|
|
On May 10 2012 09:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 09:47 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 09:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 10 2012 09:34 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 09:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 10 2012 09:04 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 08:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 10 2012 08:48 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 08:42 sunprince wrote:
Then on what grounds are you deciding that it's okay to deny marriage to gays? If you failed to read it, marriage is done by state, to make managing children and inheritance between children, and managing children who have no parents left, only a husband/wife of one of his parents. Gays do not have children, so the program does not apply to them. Period. Gay =/= Sterile, my friend. Sterile people do not have children. Gay people can have children (just not with their same-sex partner). Note that even one person in a gay couple can be the biological parent of a child! Also, note that both gay and sterile couples can adopt. What were you saying again? EDIT: Please force all married couples to have children. That would be hilarious. And terrible for society, because most people would be shitty parents. Guesswhat, only about ~100 years ago virtually 100% married had children, and actually more than one. Was it awfull? Really? Than, you failed on the point that marrieage is regulating the things about the children from these two persons, if persons can not have children from each other, there is no need for marriage. I think your problem stems from a misunderstanding of the institution of marriage. Perhaps you should be living 100 years ago, when plenty of other social and civil rights issues were also not accepted yet. There are over a thousand benefits given to a couple when they marry- it's not all about raising kids. To think that this had anything to with 100 years ago (by the way: as if sterile, old, and gay couples didn't exist back then... lol) is completely missing the point. Here: Since same-sex marriage is not legally recognized in America, gay couples cannot take advantage of the 1,049 benefits awarded to heterosexual couples when they marry. According to a report given to the Office of the General Counsel of the U.S. General Accounting Office, here are a few of the 1,138 benefits the United States government provides to legally married couples:
Access to Military Stores
Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Bereavement Leave
Immigration
Insurance Breaks
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Social Security Survivor Benefits
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Tax Breaks
Veteran’s Discounts
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison
Here are a few of the state level benefits within the United States:
Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Automatic Inheritance
Automatic Housing Lease Transfer
Bereavement Leave
Burial Determination
Child Custody
Crime Victim’s Recovery Benefits
Divorce Protections
Domestic Violence Protection
Exemption from Property Tax on Partner’s Death
Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse
Insurance Breaks
Joint Adoption and Foster Care
Joint Bankruptcy
Joint Parenting (Insurance Coverage, School Records)
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Certain Property Rights
Reduced Rate Memberships
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Visitation of Partner’s Children
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison
Wrongful Death (Loss of Consort) Benefits ~ http://gaylife.about.com/od/samesexmarriage/a/benefits.htm So this is just a quest of american gays for more wallfare? Okay,I see your point, and wash my hands, after all there is always a frame to expand wellfare. I didn't realize you get to decide who gets property rights, hospital visitation rights, child custody rights, and inheritance rights... and who doesn't. Just because of a person's identity. If you don't like welfare, that's fantastic. But this about consistency, equality, and fairness. Nice dodge though. In most countries you have the right to write the will, which will determine. But you do not argue that the goverment-funded programs to help disabled, seniours, that fund education of minors are not fair for ones who can not apply? Maybe you would argue that guverment runned fertility-boost programs are unfair for one`s that don`t want to have children? In most countries? In most countries, they don't discern between gay marriage and straight marriage. They just call it marriage. And don't change the subject by talking about other programs. We're talking about gay marriage- not the other countless programs that people apply to for aid. I don't like red herrings, and I'm not talking about my position on any other platform at the moment.
Ehhhh actually no. Outside of Europe and a few other select countries; gay marriage is very much frowned upon in the rest of the world. In many places in the middle east and Africa, simply being gay is enough to get you jailed or in some extreme cases killed, as in Iran.
