights. They could just use the term "civil union" like many other countries with all the same rights as married couples and not offend the Christian groups. Um, marriage isn't a christian institution sir. You can get married in plenty of places beyond a christian church. This ruling says that 2 consenting adults of the same gender can be legally married. That means a judge performs the nuptials (or a captain i suppose^^) Since marriage is a legal institution,-basically a legal right adults have to get legally married- not allowing a certain percentage of the population to exercise this right because of something that is biological determined (just like your skin color) is a violation of the 14th amendment. The precedent for this is the well known supreme court case Brown Vs Board of ED, which ruled that separate but equal (aka civil union and marriage or black school and white school or gay marriage and straight marriage) is unconstitutional. Except it's not a violation of the 14th amendment, which states equal protection for all. As it is now in most states, all male citizens have the right to marry a woman. Gay people have this exact same right. The problem here is, marriage isn't something the government should be interfering with in the first place. Well, one could argue that marriage should be legally defined as "a legally binding union between 2 consenting adults." Which is basically what was argued in Wash. (and everywhere else that has legalized gay marriage.) and their argument for why it must be worded that way is: One's sexual orientation is something that is biologically determined. So by the same logic that arraigned marriages are frowned upon in the US in general, forcing someone to marry someone to whom they feel no attraction just for the legal benefits of a marriage does not seem to be a satisfactory fulfillment of a homosexual's right to enjoy the benefits of marriage. Since we are now working under this assumption. Allowing homosexuals to enjoy the legal benefits of marriage but calling it something different (I think the south park parody where they call it "Gay butt buddies" articulates the argument beautifully) basically falls under the Brown V BoE ruling-- and would be seen as a violation of the 14th amendment So since forcing gays to marry someone of the opposite sex (to whom they are by their biology not attracted to) is unsatisfactory, and allowing them to marry but calling it something else is a violation of the 14th amendment, the only reasonable way to give homosexuals full 14th amendment coverage is to redefine marriage, as a legal term, to a binding union between 2 consenting adults. Edit: wait what do you mean government shouldn't interfere with marriage. There are plenty of legal benefits to being married that's why the government should interfere with marriage. I think that the government should take all the benefits of marriages that they give now and call it a civil union. Define a civil union as a legally binding relationship between two consenting adults. Let anybody get one. Then, for the actual ceremony, let the church decide whether they will marry two people, and have the government stay out of it.
While I certainly think that would solve the issue (well maybe), it sounds like a rather sweeping, yet roundabout gesture. Why not just openly say that we are accepting of other people?
|
United States1411 Posts
On February 10 2012 11:46 ampson wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 10:51 stokes17 wrote:On February 10 2012 10:38 ampson wrote:On February 10 2012 10:35 stokes17 wrote:On February 10 2012 10:27 steev wrote:
The Christian's believe that marriage is between man, woman, and God. They believe whether gay or straight a marriage without God is not technically a marriage. So it makes sense to me why they won't recognize gay marriage. Seems to me this is an attack on Christianity more than it is about establishing rights. They could just use the term "civil union" like many other countries with all the same rights as married couples and not offend the Christian groups. Um, marriage isn't a christian institution sir. You can get married in plenty of places beyond a christian church. This ruling says that 2 consenting adults of the same gender can be legally married. That means a judge performs the nuptials (or a captain i suppose^^) Since marriage is a legal institution,-basically a legal right adults have to get legally married- not allowing a certain percentage of the population to exercise this right because of something that is biological determined (just like your skin color) is a violation of the 14th amendment. The precedent for this is the well known supreme court case Brown Vs Board of ED, which ruled that separate but equal (aka civil union and marriage or black school and white school or gay marriage and straight marriage) is unconstitutional. Except it's not a violation of the 14th amendment, which states equal protection for all. As it is now in most states, all male citizens have the right to marry a woman. Gay people have this exact same right. The problem here is, marriage isn't something the government should be interfering with in the first place. Well, one could argue that marriage should be legally defined as "a legally binding union between 2 consenting adults." Which is basically what was argued in Wash. (and everywhere else that has legalized gay marriage.) and their argument for why it must be worded that way is: One's sexual orientation is something that is biologically determined. So by the same logic that arraigned marriages are frowned upon in the US in general, forcing someone to marry someone to whom they feel no attraction just for the legal benefits of a marriage does not seem to be a satisfactory fulfillment of a homosexual's right to enjoy the benefits of marriage. Since we are now working under this assumption. Allowing homosexuals to enjoy the legal benefits of marriage but calling it something different (I think the south park parody where they call it "Gay butt buddies" articulates the argument beautifully) basically falls under the Brown V BoE ruling-- and would be seen as a violation of the 14th amendment So since forcing gays to marry someone of the opposite sex (to whom they are by their biology not attracted to) is unsatisfactory, and allowing them to marry but calling it something else is a violation of the 14th amendment, the only reasonable way to give homosexuals full 14th amendment coverage is to redefine marriage, as a legal term, to a binding union between 2 consenting adults. Edit: wait what do you mean government shouldn't interfere with marriage. There are plenty of legal benefits to being married that's why the government should interfere with marriage. I think that the government should take all the benefits of marriages that they give now and call it a civil union. Define a civil union as a legally binding relationship between two consenting adults. Let anybody get one. Then, for the actual ceremony, let the church decide whether they will marry two people, and have the government stay out of it.
So you want marriage to no longer be a legal term? And replace every legal usage of marriage with civil union. So everyone would go get a civil union license from the courthouse.
Idn, I would be satisfied with that. But I am a heterosexual with only a cursory legal knowledge so I have no idea if that's a valid solution.
|
United States1411 Posts
On February 10 2012 11:52 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 11:46 ampson wrote:On February 10 2012 10:51 stokes17 wrote:On February 10 2012 10:38 ampson wrote:On February 10 2012 10:35 stokes17 wrote:On February 10 2012 10:27 steev wrote:
The Christian's believe that marriage is between man, woman, and God. They believe whether gay or straight a marriage without God is not technically a marriage. So it makes sense to me why they won't recognize gay marriage. Seems to me this is an attack on Christianity more than it is about establishing rights. They could just use the term "civil union" like many other countries with all the same rights as married couples and not offend the Christian groups. Um, marriage isn't a christian institution sir. You can get married in plenty of places beyond a christian church. This ruling says that 2 consenting adults of the same gender can be legally married. That means a judge performs the nuptials (or a captain i suppose^^) Since marriage is a legal institution,-basically a legal right adults have to get legally married- not allowing a certain percentage of the population to exercise this right because of something that is biological determined (just like your skin color) is a violation of the 14th amendment. The precedent for this is the well known supreme court case Brown Vs Board of ED, which ruled that separate but equal (aka civil union and marriage or black school and white school or gay marriage and straight marriage) is unconstitutional. Except it's not a violation of the 14th amendment, which states equal protection for all. As it is now in most states, all male citizens have the right to marry a woman. Gay people have this exact same right. The problem here is, marriage isn't something the government should be interfering with in the first place. Well, one could argue that marriage should be legally defined as "a legally binding union between 2 consenting adults." Which is basically what was argued in Wash. (and everywhere else that has legalized gay marriage.) and their argument for why it must be worded that way is: One's sexual orientation is something that is biologically determined. So by the same logic that arraigned marriages are frowned upon in the US in general, forcing someone to marry someone to whom they feel no attraction just for the legal benefits of a marriage does not seem to be a satisfactory fulfillment of a homosexual's right to enjoy the benefits of marriage. Since we are now working under this assumption. Allowing homosexuals to enjoy the legal benefits of marriage but calling it something different (I think the south park parody where they call it "Gay butt buddies" articulates the argument beautifully) basically falls under the Brown V BoE ruling-- and would be seen as a violation of the 14th amendment So since forcing gays to marry someone of the opposite sex (to whom they are by their biology not attracted to) is unsatisfactory, and allowing them to marry but calling it something else is a violation of the 14th amendment, the only reasonable way to give homosexuals full 14th amendment coverage is to redefine marriage, as a legal term, to a binding union between 2 consenting adults. Edit: wait what do you mean government shouldn't interfere with marriage. There are plenty of legal benefits to being married that's why the government should interfere with marriage. I think that the government should take all the benefits of marriages that they give now and call it a civil union. Define a civil union as a legally binding relationship between two consenting adults. Let anybody get one. Then, for the actual ceremony, let the church decide whether they will marry two people, and have the government stay out of it. While I certainly think that would solve the issue (well maybe), it sounds like a rather sweeping, yet roundabout gesture. Why not just openly say that we are accepting of other people?
You made me burst out laughing.
I completely agree though, but idn, people can be really stubborn.
|
On February 10 2012 11:46 ampson wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 10:51 stokes17 wrote:On February 10 2012 10:38 ampson wrote:On February 10 2012 10:35 stokes17 wrote:On February 10 2012 10:27 steev wrote:
The Christian's believe that marriage is between man, woman, and God. They believe whether gay or straight a marriage without God is not technically a marriage. So it makes sense to me why they won't recognize gay marriage. Seems to me this is an attack on Christianity more than it is about establishing rights. They could just use the term "civil union" like many other countries with all the same rights as married couples and not offend the Christian groups. Um, marriage isn't a christian institution sir. You can get married in plenty of places beyond a christian church. This ruling says that 2 consenting adults of the same gender can be legally married. That means a judge performs the nuptials (or a captain i suppose^^) Since marriage is a legal institution,-basically a legal right adults have to get legally married- not allowing a certain percentage of the population to exercise this right because of something that is biological determined (just like your skin color) is a violation of the 14th amendment. The precedent for this is the well known supreme court case Brown Vs Board of ED, which ruled that separate but equal (aka civil union and marriage or black school and white school or gay marriage and straight marriage) is unconstitutional. Except it's not a violation of the 14th amendment, which states equal protection for all. As it is now in most states, all male citizens have the right to marry a woman. Gay people have this exact same right. The problem here is, marriage isn't something the government should be interfering with in the first place. Well, one could argue that marriage should be legally defined as "a legally binding union between 2 consenting adults." Which is basically what was argued in Wash. (and everywhere else that has legalized gay marriage.) and their argument for why it must be worded that way is: One's sexual orientation is something that is biologically determined. So by the same logic that arraigned marriages are frowned upon in the US in general, forcing someone to marry someone to whom they feel no attraction just for the legal benefits of a marriage does not seem to be a satisfactory fulfillment of a homosexual's right to enjoy the benefits of marriage. Since we are now working under this assumption. Allowing homosexuals to enjoy the legal benefits of marriage but calling it something different (I think the south park parody where they call it "Gay butt buddies" articulates the argument beautifully) basically falls under the Brown V BoE ruling-- and would be seen as a violation of the 14th amendment So since forcing gays to marry someone of the opposite sex (to whom they are by their biology not attracted to) is unsatisfactory, and allowing them to marry but calling it something else is a violation of the 14th amendment, the only reasonable way to give homosexuals full 14th amendment coverage is to redefine marriage, as a legal term, to a binding union between 2 consenting adults. Edit: wait what do you mean government shouldn't interfere with marriage. There are plenty of legal benefits to being married that's why the government should interfere with marriage. I think that the government should take all the benefits of marriages that they give now and call it a civil union. Define a civil union as a legally binding relationship between two consenting adults. Let anybody get one. Then, for the actual ceremony, let the church decide whether they will marry two people, and have the government stay out of it.
That's a very inconvenient process. Marriage has always been a legal issue. We shouldn't jump through so many hurdles just because conservative religious folk arbitrarily cry foul with no basis for doing so.
|
On February 10 2012 03:54 sermokala wrote:I'll just do this all in one post and spoiler the quote so they don't' get out of control. I'll do them in order of post date so greater spire is first. + Show Spoiler +On February 10 2012 03:17 Greater Spire wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 03:10 sermokala wrote:On February 10 2012 03:07 Sawajiri wrote:On February 10 2012 02:40 sermokala wrote: If it had any name other then marriage it wouldn't have been a problem but the gay rights movement keep trying to poke the religious right and constantly try and fight them.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, what? There is such a thing as gay Christians. I highly doubt that the only reason why gay people are seeking the right to marry is because they want to start a verbal mudslinging match with the religious right. Plenty of homosexuals are religious and/or conservative. To them it's not just a matter of picking a fight, but wanting to get married because the word 'marriage' has a meaning and value to them. I'm not even gay but I find it pretty offensive you're trying to put it as if all gay people were only seeking the right to marry to piss off other people. Its not gay people that are causing the problem. the leading protestant organization is now allowing gay pastors to serve. Its all the anti religious people coming out of the woodwork to shit on religious people with easy ammunition. we either object to it and get called bigots or don't and get called hypocrites. Then leave the leading Protestant organisation. Nobody is forcing you to be a part of it. The fact that there are Church services every Sunday that I disagree with does not mean I am forced to attend. I can "shit on religious people" even without gay marriage - there are many things religious people can be reasonably attacked on - the fact that they are against abortion, the fact that they are against euthanasia, the fact that they are against evolution, the fact that they are against contraception, etc. And furthermore - why are you using words like shit when you are supposedly a Christian? Isn't that rather unChristian? You've had some pretty low quality posts other then this train but I'll ignore them for the sake of coherency. Most of your posts come from this very thread so I really wonder how you came on tl at all. I was making a point and you decide to automatically attack it? you didn't even talk about it in any way just tried to twist it into your narrow arguments. this whole time I've tried to spread out what we are talking about and you refuse to elaborate on any of them other then attacking me. you're not going to get anywhere by attacking someone in a debate and I'm really not going to try anymore if thats all you are going to try and do. its junk posters like you that we can't have religious threads. the fact that you can't see that is saddening but I really hope that if you ever want to talk to someone about this that you care for and don't have the same viewpoint as you that you understand this and try to change that.
Just got out of bed to see that you've replied to one of my posts whilst ignoring the several others I made where I posed questions to you which you have conveniently ignored.
The primary question was - because you think gays shouldn't be allowed to marry since it is special to Christians, and that gays would be shitting on Christian beliefs - then are you also likewise against straight, atheist couples, or straight, Muslim couples, or any straight couples who aren't Christians, from getting married? Because they are no different to a gay couple that do not care for the fact that marriage is special to Christians.
|
On February 10 2012 12:47 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 11:46 ampson wrote:On February 10 2012 10:51 stokes17 wrote:On February 10 2012 10:38 ampson wrote:On February 10 2012 10:35 stokes17 wrote:On February 10 2012 10:27 steev wrote:
The Christian's believe that marriage is between man, woman, and God. They believe whether gay or straight a marriage without God is not technically a marriage. So it makes sense to me why they won't recognize gay marriage. Seems to me this is an attack on Christianity more than it is about establishing rights. They could just use the term "civil union" like many other countries with all the same rights as married couples and not offend the Christian groups. Um, marriage isn't a christian institution sir. You can get married in plenty of places beyond a christian church. This ruling says that 2 consenting adults of the same gender can be legally married. That means a judge performs the nuptials (or a captain i suppose^^) Since marriage is a legal institution,-basically a legal right adults have to get legally married- not allowing a certain percentage of the population to exercise this right because of something that is biological determined (just like your skin color) is a violation of the 14th amendment. The precedent for this is the well known supreme court case Brown Vs Board of ED, which ruled that separate but equal (aka civil union and marriage or black school and white school or gay marriage and straight marriage) is unconstitutional. Except it's not a violation of the 14th amendment, which states equal protection for all. As it is now in most states, all male citizens have the right to marry a woman. Gay people have this exact same right. The problem here is, marriage isn't something the government should be interfering with in the first place. Well, one could argue that marriage should be legally defined as "a legally binding union between 2 consenting adults." Which is basically what was argued in Wash. (and everywhere else that has legalized gay marriage.) and their argument for why it must be worded that way is: One's sexual orientation is something that is biologically determined. So by the same logic that arraigned marriages are frowned upon in the US in general, forcing someone to marry someone to whom they feel no attraction just for the legal benefits of a marriage does not seem to be a satisfactory fulfillment of a homosexual's right to enjoy the benefits of marriage. Since we are now working under this assumption. Allowing homosexuals to enjoy the legal benefits of marriage but calling it something different (I think the south park parody where they call it "Gay butt buddies" articulates the argument beautifully) basically falls under the Brown V BoE ruling-- and would be seen as a violation of the 14th amendment So since forcing gays to marry someone of the opposite sex (to whom they are by their biology not attracted to) is unsatisfactory, and allowing them to marry but calling it something else is a violation of the 14th amendment, the only reasonable way to give homosexuals full 14th amendment coverage is to redefine marriage, as a legal term, to a binding union between 2 consenting adults. Edit: wait what do you mean government shouldn't interfere with marriage. There are plenty of legal benefits to being married that's why the government should interfere with marriage. I think that the government should take all the benefits of marriages that they give now and call it a civil union. Define a civil union as a legally binding relationship between two consenting adults. Let anybody get one. Then, for the actual ceremony, let the church decide whether they will marry two people, and have the government stay out of it. That's a very inconvenient process. Marriage has always been a legal issue. We shouldn't jump through so many hurdles just because conservative religious folk arbitrarily cry foul with no basis for doing so.
By your logic I can say that this whole gay marriage legalization process in too inconvenient. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman before, and we shouldn't jump through so many hurdles just so that 1.5% of the population aren't offended.
The truth is, everybody matters. Any solution that can be the best for everybody involved will be the best solution.
|
I think the religious significance of marriage for Christians will one day fall into the same realm as eating pork for Jews. Perhaps thousands of centuries ago eating pork was illegal due to religious reasons. But now those who do not eat pork are a minority of Jews, and they're free to abstain from eating pork and be laughed at by society. Likewise one day gays will be getting married, and only Churches will not allow for gay marriages, and society will just see it as a ridiculous restriction they set on themselves just as society sees Jews not eating pork as a ridiculous restriction they are setting on themselves.
Edit: I meant thousands of years.
|
Yay a step in the right direction. !!!