On May 10 2012 09:44 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 09:28 drshdwpuppet wrote:On May 10 2012 09:23 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 09:11 drshdwpuppet wrote:On May 10 2012 09:04 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 08:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 10 2012 08:48 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 08:42 sunprince wrote:
Then on what grounds are you deciding that it's okay to deny marriage to gays? If you failed to read it, marriage is done by state, to make managing children and inheritance between children, and managing children who have no parents left, only a husband/wife of one of his parents. Gays do not have children, so the program does not apply to them. Period. Gay =/= Sterile, my friend. Sterile people do not have children. Gay people can have children (just not with their same-sex partner). Note that even one person in a gay couple can be the biological parent of a child! Also, note that both gay and sterile couples can adopt. What were you saying again? EDIT: Please force all married couples to have children. That would be hilarious. And terrible for society, because most people would be shitty parents. Guesswhat, only about ~100 years ago virtually 100% married had children, and actually more than one. Was it awfull? Really? Than, you failed on the point that marrieage is regulating the things about the children from these two persons, if persons can not have children from each other, there is no need for marriage. Again, what about adoptions, what about divorced men who have custody but come out as gay after the fact, what about people who use surrogates. All these things give permanent and legal custody of the child. It is /their/ child. And marriage is actually a legal status of kinship that allows the two people to basically act, fiscally and in other areas, as one unified body. It also gives automatic power of attorney, automatic right to remains and belongings in the case of death, tax benefits, medical insurance benefits. A ton of things. Marriage is a LEGAL right, not an institution for the protection of children. Again there is a difference in regulating relations between persons that are both perents of this child. As you listed that, you can clearly see that all the listed by you is very much related to taking care of the children. see yourself. "And marriage is actually a legal status of kinship that allows the two people to basically act, fiscally and in other areas, as one unified body." That doesn`t really meter for two adults, because one can just represent the other, thus no disadvantages there. Than, IF there are children involved, the marriage allows one of the parrents to manage the child from the name of the familly, which speeds up the proces by not needind explicit agreement of the other parent. "It also gives automatic power of attorney, automatic right to remains and belongings in the case of death, tax benefits, medical insurance benefits." again, because of family and children/potential children involved. The will allows transfer property otherwise, and one can represent another anyway, with some paper which is required to sign once anyways. "Marriage is a LEGAL right, not an institution for the protection of children." BS. It is exactly the later. Again, you aren't wrong, you aren't even wrong. You are completely ignoring the fact that hospital visitation rights, assumption of debts, ability to joint file for bankruptcy, protection in domestic violence incidences and TAX FREE TRANSFER OF BELONGINGS are about children. They aren't, and most of those, and many others, cannot be gotten through any other legally binding contract than one of marriage. You think so. I think it is about helping create a better link between man and woman, which usually results in having a child. Then, this kinds of benefits are kinds of fertility-encouragement program, thus only individuals elliable for the program can apply. Again personally am not against Gay-relations at all, i have some lesbian friends and such, but the way i see marriage, it is perfectly fine, and certanly doesn`t put gays at disadvantage/discrimination, well, as any wellfare program. Does anyone argues that state-help to woman that just gave birth to child, is sexist, because man can not give birth? Nope. Does it gives advantage to certain gender? Yes.
I don't necessarily agree with you, but you've got the starting point for a logical argument here. Some issues remain though, what about men and women who marry without the intent to have children (and never do)? They still get a federal tax break, can share insurance benefits, and can have other perks like a shared bank account. How do you factor those into your argument?
|
I always thought the law was supposed to treat everyone the same unless there was some really good reason for it.
EG - Children can't vote
So the argument that you are extending advantages to gays by legalising their marriage doesn't wash with me. You are simply removing previous barriers. If you can explain to me why those barriers should still exist, or why gays should be treated differently, then I might listen.
The advantages that married people get is not related to which people should be allowed to get married.
|
On May 10 2012 10:00 Lixler wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 09:38 Sakata Gintoki wrote:On May 10 2012 08:21 1Eris1 wrote:On May 10 2012 08:06 sunprince wrote:On May 10 2012 07:27 1Eris1 wrote:Uh, actually no. Plenty of religions/people besides Christianity oppose gay marriage (some believe just being gay is punishable by death), evolution and the like. You cannot make such generalizations. The generalizations are perfectly fair; when 99+% of a group conforms to a generalization, it makes perfect sense. At best, they're just religious bigots belonging to other religions. I've never heard of a singular secular argument made for the death penalty for gays. Virtually 100% of those people are arguing from religious grounds, whether Christian or some other religion. Take a look at the arguments against sex marriage. Notice how the main arugments are religious, and the parenting "concerns" are made by religious people (even though scientists agree that there's no parenting problem)? Likewise, nearly all objections to evolution come from religious sources rather than the scientific community. Bullshit like "intellectual design" are just covers for evangelical Christians with an agenda, as certain federal court cases have made clear. My point was, it's not only Christians, there are plenty of other religions that feel the same way. So a broad statement like, "99% of people who are opposed to gay marriage/evolution are Christians" is incorrect. OK, so let me amend my statment. 99% of people who are opposed to gay marriage/evolution are Christians and/or other religions equally as ridiculous as Christianity. The point is - the only reason anyone is ever against gay marriage is because some fictional being told them so. Can't someone be against gay marriage because they think it's destructive to society? There are plenty of reasons to be against gay marriage that aren't "The Bible says so."
Are you able to provide significant evidence showing that gay people are more prone to the destruction of society than straight people. Your argument is as stupid as people who say black people are more prone to crime, therefore should not be allowed to marry like white people.
|
Mitt Romney would like to talk about the economy. He would apparently prefer not to talk about marriage equality, education for the children of illegal immigrants or medical marijuana. In an interivew with a CBS affiliate in Colorado, Romney was visibly annoyed after a string of questions that included his stance on gay marriage and civil unions (he’s against them), in-state tuition for the children of illegal immigrants (he’s against that) and medical marijuana (he thinks pot is a “gateway drug”).
“Aren’t there issues of significance you’d like to talk about?” he said, after the string of social issue questions, one of which came from a viewer. “The economy, the growth of jobs, the need to put people back to work, the challenges of Iran? We’ve got enormous issues that we face but you want to talk about medical marijuan–go ahead, you want to talk about Medical–”
“Marijuana should not be legal in this country,” Romney said finally, before calling pot a “gateway drug.”
Source
Also Obama raised over a million dollars in 90 minutes after endorsing Gay Marriage. Not to shabby.
|
StealthBlue, how much does he normally raise in 90 minutes?
|
On May 10 2012 09:29 ey215 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 09:25 1Eris1 wrote:
Marriage should just be done by the churches anyway. That way everyone can be happy. Now, can we get back on topic please? On that note, I don't think today's announcement really does anything to help him pick up or lose really anything and they really botched the whole thing. If the election comes down to social issues, then this may help him. I really don't think that's going to happen though. It will likely be a referendum on his record that the economy and this really doesn't change many people's minds.
Probably not. (I sincerely doubt the LCR even makes up 1% of potential voters, if not far less, and I'm not sure this would even make a majority of them vote Obama.) Right now people are just stirring this up because there's nothing to stir up.
Personally, I'm just a bit mad at some of my democratic friends for praising Obama for this...when if he really cared he would have said it a few years ago. Ehhh. The President's power on these issues is pretty limited anyways.
|
Children are in no way linked to the institution of marriage. It is perfectly valid to believe that a heterosexual, loving marriage of two biological parents is the best environment in which to raise children but none of those elements are in any way mandated by the institution. We associate love, childbirth and cohabitation with marriage because it so highly correlates but it is nothing more than that. In order for somebody to justify the exclusion of homosexuals from marriage you have to tell me something that is required by heterosexual couples as part of the marriage contract that can't be done by two males or two females. As far as I know the only enforced obligation for entering marriage is that both parties are able of participating in a legally binding contract. In this light, the male/female distinction is as arbitrary as the black/white distinction we made in recent history.
|
On May 10 2012 10:08 ghrur wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 10:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 10 2012 10:00 Lixler wrote:On May 10 2012 09:38 Sakata Gintoki wrote:On May 10 2012 08:21 1Eris1 wrote:On May 10 2012 08:06 sunprince wrote:On May 10 2012 07:27 1Eris1 wrote:Uh, actually no. Plenty of religions/people besides Christianity oppose gay marriage (some believe just being gay is punishable by death), evolution and the like. You cannot make such generalizations. The generalizations are perfectly fair; when 99+% of a group conforms to a generalization, it makes perfect sense. At best, they're just religious bigots belonging to other religions. I've never heard of a singular secular argument made for the death penalty for gays. Virtually 100% of those people are arguing from religious grounds, whether Christian or some other religion. Take a look at the arguments against sex marriage. Notice how the main arugments are religious, and the parenting "concerns" are made by religious people (even though scientists agree that there's no parenting problem)? Likewise, nearly all objections to evolution come from religious sources rather than the scientific community. Bullshit like "intellectual design" are just covers for evangelical Christians with an agenda, as certain federal court cases have made clear. My point was, it's not only Christians, there are plenty of other religions that feel the same way. So a broad statement like, "99% of people who are opposed to gay marriage/evolution are Christians" is incorrect. OK, so let me amend my statment. 99% of people who are opposed to gay marriage/evolution are Christians and/or other religions equally as ridiculous as Christianity. The point is - the only reason anyone is ever against gay marriage is because some fictional being told them so. Can't someone be against gay marriage because they think it's destructive to society? There are plenty of reasons to be against gay marriage that aren't "The Bible says so." While I agree with you that the only reason doesn't necessarily need to be "Because the Bible says so", I'm interested in hearing a cogent defense of the position "I'm against gay marriage because it's destructive to society". Here you go. http://d.scribd.com/docs/1glhgznbt2rt6rjlmfji.pdf
Citations, how the fuck do they work? I don't understand why would go to all the trouble of writing a report like that and involve zero citations from studies. Seriously its all hearsay at this point.
"An influential study of homosexual orientation in children raised
by gay men reports that only ten percent of the sons were gay, but "[t]his may be an
underestimation, because [the researchers] omitted 7 sons whose fathers were only moderately
certain of their sexuality, but 2 of these were believed by their fathers to be nonheterosexual."
Thats nice, what magical influential study was this? It goes on and on. They only bothered to cite the occasional rulings, and typically wrongly at that.
|
On May 10 2012 10:13 ghrur wrote:
StealthBlue, how much does he normally raise in 90 minutes?
No idea but a million dollars in 90 minutes is pretty impressive, I think Ron Paul still holds the record for the biggest money bomb though.
|
On May 10 2012 09:57 ghrur wrote:
Lol, I don't understand how it's a "fertility encouragement program" when sterile people can get married. How does that argument even hold water?
Sterile people are small minority, and you know, sometimes you do not want to directly advertise the real reason why the program is runned.