Perhaps thousands of centuries ago eating pork was illegal due to religious reasons.
It was first taboo due to cultural reasons, but the way things made an impact in ancient times was to codify it into religion, and it wasn't just the Hebrews, but many other Semitic peoples as well who were against eating pork, especially since these peoples had much association and contact and close languages and other similarities and ties. Back then, people didn't have nice stoves and things, so cooking meat well wasn't something that always happened, and if you don't cook pork well, you have a good chance of getting sick. In response to lots of people getting sick from pork, it became culturally taboo and sooner or later was made law in religions. It still is culturally taboo, as Christian Arabs typically won't eat pork either, even if it is readily available.
I love BBQ pork ribs as much as the next guy, but tbh, pork is really unhealthy meat lol, even when it's cooked well and you don't get worms. It's shitty meat lol, even though it tastes great and I love it. Btw, I eat bacon and eggs when I don't make bagels for breakfast, so yes, I love pork and I'm admitting it's unhealthy meat hehe.
|
On February 10 2012 10:38 ampson wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 10:35 stokes17 wrote:On February 10 2012 10:27 steev wrote:
The Christian's believe that marriage is between man, woman, and God. They believe whether gay or straight a marriage without God is not technically a marriage. So it makes sense to me why they won't recognize gay marriage. Seems to me this is an attack on Christianity more than it is about establishing rights. They could just use the term "civil union" like many other countries with all the same rights as married couples and not offend the Christian groups. Um, marriage isn't a christian institution sir. You can get married in plenty of places beyond a christian church. This ruling says that 2 consenting adults of the same gender can be legally married. That means a judge performs the nuptials (or a captain i suppose^^) Since marriage is a legal institution,-basically a legal right adults have to get legally married- not allowing a certain percentage of the population to exercise this right because of something that is biological determined (just like your skin color) is a violation of the 14th amendment. The precedent for this is the well known supreme court case Brown Vs Board of ED, which ruled that separate but equal (aka civil union and marriage or black school and white school or gay marriage and straight marriage) is unconstitutional. Except it's not a violation of the 14th amendment, which states equal protection for all. As it is now in most states, all male citizens have the right to marry a woman. Gay people have this exact same right. The problem here is, marriage isn't something the government should be interfering with in the first place.
I assume the right to marry women is also afforded to women, yes?
|
There's something psychological about homosexuality that has yet to be discovered I feel.... Are we really going to just keep tolerating and tolerating without closely examining what we're condoning? Why do homosexuals have a life expectancy that is 20 years shorter than heterosexuals? What about the spread of STI's like AIDS? I don't believe homosexuals should have the right to marry.... This progressive tolerance movement gets scarier and scarier every day.
User was warned for this post
|
On February 10 2012 13:28 Canadium wrote:
There's something psychological about homosexuality that has yet to be discovered I feel.... Are we really going to just keep tolerating and tolerating without closely examining what we're condoning? Why do homosexuals have a life expectancy that is 20 years shorter than heterosexuals? What about the spread of STI's like AIDS? I don't believe homosexuals should have the right to marry.... This progressive tolerance movement gets scarier and scarier every day.
Hahahahahahaha wow. Look at you, making up stuff without sources.
Hey, did you know that 1/3 Catholic ministers are child molestors? And 90% of the other 2/3s have had sexual dreams about children!
|
On February 10 2012 13:16 RHMVNovus wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 10:38 ampson wrote:On February 10 2012 10:35 stokes17 wrote:On February 10 2012 10:27 steev wrote:
The Christian's believe that marriage is between man, woman, and God. They believe whether gay or straight a marriage without God is not technically a marriage. So it makes sense to me why they won't recognize gay marriage. Seems to me this is an attack on Christianity more than it is about establishing rights. They could just use the term "civil union" like many other countries with all the same rights as married couples and not offend the Christian groups. Um, marriage isn't a christian institution sir. You can get married in plenty of places beyond a christian church. This ruling says that 2 consenting adults of the same gender can be legally married. That means a judge performs the nuptials (or a captain i suppose^^) Since marriage is a legal institution,-basically a legal right adults have to get legally married- not allowing a certain percentage of the population to exercise this right because of something that is biological determined (just like your skin color) is a violation of the 14th amendment. The precedent for this is the well known supreme court case Brown Vs Board of ED, which ruled that separate but equal (aka civil union and marriage or black school and white school or gay marriage and straight marriage) is unconstitutional. Except it's not a violation of the 14th amendment, which states equal protection for all. As it is now in most states, all male citizens have the right to marry a woman. Gay people have this exact same right. The problem here is, marriage isn't something the government should be interfering with in the first place. I assume the right to marry women is also afforded to women, yes?
...No. You can only marry someone of the opposite sex in the states I am referring to. The point I was making is that everybody, regardless of sexuality, has that right. It is therefore not violating the 14th amendment. However, as I have explained, I do not agree with the U.S.'s current policy on marriage.
|
On February 10 2012 13:30 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 13:28 Canadium wrote:
There's something psychological about homosexuality that has yet to be discovered I feel.... Are we really going to just keep tolerating and tolerating without closely examining what we're condoning? Why do homosexuals have a life expectancy that is 20 years shorter than heterosexuals? What about the spread of STI's like AIDS? I don't believe homosexuals should have the right to marry.... This progressive tolerance movement gets scarier and scarier every day. Hahahahahahaha wow. Look at you, making up stuff without sources. Hey, did you know that 1/3 Catholic ministers are child molestors? And 90% of the other 2/3s have had sexual dreams about children!
Sorry I wasn't aware I had to present you with a bibliography.... I'm not going to. The statistics are well documented. Look them up yourself or stfu.
|
On February 10 2012 13:28 Canadium wrote:
There's something psychological about homosexuality that has yet to be discovered I feel.... Are we really going to just keep tolerating and tolerating without closely examining what we're condoning? Why do homosexuals have a life expectancy that is 20 years shorter than heterosexuals? What about the spread of STI's like AIDS? I don't believe homosexuals should have the right to marry.... This progressive tolerance movement gets scarier and scarier every day.
Yes, I agree. Tolerance is bad. Fuck all the non-white/christian/rich people.
|
On February 10 2012 13:38 LambtrOn wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 13:28 Canadium wrote:
There's something psychological about homosexuality that has yet to be discovered I feel.... Are we really going to just keep tolerating and tolerating without closely examining what we're condoning? Why do homosexuals have a life expectancy that is 20 years shorter than heterosexuals? What about the spread of STI's like AIDS? I don't believe homosexuals should have the right to marry.... This progressive tolerance movement gets scarier and scarier every day. Yes, I agree. Tolerance is bad. Fuck all the non-white/christian/rich people.
Cause that's what I said.... I can't stand that no one can let it go when someone disagrees with the majority. How do you know I'm not part of some ethnic minority group?
|
On February 10 2012 13:35 Canadium wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 13:30 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 13:28 Canadium wrote:
There's something psychological about homosexuality that has yet to be discovered I feel.... Are we really going to just keep tolerating and tolerating without closely examining what we're condoning? Why do homosexuals have a life expectancy that is 20 years shorter than heterosexuals? What about the spread of STI's like AIDS? I don't believe homosexuals should have the right to marry.... This progressive tolerance movement gets scarier and scarier every day. Hahahahahahaha wow. Look at you, making up stuff without sources. Hey, did you know that 1/3 Catholic ministers are child molestors? And 90% of the other 2/3s have had sexual dreams about children! Sorry I wasn't aware I had to present you with a bibliography.... I'm not going to. The statistics are well documented. Look them up yourself or stfu.
If by documented you mean they don't exist, than yeah, sure thing buddy.
|
On February 10 2012 13:41 Canadium wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 13:38 LambtrOn wrote:On February 10 2012 13:28 Canadium wrote:
There's something psychological about homosexuality that has yet to be discovered I feel.... Are we really going to just keep tolerating and tolerating without closely examining what we're condoning? Why do homosexuals have a life expectancy that is 20 years shorter than heterosexuals? What about the spread of STI's like AIDS? I don't believe homosexuals should have the right to marry.... This progressive tolerance movement gets scarier and scarier every day. Yes, I agree. Tolerance is bad. Fuck all the non-white/christian/rich people. Cause that's what I said.... I can't stand that no one can let it go when someone disagrees with the majority. How do you know I'm not part of some ethnic minority group?
I didn't say you said that. I'm just mocking you for saying tolerance is scary.
|
On February 10 2012 13:41 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 13:35 Canadium wrote:On February 10 2012 13:30 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 13:28 Canadium wrote:
There's something psychological about homosexuality that has yet to be discovered I feel.... Are we really going to just keep tolerating and tolerating without closely examining what we're condoning? Why do homosexuals have a life expectancy that is 20 years shorter than heterosexuals? What about the spread of STI's like AIDS? I don't believe homosexuals should have the right to marry.... This progressive tolerance movement gets scarier and scarier every day. Hahahahahahaha wow. Look at you, making up stuff without sources. Hey, did you know that 1/3 Catholic ministers are child molestors? And 90% of the other 2/3s have had sexual dreams about children! Sorry I wasn't aware I had to present you with a bibliography.... I'm not going to. The statistics are well documented. Look them up yourself or stfu. If by documented you mean they don't exist, than yeah, sure thing buddy.
Do some independent research. They do exist. And Lambtron.... get out of here if you have nothing useful to say.
|
On February 10 2012 13:44 Canadium wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 13:41 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 13:35 Canadium wrote:On February 10 2012 13:30 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 13:28 Canadium wrote:
There's something psychological about homosexuality that has yet to be discovered I feel.... Are we really going to just keep tolerating and tolerating without closely examining what we're condoning? Why do homosexuals have a life expectancy that is 20 years shorter than heterosexuals? What about the spread of STI's like AIDS? I don't believe homosexuals should have the right to marry.... This progressive tolerance movement gets scarier and scarier every day. Hahahahahahaha wow. Look at you, making up stuff without sources. Hey, did you know that 1/3 Catholic ministers are child molestors? And 90% of the other 2/3s have had sexual dreams about children! Sorry I wasn't aware I had to present you with a bibliography.... I'm not going to. The statistics are well documented. Look them up yourself or stfu. If by documented you mean they don't exist, than yeah, sure thing buddy. Do some independent research. They do exist. And Lambtron.... get out of here if you have nothing useful to say.
It's scary to think you think tolerance is scary. Why do you think that?
And I've done a little reading on your claim and it's true, but you don't mention that the study was done in the 1980s and early 90s. And since then HIV deaths have seen a dramatic decrease. STDs run rampant among heterosexual couples too. That alone is not a good enough reason to deny people basic human rights to share a loving bond with someone. It's disturbing you want to take that away from people you don't know over have any connection to whatsoever. How exactly does them getting married affect you personally in a negative way?
edit 2: and this from the article, note the bold:
It is essential to note that the life expectancy of any population is a descriptive and not a prescriptive mesaure.5 Death is a product of the way a person lives and what physical and environmental hazards he or she faces everyday. It cannot be attributed solely to their sexual orientation or any other ethnic or social factor. If estimates of an individual gay and bisexual man's risk of death is truly needed for legal or other purposes, then people making these estimates should use the same actuarial tables that are used for all other males in that population. Gay and bisexual men are included in the construction of official population-based tables and therefore these tables for all males are the appropriate ones to be used.
In summary, the aim of our work was to assist health planners with the means of estimating the impact of HIV infection on groups, like gay and bisexual men, not necessarily captured by vital statistics data and not to hinder the rights of these groups worldwide. Overall, we do not condone the use of our research in a manner that restricts the political or human rights of gay and bisexual men or any other group.
source: http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/6/1499.full
|
On February 10 2012 13:35 ampson wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 13:16 RHMVNovus wrote:On February 10 2012 10:38 ampson wrote:On February 10 2012 10:35 stokes17 wrote:On February 10 2012 10:27 steev wrote:
The Christian's believe that marriage is between man, woman, and God. They believe whether gay or straight a marriage without God is not technically a marriage. So it makes sense to me why they won't recognize gay marriage. Seems to me this is an attack on Christianity more than it is about establishing rights. They could just use the term "civil union" like many other countries with all the same rights as married couples and not offend the Christian groups. Um, marriage isn't a christian institution sir. You can get married in plenty of places beyond a christian church. This ruling says that 2 consenting adults of the same gender can be legally married. That means a judge performs the nuptials (or a captain i suppose^^) Since marriage is a legal institution,-basically a legal right adults have to get legally married- not allowing a certain percentage of the population to exercise this right because of something that is biological determined (just like your skin color) is a violation of the 14th amendment. The precedent for this is the well known supreme court case Brown Vs Board of ED, which ruled that separate but equal (aka civil union and marriage or black school and white school or gay marriage and straight marriage) is unconstitutional. Except it's not a violation of the 14th amendment, which states equal protection for all. As it is now in most states, all male citizens have the right to marry a woman. Gay people have this exact same right. The problem here is, marriage isn't something the government should be interfering with in the first place. I assume the right to marry women is also afforded to women, yes? ...No. You can only marry someone of the opposite sex in the states I am referring to. The point I was making is that everybody, regardless of sexuality, has that right. It is therefore not violating the 14th amendment. However, as I have explained, I do not agree with the U.S.'s current policy on marriage.
How is that not blatantly sexist? A man can marry woman, so why can't a woman marry a woman? That's literally a right determined by your genitals.
|
On February 10 2012 13:44 Canadium wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 13:41 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 13:35 Canadium wrote:On February 10 2012 13:30 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 13:28 Canadium wrote:
There's something psychological about homosexuality that has yet to be discovered I feel.... Are we really going to just keep tolerating and tolerating without closely examining what we're condoning? Why do homosexuals have a life expectancy that is 20 years shorter than heterosexuals? What about the spread of STI's like AIDS? I don't believe homosexuals should have the right to marry.... This progressive tolerance movement gets scarier and scarier every day. Hahahahahahaha wow. Look at you, making up stuff without sources. Hey, did you know that 1/3 Catholic ministers are child molestors? And 90% of the other 2/3s have had sexual dreams about children! Sorry I wasn't aware I had to present you with a bibliography.... I'm not going to. The statistics are well documented. Look them up yourself or stfu. If by documented you mean they don't exist, than yeah, sure thing buddy. Do some independent research. They do exist. And Lambtron.... get out of here if you have nothing useful to say.
Sure thing. And what do you know the only sites currently reporting on the issue are
catholiceducation.com
godandscience.org
sodahead.com
(Such paragons of our news media right?)
Or perhaps you're trying to argue on the bases that the suicide rates are higher among LGBT people?
(Hint, that's not a genetic defect, it's because of how bigots like you treat them)
|
On February 10 2012 13:44 Canadium wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 13:41 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 13:35 Canadium wrote:On February 10 2012 13:30 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 13:28 Canadium wrote:
There's something psychological about homosexuality that has yet to be discovered I feel.... Are we really going to just keep tolerating and tolerating without closely examining what we're condoning? Why do homosexuals have a life expectancy that is 20 years shorter than heterosexuals? What about the spread of STI's like AIDS? I don't believe homosexuals should have the right to marry.... This progressive tolerance movement gets scarier and scarier every day. Hahahahahahaha wow. Look at you, making up stuff without sources. Hey, did you know that 1/3 Catholic ministers are child molestors? And 90% of the other 2/3s have had sexual dreams about children! Sorry I wasn't aware I had to present you with a bibliography.... I'm not going to. The statistics are well documented. Look them up yourself or stfu. If by documented you mean they don't exist, than yeah, sure thing buddy. Do some independent research. They do exist. And Lambtron.... get out of here if you have nothing useful to say.
That's for HIV positive homosexual people, not the entire population of homosexuals. I've seen those studies, and I've read the supposed "reports" by sites such as LifeSite, pretty fucking retarded, lmao. Why don't you go back to watching Fox News.
|
On February 10 2012 13:28 Canadium wrote:
There's something psychological about homosexuality that has yet to be discovered I feel.... Are we really going to just keep tolerating and tolerating without closely examining what we're condoning? Why do homosexuals have a life expectancy that is 20 years shorter than heterosexuals? What about the spread of STI's like AIDS? I don't believe homosexuals should have the right to marry.... This progressive tolerance movement gets scarier and scarier every day.
User was warned for this post
These words ought to be immortalised on your mantle so that one day your grandkids can look at your archaic beliefs and say: "You were retarded as fuck old man", just as Americans look back at their ancestor's views towards blacks today and find their commonly racist views disgusting.
|
It's pretty awesome that I get warned for my views.... It just goes to show you that these forums are not for rational discussion, but for the putting down of beliefs differing from the majority. You know what scares me. The end of rational discussion. Good bye.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On February 10 2012 14:28 Canadium wrote:
It's pretty awesome that I get warned for my views.... It just goes to show you that these forums are not for rational discussion, but for the putting down of beliefs differing from the majority. You know what scares me. The end of rational discussion. Good bye.
It wasn't your views, it's that you were making stuff up without providing any credible evidence, and then telling people to shut the hell up or get out if they didn't agree with you.
|
On February 10 2012 14:28 Canadium wrote:
It's pretty awesome that I get warned for my views.... It just goes to show you that these forums are not for rational discussion, but for the putting down of beliefs differing from the majority. You know what scares me. The end of rational discussion. Good bye.
I agree, it is pretty awesome that you got warned. These forums are better than most at facilitating rational discussion. The problem with your comments are that they are unsubstantiated and misleading drivel. I doesn't really surprise me though, looking through your post history.
|
So it's constitutional to vote for gay marriage, but unconstitutional to have a vote to ban gay marriage(cali)? That makes no sense what so ever.
|
Well that's good. I think the vast majority of forum-goers here can agree that this is a step forward and a step towards progress. Even if it conflicts with your personal beliefs, you cannot just go and outlaw everything you disagree with, and I think that it is a good step in the right direction.
However, I do wonder if we are setting certain precedents for more radical changes. It is very possible that these changes could help lead to more radical changes in the future, such as polygamy. What do people here think about issues like that?
|
On February 10 2012 14:55 Bagration wrote:
Well that's good. I think the vast majority of forum-goers here can agree that this is a step forward and a step towards progress. Even if it conflicts with your personal beliefs, you cannot just go and outlaw everything you disagree with, and I think that it is a good step in the right direction.
However, I do wonder if we are setting certain precedents for more radical changes. It is very possible that these changes could help lead to more radical changes in the future, such as polygamy. What do people here think about issues like that?
Nothing wrong with it if all parties are consenting.
|
this is disgusting, i am from Washington state and i was never informed of this bill, looks like the gays snuck one by us.
User was warned for this post
|
On February 10 2012 14:39 Yergidy wrote:
So it's constitutional to vote for gay marriage, but unconstitutional to have a vote to ban gay marriage(cali)? That makes no sense what so ever.
Yes, because discrimination is unconstitutional, whereas equality is constitutional.
|
On February 10 2012 15:00 Greater Spire wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 14:55 Bagration wrote:
Well that's good. I think the vast majority of forum-goers here can agree that this is a step forward and a step towards progress. Even if it conflicts with your personal beliefs, you cannot just go and outlaw everything you disagree with, and I think that it is a good step in the right direction.
However, I do wonder if we are setting certain precedents for more radical changes. It is very possible that these changes could help lead to more radical changes in the future, such as polygamy. What do people here think about issues like that? Nothing wrong with it if all parties are consenting.
Fair enough. I am pretty indifferent to polygamy myself, but that could make for some interesting family dynamics.
|
Communities have the right to determine what they believe is acceptable (legal) or not (illegal). If you're a minority then you must conform or move to a new community. That's one of the reasons why the individual states have such freedom (which is being taken away/given up more and more every year...). If people in California think it's a good idea, but people in Arkansas don't, that's ok. We do this all the time:
1. arbitrarily created age of adulthood
2. arbitrarily created age of consent
3. arbitrarily created drinking age
4. regulations on polygamy (an activity between 2/more consenting adults)
I don't think gay marriage is any different from those 4 issues, and there is very little dispute about the government's right to regulate them.
Sometimes, the view of the majority is unacceptable (unconstitutional), and the larger government should step in. I don't think this is one of those cases. I don't think if you are against gay marriage that you are a homophobe or a gay basher or you hate gay people.
|
On February 10 2012 14:28 Canadium wrote:
It's pretty awesome that I get warned for my views.... It just goes to show you that these forums are not for rational discussion, but for the putting down of beliefs differing from the majority. You know what scares me. The end of rational discussion. Good bye.
Actually your views are irrational and stupid, and yet you think the contrary; that's what scares me.
|
I feel as it is just another step to the whole country allowing it, which is fine with me. If gays would like to be with their loved one, that's their business. Why should we restrict the freedoms of another? We are a "free country" for a reason. Oh well. There will always be homophobes.
|
On February 10 2012 15:01 fiftycaliber wrote:
this is disgusting, i am from Washington state and i was never informed of this bill, looks like the gays snuck one by us.
lol, you'll certainly last a long time here
|
Proud to live in WA! Its quite comical, going 30 miles east of where i live into idaho, and seeing how different people are over there on this subject...
|
On February 10 2012 16:13 Werk wrote:
Proud to live in WA! Its quite comical, going 30 miles east of where i live into idaho, and seeing how different people are over there on this subject...
depends on where you go in idaho. anywhere near moscow is honestly skinhead territory and that's where the crazies are, but things are a lot more tolerant in boise.
|
On February 10 2012 16:16 iamahydralisk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 16:13 Werk wrote:
Proud to live in WA! Its quite comical, going 30 miles east of where i live into idaho, and seeing how different people are over there on this subject... depends on where you go in idaho. anywhere near moscow is honestly skinhead territory and that's where the crazies are, but things are a lot more tolerant in boise.
Ive never been to Boise, it sounds like a nice artsy place, but CDA and post falls....phew...
|
Long ago all people once had 4 hands, 4 arms, 4 legs 2 heads and so on, they were very powerful beings. Zeus fearing their power decided to split these beings in half. Ever since people have been spending all their lives trying to find their other half, because of this great loss, that we might one day be reunited. Whether Male/Female, Male/Male, or Female/Female its all the same.
|
[QUOTE]On February 09 2012 22:11 Rannasha wrote:
[QUOTE]On February 09 2012 22:03 Cubu wrote:
[QUOTE]On February 09 2012 20:39 Paperplane wrote:
...
In a secular country (which the US should be according to its constitution), the legal concept of marriage and the concept of marriage by a religious faction should be completely separate. And this is a step towards that. ...
[/QUOTE]
I know what you mean (I hope) and I don't particularly disagree, but I don't want this to be taken out of proportion either way and warrant ill-based attack. The U.S. Should not get involved, not be secular per say. But by not getting involved, you are agnostic which is similar (if not the same). So this statement is not promoting Russia in America nor is it wrong.
|
An appeals court throws out Prop 8, with this dead on ruling:
Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/80810856/Prop-8-Unconstitutional-Ninth-Circuit
|
I don't know why anyone would fight so much to be a part of religion..marriage is a religious thing right? Maybe not so much anymore but still.
Even more stupid if the religion changes it's beliefs all the time, it's kind of admitting that the beliefs aren't good in the first place -> not worth getting into.
Just seems pretty werid. If they really wanted to be more tolerant etc they should try to transcend from religious stuff and leave it behind all together. That's were this antigay thing comes in the first place.
|
The amount of blind bigotry in this thread is frankly appalling.
Here is a news flash to those claiming marriage is a religious function, It isn't. Marriage exists just fine without religious interference. Those trying to use this argument are basically trying to argue that anyone that doesn't believe in their religion do not have the right to marry. Now since obviously going after athiests, non religious or other religions wouldn't fly they instead try to single out the one group that remains vulnerable due to unfortunate religious influence in our government. Simply put you cannot deny a LBGT person marriage under the argument of religion and allow an athiest to marry. That is straight hypocritical logic.
The simple fact of the matter is marriage is a protected governmental right and it is unfairly being denied to a specific group of people. That is the very definition of discrimination and anyone supporting the direct discrimination of people and thus denying them government benefits should be ashamed of themselves. There is No logical argument against gay marriage that isn't based in bigotry. The sooner people realize that and the government tells those groups "too bad" and passes into law, the better.
|
On February 10 2012 12:53 ampson wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 12:47 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 10 2012 11:46 ampson wrote:On February 10 2012 10:51 stokes17 wrote:On February 10 2012 10:38 ampson wrote:On February 10 2012 10:35 stokes17 wrote:On February 10 2012 10:27 steev wrote:
The Christian's believe that marriage is between man, woman, and God. They believe whether gay or straight a marriage without God is not technically a marriage. So it makes sense to me why they won't recognize gay marriage. Seems to me this is an attack on Christianity more than it is about establishing rights. They could just use the term "civil union" like many other countries with all the same rights as married couples and not offend the Christian groups. Um, marriage isn't a christian institution sir. You can get married in plenty of places beyond a christian church. This ruling says that 2 consenting adults of the same gender can be legally married. That means a judge performs the nuptials (or a captain i suppose^^) Since marriage is a legal institution,-basically a legal right adults have to get legally married- not allowing a certain percentage of the population to exercise this right because of something that is biological determined (just like your skin color) is a violation of the 14th amendment. The precedent for this is the well known supreme court case Brown Vs Board of ED, which ruled that separate but equal (aka civil union and marriage or black school and white school or gay marriage and straight marriage) is unconstitutional. Except it's not a violation of the 14th amendment, which states equal protection for all. As it is now in most states, all male citizens have the right to marry a woman. Gay people have this exact same right. The problem here is, marriage isn't something the government should be interfering with in the first place. Well, one could argue that marriage should be legally defined as "a legally binding union between 2 consenting adults." Which is basically what was argued in Wash. (and everywhere else that has legalized gay marriage.) and their argument for why it must be worded that way is: One's sexual orientation is something that is biologically determined. So by the same logic that arraigned marriages are frowned upon in the US in general, forcing someone to marry someone to whom they feel no attraction just for the legal benefits of a marriage does not seem to be a satisfactory fulfillment of a homosexual's right to enjoy the benefits of marriage. Since we are now working under this assumption. Allowing homosexuals to enjoy the legal benefits of marriage but calling it something different (I think the south park parody where they call it "Gay butt buddies" articulates the argument beautifully) basically falls under the Brown V BoE ruling-- and would be seen as a violation of the 14th amendment So since forcing gays to marry someone of the opposite sex (to whom they are by their biology not attracted to) is unsatisfactory, and allowing them to marry but calling it something else is a violation of the 14th amendment, the only reasonable way to give homosexuals full 14th amendment coverage is to redefine marriage, as a legal term, to a binding union between 2 consenting adults. Edit: wait what do you mean government shouldn't interfere with marriage. There are plenty of legal benefits to being married that's why the government should interfere with marriage. I think that the government should take all the benefits of marriages that they give now and call it a civil union. Define a civil union as a legally binding relationship between two consenting adults. Let anybody get one. Then, for the actual ceremony, let the church decide whether they will marry two people, and have the government stay out of it. That's a very inconvenient process. Marriage has always been a legal issue. We shouldn't jump through so many hurdles just because conservative religious folk arbitrarily cry foul with no basis for doing so. By your logic I can say that this whole gay marriage legalization process in too inconvenient. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman before, and we shouldn't jump through so many hurdles just so that 1.5% of the population aren't offended. The truth is, everybody matters. Any solution that can be the best for everybody involved will be the best solution.
Except that homosexuals have a basis for their complaints (oppression of a minority), religious people don't. This does not affect them in anyway. It isn't forcing them to allow homosexuals to get married in their church.
I don't know why anyone would fight so much to be a part of religion..marriage is a religious thing right? Maybe not so much anymore but still.
Even more stupid if the religion changes it's beliefs all the time, it's kind of admitting that the beliefs aren't good in the first place -> not worth getting into.
Just seems pretty werid. If they really wanted to be more tolerant etc they should try to transcend from religious stuff and leave it behind all together. That's were this antigay thing comes in the first place.
No. Marriage is not a religious matter.
|
On February 10 2012 23:21 zomgE wrote:
I don't know why anyone would fight so much to be a part of religion..marriage is a religious thing right? Maybe not so much anymore but still.
Even more stupid if the religion changes it's beliefs all the time, it's kind of admitting that the beliefs aren't good in the first place -> not worth getting into.
Just seems pretty werid. If they really wanted to be more tolerant etc they should try to transcend from religious stuff and leave it behind all together. That's were this antigay thing comes in the first place.
No marriage is not a religious thing, it existed before religion and while important to many religions it is not in itself religious. People aren't fighting for the state to force religions to perform gay marriages, they're fighting for the state itself to recognise it.
|
On February 10 2012 19:15 VTPerfect wrote:
Long ago all people once had 4 hands, 4 arms, 4 legs 2 heads and so on, they were very powerful beings. Zeus fearing their power decided to split these beings in half. Ever since people have been spending all their lives trying to find their other half, because of this great loss, that we might one day be reunited. Whether Male/Female, Male/Male, or Female/Female its all the same.
This looks like a troll.
I disagree. It does make a difference. (If only because homosexual tendencies are unnatural. That does not mean any more than that, by the way.)
Eh, kind of opened pandora's box there. Basically we all do unnatural things, the point in saying homosexual things are unnatural is not to attack homosexual people. It is to state fact, the natural purpose of sex is procreation. Since you cannot naturally reproduce homosexually as a human being, homosexuality is unnatural for humans. If we legally forbade every unnatural thing we do we would always be cited for
Purposeful cliffhanger sentence^^. Long mundane list you can imagine. I don't want to get into it, I'm not wrong. This is too easily misunderstood and I won't argue with people who agree with me and don't realize it or are so far gone politically that they will deny what they know to be true as a hoax. And I am not going to defend any strawmans of this.
|
On February 10 2012 13:35 ampson wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 13:16 RHMVNovus wrote:On February 10 2012 10:38 ampson wrote:On February 10 2012 10:35 stokes17 wrote:On February 10 2012 10:27 steev wrote:
The Christian's believe that marriage is between man, woman, and God. They believe whether gay or straight a marriage without God is not technically a marriage. So it makes sense to me why they won't recognize gay marriage. Seems to me this is an attack on Christianity more than it is about establishing rights. They could just use the term "civil union" like many other countries with all the same rights as married couples and not offend the Christian groups. Um, marriage isn't a christian institution sir. You can get married in plenty of places beyond a christian church. This ruling says that 2 consenting adults of the same gender can be legally married. That means a judge performs the nuptials (or a captain i suppose^^) Since marriage is a legal institution,-basically a legal right adults have to get legally married- not allowing a certain percentage of the population to exercise this right because of something that is biological determined (just like your skin color) is a violation of the 14th amendment. The precedent for this is the well known supreme court case Brown Vs Board of ED, which ruled that separate but equal (aka civil union and marriage or black school and white school or gay marriage and straight marriage) is unconstitutional. Except it's not a violation of the 14th amendment, which states equal protection for all. As it is now in most states, all male citizens have the right to marry a woman. Gay people have this exact same right. The problem here is, marriage isn't something the government should be interfering with in the first place. I assume the right to marry women is also afforded to women, yes? ...No. You can only marry someone of the opposite sex in the states I am referring to. The point I was making is that everybody, regardless of sexuality, has that right. It is therefore not violating the 14th amendment. However, as I have explained, I do not agree with the U.S.'s current policy on marriage.
Oh, I see. The right to marry women is afforded to men, but the right to marry women is not afforded to women.
But women have a separate right, one that's equal, so it's all cool.
|
On February 11 2012 05:57 RHMVNovus wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 13:35 ampson wrote:On February 10 2012 13:16 RHMVNovus wrote:On February 10 2012 10:38 ampson wrote:On February 10 2012 10:35 stokes17 wrote:On February 10 2012 10:27 steev wrote:
The Christian's believe that marriage is between man, woman, and God. They believe whether gay or straight a marriage without God is not technically a marriage. So it makes sense to me why they won't recognize gay marriage. Seems to me this is an attack on Christianity more than it is about establishing rights. They could just use the term "civil union" like many other countries with all the same rights as married couples and not offend the Christian groups. Um, marriage isn't a christian institution sir. You can get married in plenty of places beyond a christian church. This ruling says that 2 consenting adults of the same gender can be legally married. That means a judge performs the nuptials (or a captain i suppose^^) Since marriage is a legal institution,-basically a legal right adults have to get legally married- not allowing a certain percentage of the population to exercise this right because of something that is biological determined (just like your skin color) is a violation of the 14th amendment. The precedent for this is the well known supreme court case Brown Vs Board of ED, which ruled that separate but equal (aka civil union and marriage or black school and white school or gay marriage and straight marriage) is unconstitutional. Except it's not a violation of the 14th amendment, which states equal protection for all. As it is now in most states, all male citizens have the right to marry a woman. Gay people have this exact same right. The problem here is, marriage isn't something the government should be interfering with in the first place. I assume the right to marry women is also afforded to women, yes? ...No. You can only marry someone of the opposite sex in the states I am referring to. The point I was making is that everybody, regardless of sexuality, has that right. It is therefore not violating the 14th amendment. However, as I have explained, I do not agree with the U.S.'s current policy on marriage. Oh, I see. The right to marry women is afforded to men, but the right to marry women is not afforded to women. But women have a separate right, one that's equal, so it's all cool.
Men and woman both have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex.
|
On February 11 2012 07:08 ampson wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2012 05:57 RHMVNovus wrote:On February 10 2012 13:35 ampson wrote:On February 10 2012 13:16 RHMVNovus wrote:On February 10 2012 10:38 ampson wrote:On February 10 2012 10:35 stokes17 wrote:On February 10 2012 10:27 steev wrote:
The Christian's believe that marriage is between man, woman, and God. They believe whether gay or straight a marriage without God is not technically a marriage. So it makes sense to me why they won't recognize gay marriage. Seems to me this is an attack on Christianity more than it is about establishing rights. They could just use the term "civil union" like many other countries with all the same rights as married couples and not offend the Christian groups. Um, marriage isn't a christian institution sir. You can get married in plenty of places beyond a christian church. This ruling says that 2 consenting adults of the same gender can be legally married. That means a judge performs the nuptials (or a captain i suppose^^) Since marriage is a legal institution,-basically a legal right adults have to get legally married- not allowing a certain percentage of the population to exercise this right because of something that is biological determined (just like your skin color) is a violation of the 14th amendment. The precedent for this is the well known supreme court case Brown Vs Board of ED, which ruled that separate but equal (aka civil union and marriage or black school and white school or gay marriage and straight marriage) is unconstitutional. Except it's not a violation of the 14th amendment, which states equal protection for all. As it is now in most states, all male citizens have the right to marry a woman. Gay people have this exact same right. The problem here is, marriage isn't something the government should be interfering with in the first place. I assume the right to marry women is also afforded to women, yes? ...No. You can only marry someone of the opposite sex in the states I am referring to. The point I was making is that everybody, regardless of sexuality, has that right. It is therefore not violating the 14th amendment. However, as I have explained, I do not agree with the U.S.'s current policy on marriage. Oh, I see. The right to marry women is afforded to men, but the right to marry women is not afforded to women. But women have a separate right, one that's equal, so it's all cool. Men and woman both have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex.
Good. Glad to see we're in agreement.