It is foolish to claim that the benefits are there just to have those two be together.
Can you think about any not-children related benefit for the government in promoting marriage?
|
On May 10 2012 10:16 Velocirapture wrote:
Children are in no way linked to the institution of marriage. It is perfectly valid to believe that a heterosexual, loving marriage of two biological parents is the best environment in which to raise children but none of those elements are in any way mandated by the institution. We associate love, childbirth and cohabitation with marriage because it so highly correlates but it is nothing more than that. In order for somebody to justify the exclusion of homosexuals from marriage you have to tell me something that is required by heterosexual couples as part of the marriage contract that can't be done by two males or two females. As far as I know the only enforced obligation for entering marriage is that both parties are able of participating in a legally binding contract. In this light, the male/female distinction is as arbitrary as the black/white distinction we made in recent history.
how about actually have biological child with each other?
|
On May 10 2012 10:26 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 10:16 Velocirapture wrote:
Children are in no way linked to the institution of marriage. It is perfectly valid to believe that a heterosexual, loving marriage of two biological parents is the best environment in which to raise children but none of those elements are in any way mandated by the institution. We associate love, childbirth and cohabitation with marriage because it so highly correlates but it is nothing more than that. In order for somebody to justify the exclusion of homosexuals from marriage you have to tell me something that is required by heterosexual couples as part of the marriage contract that can't be done by two males or two females. As far as I know the only enforced obligation for entering marriage is that both parties are able of participating in a legally binding contract. In this light, the male/female distinction is as arbitrary as the black/white distinction we made in recent history. how about actually have biological child with each other?
So you would be against a sterile heterosexual couple from getting married?
|
On May 10 2012 10:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 10:00 Lixler wrote:On May 10 2012 09:38 Sakata Gintoki wrote:On May 10 2012 08:21 1Eris1 wrote:On May 10 2012 08:06 sunprince wrote:On May 10 2012 07:27 1Eris1 wrote:Uh, actually no. Plenty of religions/people besides Christianity oppose gay marriage (some believe just being gay is punishable by death), evolution and the like. You cannot make such generalizations. The generalizations are perfectly fair; when 99+% of a group conforms to a generalization, it makes perfect sense. At best, they're just religious bigots belonging to other religions. I've never heard of a singular secular argument made for the death penalty for gays. Virtually 100% of those people are arguing from religious grounds, whether Christian or some other religion. Take a look at the arguments against sex marriage. Notice how the main arugments are religious, and the parenting "concerns" are made by religious people (even though scientists agree that there's no parenting problem)? Likewise, nearly all objections to evolution come from religious sources rather than the scientific community. Bullshit like "intellectual design" are just covers for evangelical Christians with an agenda, as certain federal court cases have made clear. My point was, it's not only Christians, there are plenty of other religions that feel the same way. So a broad statement like, "99% of people who are opposed to gay marriage/evolution are Christians" is incorrect. OK, so let me amend my statment. 99% of people who are opposed to gay marriage/evolution are Christians and/or other religions equally as ridiculous as Christianity. The point is - the only reason anyone is ever against gay marriage is because some fictional being told them so. Can't someone be against gay marriage because they think it's destructive to society? There are plenty of reasons to be against gay marriage that aren't "The Bible says so." While I agree with you that the only reason doesn't necessarily need to be "Because the Bible says so", I'm interested in hearing a cogent defense of the position "I'm against gay marriage because it's destructive to society".
The discrimination inherent in not allowing gay couples to marry is a necessary trait for any healthy society. That is, whether their discriminatory basis is correct or not, a good society will have a number of boogiemen that are seen as inferior and bad. Legalizing gay marriage, although not itself sufficient to take this away entirely, would weaken this important bonding part of society and propel it further down a road of having no common ground. Basically, allowing gay marriage is just another kind of pluralism, which healthy societies do not partake of.
On May 10 2012 10:11 Sakata Gintoki wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 10:00 Lixler wrote:On May 10 2012 09:38 Sakata Gintoki wrote:On May 10 2012 08:21 1Eris1 wrote:On May 10 2012 08:06 sunprince wrote:On May 10 2012 07:27 1Eris1 wrote:Uh, actually no. Plenty of religions/people besides Christianity oppose gay marriage (some believe just being gay is punishable by death), evolution and the like. You cannot make such generalizations. The generalizations are perfectly fair; when 99+% of a group conforms to a generalization, it makes perfect sense. At best, they're just religious bigots belonging to other religions. I've never heard of a singular secular argument made for the death penalty for gays. Virtually 100% of those people are arguing from religious grounds, whether Christian or some other religion. Take a look at the arguments against sex marriage. Notice how the main arugments are religious, and the parenting "concerns" are made by religious people (even though scientists agree that there's no parenting problem)? Likewise, nearly all objections to evolution come from religious sources rather than the scientific community. Bullshit like "intellectual design" are just covers for evangelical Christians with an agenda, as certain federal court cases have made clear. My point was, it's not only Christians, there are plenty of other religions that feel the same way. So a broad statement like, "99% of people who are opposed to gay marriage/evolution are Christians" is incorrect. OK, so let me amend my statment. 99% of people who are opposed to gay marriage/evolution are Christians and/or other religions equally as ridiculous as Christianity. The point is - the only reason anyone is ever against gay marriage is because some fictional being told them so. Can't someone be against gay marriage because they think it's destructive to society? There are plenty of reasons to be against gay marriage that aren't "The Bible says so." Are you able to provide significant evidence showing that gay people are more prone to the destruction of society than straight people. Your argument is as stupid as people who say black people are more prone to crime, therefore should not be allowed to marry like white people.