But quick question: who can these people - that have both male and female reproductive tissue - marry?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_hermaphroditism
|
On February 11 2012 01:54 Jrocker152 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 19:15 VTPerfect wrote:
Long ago all people once had 4 hands, 4 arms, 4 legs 2 heads and so on, they were very powerful beings. Zeus fearing their power decided to split these beings in half. Ever since people have been spending all their lives trying to find their other half, because of this great loss, that we might one day be reunited. Whether Male/Female, Male/Male, or Female/Female its all the same. This looks like a troll. I disagree. It does make a difference. (If only because homosexual tendencies are unnatural. That does not mean any more than that, by the way.) Eh, kind of opened pandora's box there. Basically we all do unnatural things, the point in saying homosexual things are unnatural is not to attack homosexual people. It is to state fact, the natural purpose of sex is procreation. Since you cannot naturally reproduce homosexually as a human being, homosexuality is unnatural for humans. If we legally forbade every unnatural thing we do we would always be cited for Purposeful cliffhanger sentence^^. Long mundane list you can imagine. I don't want to get into it, I'm not wrong. This is too easily misunderstood and I won't argue with people who agree with me and don't realize it or are so far gone politically that they will deny what they know to be true as a hoax. And I am not going to defend any strawmans of this.
If the sole reason for sex is to reproduce, then why do people have sex just for fun? Why do we have contraceptives? Sex as it's performed by man, monkey, other species that enjoy copulating, has been abused for unnatural ways for millions of years.
Your argument is invalid.
And homosexuality is SO natural it's not even funny anymore.
|
Glad to hear this, another good step for America
|
On February 11 2012 09:29 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2012 01:54 Jrocker152 wrote:On February 10 2012 19:15 VTPerfect wrote:
Long ago all people once had 4 hands, 4 arms, 4 legs 2 heads and so on, they were very powerful beings. Zeus fearing their power decided to split these beings in half. Ever since people have been spending all their lives trying to find their other half, because of this great loss, that we might one day be reunited. Whether Male/Female, Male/Male, or Female/Female its all the same. This looks like a troll. I disagree. It does make a difference. (If only because homosexual tendencies are unnatural. That does not mean any more than that, by the way.) Eh, kind of opened pandora's box there. Basically we all do unnatural things, the point in saying homosexual things are unnatural is not to attack homosexual people. It is to state fact, the natural purpose of sex is procreation. Since you cannot naturally reproduce homosexually as a human being, homosexuality is unnatural for humans. If we legally forbade every unnatural thing we do we would always be cited for Purposeful cliffhanger sentence^^. Long mundane list you can imagine. I don't want to get into it, I'm not wrong. This is too easily misunderstood and I won't argue with people who agree with me and don't realize it or are so far gone politically that they will deny what they know to be true as a hoax. And I am not going to defend any strawmans of this. If the sole reason for sex is to reproduce, then why do people have sex just for fun? Why do we have contraceptives? Sex as it's performed by man, monkey, other species that enjoy copulating, has been abused for unnatural ways for millions of years. Your argument is invalid. And homosexuality is SO natural it's not even funny anymore.
I question why 'the purpose of humanity' bit isn't questioned.
I have no idea why reproduction is considered the best function of humanity. Sure, it's a major driver in evolution. Sure, it's hard-wired into our very DNA. Doesn't mean it's good.
Were reproduction the sole reason for existence, it would be completely reasonable for a society to do everything within its power pregnant women from smoking. Or being overweight. Or living with someone who smokes. Or working long hours on her feet while pregnant. Were reproduction the end-all, be-all of our existence, rape would be completely acceptable.
Why aren't these reasonable or acceptable? Because, aside from being misogynist as hell, our society values self-actualization over reproduction. Marriage is not excepted. Thus, the reproduction argument is weird and confusing.
|
extreme religious folks are against it because it tarnishes the name of "marriage". Just call it something else, while keeping the same benefits, like a civil union, that way both sides are happy. This is debated way too much, it seems social issues are how politicians separate themselves nowadays
I'm a tiny bit homophobic but I'll never understand why some people feel they can devoid rights of others.
|
On February 11 2012 09:50 W2 wrote:
extreme religious folks are against it because it tarnishes the name of "marriage". Just call it something else, while keeping the same benefits, like a civil union, that way both sides are happy. This is debated way too much, it seems social issues are how politicians separate themselves nowadays
I'm a tiny bit homophobic but I'll never understand why some people feel they can devoid rights of others.
Getting married is deeply personal and emotional decision. Marriage is, and has been for a very, very long time, the ultimate symbol that you love someone and that you want to live the rest of your life with him/her. "civil union" does in NO way have the same emotional weight as marriage.
|
On February 11 2012 09:50 W2 wrote:
extreme religious folks are against it because it tarnishes the name of "marriage". Just call it something else, while keeping the same benefits, like a civil union, that way both sides are happy. This is debated way too much, it seems social issues are how politicians separate themselves nowadays
I'm a tiny bit homophobic but I'll never understand why some people feel they can devoid rights of others.
No, let's not call it something else. Marriage is not a religious institution, and so religious nuts don't get to define it. If they don't want gays to get married in their bigoted churches, okay, fine. There are other places you can get married.
|
I don't see what all the fuss is about being allowed to be married. I'd be pushing for a change in Civil Union so that it confers all the same benefits and protections of a marriage. They're trying to change something that is very well established for what appears to be liking the word marriage.
|
On February 11 2012 09:54 Undrass wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2012 09:50 W2 wrote:
extreme religious folks are against it because it tarnishes the name of "marriage". Just call it something else, while keeping the same benefits, like a civil union, that way both sides are happy. This is debated way too much, it seems social issues are how politicians separate themselves nowadays
I'm a tiny bit homophobic but I'll never understand why some people feel they can devoid rights of others. Getting married is deeply personal and emotional decision. Marriage is, and has been for a very, very long time, the ultimate symbol that you love someone and that you want to live the rest of your life with him/her. "civil union" does in NO way have the same emotional weight as marriage.
then just call it marriage but dont make it christian.
end of story.
|
On February 11 2012 01:54 Jrocker152 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 19:15 VTPerfect wrote:
Long ago all people once had 4 hands, 4 arms, 4 legs 2 heads and so on, they were very powerful beings. Zeus fearing their power decided to split these beings in half. Ever since people have been spending all their lives trying to find their other half, because of this great loss, that we might one day be reunited. Whether Male/Female, Male/Male, or Female/Female its all the same. This looks like a troll. I disagree. It does make a difference. (If only because homosexual tendencies are unnatural. That does not mean any more than that, by the way.) Eh, kind of opened pandora's box there. Basically we all do unnatural things, the point in saying homosexual things are unnatural is not to attack homosexual people. It is to state fact, the natural purpose of sex is procreation. Since you cannot naturally reproduce homosexually as a human being, homosexuality is unnatural for humans. If we legally forbade every unnatural thing we do we would always be cited for Purposeful cliffhanger sentence^^. Long mundane list you can imagine. I don't want to get into it, I'm not wrong. This is too easily misunderstood and I won't argue with people who agree with me and don't realize it or are so far gone politically that they will deny what they know to be true as a hoax. And I am not going to defend any strawmans of this.
So I assume that you have had the intent on getting your partner pregnant each time you have had sex then?
|
On February 11 2012 10:10 gruff wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2012 01:54 Jrocker152 wrote:On February 10 2012 19:15 VTPerfect wrote:
Long ago all people once had 4 hands, 4 arms, 4 legs 2 heads and so on, they were very powerful beings. Zeus fearing their power decided to split these beings in half. Ever since people have been spending all their lives trying to find their other half, because of this great loss, that we might one day be reunited. Whether Male/Female, Male/Male, or Female/Female its all the same. This looks like a troll. I disagree. It does make a difference. (If only because homosexual tendencies are unnatural. That does not mean any more than that, by the way.) Eh, kind of opened pandora's box there. Basically we all do unnatural things, the point in saying homosexual things are unnatural is not to attack homosexual people. It is to state fact, the natural purpose of sex is procreation. Since you cannot naturally reproduce homosexually as a human being, homosexuality is unnatural for humans. If we legally forbade every unnatural thing we do we would always be cited for Purposeful cliffhanger sentence^^. Long mundane list you can imagine. I don't want to get into it, I'm not wrong. This is too easily misunderstood and I won't argue with people who agree with me and don't realize it or are so far gone politically that they will deny what they know to be true as a hoax. And I am not going to defend any strawmans of this. So I assume that you have had the intent on getting your partner pregnant each time you have had sex then?
He's not going to entertain your argument, because he already knows he's right... didn't you read?
|
On February 09 2012 12:55 Yosho wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 12:49 bRiz wrote:
Don't know how I feel about this. On one hand, it's a positive answer to a problem being experienced in the GLT community, but I personally prefer to keep marriage between a man and a woman, though I don't think I'd vote for a restriction like that. Just a personal opinion. I wouldn't vote for this to pass but if I would vote to not let is pass. Although even in nature gay animals exist, I feel it's like any other deficiency that people / animals can be born with. One of the sole thing we rely on to define life is reproduction. You cannot do this naturally on gay people. Not to be rude but I don't count this as a step up, but as a step down.
Terrible, old argument. By this logic people who want to get married but don't want children should also not be allowed.
Anyway, completely logically obsolete oppositions aside, good job Washington.
|
about time, no reason why gay marriage should be illegal
|
mod edit - asshole thing to do.
User was banned for this post.
|
On February 11 2012 09:50 W2 wrote:
extreme religious folks are against it because it tarnishes the name of "marriage". Just call it something else, while keeping the same benefits, like a civil union, that way both sides are happy. This is debated way too much, it seems social issues are how politicians separate themselves nowadays
I'm a tiny bit homophobic but I'll never understand why some people feel they can devoid rights of others.
Marriage is NOT a religious institution. It existed before long before Christianity especially. When will this stupid argument stop coming up in this debate?
|
On February 11 2012 12:48 Greater Spire wrote:
mod edit
Wow, that's on the disturbing side.
And he seriously argued that he wasn't trying to impose his views on others??!!!11!!
|
|
|
Netherlands6142 Posts
I wish we could just treat everyone equally. If a person or a group of people feels another group of people is somehow different to an extent that they shouldn't enjoy these rights, the onus is on them to prove why this would be so. Waving an ancient book written by bronze age illiterate goatherds who thought the world was as big as the desert they lived in won't do. Sad to have to read this time and time again, and from a civilised country like the USA to boot. Humanity still has a long way to go - especially if the bigoted frontrunners keep cherry-picking the old testament to spread hatred. Makes me sad
edit: I should actually be way more positive now that one more state has joined the cause lol. Yay Washington!
|
I'm a former doubter who has been converted to supporting gay marraige, however there is one fronteir I'm not really OK with. I've never really objected to gay marraige as a social blight or anything like that. I've always felt that an individual should be able to do what they want etc., etc..... however at some point we must look towards science. Two issues I take up with the push made by the extremely liberal side:
1. I've never liked that we call it "marraige." I know a lot of the homosexual community hates the term civil union because it feels second class, but the fact remains that marraige is a VERY loaded religious term. It has a special meaning to the religious in America, and therefore to allow it to be attached to something they vehemently disagree with, is... welll, insulting to the religious people. Legally, marraige for both normal and gay should be labelled something that isn't so insulting to the religious... I think this would help placate much of the more moderate religious folk in America. I've felt that many of them object because it's government fiddling with their own religious customs, not because they personally object to the practice of it by others.
2. I've never been able to support gay adoption. I understand it's positive factors.... I really do. But it just seems to me, from an evolutionary standpoint, bad practice. While it shouldn't be determinative, there IS something to the social conservative argument that families and not individuals should be the most important social construct. I'm not a social conservative, nor do I support the extent they take this argument in most issues, but this is one where I think they have merit. Parenting has a profound effect on a kid's future. I'm not saying that gay couples would be poor parents. Actually I believe the reverse is probably true; they probably care more. It's just that it's messing with something that, IMO, shouldn't be messed with. I just feel like there is some reason not fully understand for the reason it takes one male and one female to have a kid,
|
On February 15 2012 18:59 BluePanther wrote:
1. I've never liked that we call it "marraige." I know a lot of the homosexual community hates the term civil union because it feels second class, but the fact remains that marraige is a VERY loaded religious term. It has a special meaning to the religious in America, and therefore to allow it to be attached to something they vehemently disagree with, is... welll, insulting to the religious people. Legally, marraige for both normal and gay should be labelled something that isn't so insulting to the religious... I think this would help placate much of the more moderate religious folk in America. I've felt that many of them object because it's government fiddling with their own religious customs, not because they personally object to the practice of it by others.
The concept of marriage existed long before modern religions emerged and there is nothing religious about government-sanctioned marriages.
|
On February 15 2012 18:59 BluePanther wrote:
1. I've never liked that we call it "marraige." I know a lot of the homosexual community hates the term civil union because it feels second class, but the fact remains that marraige is a VERY loaded religious term. It has a special meaning to the religious in America, and therefore to allow it to be attached to something they vehemently disagree with, is... welll, insulting to the religious people. Legally, marraige for both normal and gay should be labelled something that isn't so insulting to the religious... I think this would help placate much of the more moderate religious folk in America. I've felt that many of them object because it's government fiddling with their own religious customs, not because they personally object to the practice of it by others.
You argue that marriage is very important to religious people. This is true. But they're not alone in that. Marriage is very important to a lot of people, religious or not. It's important to many christians, it's important to many atheists, it's important to many straight people and it's important to many gays.
Regardless of how you twist it, one faction is going to have their feelings hurt. Lets gays marry and the religious folks cry foul. Don't let gays marry (this includes calling it something else) and they will be upset.
But since marriage, at its core, is *not* a religious concept, we should take the moral highground and treat everyone equally. Marriage is the bond between two people that have decided to spend the rest of their lives together (or, for the average US couple: the next few years ) and this should be open to everyone.
In the end, noone is forcing the churches to perform gay marriages (there are those that already do so voluntarily, btw). It's between the government and the couples. Religion is out of the picture here.
|
Not letting them marry doesn't stop them from still being gay, homophobes.
And letting them marry themselves would mean, the gay-gene pool will actually decrease! Isn't that what you actually want?
Some bigots are just stupid. LOL
|
Netherlands6142 Posts
On February 15 2012 18:59 BluePanther wrote:
1. I've never liked that we call it "marraige." I know a lot of the homosexual community hates the term civil union because it feels second class, but the fact remains that marraige is a VERY loaded religious term. It has a special meaning to the religious in America, and therefore to allow it to be attached to something they vehemently disagree with, is... welll, insulting to the religious people. Legally, marraige for both normal and gay should be labelled something that isn't so insulting to the religious... I think this would help placate much of the more moderate religious folk in America. I've felt that many of them object because it's government fiddling with their own religious customs, not because they personally object to the practice of it by others.
You can say "marriage is a religious thing" all you want but it simply isn't true. The definition is made up by the state and it's recognized by the constitution which is, through seperation of state and church, a non-religious thing. Don't claim it as something inherently Christian, did people not get married before Jesus came along? Marriage should be the overarching word for matrimony ins general - if you want a sacred Christian subset version of it maybe you guys can give it your own word?
On February 15 2012 18:59 BluePanther wrote:
2. I've never been able to support gay adoption. I understand it's positive factors.... I really do. But it just seems to me, from an evolutionary standpoint, bad practice. While it shouldn't be determinative, there IS something to the social conservative argument that families and not individuals should be the most important social construct. I'm not a social conservative, nor do I support the extent they take this argument in most issues, but this is one where I think they have merit. Parenting has a profound effect on a kid's future. I'm not saying that gay couples would be poor parents. Actually I believe the reverse is probably true; they probably care more. It's just that it's messing with something that, IMO, shouldn't be messed with. I just feel like there is some reason not fully understand for the reason it takes one male and one female to have a kid,
This isn't a single point. First you argue evolutionary coherency and then you bring up social merits. The first, ban-same-sex-marriage in the name of evolution doesn't make sense. We don't care about evolution and evolution doesn't care about us. Evolution is just something that happened and we don't live our lives to appease it. I'd go as far to that we've since developed such understanding and moral awareness that we even make choices that would counteract natural selection. On the other side, using evolution to defend marriage as a monogamous institute at all is nonsensical.
The social merits is not a good argument either, I have no idea how you say you're not a social conservative but then still bring this up.
As to the raising of kids, maybe you can watch this. I found it very inspirational.
|
On February 11 2012 01:54 Jrocker152 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 19:15 VTPerfect wrote:
Long ago all people once had 4 hands, 4 arms, 4 legs 2 heads and so on, they were very powerful beings. Zeus fearing their power decided to split these beings in half. Ever since people have been spending all their lives trying to find their other half, because of this great loss, that we might one day be reunited. Whether Male/Female, Male/Male, or Female/Female its all the same. This looks like a troll. I disagree. It does make a difference. (If only because homosexual tendencies are unnatural. That does not mean any more than that, by the way.) Eh, kind of opened pandora's box there. Basically we all do unnatural things, the point in saying homosexual things are unnatural is not to attack homosexual people. It is to state fact, the natural purpose of sex is procreation. Since you cannot naturally reproduce homosexually as a human being, homosexuality is unnatural for humans. If we legally forbade every unnatural thing we do we would always be cited for Purposeful cliffhanger sentence^^. Long mundane list you can imagine. I don't want to get into it, I'm not wrong. This is too easily misunderstood and I won't argue with people who agree with me and don't realize it or are so far gone politically that they will deny what they know to be true as a hoax. And I am not going to defend any strawmans of this.
So you draw a line between the natural and the unnatural just where you see fit. Evolution has no purpose. We procreate because things that procreate last a lot longer. There is no design of humans to procreate, simply the beings that produce well will pass on their genetics. There is no natural purpose of sex.
You are wrong.
|
oh god, i hope this law does not actually come to fruition.
|
On February 15 2012 19:48 Pholon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2012 18:59 BluePanther wrote:
1. I've never liked that we call it "marraige." I know a lot of the homosexual community hates the term civil union because it feels second class, but the fact remains that marraige is a VERY loaded religious term. It has a special meaning to the religious in America, and therefore to allow it to be attached to something they vehemently disagree with, is... welll, insulting to the religious people. Legally, marraige for both normal and gay should be labelled something that isn't so insulting to the religious... I think this would help placate much of the more moderate religious folk in America. I've felt that many of them object because it's government fiddling with their own religious customs, not because they personally object to the practice of it by others. You can say "marriage is a religious thing" all you want but it simply isn't true. The definition is made up by the state and it's recognized by the constitution which is, through seperation of state and church, a non-religious thing. Don't claim it as something inherently Christian, did people not get married before Jesus came along? Marriage should be the overarching word for matrimony ins general - if you want a sacred Christian subset version of it maybe you guys can give it your own word? Show nested quote +On February 15 2012 18:59 BluePanther wrote:
2. I've never been able to support gay adoption. I understand it's positive factors.... I really do. But it just seems to me, from an evolutionary standpoint, bad practice. While it shouldn't be determinative, there IS something to the social conservative argument that families and not individuals should be the most important social construct. I'm not a social conservative, nor do I support the extent they take this argument in most issues, but this is one where I think they have merit. Parenting has a profound effect on a kid's future. I'm not saying that gay couples would be poor parents. Actually I believe the reverse is probably true; they probably care more. It's just that it's messing with something that, IMO, shouldn't be messed with. I just feel like there is some reason not fully understand for the reason it takes one male and one female to have a kid, This isn't a single point. First you argue evolutionary coherency and then you bring up social merits. The first, ban-same-sex-marriage in the name of evolution doesn't make sense. We don't care about evolution and evolution doesn't care about us. Evolution is just something that happened and we don't live our lives to appease it. I'd go as far to that we've since developed such understanding and moral awareness that we even make choices that would counteract natural selection. On the other side, using evolution to defend marriage as a monogamous institute at all is nonsensical. The social merits is not a good argument either, I have no idea how you say you're not a social conservative but then still bring this up. As to the raising of kids, maybe you can watch this. I found it very inspirational.
The amount of hate that comes towards anyone who expresses doubt in the discussion of gay marriage is boggling to me. It's like the mention of anything other than your perfect harmony instantly marks me as a bigot. You'd think you'd welcome the conversation and explain your side. Hell, I support you gay marriage, and you still tear me down.
First, marriage is not in our constitution. It's statutory. Trust me, I would know.
Now to my first point: The Christians aren't going to change the names of their sacraments. It's far easier to just change the statutory definition of marriage. And I honestly think it would clear up a portion of the angst from the more moderate religious people. Just because humans are generally monogamous (not always the case in history) doesn't mean that the Christians can't be offended by the government terming it marriage. There should be no reason gay couples cannot earn the same rights as hetero couples without pissing off religious moderates.
My response to the second point: I think you severely misread what I wrote. I'm not against gay marriage. I support legalization of drugs. I promote individual liberty. In America, that puts me on the social liberal side, without a doubt. Social merits and evolution go hand in hand - all human civilizations went through tribal periods as far as I know. From the dawn of history to the present day, familial ties play a key role in social structures and the raising of a child. To dismiss my concerns (which, I readily admit, is merely skepticism and not fact or argument), is blatantly dishonest and discredits any rebuttal you might have.
|
On February 15 2012 18:59 BluePanther wrote:
2. I've never been able to support gay adoption. I understand it's positive factors.... I really do. But it just seems to me, from an evolutionary standpoint, bad practice. While it shouldn't be determinative, there IS something to the social conservative argument that families and not individuals should be the most important social construct. I'm not a social conservative, nor do I support the extent they take this argument in most issues, but this is one where I think they have merit. Parenting has a profound effect on a kid's future. I'm not saying that gay couples would be poor parents. Actually I believe the reverse is probably true; they probably care more. It's just that it's messing with something that, IMO, shouldn't be messed with. I just feel like there is some reason not fully understand for the reason it takes one male and one female to have a kid,
You cite your opposition as a bad practice from an evolutionary standpoint, and then ignore that the trait of homosexuality is a result of evolution (a "panda's thumb", or perhaps otherwise).
One of the prevailing theories (the kin selection hypothesis) for the prevalence of homosexuality is that prehistoric societies functioned better with a few homosexuals in the mix, so that they could help take care of the kids of their relatives. Whether the hypothesis is true or not is up for debate, but to assert that homosexuality has no place in an evolutionary standpoint needs a lot of reinforcement, especially since the trait has survived to the modern day (and lives in our closest animal relatives too)
I have no idea why a family of two gay individuals is not a family like any other. In fact, given the incredibly high divorce rates in the Western world, its hard to believe gay families would be less stable.
|
|
|
On February 16 2012 06:26 SerpentFlame wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2012 18:59 BluePanther wrote:
2. I've never been able to support gay adoption. I understand it's positive factors.... I really do. But it just seems to me, from an evolutionary standpoint, bad practice. While it shouldn't be determinative, there IS something to the social conservative argument that families and not individuals should be the most important social construct. I'm not a social conservative, nor do I support the extent they take this argument in most issues, but this is one where I think they have merit. Parenting has a profound effect on a kid's future. I'm not saying that gay couples would be poor parents. Actually I believe the reverse is probably true; they probably care more. It's just that it's messing with something that, IMO, shouldn't be messed with. I just feel like there is some reason not fully understand for the reason it takes one male and one female to have a kid, You cite your opposition as a bad practice from an evolutionary standpoint, and then ignore that the trait of homosexuality is a result of evolution (a "panda's thumb", or perhaps otherwise). One of the prevailing theories (the kin selection hypothesis) for the prevalence of homosexuality is that prehistoric societies functioned better with a few homosexuals in the mix, so that they could help take care of the kids of their relatives. Whether the hypothesis is true or not is up for debate, but to assert that homosexuality has no place in an evolutionary standpoint needs a lot of reinforcement, especially since the trait has survived to the modern day (and lives in our closest animal relatives too) I have no idea why a family of two gay individuals is not a family like any other. In fact, given the incredibly high divorce rates in the Western world, its hard to believe gay families would be less stable.
But at the same time, we all know that homosexuallity isn't viable long term with evolution. Some, yes, but it's limited to what it can maintain. This also assumes that it's purely biological, which I would disagree with to a certain extent (there is no doubt biology plays a role, but it's not determinative). Can you think of a society that went belly up because it became too gay? I can't think of one.
Your hypothesis is interesting, although I honestly believe that with something like that, the burden of proof would be on your side of the argument.
I concede the point that gay couples provide stable households. That's a big reason I'm not rock solid on this.
|
On February 16 2012 06:44 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 06:26 SerpentFlame wrote:On February 15 2012 18:59 BluePanther wrote:
2. I've never been able to support gay adoption. I understand it's positive factors.... I really do. But it just seems to me, from an evolutionary standpoint, bad practice. While it shouldn't be determinative, there IS something to the social conservative argument that families and not individuals should be the most important social construct. I'm not a social conservative, nor do I support the extent they take this argument in most issues, but this is one where I think they have merit. Parenting has a profound effect on a kid's future. I'm not saying that gay couples would be poor parents. Actually I believe the reverse is probably true; they probably care more. It's just that it's messing with something that, IMO, shouldn't be messed with. I just feel like there is some reason not fully understand for the reason it takes one male and one female to have a kid, You cite your opposition as a bad practice from an evolutionary standpoint, and then ignore that the trait of homosexuality is a result of evolution (a "panda's thumb", or perhaps otherwise). One of the prevailing theories (the kin selection hypothesis) for the prevalence of homosexuality is that prehistoric societies functioned better with a few homosexuals in the mix, so that they could help take care of the kids of their relatives. Whether the hypothesis is true or not is up for debate, but to assert that homosexuality has no place in an evolutionary standpoint needs a lot of reinforcement, especially since the trait has survived to the modern day (and lives in our closest animal relatives too) I have no idea why a family of two gay individuals is not a family like any other. In fact, given the incredibly high divorce rates in the Western world, its hard to believe gay families would be less stable. But at the same time, we all know that homosexuallity isn't viable long term with evolution. Some, yes, but it's limited to what it can maintain. This also assumes that it's purely biological, which I would disagree with to a certain extent (there is no doubt biology plays a role, but it's not determinative). Can you think of a society that went belly up because it became too gay? I can't think of one. Your hypothesis is interesting, although I honestly believe that with something like that, the burden of proof would be on your side of the argument. I concede the point that gay couples provide stable households. That's a big reason I'm not rock solid on this.
We don't decide morals and ethics on "what would be best for our evolution". Eugenics are not nice.
|
On February 16 2012 06:44 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 06:26 SerpentFlame wrote:On February 15 2012 18:59 BluePanther wrote:
2. I've never been able to support gay adoption. I understand it's positive factors.... I really do. But it just seems to me, from an evolutionary standpoint, bad practice. While it shouldn't be determinative, there IS something to the social conservative argument that families and not individuals should be the most important social construct. I'm not a social conservative, nor do I support the extent they take this argument in most issues, but this is one where I think they have merit. Parenting has a profound effect on a kid's future. I'm not saying that gay couples would be poor parents. Actually I believe the reverse is probably true; they probably care more. It's just that it's messing with something that, IMO, shouldn't be messed with. I just feel like there is some reason not fully understand for the reason it takes one male and one female to have a kid, You cite your opposition as a bad practice from an evolutionary standpoint, and then ignore that the trait of homosexuality is a result of evolution (a "panda's thumb", or perhaps otherwise). One of the prevailing theories (the kin selection hypothesis) for the prevalence of homosexuality is that prehistoric societies functioned better with a few homosexuals in the mix, so that they could help take care of the kids of their relatives. Whether the hypothesis is true or not is up for debate, but to assert that homosexuality has no place in an evolutionary standpoint needs a lot of reinforcement, especially since the trait has survived to the modern day (and lives in our closest animal relatives too) I have no idea why a family of two gay individuals is not a family like any other. In fact, given the incredibly high divorce rates in the Western world, its hard to believe gay families would be less stable. But at the same time, we all know that homosexuallity isn't viable long term with evolution.
Being gay has been well documented in human history for thousands of years, and has been detected in nearly every animal species even remotely related to us (baboons, lemurs, chimpanzees, etc.). This suggests that being gay has been around for millions of years (baboons and humans share a common ancesetor from around 30 million years ago).
Whether or not being gay is purely biological, the point is that its manifested itself in our monkey relatives and our ancient societies (Greece, anyone?). Guess what? The trait survives! Ancient Greece did not collapse because of the prevalance of homosexuality, nor did lemurs and baboons go extinct. So of course homosexuality is viable in the long term.
Also agree with the point on eugenics being an ugly thing.
|
On February 16 2012 06:52 SerpentFlame wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 06:44 BluePanther wrote:On February 16 2012 06:26 SerpentFlame wrote:On February 15 2012 18:59 BluePanther wrote:
2. I've never been able to support gay adoption. I understand it's positive factors.... I really do. But it just seems to me, from an evolutionary standpoint, bad practice. While it shouldn't be determinative, there IS something to the social conservative argument that families and not individuals should be the most important social construct. I'm not a social conservative, nor do I support the extent they take this argument in most issues, but this is one where I think they have merit. Parenting has a profound effect on a kid's future. I'm not saying that gay couples would be poor parents. Actually I believe the reverse is probably true; they probably care more. It's just that it's messing with something that, IMO, shouldn't be messed with. I just feel like there is some reason not fully understand for the reason it takes one male and one female to have a kid, You cite your opposition as a bad practice from an evolutionary standpoint, and then ignore that the trait of homosexuality is a result of evolution (a "panda's thumb", or perhaps otherwise). One of the prevailing theories (the kin selection hypothesis) for the prevalence of homosexuality is that prehistoric societies functioned better with a few homosexuals in the mix, so that they could help take care of the kids of their relatives. Whether the hypothesis is true or not is up for debate, but to assert that homosexuality has no place in an evolutionary standpoint needs a lot of reinforcement, especially since the trait has survived to the modern day (and lives in our closest animal relatives too) I have no idea why a family of two gay individuals is not a family like any other. In fact, given the incredibly high divorce rates in the Western world, its hard to believe gay families would be less stable. But at the same time, we all know that homosexuallity isn't viable long term with evolution. Being gay has been well documented in human history for thousands of years, and has been detected in nearly every animal species even remotely related to us (baboons, lemurs, chimpanzees, etc.). This suggests that being gay has been around for millions of years (baboons and humans share a common ancesetor from around 30 million years ago). Whether or not being gay is purely biological, the point is that its manifested itself in our monkey relatives and our ancient societies (Greece, anyone?). Guess what? The trait survives! Ancient Greece did not collapse because of the prevalance of homosexuality, nor did lemurs and baboons go extinct. So of course homosexuality is viable in the long term. Also agree with the point on eugenics being an ugly thing.
My point is that if it's a positive evolutionary trait AND biological, it would slowly become more prevalent. That is not the case. (And like I said, we all know this cannot be the case due to how procreation works). This means it is more likely tied to social norms than to the human genome.
Therefore limits on said behavior are not eugenics, but rather social health/welfare issues.
|
On February 16 2012 07:02 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 06:52 SerpentFlame wrote:On February 16 2012 06:44 BluePanther wrote:On February 16 2012 06:26 SerpentFlame wrote:On February 15 2012 18:59 BluePanther wrote:
2. I've never been able to support gay adoption. I understand it's positive factors.... I really do. But it just seems to me, from an evolutionary standpoint, bad practice. While it shouldn't be determinative, there IS something to the social conservative argument that families and not individuals should be the most important social construct. I'm not a social conservative, nor do I support the extent they take this argument in most issues, but this is one where I think they have merit. Parenting has a profound effect on a kid's future. I'm not saying that gay couples would be poor parents. Actually I believe the reverse is probably true; they probably care more. It's just that it's messing with something that, IMO, shouldn't be messed with. I just feel like there is some reason not fully understand for the reason it takes one male and one female to have a kid, You cite your opposition as a bad practice from an evolutionary standpoint, and then ignore that the trait of homosexuality is a result of evolution (a "panda's thumb", or perhaps otherwise). One of the prevailing theories (the kin selection hypothesis) for the prevalence of homosexuality is that prehistoric societies functioned better with a few homosexuals in the mix, so that they could help take care of the kids of their relatives. Whether the hypothesis is true or not is up for debate, but to assert that homosexuality has no place in an evolutionary standpoint needs a lot of reinforcement, especially since the trait has survived to the modern day (and lives in our closest animal relatives too) I have no idea why a family of two gay individuals is not a family like any other. In fact, given the incredibly high divorce rates in the Western world, its hard to believe gay families would be less stable. But at the same time, we all know that homosexuallity isn't viable long term with evolution. Being gay has been well documented in human history for thousands of years, and has been detected in nearly every animal species even remotely related to us (baboons, lemurs, chimpanzees, etc.). This suggests that being gay has been around for millions of years (baboons and humans share a common ancesetor from around 30 million years ago). Whether or not being gay is purely biological, the point is that its manifested itself in our monkey relatives and our ancient societies (Greece, anyone?). Guess what? The trait survives! Ancient Greece did not collapse because of the prevalance of homosexuality, nor did lemurs and baboons go extinct. So of course homosexuality is viable in the long term. Also agree with the point on eugenics being an ugly thing. My point is that if it's a positive evolutionary trait AND biological, it would slowly become more prevalent. That is not the case. (And like I said, we all know this cannot be the case due to how procreation works). This means it is more likely tied to social norms than to the human genome.
still doesn't counter what he said at all.
|
On February 16 2012 07:03 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 07:02 BluePanther wrote:On February 16 2012 06:52 SerpentFlame wrote:On February 16 2012 06:44 BluePanther wrote:On February 16 2012 06:26 SerpentFlame wrote:On February 15 2012 18:59 BluePanther wrote:
2. I've never been able to support gay adoption. I understand it's positive factors.... I really do. But it just seems to me, from an evolutionary standpoint, bad practice. While it shouldn't be determinative, there IS something to the social conservative argument that families and not individuals should be the most important social construct. I'm not a social conservative, nor do I support the extent they take this argument in most issues, but this is one where I think they have merit. Parenting has a profound effect on a kid's future. I'm not saying that gay couples would be poor parents. Actually I believe the reverse is probably true; they probably care more. It's just that it's messing with something that, IMO, shouldn't be messed with. I just feel like there is some reason not fully understand for the reason it takes one male and one female to have a kid, You cite your opposition as a bad practice from an evolutionary standpoint, and then ignore that the trait of homosexuality is a result of evolution (a "panda's thumb", or perhaps otherwise). One of the prevailing theories (the kin selection hypothesis) for the prevalence of homosexuality is that prehistoric societies functioned better with a few homosexuals in the mix, so that they could help take care of the kids of their relatives. Whether the hypothesis is true or not is up for debate, but to assert that homosexuality has no place in an evolutionary standpoint needs a lot of reinforcement, especially since the trait has survived to the modern day (and lives in our closest animal relatives too) I have no idea why a family of two gay individuals is not a family like any other. In fact, given the incredibly high divorce rates in the Western world, its hard to believe gay families would be less stable. But at the same time, we all know that homosexuallity isn't viable long term with evolution. Being gay has been well documented in human history for thousands of years, and has been detected in nearly every animal species even remotely related to us (baboons, lemurs, chimpanzees, etc.). This suggests that being gay has been around for millions of years (baboons and humans share a common ancesetor from around 30 million years ago). Whether or not being gay is purely biological, the point is that its manifested itself in our monkey relatives and our ancient societies (Greece, anyone?). Guess what? The trait survives! Ancient Greece did not collapse because of the prevalance of homosexuality, nor did lemurs and baboons go extinct. So of course homosexuality is viable in the long term. Also agree with the point on eugenics being an ugly thing. My point is that if it's a positive evolutionary trait AND biological, it would slowly become more prevalent. That is not the case. (And like I said, we all know this cannot be the case due to how procreation works). This means it is more likely tied to social norms than to the human genome. still doesn't counter what he said at all.