Agreed, this would be very stupid, if I were saying anything like it. Gay people might be upstanding citizens, or they might be horrible citizens, but this has nothing to do with whether letting them marry is good for society.
|
On May 10 2012 10:27 Lixler wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 10:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 10 2012 10:00 Lixler wrote:On May 10 2012 09:38 Sakata Gintoki wrote:On May 10 2012 08:21 1Eris1 wrote:On May 10 2012 08:06 sunprince wrote:On May 10 2012 07:27 1Eris1 wrote:Uh, actually no. Plenty of religions/people besides Christianity oppose gay marriage (some believe just being gay is punishable by death), evolution and the like. You cannot make such generalizations. The generalizations are perfectly fair; when 99+% of a group conforms to a generalization, it makes perfect sense. At best, they're just religious bigots belonging to other religions. I've never heard of a singular secular argument made for the death penalty for gays. Virtually 100% of those people are arguing from religious grounds, whether Christian or some other religion. Take a look at the arguments against sex marriage. Notice how the main arugments are religious, and the parenting "concerns" are made by religious people (even though scientists agree that there's no parenting problem)? Likewise, nearly all objections to evolution come from religious sources rather than the scientific community. Bullshit like "intellectual design" are just covers for evangelical Christians with an agenda, as certain federal court cases have made clear. My point was, it's not only Christians, there are plenty of other religions that feel the same way. So a broad statement like, "99% of people who are opposed to gay marriage/evolution are Christians" is incorrect. OK, so let me amend my statment. 99% of people who are opposed to gay marriage/evolution are Christians and/or other religions equally as ridiculous as Christianity. The point is - the only reason anyone is ever against gay marriage is because some fictional being told them so. Can't someone be against gay marriage because they think it's destructive to society? There are plenty of reasons to be against gay marriage that aren't "The Bible says so." While I agree with you that the only reason doesn't necessarily need to be "Because the Bible says so", I'm interested in hearing a cogent defense of the position "I'm against gay marriage because it's destructive to society". The discrimination inherent in not allowing interracial couples to marry is a necessary trait for any healthy society. That is, whether their discriminatory basis is correct or not, a good society will have a number of boogiemen that are seen as inferior and bad. Legalizing interracial marriage, although not itself sufficient to take this away entirely, would weaken this important bonding part of society and propel it further down a road of having no common ground. Basically, allowing interracial marriage is just another kind of pluralism, which healthy societies do not partake of. Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 10:11 Sakata Gintoki wrote:On May 10 2012 10:00 Lixler wrote:On May 10 2012 09:38 Sakata Gintoki wrote:On May 10 2012 08:21 1Eris1 wrote:On May 10 2012 08:06 sunprince wrote:On May 10 2012 07:27 1Eris1 wrote:Uh, actually no. Plenty of religions/people besides Christianity oppose gay marriage (some believe just being gay is punishable by death), evolution and the like. You cannot make such generalizations. The generalizations are perfectly fair; when 99+% of a group conforms to a generalization, it makes perfect sense. At best, they're just religious bigots belonging to other religions. I've never heard of a singular secular argument made for the death penalty for gays. Virtually 100% of those people are arguing from religious grounds, whether Christian or some other religion. Take a look at the arguments against sex marriage. Notice how the main arugments are religious, and the parenting "concerns" are made by religious people (even though scientists agree that there's no parenting problem)? Likewise, nearly all objections to evolution come from religious sources rather than the scientific community. Bullshit like "intellectual design" are just covers for evangelical Christians with an agenda, as certain federal court cases have made clear. My point was, it's not only Christians, there are plenty of other religions that feel the same way. So a broad statement like, "99% of people who are opposed to gay marriage/evolution are Christians" is incorrect. OK, so let me amend my statment. 99% of people who are opposed to gay marriage/evolution are Christians and/or other religions equally as ridiculous as Christianity. The point is - the only reason anyone is ever against gay marriage is because some fictional being told them so. Can't someone be against gay marriage because they think it's destructive to society? There are plenty of reasons to be against gay marriage that aren't "The Bible says so." Are you able to provide significant evidence showing that gay people are more prone to the destruction of society than straight people. Your argument is as stupid as people who say black people are more prone to crime, therefore should not be allowed to marry like white people. Agreed, this would be very stupid, if I were saying anything like it. Black people might be upstanding citizens, or they might be horrible citizens, but this has nothing to do with whether letting them marry is good for society.