It wasn't meant to. He never countered what I said. He just says that homosexuality has been around a long time and hasn't died out. I don't object to that at all, and it doesn't have really anything to do with my statement.
|
On February 16 2012 07:02 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 06:52 SerpentFlame wrote:On February 16 2012 06:44 BluePanther wrote:On February 16 2012 06:26 SerpentFlame wrote:On February 15 2012 18:59 BluePanther wrote:
2. I've never been able to support gay adoption. I understand it's positive factors.... I really do. But it just seems to me, from an evolutionary standpoint, bad practice. While it shouldn't be determinative, there IS something to the social conservative argument that families and not individuals should be the most important social construct. I'm not a social conservative, nor do I support the extent they take this argument in most issues, but this is one where I think they have merit. Parenting has a profound effect on a kid's future. I'm not saying that gay couples would be poor parents. Actually I believe the reverse is probably true; they probably care more. It's just that it's messing with something that, IMO, shouldn't be messed with. I just feel like there is some reason not fully understand for the reason it takes one male and one female to have a kid, You cite your opposition as a bad practice from an evolutionary standpoint, and then ignore that the trait of homosexuality is a result of evolution (a "panda's thumb", or perhaps otherwise). One of the prevailing theories (the kin selection hypothesis) for the prevalence of homosexuality is that prehistoric societies functioned better with a few homosexuals in the mix, so that they could help take care of the kids of their relatives. Whether the hypothesis is true or not is up for debate, but to assert that homosexuality has no place in an evolutionary standpoint needs a lot of reinforcement, especially since the trait has survived to the modern day (and lives in our closest animal relatives too) I have no idea why a family of two gay individuals is not a family like any other. In fact, given the incredibly high divorce rates in the Western world, its hard to believe gay families would be less stable. But at the same time, we all know that homosexuallity isn't viable long term with evolution. Being gay has been well documented in human history for thousands of years, and has been detected in nearly every animal species even remotely related to us (baboons, lemurs, chimpanzees, etc.). This suggests that being gay has been around for millions of years (baboons and humans share a common ancesetor from around 30 million years ago). Whether or not being gay is purely biological, the point is that its manifested itself in our monkey relatives and our ancient societies (Greece, anyone?). Guess what? The trait survives! Ancient Greece did not collapse because of the prevalance of homosexuality, nor did lemurs and baboons go extinct. So of course homosexuality is viable in the long term. Also agree with the point on eugenics being an ugly thing. My point is that if it's a positive evolutionary trait AND biological, it would slowly become more prevalent. That is not the case. (And like I said, we all know this cannot be the case due to how procreation works). This means it is more likely tied to social norms than to the human genome.
Who cares if its a 'positive' or 'negative' trait? Being anything short of Chuck Norris fused with Albert Einstein is a 'negative' trait. Being Asian, Khoasian, Bantu, Caucasian, Arabic, Indian, etc. are also not "slowly becoming more prevalent". Um, so? Why should this tell us how we should treat people?
And monkeys are homosexual because of social norms? What evidence do you have for this?
It's also not clear to me that you know how the kin selection hypothesis works. The premise is that a few homosexual individuals assist in raising the children of their heterosexual family members. Their individual genes were passed on through their family members. Homosexuality may be a 'panda's thumb'. That doesn't matter at all.
You still don't touch on the point about evolution being separate from morals and ethics. That's a dangerous slope into the eugenics movement, which argued for social policies based on evolutionary viability. And it wasn't nice at all.
On February 16 2012 07:05 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 07:03 Roe wrote:On February 16 2012 07:02 BluePanther wrote:On February 16 2012 06:52 SerpentFlame wrote:On February 16 2012 06:44 BluePanther wrote:On February 16 2012 06:26 SerpentFlame wrote:On February 15 2012 18:59 BluePanther wrote:
2. I've never been able to support gay adoption. I understand it's positive factors.... I really do. But it just seems to me, from an evolutionary standpoint, bad practice. While it shouldn't be determinative, there IS something to the social conservative argument that families and not individuals should be the most important social construct. I'm not a social conservative, nor do I support the extent they take this argument in most issues, but this is one where I think they have merit. Parenting has a profound effect on a kid's future. I'm not saying that gay couples would be poor parents. Actually I believe the reverse is probably true; they probably care more. It's just that it's messing with something that, IMO, shouldn't be messed with. I just feel like there is some reason not fully understand for the reason it takes one male and one female to have a kid, You cite your opposition as a bad practice from an evolutionary standpoint, and then ignore that the trait of homosexuality is a result of evolution (a "panda's thumb", or perhaps otherwise). One of the prevailing theories (the kin selection hypothesis) for the prevalence of homosexuality is that prehistoric societies functioned better with a few homosexuals in the mix, so that they could help take care of the kids of their relatives. Whether the hypothesis is true or not is up for debate, but to assert that homosexuality has no place in an evolutionary standpoint needs a lot of reinforcement, especially since the trait has survived to the modern day (and lives in our closest animal relatives too) I have no idea why a family of two gay individuals is not a family like any other. In fact, given the incredibly high divorce rates in the Western world, its hard to believe gay families would be less stable. But at the same time, we all know that homosexuallity isn't viable long term with evolution. Being gay has been well documented in human history for thousands of years, and has been detected in nearly every animal species even remotely related to us (baboons, lemurs, chimpanzees, etc.). This suggests that being gay has been around for millions of years (baboons and humans share a common ancesetor from around 30 million years ago). Whether or not being gay is purely biological, the point is that its manifested itself in our monkey relatives and our ancient societies (Greece, anyone?). Guess what? The trait survives! Ancient Greece did not collapse because of the prevalance of homosexuality, nor did lemurs and baboons go extinct. So of course homosexuality is viable in the long term. Also agree with the point on eugenics being an ugly thing. My point is that if it's a positive evolutionary trait AND biological, it would slowly become more prevalent. That is not the case. (And like I said, we all know this cannot be the case due to how procreation works). This means it is more likely tied to social norms than to the human genome. still doesn't counter what he said at all. It wasn't meant to. He never countered what I said. He just says that homosexuality has been around a long time and hasn't died out. I don't object to that at all, and it doesn't have really anything to do with my statement.
No. Your entire premise is that this was not 'evolutionary viable', except that it has been in baboons, lemurs, chimapnzees, and guess what? Humans.
It's not clear to me how any of what you're arguing has anything to do with gay parents adopting.
|
edit: condensed into one post.
|
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.
Prosthetic legs are also not natural. Should we not support the distribution of these to people who have lost their real legs?
Do you see the fallacies in your thinking?
|
On February 16 2012 06:44 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 06:26 SerpentFlame wrote:On February 15 2012 18:59 BluePanther wrote:
2. I've never been able to support gay adoption. I understand it's positive factors.... I really do. But it just seems to me, from an evolutionary standpoint, bad practice. While it shouldn't be determinative, there IS something to the social conservative argument that families and not individuals should be the most important social construct. I'm not a social conservative, nor do I support the extent they take this argument in most issues, but this is one where I think they have merit. Parenting has a profound effect on a kid's future. I'm not saying that gay couples would be poor parents. Actually I believe the reverse is probably true; they probably care more. It's just that it's messing with something that, IMO, shouldn't be messed with. I just feel like there is some reason not fully understand for the reason it takes one male and one female to have a kid, You cite your opposition as a bad practice from an evolutionary standpoint, and then ignore that the trait of homosexuality is a result of evolution (a "panda's thumb", or perhaps otherwise). One of the prevailing theories (the kin selection hypothesis) for the prevalence of homosexuality is that prehistoric societies functioned better with a few homosexuals in the mix, so that they could help take care of the kids of their relatives. Whether the hypothesis is true or not is up for debate, but to assert that homosexuality has no place in an evolutionary standpoint needs a lot of reinforcement, especially since the trait has survived to the modern day (and lives in our closest animal relatives too) I have no idea why a family of two gay individuals is not a family like any other. In fact, given the incredibly high divorce rates in the Western world, its hard to believe gay families would be less stable. But at the same time, we all know that homosexuallity isn't viable long term with evolution.
Please supply your evidence for this extra-ordinary claim.
|
Slowly advancing into the future.
|
On February 16 2012 07:14 arbitrageur wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 06:44 BluePanther wrote:On February 16 2012 06:26 SerpentFlame wrote:On February 15 2012 18:59 BluePanther wrote:
2. I've never been able to support gay adoption. I understand it's positive factors.... I really do. But it just seems to me, from an evolutionary standpoint, bad practice. While it shouldn't be determinative, there IS something to the social conservative argument that families and not individuals should be the most important social construct. I'm not a social conservative, nor do I support the extent they take this argument in most issues, but this is one where I think they have merit. Parenting has a profound effect on a kid's future. I'm not saying that gay couples would be poor parents. Actually I believe the reverse is probably true; they probably care more. It's just that it's messing with something that, IMO, shouldn't be messed with. I just feel like there is some reason not fully understand for the reason it takes one male and one female to have a kid, You cite your opposition as a bad practice from an evolutionary standpoint, and then ignore that the trait of homosexuality is a result of evolution (a "panda's thumb", or perhaps otherwise). One of the prevailing theories (the kin selection hypothesis) for the prevalence of homosexuality is that prehistoric societies functioned better with a few homosexuals in the mix, so that they could help take care of the kids of their relatives. Whether the hypothesis is true or not is up for debate, but to assert that homosexuality has no place in an evolutionary standpoint needs a lot of reinforcement, especially since the trait has survived to the modern day (and lives in our closest animal relatives too) I have no idea why a family of two gay individuals is not a family like any other. In fact, given the incredibly high divorce rates in the Western world, its hard to believe gay families would be less stable. But at the same time, we all know that homosexuallity isn't viable long term with evolution. Please supply your evidence for this extra-ordinary claim.
I think the fact that they can't reproduce is rather clear evidence....
|
United States42966 Posts
On February 16 2012 11:09 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 07:14 arbitrageur wrote:On February 16 2012 06:44 BluePanther wrote:On February 16 2012 06:26 SerpentFlame wrote:On February 15 2012 18:59 BluePanther wrote:
2. I've never been able to support gay adoption. I understand it's positive factors.... I really do. But it just seems to me, from an evolutionary standpoint, bad practice. While it shouldn't be determinative, there IS something to the social conservative argument that families and not individuals should be the most important social construct. I'm not a social conservative, nor do I support the extent they take this argument in most issues, but this is one where I think they have merit. Parenting has a profound effect on a kid's future. I'm not saying that gay couples would be poor parents. Actually I believe the reverse is probably true; they probably care more. It's just that it's messing with something that, IMO, shouldn't be messed with. I just feel like there is some reason not fully understand for the reason it takes one male and one female to have a kid, You cite your opposition as a bad practice from an evolutionary standpoint, and then ignore that the trait of homosexuality is a result of evolution (a "panda's thumb", or perhaps otherwise). One of the prevailing theories (the kin selection hypothesis) for the prevalence of homosexuality is that prehistoric societies functioned better with a few homosexuals in the mix, so that they could help take care of the kids of their relatives. Whether the hypothesis is true or not is up for debate, but to assert that homosexuality has no place in an evolutionary standpoint needs a lot of reinforcement, especially since the trait has survived to the modern day (and lives in our closest animal relatives too) I have no idea why a family of two gay individuals is not a family like any other. In fact, given the incredibly high divorce rates in the Western world, its hard to believe gay families would be less stable. But at the same time, we all know that homosexuallity isn't viable long term with evolution. Please supply your evidence for this extra-ordinary claim. I think the fact that they can't reproduce is rather clear evidence....
A lot of gays have biological children. Gays aren't infertile.
|
Arguably, long term evolution is decided not just by advantageous traits, but by traits that increase breeding chances. (See Peacock tails, longer tails mean more breeding, but longer tails also mean easier to spot by predators).
If one were to stereotype homosexuals as males who care about their appearance and social stature, and those are desired traits by females, it gives those damn anti evolutionary gays more chance to.... breed according to natural selection norms! (paradox?)
|
On February 16 2012 07:02 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 06:52 SerpentFlame wrote:On February 16 2012 06:44 BluePanther wrote:On February 16 2012 06:26 SerpentFlame wrote:On February 15 2012 18:59 BluePanther wrote:
2. I've never been able to support gay adoption. I understand it's positive factors.... I really do. But it just seems to me, from an evolutionary standpoint, bad practice. While it shouldn't be determinative, there IS something to the social conservative argument that families and not individuals should be the most important social construct. I'm not a social conservative, nor do I support the extent they take this argument in most issues, but this is one where I think they have merit. Parenting has a profound effect on a kid's future. I'm not saying that gay couples would be poor parents. Actually I believe the reverse is probably true; they probably care more. It's just that it's messing with something that, IMO, shouldn't be messed with. I just feel like there is some reason not fully understand for the reason it takes one male and one female to have a kid, You cite your opposition as a bad practice from an evolutionary standpoint, and then ignore that the trait of homosexuality is a result of evolution (a "panda's thumb", or perhaps otherwise). One of the prevailing theories (the kin selection hypothesis) for the prevalence of homosexuality is that prehistoric societies functioned better with a few homosexuals in the mix, so that they could help take care of the kids of their relatives. Whether the hypothesis is true or not is up for debate, but to assert that homosexuality has no place in an evolutionary standpoint needs a lot of reinforcement, especially since the trait has survived to the modern day (and lives in our closest animal relatives too) I have no idea why a family of two gay individuals is not a family like any other. In fact, given the incredibly high divorce rates in the Western world, its hard to believe gay families would be less stable. But at the same time, we all know that homosexuallity isn't viable long term with evolution. Being gay has been well documented in human history for thousands of years, and has been detected in nearly every animal species even remotely related to us (baboons, lemurs, chimpanzees, etc.). This suggests that being gay has been around for millions of years (baboons and humans share a common ancesetor from around 30 million years ago). Whether or not being gay is purely biological, the point is that its manifested itself in our monkey relatives and our ancient societies (Greece, anyone?). Guess what? The trait survives! Ancient Greece did not collapse because of the prevalance of homosexuality, nor did lemurs and baboons go extinct. So of course homosexuality is viable in the long term. Also agree with the point on eugenics being an ugly thing. My point is that if it's a positive evolutionary trait AND biological, it would slowly become more prevalent. That is not the case. (And like I said, we all know this cannot be the case due to how procreation works). This means it is more likely tied to social norms than to the human genome. Therefore limits on said behavior are not eugenics, but rather social health/welfare issues.
The problem with your statement is simple and obvious: not everything has universal benefits or downsides. Homosexuality, in low numbers may be an overall benefit, but there is an obvious corrective factor that ensures that the numbers remain low. So there's a built-in feedback mechanism.
Also, that doesn't change the fact that it is clearly not a social construct. If it were, it would be unique to humans and to particular human societies. But it isn't.
On February 16 2012 11:09 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 07:14 arbitrageur wrote:On February 16 2012 06:44 BluePanther wrote:On February 16 2012 06:26 SerpentFlame wrote:On February 15 2012 18:59 BluePanther wrote:
2. I've never been able to support gay adoption. I understand it's positive factors.... I really do. But it just seems to me, from an evolutionary standpoint, bad practice. While it shouldn't be determinative, there IS something to the social conservative argument that families and not individuals should be the most important social construct. I'm not a social conservative, nor do I support the extent they take this argument in most issues, but this is one where I think they have merit. Parenting has a profound effect on a kid's future. I'm not saying that gay couples would be poor parents. Actually I believe the reverse is probably true; they probably care more. It's just that it's messing with something that, IMO, shouldn't be messed with. I just feel like there is some reason not fully understand for the reason it takes one male and one female to have a kid, You cite your opposition as a bad practice from an evolutionary standpoint, and then ignore that the trait of homosexuality is a result of evolution (a "panda's thumb", or perhaps otherwise). One of the prevailing theories (the kin selection hypothesis) for the prevalence of homosexuality is that prehistoric societies functioned better with a few homosexuals in the mix, so that they could help take care of the kids of their relatives. Whether the hypothesis is true or not is up for debate, but to assert that homosexuality has no place in an evolutionary standpoint needs a lot of reinforcement, especially since the trait has survived to the modern day (and lives in our closest animal relatives too) I have no idea why a family of two gay individuals is not a family like any other. In fact, given the incredibly high divorce rates in the Western world, its hard to believe gay families would be less stable. But at the same time, we all know that homosexuallity isn't viable long term with evolution. Please supply your evidence for this extra-ordinary claim. I think the fact that they can't reproduce is rather clear evidence....
By that logic, women should drop dead at menopaus. Or that women should always be fertile. Yet neither is the case. Why?
Because human beings, like our ape ancestors, are social creatures. And having warm bodies around to do work, even if they're not reproductive, are useful. A small percentage of non-reproductive individuals can still serve the overall needs of the species in ways that don't require themselves to reproduce.
It's similar to how among organisms with differentiated cells work. The only cells that actually are involved in reproduction are the gamete cells. All other cells still exist and still do useful work.
Biology and species evolution is about more than just individuals procreating. It's about keeping the group and species going. And if that means that some of the individuals don't get to reproduce... that's fine. Even better if a few of the individuals don't want to reproduce. There's still stuff for them to do.
|
So glad to hear states are passing pro-gay marriage laws. I found out my brother is gay last year, and to think where he lives he can't legally marry who he loves, while I can, is heartbreaking. I can only hope when he finds someone he'd like to marry that the laws in the south have changed.
|
As interesting as the evolution argument is - it is really besides the point... isn't it? This is about fairly basic spousal rights, and to a lesser extent calling it marriage.
If anybody is religious/conservative/homophobic and is concerned about some of the reasons I've heard that we shouldn't allow homosexuals to marry one another, just PM me your email, and I'll be sure to contact you and warn you about signs of the end times, dogs and cats getting along, portals to hell opening up and swallowing children, blood rain, etc. I can also try to warn you about the opening of the concentration camps where 'they' try to convert us to homosexuality after they've taken over our State.
I'm looking forward to June 7th. Shame it isn't sooner. Shame it has taken this long. Shame people are opposed to human rights.
|
On February 16 2012 07:10 SerpentFlame wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 07:02 BluePanther wrote:On February 16 2012 06:52 SerpentFlame wrote:On February 16 2012 06:44 BluePanther wrote:On February 16 2012 06:26 SerpentFlame wrote:On February 15 2012 18:59 BluePanther wrote:
2. I've never been able to support gay adoption. I understand it's positive factors.... I really do. But it just seems to me, from an evolutionary standpoint, bad practice. While it shouldn't be determinative, there IS something to the social conservative argument that families and not individuals should be the most important social construct. I'm not a social conservative, nor do I support the extent they take this argument in most issues, but this is one where I think they have merit. Parenting has a profound effect on a kid's future. I'm not saying that gay couples would be poor parents. Actually I believe the reverse is probably true; they probably care more. It's just that it's messing with something that, IMO, shouldn't be messed with. I just feel like there is some reason not fully understand for the reason it takes one male and one female to have a kid, You cite your opposition as a bad practice from an evolutionary standpoint, and then ignore that the trait of homosexuality is a result of evolution (a "panda's thumb", or perhaps otherwise). One of the prevailing theories (the kin selection hypothesis) for the prevalence of homosexuality is that prehistoric societies functioned better with a few homosexuals in the mix, so that they could help take care of the kids of their relatives. Whether the hypothesis is true or not is up for debate, but to assert that homosexuality has no place in an evolutionary standpoint needs a lot of reinforcement, especially since the trait has survived to the modern day (and lives in our closest animal relatives too) I have no idea why a family of two gay individuals is not a family like any other. In fact, given the incredibly high divorce rates in the Western world, its hard to believe gay families would be less stable. But at the same time, we all know that homosexuallity isn't viable long term with evolution. Being gay has been well documented in human history for thousands of years, and has been detected in nearly every animal species even remotely related to us (baboons, lemurs, chimpanzees, etc.). This suggests that being gay has been around for millions of years (baboons and humans share a common ancesetor from around 30 million years ago). Whether or not being gay is purely biological, the point is that its manifested itself in our monkey relatives and our ancient societies (Greece, anyone?). Guess what? The trait survives! Ancient Greece did not collapse because of the prevalance of homosexuality, nor did lemurs and baboons go extinct. So of course homosexuality is viable in the long term. Also agree with the point on eugenics being an ugly thing. My point is that if it's a positive evolutionary trait AND biological, it would slowly become more prevalent. That is not the case. (And like I said, we all know this cannot be the case due to how procreation works). This means it is more likely tied to social norms than to the human genome. Who cares if its a 'positive' or 'negative' trait? Being anything short of Chuck Norris fused with Albert Einstein is a 'negative' trait. Being Asian, Khoasian, Bantu, Caucasian, Arabic, Indian, etc. are also not "slowly becoming more prevalent". Um, so? Why should this tell us how we should treat people? And monkeys are homosexual because of social norms? What evidence do you have for this? It's also not clear to me that you know how the kin selection hypothesis works. The premise is that a few homosexual individuals assist in raising the children of their heterosexual family members. Their individual genes were passed on through their family members. Homosexuality may be a 'panda's thumb'. That doesn't matter at all. You still don't touch on the point about evolution being separate from morals and ethics. That's a dangerous slope into the eugenics movement, which argued for social policies based on evolutionary viability. And it wasn't nice at all. Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 07:05 BluePanther wrote:On February 16 2012 07:03 Roe wrote:On February 16 2012 07:02 BluePanther wrote:On February 16 2012 06:52 SerpentFlame wrote:On February 16 2012 06:44 BluePanther wrote:On February 16 2012 06:26 SerpentFlame wrote:On February 15 2012 18:59 BluePanther wrote:
2. I've never been able to support gay adoption. I understand it's positive factors.... I really do. But it just seems to me, from an evolutionary standpoint, bad practice. While it shouldn't be determinative, there IS something to the social conservative argument that families and not individuals should be the most important social construct. I'm not a social conservative, nor do I support the extent they take this argument in most issues, but this is one where I think they have merit. Parenting has a profound effect on a kid's future. I'm not saying that gay couples would be poor parents. Actually I believe the reverse is probably true; they probably care more. It's just that it's messing with something that, IMO, shouldn't be messed with. I just feel like there is some reason not fully understand for the reason it takes one male and one female to have a kid, You cite your opposition as a bad practice from an evolutionary standpoint, and then ignore that the trait of homosexuality is a result of evolution (a "panda's thumb", or perhaps otherwise). One of the prevailing theories (the kin selection hypothesis) for the prevalence of homosexuality is that prehistoric societies functioned better with a few homosexuals in the mix, so that they could help take care of the kids of their relatives. Whether the hypothesis is true or not is up for debate, but to assert that homosexuality has no place in an evolutionary standpoint needs a lot of reinforcement, especially since the trait has survived to the modern day (and lives in our closest animal relatives too) I have no idea why a family of two gay individuals is not a family like any other. In fact, given the incredibly high divorce rates in the Western world, its hard to believe gay families would be less stable. But at the same time, we all know that homosexuallity isn't viable long term with evolution. Being gay has been well documented in human history for thousands of years, and has been detected in nearly every animal species even remotely related to us (baboons, lemurs, chimpanzees, etc.). This suggests that being gay has been around for millions of years (baboons and humans share a common ancesetor from around 30 million years ago). Whether or not being gay is purely biological, the point is that its manifested itself in our monkey relatives and our ancient societies (Greece, anyone?). Guess what? The trait survives! Ancient Greece did not collapse because of the prevalance of homosexuality, nor did lemurs and baboons go extinct. So of course homosexuality is viable in the long term. Also agree with the point on eugenics being an ugly thing. My point is that if it's a positive evolutionary trait AND biological, it would slowly become more prevalent. That is not the case. (And like I said, we all know this cannot be the case due to how procreation works). This means it is more likely tied to social norms than to the human genome. still doesn't counter what he said at all. It wasn't meant to. He never countered what I said. He just says that homosexuality has been around a long time and hasn't died out. I don't object to that at all, and it doesn't have really anything to do with my statement. No. Your entire premise is that this was not 'evolutionary viable', except that it has been in baboons, lemurs, chimapnzees, and guess what? Humans. It's not clear to me how any of what you're arguing has anything to do with gay parents adopting.
Numbering response by your paragraph because I'm lazy right now:
1. When I say "postive" I'm referring to the fact that it assists in reproduction and survival of a speciest (talking evolution here). I'm not using it to say it's "preferrable."
2. One POSSIBLE explanation is that people are only "gay" when their surroundings enable it. In other words, it's more about an act of opportunity. I'm not saying this is the case, we really don't know enough about this. I'm just throwing out an alternative hypo.
3. I think I understand what you're saying, and I think it's interesting. But at the same time I'm not jumping into it without hesitation. My conscience says "that'd be really cool if that were true", but my brain is saying "I'm not sure that fully makes mathematical sense."
4. I'm not sure how hesitating at the idea of gay adoption constitutes eugenics. I'm not saying "Gays shouldn't reproduce" or "Gays should be massacred". I'm saying that I have reservations about them raising and nurturing kids which are not theirs. It's more social commentary than anything. I have no idea how you pulled eugenics out of that.
About the ethics comment: If a gay dude wants to bang a girl and have a kid and raise it, I have absolutely no objection to that. But toying with genetics to pass on genes that would otherwise die out by using artificial insemination concerns me. I find it unethical. Especially if this is a hereditary thing, as it creates compounding ethcial decisions in the future.
5/6. I'm not sure I fully understand it myself... there is a lot we don't know (surpisingly, given how long it has been around). Is it nurture? Is it nature? Is it a combination? How is it relevant? How does it affect the children?
In short, I support gay marriage because it's two consenting individuals... If they want that for themselves, all the power to them. However, I hesitate when a third party gets dragged into something like this when they have no say in it.
|
What? I'm confused - your argument against letting gay couples have children via artificial insemination is that it allows genes to be passed on that otherwise wouldn't be by a means that isn't actual sex?
How is this a principled reason not to allow artificial insemination for gay couples? We're more than happy to have legal fertility treatments for otherwise infertile people that otherwise wouldn't be able to pass on their genes. We're more than happy to cure sick people that otherwise wouldn't pass on their genes...
I'm puzzled as to what ethical leg you think you're standing on here.
Edit: You're anti-adoption for homosexuals, too?
|
On February 16 2012 07:02 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 06:52 SerpentFlame wrote:On February 16 2012 06:44 BluePanther wrote:
But at the same time, we all know that homosexuallity isn't viable long term with evolution. Being gay has been well documented in human history for thousands of years, and has been detected in nearly every animal species even remotely related to us (baboons, lemurs, chimpanzees, etc.). This suggests that being gay has been around for millions of years (baboons and humans share a common ancesetor from around 30 million years ago). Whether or not being gay is purely biological, the point is that its manifested itself in our monkey relatives and our ancient societies (Greece, anyone?). Guess what? The trait survives! Ancient Greece did not collapse because of the prevalance of homosexuality, nor did lemurs and baboons go extinct. So of course homosexuality is viable in the long term. Also agree with the point on eugenics being an ugly thing. My point is that if it's a positive evolutionary trait AND biological, it would slowly become more prevalent. That is not the case. (And like I said, we all know this cannot be the case due to how procreation works). This means it is more likely tied to social norms than to the human genome. Therefore limits on said behavior are not eugenics, but rather social health/welfare issues.
I don't have a strong opinion on this myself, but here are some counter-arguments to consider on the question of genes vs social environment:
1) Scientists have successfully caused individuals in other species to exhibit homosexual behavior via gene manipulation.
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050531/full/news050531-9.html
2) As mentioned above, homosexuality occurs naturally in numerous animal species, including primitive ones where their behavior in general is heavily determined by genetics and pheromones (which basically boil down to genetics).
3) A gene can be beneficial to the group's ability to reproduce even if it is detrimental to the individual's. A few years ago, I read an article about how herds of sheep that had some gay males actually reproduce at higher rates than groups where all of the males were heterosexual. (sorry, I couldn't find this in a quick google search, so take it fwiw) Regardless of that example, the principle of a gene being selected because it causes the group to have higher reproductive success even if it diminishes an individual's success is plausible, no? (for example, there could be a "gay gene" that is recessive, and heterozygotes gain a reproductive advantage that outweighs the lack of reproduction from homozygotes. Or the gene itself might not cause homosexuality per se, but could cause a female to have gay offspring by causing chemical changes in her womb.)
|
Nice, finally catching up to the rest of the world
|
On February 16 2012 07:13 arbitrageur 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. Prosthetic legs are also not natural. Should we not support the distribution of these to people who have lost their real legs? Do you see the fallacies in your thinking?
Man was intended to walk, some people just aren't born or are hurt into not being able to do so. Prosthetic legs are a fine way to assist them. They aren't mentally ill... They just can't walk which is something we can easily fix. Being gay goes against everything that is nature. Sure there has been evidence that gay's have existed for an extended period of time, however it just happens to be the same genetic mistake made countless times. Humans are not meant to fly, that isn't natural yet I support that. It's human invention and evolution that led us to be able fly and create these prosthetic legs. This is science and humanity moving forward, however trying to gain leeway on rights for a genetic deficiency is time consuming and goes against what the majority of the world believes in.
If you want to be gay, practice any form of physical / mental relationship with the same sex go ahead. Just don't be a burden on society and don't expect us to cater to it. You want marriage? Do you know what marriage means?
marriage: the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. Antonyms: separation.
You want something.. that by it's very definition can not involve the same sex. Why not come up for a different name for what you want? Not that I would support that either, I mean... why would I support a genetic deficiency? I'd much rather try to assist you into following the proper world order. I mean... we don't cater to psychopaths on equal rights. If we see that they are a threat to humanity we destroy them. Just because you aren't lethal doesn't mean you don't fall along the same lines of evolution error.
|
It is unclear to me how 'x is not natural' (which is obviously false, but whatever) entails 'x is not good'. Does the opposite relationship hold? If x is natural, is x necessarily good? Also, your notion is 'natural' is mighty nebulous. It's not just things produced by nature, it's things produced by nature that are, uh, in line with your odd notion of 'proper world order'; you've suggested lots of things that are produced by nature are not necessarily good.
|
If gay people aren't natural then why do they keep being born? And in so many different species? You can't just say that the stuff you like is natural and the stuff you hate is unnatural, that's weak and childish
|
gays arent born gay. but its determined very early in their lives without their knowing and decision
There are no gay genes....
|
On February 16 2012 12:01 isleyofthenorth wrote:
gays arent born gay. but its determined very early in their lives without their knowing and decision
There are no gay genes....
Genes no, but last I heard it was actually an in-uterus hormone release at a very specific stage of fetal development. (Although that was about 2 years ago now, theories may have changed etc.)
Things that are known? It isn't a choice. It isn't genetic. It doesn't, or shouldn't matter.
If you think that sexual preference should affect a persons rights, something is very wrong with you. On a very basic level. This is why homophobia is in the DSM, and homosexuality isn't. I hope for a cure very soon.
|
On February 16 2012 11:52 Yosho wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 07:13 arbitrageur 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. Prosthetic legs are also not natural. Should we not support the distribution of these to people who have lost their real legs? Do you see the fallacies in your thinking? Man was intended to walk, some people just aren't born or are hurt into not being able to do so. Prosthetic legs are a fine way to assist them. They aren't mentally ill... They just can't walk which is something we can easily fix. Being gay goes against everything that is nature. Sure there has been evidence that gay's have existed for an extended period of time, however it just happens to be the same genetic mistake made countless times. Humans are not meant to fly, that isn't natural yet I support that. It's human invention and evolution that led us to be able fly and create these prosthetic legs. This is science and humanity moving forward, however trying to gain leeway on rights for a genetic deficiency is time consuming and goes against what the majority of the world believes in. If you want to be gay, practice any form of physical / mental relationship with the same sex go ahead. Just don't be a burden on society and don't expect us to cater to it. You want marriage? Do you know what marriage means? marriage: the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. Antonyms: separation. You want something.. that by it's very definition can not involve the same sex. Why not come up for a different name for what you want? Not that I would support that either, I mean... why would I support a genetic deficiency? I'd much rather try to assist you into following the proper world order. I mean... we don't cater to psychopaths on equal rights. If we see that they are a threat to humanity we destroy them. Just because you aren't lethal doesn't mean you don't fall along the same lines of evolution error.
What the fuck is this are you Hitler reincarnate? I just took off my watch to better flame your ass.
Homosexuality has not yet been proven to be a genetic deficiency. Being gay is not against nature since gay animals in wildlife occur all the time. Calling gay people "mentally ill?" who the fuck do you think you are? Maybe you are a Caucasian person (wild guess) and you are sexually attracted to Asian people. Does that make you "unnatural" or "mentally ill"? How about people with ADHD or dyslexia? Are they mentally ill or genetically defective? Should they be ignored?
You know how I can tell you ran out of arguments? You are using dictionary definitions as a rebuttal. This is as low as religious people using what's written in the Bible as justification. Dictionaries are written by humans, they are not set in stone. As human civilizations develop, new things come into existence. A dictionary is just for looking up words you don't understand. We already change the law, why can't we change what a word means. This whole "defiling the word marriage" is so fucking naive and juvenile.
Just outright admit that you are not comfortable with the thought that two men or two women may be having sex. That is the only plausible reason for someone being against gay marriage. At least you would be honest and not giving a bunch of pussy excuses trying to be politically correct.
Seriously how is it a burden on society? Should we also kill people as soon as they stop paying taxes? Define "burden on society" please and why you have the right to say so.
Fucking hell the world would be a much better place without assholes like you. Things like gay marriage and cannabis that should have been solved a long time ago get dragged on and become insurmountable problems.
|
On February 16 2012 11:52 Yosho wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 07:13 arbitrageur 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. Prosthetic legs are also not natural. Should we not support the distribution of these to people who have lost their real legs? Do you see the fallacies in your thinking? Man was intended to walk, some people just aren't born or are hurt into not being able to do so. Prosthetic legs are a fine way to assist them. They aren't mentally ill... They just can't walk which is something we can easily fix. Being gay goes against everything that is nature. Sure there has been evidence that gay's have existed for an extended period of time, however it just happens to be the same genetic mistake made countless times. Humans are not meant to fly, that isn't natural yet I support that. It's human invention and evolution that led us to be able fly and create these prosthetic legs. This is science and humanity moving forward, however trying to gain leeway on rights for a genetic deficiency is time consuming and goes against what the majority of the world believes in. If you want to be gay, practice any form of physical / mental relationship with the same sex go ahead. Just don't be a burden on society and don't expect us to cater to it. You want marriage? Do you know what marriage means? marriage: the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. Antonyms: separation. You want something.. that by it's very definition can not involve the same sex. Why not come up for a different name for what you want? Not that I would support that either, I mean... why would I support a genetic deficiency? I'd much rather try to assist you into following the proper world order. I mean... we don't cater to psychopaths on equal rights. If we see that they are a threat to humanity we destroy them. Just because you aren't lethal doesn't mean you don't fall along the same lines of evolution error.
You realize that for a very long time marriage was defined as a union between people of the same race? You realize that definitions can be changed, and are in fact changed rather frequently?
We should stop catering to people who need glasses because that's just supporting a genetic deficiency. We should stop catering to people who are born with haemophelia, diabetes, blindess, deafness, or the wrong hair color because that's just supporting a genetic deficiency. If you don't fit my narrow minded world view you're less than human and don't deserve the same rights as us genetically "normal" people.
What a tolerant and open-minded individual you are.
|
About the ethics comment: If a gay dude wants to bang a girl and have a kid and raise it, I have absolutely no objection to that. But toying with genetics to pass on genes that would otherwise die out by using artificial insemination concerns me. I find it unethical. Especially if this is a hereditary thing, as it creates compounding ethcial decisions in the future.