Fixed your post for you.
|
Go Romney!
As far as gay marrage goes my opinion has always been that marriage is a religious bond between and man and woman. I have no problem with gay people tho (more chicks for me, plus some are pretty chill). The benefits of being married should be extended to gay couples. I think we already have this in the U.S. People make too big of deal over the details of the wording.
|
On May 10 2012 10:30 Sakata Gintoki wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 10:27 Lixler wrote:On May 10 2012 10:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 10 2012 10:00 Lixler wrote:On May 10 2012 09:38 Sakata Gintoki wrote:On May 10 2012 08:21 1Eris1 wrote:On May 10 2012 08:06 sunprince wrote:On May 10 2012 07:27 1Eris1 wrote:Uh, actually no. Plenty of religions/people besides Christianity oppose gay marriage (some believe just being gay is punishable by death), evolution and the like. You cannot make such generalizations. The generalizations are perfectly fair; when 99+% of a group conforms to a generalization, it makes perfect sense. At best, they're just religious bigots belonging to other religions. I've never heard of a singular secular argument made for the death penalty for gays. Virtually 100% of those people are arguing from religious grounds, whether Christian or some other religion. Take a look at the arguments against sex marriage. Notice how the main arugments are religious, and the parenting "concerns" are made by religious people (even though scientists agree that there's no parenting problem)? Likewise, nearly all objections to evolution come from religious sources rather than the scientific community. Bullshit like "intellectual design" are just covers for evangelical Christians with an agenda, as certain federal court cases have made clear. My point was, it's not only Christians, there are plenty of other religions that feel the same way. So a broad statement like, "99% of people who are opposed to gay marriage/evolution are Christians" is incorrect. OK, so let me amend my statment. 99% of people who are opposed to gay marriage/evolution are Christians and/or other religions equally as ridiculous as Christianity. The point is - the only reason anyone is ever against gay marriage is because some fictional being told them so. Can't someone be against gay marriage because they think it's destructive to society? There are plenty of reasons to be against gay marriage that aren't "The Bible says so." While I agree with you that the only reason doesn't necessarily need to be "Because the Bible says so", I'm interested in hearing a cogent defense of the position "I'm against gay marriage because it's destructive to society". The discrimination inherent in not allowing interracial couples to marry is a necessary trait for any healthy society. That is, whether their discriminatory basis is correct or not, a good society will have a number of boogiemen that are seen as inferior and bad. Legalizing interracial marriage, although not itself sufficient to take this away entirely, would weaken this important bonding part of society and propel it further down a road of having no common ground. Basically, allowing interracial marriage is just another kind of pluralism, which healthy societies do not partake of. On May 10 2012 10:11 Sakata Gintoki wrote:On May 10 2012 10:00 Lixler wrote:On May 10 2012 09:38 Sakata Gintoki wrote:On May 10 2012 08:21 1Eris1 wrote:On May 10 2012 08:06 sunprince wrote:On May 10 2012 07:27 1Eris1 wrote:Uh, actually no. Plenty of religions/people besides Christianity oppose gay marriage (some believe just being gay is punishable by death), evolution and the like. You cannot make such generalizations. The generalizations are perfectly fair; when 99+% of a group conforms to a generalization, it makes perfect sense. At best, they're just religious bigots belonging to other religions. I've never heard of a singular secular argument made for the death penalty for gays. Virtually 100% of those people are arguing from religious grounds, whether Christian or some other religion. Take a look at the arguments against sex marriage. Notice how the main arugments are religious, and the parenting "concerns" are made by religious people (even though scientists agree that there's no parenting problem)? Likewise, nearly all objections to evolution come from religious sources rather than the scientific community. Bullshit like "intellectual design" are just covers for evangelical Christians with an agenda, as certain federal court cases have made clear. My point was, it's not only Christians, there are plenty of other religions that feel the same way. So a broad statement like, "99% of people who are opposed to gay marriage/evolution are Christians" is incorrect. OK, so let me amend my statment. 99% of people who are opposed to gay marriage/evolution are Christians and/or other religions equally as ridiculous as Christianity. The point is - the only reason anyone is ever against gay marriage is because some fictional being told them so. Can't someone be against gay marriage because they think it's destructive to society? There are plenty of reasons to be against gay marriage that aren't "The Bible says so." Are you able to provide significant evidence showing that gay people are more prone to the destruction of society than straight people. Your argument is as stupid as people who say black people are more prone to crime, therefore should not be allowed to marry like white people. Agreed, this would be very stupid, if I were saying anything like it. Black people might be upstanding citizens, or they might be horrible citizens, but this has nothing to do with whether letting them marry is good for society. Fixed your post for you.
Yes, I think this argument can also apply to interracial marriage. There is a tradeoff between having every single individual Happy and Equal and having the society itself formed on solid ground. Whether the line should be drawn after interracial but before homosexual marriage is a matter of some interest. Note that the argument also equally applies to pedophiles.
|
On May 10 2012 10:26 Sakata Gintoki wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 10:26 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 10:16 Velocirapture wrote:
Children are in no way linked to the institution of marriage. It is perfectly valid to believe that a heterosexual, loving marriage of two biological parents is the best environment in which to raise children but none of those elements are in any way mandated by the institution. We associate love, childbirth and cohabitation with marriage because it so highly correlates but it is nothing more than that. In order for somebody to justify the exclusion of homosexuals from marriage you have to tell me something that is required by heterosexual couples as part of the marriage contract that can't be done by two males or two females. As far as I know the only enforced obligation for entering marriage is that both parties are able of participating in a legally binding contract. In this light, the male/female distinction is as arbitrary as the black/white distinction we made in recent history. how about actually have biological child with each other? So you would be against a sterile heterosexual couple from getting married?
Yes, but I do not expect anyone to be fair about that.
Or to be even more correct I`m against a fertile person marriage with sterille, and i think it should be prohibited
(to not be ellighable for benefits, not to priohibit their relationships).
I`m sorry but my county is decreasing in population by about 1/30 a year, so my oppinion is obvious, goverment should focus on promoting fertility and thow ones uncapable of produsing children under the buss.
|
On May 10 2012 10:33 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 10:26 Sakata Gintoki wrote:On May 10 2012 10:26 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 10:16 Velocirapture wrote:
Children are in no way linked to the institution of marriage. It is perfectly valid to believe that a heterosexual, loving marriage of two biological parents is the best environment in which to raise children but none of those elements are in any way mandated by the institution. We associate love, childbirth and cohabitation with marriage because it so highly correlates but it is nothing more than that. In order for somebody to justify the exclusion of homosexuals from marriage you have to tell me something that is required by heterosexual couples as part of the marriage contract that can't be done by two males or two females. As far as I know the only enforced obligation for entering marriage is that both parties are able of participating in a legally binding contract. In this light, the male/female distinction is as arbitrary as the black/white distinction we made in recent history. how about actually have biological child with each other? So you would be against a sterile heterosexual couple from getting married? Yes, but I do not expect anyone to be fair about that. Or to be even more correct I`m against a fertile person marriage with sterille, and i think it should be prohibited (to not be ellighable for benefits, not to priohibit their relationships). I`m sorry but my county is decreasing in population by about 1/30 a year, so my oppinion is obvious, goverment should focus on promoting fertility and thow ones uncapable of produsing children under the buss.
I don't know what kind of la la land your mind lives in to be able to arbitrarily decide what the purpose of marriage is, in your opinion it is obviously solely focused on procreation as a supposed economic benefit. Why is it government's role to decide this? If you really want to achieve your goal, you should allow polygamy, so that the most fertile males with the best genetics mates with the maximum amount of women.
|
On May 10 2012 10:32 Lixler wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 10:30 Sakata Gintoki wrote:On May 10 2012 10:27 Lixler wrote:On May 10 2012 10:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 10 2012 10:00 Lixler wrote:On May 10 2012 09:38 Sakata Gintoki wrote:On May 10 2012 08:21 1Eris1 wrote:On May 10 2012 08:06 sunprince wrote:On May 10 2012 07:27 1Eris1 wrote:Uh, actually no. Plenty of religions/people besides Christianity oppose gay marriage (some believe just being gay is punishable by death), evolution and the like. You cannot make such generalizations. The generalizations are perfectly fair; when 99+% of a group conforms to a generalization, it makes perfect sense. At best, they're just religious bigots belonging to other religions. I've never heard of a singular secular argument made for the death penalty for gays. Virtually 100% of those people are arguing from religious grounds, whether Christian or some other religion. Take a look at the arguments against sex marriage. Notice how the main arugments are religious, and the parenting "concerns" are made by religious people (even though scientists agree that there's no parenting problem)? Likewise, nearly all objections to evolution come from religious sources rather than the scientific community. Bullshit like "intellectual design" are just covers for evangelical Christians with an agenda, as certain federal court cases have made clear. My point was, it's not only Christians, there are plenty of other religions that feel the same way. So a broad statement like, "99% of people who are opposed to gay marriage/evolution are Christians" is incorrect. OK, so let me amend my statment. 