Do you believe that it should be a law that we should make all children unable to rear children (both sexes), if they have Autism, Gardners Syndrome, Huntingtons Disease, or any other genetic disorder, given that those all stem from genes that would "otherwise die out"?
|
Medical advances have allowed a LOT of people who would be unable to survive / reproduce without technology to pass on their genes. I too am bothered by the logical conclusion of "not toying with" genetics in such a way that would alter the course of natural gene selection.
|
On February 16 2012 13:16 Mordoc wrote:Show nested quote +About the ethics comment: If a gay dude wants to bang a girl and have a kid and raise it, I have absolutely no objection to that. But toying with genetics to pass on genes that would otherwise die out by using artificial insemination concerns me. I find it unethical. Especially if this is a hereditary thing, as it creates compounding ethcial decisions in the future. Do you believe that it should be a law that we should make all children unable to rear children (both sexes), if they have Autism, Gardners Syndrome, Huntingtons Disease, or any other genetic disorder, given that those all stem from genes that would "otherwise die out"?
I'm not saying that should be the law, but it would really help the human race advance in terms of economy and technology not worrying about a lot of illness or diseases that cause a large dependency.
As to me previous responder, I have gay friends. They know how I feel. It does not bother me where you put your member. Just don't expect the world to believe what you find is to be ok or normal to actually be so. If you choose to be on the side of a minority expect critique from the majority... just saying. Now put you watch back on and relax. I'm simply stating my opinion I'm not saying shoot you on site or death to all gays. I'll acknowledge you like another human being as you are. Just one that disagrees with me as I do with you. Just so happens that the majority of the people are on my side on gay views. Even if their reasons are religious.
|
The only time people use survival of the fittest analogies is to oppress individuals they view as unnatural. People should never try to justify who lives or who dies based on their genes, nor should any individual remove someones ability to reproduce in order to prevent "negative" traits from being passed on.
People who argue we should let the weak die in the hopes of keeping the strong genes have no idea how massive the scale of evolution really is. Humanity cannot hope to have an impact on genes when so called "strong" traits could take literally a million generations to have a large impact on humanity.
Not to mention the natural advantages provided by a larger gene pool, period. The more people alive, naturally, the greater variety of genes available, greater variety creates greater resiliency, and provides more chances for humanity to survive during crisis.
It is absolutely abhorrent, incredibly arrogant and ultimately ignorant for someone to believe they have the overarching knowledge and ultimate judgement to decide which genetic traits are good, which are bad and, based on these beliefs, decide who should be allowed to breed and who should be denied these rights.
|
On February 09 2012 11:50 Whitewing wrote:
Great news for Washington, I'm so proud.
*high-fives fellow Washingtonian*
Let it be noted that Seattle played a huge part in this
|
its a big step forward yes, however the state still can't force a church to marry them.
|
On February 16 2012 13:53 polysciguy wrote:
its a big step forward yes, however the state still can't force a church to marry them.
Who cares? Why would gay people want to get married by an institution that thinks they are abominations?
On February 16 2012 13:37 Yosho wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 13:16 Mordoc wrote:About the ethics comment: If a gay dude wants to bang a girl and have a kid and raise it, I have absolutely no objection to that. But toying with genetics to pass on genes that would otherwise die out by using artificial insemination concerns me. I find it unethical. Especially if this is a hereditary thing, as it creates compounding ethcial decisions in the future. Do you believe that it should be a law that we should make all children unable to rear children (both sexes), if they have Autism, Gardners Syndrome, Huntingtons Disease, or any other genetic disorder, given that those all stem from genes that would "otherwise die out"? I'm not saying that should be the law, but it would really help the human race advance in terms of economy and technology not worrying about a lot of illness or diseases that cause a large dependency. As to me previous responder, I have gay friends. They know how I feel. It does not bother me where you put your member. Just don't expect the world to believe what you find is to be ok or normal to actually be so. If you choose to be on the side of a minority expect critique from the majority... just saying. Now put you watch back on and relax. I'm simply stating my opinion I'm not saying shoot you on site or death to all gays. I'll acknowledge you like another human being as you are. Just one that disagrees with me as I do with you. Just so happens that the majority of the people are on my side on gay views. Even if their reasons are religious.
Have you ever heard of Stephen Hawking? You really think we would be better off if he had never been born?
Do you know what would help the human race advance a lot? If we could all work together toward a common goal instead of fighting about whether you like boys or girls.
|
On February 16 2012 12:14 Flanlord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 12:01 isleyofthenorth wrote:
gays arent born gay. but its determined very early in their lives without their knowing and decision
There are no gay genes.... Genes no, but last I heard it was actually an in-uterus hormone release at a very specific stage of fetal development. (Although that was about 2 years ago now, theories may have changed etc.) Things that are known? It isn't a choice. It isn't genetic. It doesn't, or shouldn't matter. If you think that sexual preference should affect a persons rights, something is very wrong with you. On a very basic level. This is why homophobia is in the DSM, and homosexuality isn't. I hope for a cure very soon.
I agree. i am disgusted by homophobes and christian fundamentalists(not so many here in europe as in the us but still)
|
On February 16 2012 13:53 polysciguy wrote:
its a big step forward yes, however the state still can't force a church to marry them.
No shit? But look at all the gay people who want to get married amongst such a hateful flock.
Oh wait, there aren't any.
|
On February 16 2012 13:53 polysciguy wrote:
its a big step forward yes, however the state still can't force a church to marry them.
Nor should it. I advocate gay rights as much as the next guy, but the church is not a government faction and thus should not be subject to such laws. Can't see why a gay couple would want to get married there in the first place either.
|
On February 16 2012 11:29 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 07:10 SerpentFlame wrote:On February 16 2012 07:02 BluePanther wrote:On February 16 2012 06:52 SerpentFlame wrote:On February 16 2012 06:44 BluePanther wrote:On February 16 2012 06:26 SerpentFlame wrote:On February 15 2012 18:59 BluePanther wrote:
2. I've never been able to support gay adoption. I understand it's positive factors.... I really do. But it just seems to me, from an evolutionary standpoint, bad practice. While it shouldn't be determinative, there IS something to the social conservative argument that families and not individuals should be the most important social construct. I'm not a social conservative, nor do I support the extent they take this argument in most issues, but this is one where I think they have merit. Parenting has a profound effect on a kid's future. I'm not saying that gay couples would be poor parents. Actually I believe the reverse is probably true; they probably care more. It's just that it's messing with something that, IMO, shouldn't be messed with. I just feel like there is some reason not fully understand for the reason it takes one male and one female to have a kid, You cite your opposition as a bad practice from an evolutionary standpoint, and then ignore that the trait of homosexuality is a result of evolution (a "panda's thumb", or perhaps otherwise). One of the prevailing theories (the kin selection hypothesis) for the prevalence of homosexuality is that prehistoric societies functioned better with a few homosexuals in the mix, so that they could help take care of the kids of their relatives. Whether the hypothesis is true or not is up for debate, but to assert that homosexuality has no place in an evolutionary standpoint needs a lot of reinforcement, especially since the trait has survived to the modern day (and lives in our closest animal relatives too) I have no idea why a family of two gay individuals is not a family like any other. In fact, given the incredibly high divorce rates in the Western world, its hard to believe gay families would be less stable. But at the same time, we all know that homosexuallity isn't viable long term with evolution. Being gay has been well documented in human history for thousands of years, and has been detected in nearly every animal species even remotely related to us (baboons, lemurs, chimpanzees, etc.). This suggests that being gay has been around for millions of years (baboons and humans share a common ancesetor from around 30 million years ago). Whether or not being gay is purely biological, the point is that its manifested itself in our monkey relatives and our ancient societies (Greece, anyone?). Guess what? The trait survives! Ancient Greece did not collapse because of the prevalance of homosexuality, nor did lemurs and baboons go extinct. So of course homosexuality is viable in the long term. Also agree with the point on eugenics being an ugly thing. My point is that if it's a positive evolutionary trait AND biological, it would slowly become more prevalent. That is not the case. (And like I said, we all know this cannot be the case due to how procreation works). This means it is more likely tied to social norms than to the human genome. Who cares if its a 'positive' or 'negative' trait? Being anything short of Chuck Norris fused with Albert Einstein is a 'negative' trait. Being Asian, Khoasian, Bantu, Caucasian, Arabic, Indian, etc. are also not "slowly becoming more prevalent". Um, so? Why should this tell us how we should treat people? And monkeys are homosexual because of social norms? What evidence do you have for this? It's also not clear to me that you know how the kin selection hypothesis works. The premise is that a few homosexual individuals assist in raising the children of their heterosexual family members. Their individual genes were passed on through their family members. Homosexuality may be a 'panda's thumb'. That doesn't matter at all. You still don't touch on the point about evolution being separate from morals and ethics. That's a dangerous slope into the eugenics movement, which argued for social policies based on evolutionary viability. And it wasn't nice at all. On February 16 2012 07:05 BluePanther wrote:On February 16 2012 07:03 Roe wrote:On February 16 2012 07:02 BluePanther wrote:On February 16 2012 06:52 SerpentFlame wrote:On February 16 2012 06:44 BluePanther wrote:On February 16 2012 06:26 SerpentFlame wrote:On February 15 2012 18:59 BluePanther wrote:
2. I've never been able to support gay adoption. I understand it's positive factors.... I really do. But it just seems to me, from an evolutionary standpoint, bad practice. While it shouldn't be determinative, there IS something to the social conservative argument that families and not individuals should be the most important social construct. I'm not a social conservative, nor do I support the extent they take this argument in most issues, but this is one where I think they have merit. Parenting has a profound effect on a kid's future. I'm not saying that gay couples would be poor parents. Actually I believe the reverse is probably true; they probably care more. It's just that it's messing with something that, IMO, shouldn't be messed with. I just feel like there is some reason not fully understand for the reason it takes one male and one female to have a kid, You cite your opposition as a bad practice from an evolutionary standpoint, and then ignore that the trait of homosexuality is a result of evolution (a "panda's thumb", or perhaps otherwise). One of the prevailing theories (the kin selection hypothesis) for the prevalence of homosexuality is that prehistoric societies functioned better with a few homosexuals in the mix, so that they could help take care of the kids of their relatives. Whether the hypothesis is true or not is up for debate, but to assert that homosexuality has no place in an evolutionary standpoint needs a lot of reinforcement, especially since the trait has survived to the modern day (and lives in our closest animal relatives too) I have no idea why a family of two gay individuals is not a family like any other. In fact, given the incredibly high divorce rates in the Western world, its hard to believe gay families would be less stable. But at the same time, we all know that homosexuallity isn't viable long term with evolution. Being gay has been well documented in human history for thousands of years, and has been detected in nearly every animal species even remotely related to us (baboons, lemurs, chimpanzees, etc.). This suggests that being gay has been around for millions of years (baboons and humans share a common ancesetor from around 30 million years ago). Whether or not being gay is purely biological, the point is that its manifested itself in our monkey relatives and our ancient societies (Greece, anyone?). Guess what? The trait survives! Ancient Greece did not collapse because of the prevalance of homosexuality, nor did lemurs and baboons go extinct. So of course homosexuality is viable in the long term. Also agree with the point on eugenics being an ugly thing. My point is that if it's a positive evolutionary trait AND biological, it would slowly become more prevalent. That is not the case. (And like I said, we all know this cannot be the case due to how procreation works). This means it is more likely tied to social norms than to the human genome. still doesn't counter what he said at all. It wasn't meant to. He never countered what I said. He just says that homosexuality has been around a long time and hasn't died out. I don't object to that at all, and it doesn't have really anything to do with my statement. No. Your entire premise is that this was not 'evolutionary viable', except that it has been in baboons, lemurs, chimapnzees, and guess what? Humans. It's not clear to me how any of what you're arguing has anything to do with gay parents adopting. Numbering response by your paragraph because I'm lazy right now: 1. When I say "postive" I'm referring to the fact that it assists in reproduction and survival of a speciest (talking evolution here). I'm not using it to say it's "preferrable." 2. One POSSIBLE explanation is that people are only "gay" when their surroundings enable it. In other words, it's more about an act of opportunity. I'm not saying this is the case, we really don't know enough about this. I'm just throwing out an alternative hypo. 3. I think I understand what you're saying, and I think it's interesting. But at the same time I'm not jumping into it without hesitation. My conscience says "that'd be really cool if that were true", but my brain is saying "I'm not sure that fully makes mathematical sense." 4. I'm not sure how hesitating at the idea of gay adoption constitutes eugenics. I'm not saying "Gays shouldn't reproduce" or "Gays should be massacred". I'm saying that I have reservations about them raising and nurturing kids which are not theirs. It's more social commentary than anything. I have no idea how you pulled eugenics out of that. About the ethics comment: If a gay dude wants to bang a girl and have a kid and raise it, I have absolutely no objection to that. But toying with genetics to pass on genes that would otherwise die out by using artificial insemination concerns me. I find it unethical. Especially if this is a hereditary thing, as it creates compounding ethcial decisions in the future. 5/6. I'm not sure I fully understand it myself... there is a lot we don't know (surpisingly, given how long it has been around). Is it nurture? Is it nature? Is it a combination? How is it relevant? How does it affect the children? In short, I support gay marriage because it's two consenting individuals... If they want that for themselves, all the power to them. However, I hesitate when a third party gets dragged into something like this when they have no say in it.
Your hesitancy for letting gay couples adopt is completely unfounded. There's a large amount of psychological studies on the issue and they all overwhelmingly point to the fact that gay couples can raise children just as well as (if not better than) heterosexual couples.
|
On February 16 2012 11:58 ikl2 wrote:
It is unclear to me how 'x is not natural' (which is obviously false, but whatever) entails 'x is not good'. Does the opposite relationship hold? If x is natural, is x necessarily good? Also, your notion is 'natural' is mighty nebulous. It's not just things produced by nature, it's things produced by nature that are, uh, in line with your odd notion of 'proper world order'; you've suggested lots of things that are produced by nature are not necessarily good.
Computers aren't natural. I think they're pretty swell.
Good on Washington! Surprised there hasn't been a federal law on the deal yet, kind of depressing as an American.
|
United States7483 Posts
On February 16 2012 13:52 GhandiEAGLE wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 11:50 Whitewing wrote:
Great news for Washington, I'm so proud. *high-fives fellow Washingtonian* Let it be noted that Seattle played a huge part in this
Oh I'm from Massachusetts, but I'm still proud of my fellow awesome state.
|
On a related note, the Maryland legislature voted to legalize gay marriage today. Their governor has already said he supports it, so MD will become the next state to have marriage equality.
New Jersey's legislature also voted to legalize gay marriage, but today their governor vetoed it.
|
On February 10 2012 08:46 Saltydizzle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 08:42 sunprince wrote:On February 10 2012 07:51 Saltydizzle wrote:Im saying that it gives them the best chance. there is more than one way to skin a cat. The changes in society have caused divorce to be seen as "acceptable" which has turned the american family to shit. I don't believe in god or believe any story from the bible truly happened, but its all about the morals of the bible. The morals are the only thing to be taken seriously. The "morals" of the bible tell us that working on Sunday is abomination and that you should stone anyone who does so. They tell us to stone to death any woman who has sex before marriage. You really want to take those seriously? You can mix my words all you want. But the morals in the bible are for the most part good. Obviously wars are all about religion but religion has its good sides. I don't believe any of the stories are real, but like greek mythology, there are lessons to be learned.
I'm sorry, but no.
You cannot pick and choose which verses of your holy book you accept, if you choose to "defend your religion" or whatever.
|
With WA and MD counted, there are now 8 states + DC where gay marriage is legal, totaling 16% of the US population.
Long ways to go, but 7 years ago when something like 11 of 11 state ballot amendments banning gay marriage all passed, I never would have guessed that much progress would be made in a relatively short turnaround.
|
On February 18 2012 10:54 FIStarcraft wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 08:46 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 08:42 sunprince wrote:On February 10 2012 07:51 Saltydizzle wrote:Im saying that it gives them the best chance. there is more than one way to skin a cat. The changes in society have caused divorce to be seen as "acceptable" which has turned the american family to shit. I don't believe in god or believe any story from the bible truly happened, but its all about the morals of the bible. The morals are the only thing to be taken seriously. The "morals" of the bible tell us that working on Sunday is abomination and that you should stone anyone who does so. They tell us to stone to death any woman who has sex before marriage. You really want to take those seriously? You can mix my words all you want. But the morals in the bible are for the most part good. Obviously wars are all about religion but religion has its good sides. I don't believe any of the stories are real, but like greek mythology, there are lessons to be learned. I'm sorry, but no. You cannot pick and choose which verses of your holy book you accept, if you choose to "defend your religion" or whatever.
You can when you're not taking the translations literal. It's when you take it literal that picking your verses is extremely dangerous and ignorant. To take the bible metaphorically, you HAVE to pick and choose as there are contradictions all over.
|
On February 16 2012 16:16 Alay wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 11:58 ikl2 wrote:
It is unclear to me how 'x is not natural' (which is obviously false, but whatever) entails 'x is not good'. Does the opposite relationship hold? If x is natural, is x necessarily good? Also, your notion is 'natural' is mighty nebulous. It's not just things produced by nature, it's things produced by nature that are, uh, in line with your odd notion of 'proper world order'; you've suggested lots of things that are produced by nature are not necessarily good. Computers aren't natural. I think they're pretty swell. Good on Washington! Surprised there hasn't been a federal law on the deal yet, kind of depressing as an American.
Constitution doesn't allow the federal government to control this issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://troll.me/images/futurama-fry/not-sure-if-trolling-or-just-being-honest.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MdNEE.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/tykBe.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/VCmJJ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/420286_370287986329968_153786011313501_1417413_1069140387_n.jpg)