99% of people who are opposed to gay marriage/evolution are Christians and/or other religions equally as ridiculous as Christianity. The point is - the only reason anyone is ever against gay marriage is because some fictional being told them so. Can't someone be against gay marriage because they think it's destructive to society? There are plenty of reasons to be against gay marriage that aren't "The Bible says so." While I agree with you that the only reason doesn't necessarily need to be "Because the Bible says so", I'm interested in hearing a cogent defense of the position "I'm against gay marriage because it's destructive to society". The discrimination inherent in not allowing interracial couples to marry is a necessary trait for any healthy society. That is, whether their discriminatory basis is correct or not, a good society will have a number of boogiemen that are seen as inferior and bad. Legalizing interracial marriage, although not itself sufficient to take this away entirely, would weaken this important bonding part of society and propel it further down a road of having no common ground. Basically, allowing interracial marriage is just another kind of pluralism, which healthy societies do not partake of. On May 10 2012 10:11 Sakata Gintoki wrote:On May 10 2012 10:00 Lixler wrote:On May 10 2012 09:38 Sakata Gintoki wrote:On May 10 2012 08:21 1Eris1 wrote:On May 10 2012 08:06 sunprince wrote:On May 10 2012 07:27 1Eris1 wrote:Uh, actually no. Plenty of religions/people besides Christianity oppose gay marriage (some believe just being gay is punishable by death), evolution and the like. You cannot make such generalizations. The generalizations are perfectly fair; when 99+% of a group conforms to a generalization, it makes perfect sense. At best, they're just religious bigots belonging to other religions. I've never heard of a singular secular argument made for the death penalty for gays. Virtually 100% of those people are arguing from religious grounds, whether Christian or some other religion. Take a look at the arguments against sex marriage. Notice how the main arugments are religious, and the parenting "concerns" are made by religious people (even though scientists agree that there's no parenting problem)? Likewise, nearly all objections to evolution come from religious sources rather than the scientific community. Bullshit like "intellectual design" are just covers for evangelical Christians with an agenda, as certain federal court cases have made clear. My point was, it's not only Christians, there are plenty of other religions that feel the same way. So a broad statement like, "99% of people who are opposed to gay marriage/evolution are Christians" is incorrect. OK, so let me amend my statment. 99% of people who are opposed to gay marriage/evolution are Christians and/or other religions equally as ridiculous as Christianity. The point is - the only reason anyone is ever against gay marriage is because some fictional being told them so. Can't someone be against gay marriage because they think it's destructive to society? There are plenty of reasons to be against gay marriage that aren't "The Bible says so." Are you able to provide significant evidence showing that gay people are more prone to the destruction of society than straight people. Your argument is as stupid as people who say black people are more prone to crime, therefore should not be allowed to marry like white people. Agreed, this would be very stupid, if I were saying anything like it. Black people might be upstanding citizens, or they might be horrible citizens, but this has nothing to do with whether letting them marry is good for society. Fixed your post for you. Yes, I think this argument can also apply to interracial marriage. There is a tradeoff between having every single individual Happy and Equal and having the society itself formed on solid ground. Whether the line should be drawn after interracial but before homosexual marriage is a matter of some interest. Note that the argument also equally applies to pedophiles.
I`m against rasism(no wonder considering the "recent history" and it is just a little bit after 9th may) but I think society should focus on promoting lifestyle that is beneficial for society, and social benefits for straight marriage are perfectly fine.
|
On May 10 2012 10:37 Sakata Gintoki wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 10:33 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 10:26 Sakata Gintoki wrote:On May 10 2012 10:26 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 10:16 Velocirapture wrote:
Children are in no way linked to the institution of marriage. It is perfectly valid to believe that a heterosexual, loving marriage of two biological parents is the best environment in which to raise children but none of those elements are in any way mandated by the institution. We associate love, childbirth and cohabitation with marriage because it so highly correlates but it is nothing more than that. In order for somebody to justify the exclusion of homosexuals from marriage you have to tell me something that is required by heterosexual couples as part of the marriage contract that can't be done by two males or two females. As far as I know the only enforced obligation for entering marriage is that both parties are able of participating in a legally binding contract. In this light, the male/female distinction is as arbitrary as the black/white distinction we made in recent history. how about actually have biological child with each other? So you would be against a sterile heterosexual couple from getting married? Yes, but I do not expect anyone to be fair about that. Or to be even more correct I`m against a fertile person marriage with sterille, and i think it should be prohibited (to not be ellighable for benefits, not to priohibit their relationships). I`m sorry but my county is decreasing in population by about 1/30 a year, so my oppinion is obvious, goverment should focus on promoting fertility and thow ones uncapable of produsing children under the buss. I don't know what kind of la la land your mind lives in to be able to arbitrarily decide what the purpose of marriage is, in your opinion it is obviously solely focused on procreation as a supposed economic benefit. Why is it government's role to decide this? If you really want to achieve your goal, you should allow polygamy, so that the most fertile males with the best genetics mates with the maximum amount of women.
Problem is, what to do with the rest of males.
And polygamy pretty much creates a society of single mothers because father has too many childrens, which is bad.
1:1 is more beneficial for the children, apart from genes, there is also upbring and education, at which couples are better.
But, yes there are some arguing for polygamy, especially the muslim minority,..
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
