|
|
On May 10 2012 14:04 Velocirapture wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 13:51 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 13:10 Velocirapture wrote:On May 10 2012 12:58 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 12:37 BluePanther wrote:On May 10 2012 12:28 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 11:36 Kamille wrote:On May 10 2012 11:28 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 11:09 Kamille wrote:On May 10 2012 10:50 naastyOne wrote:
[quote]
Not couples, individuals in said couple. They are considered children of the individual, because they cannot be treated as a child of both parents Because the child is indeed children of the individual and an anonymous donor to sperm bank? So should heterosexual couples who adopt have no legal rights as parents, because they are not blood related? If your argument is based on blood relation, heterosexual adoption should be treated the same way. Why should adopters have same right as biological parents in the first place? there certanly needs to be at least much tighter watch on them. Again, stop throwing adoption around. Adoption rights&responsibilities are different, and not related to marriage. Period. I think the whole point is not that they are related, but that gay marriage isn't some universally accepted idea and that people object to it for reasons that are not strictly religiously based. At least that's my understanding of how this conversation evolved. I agree 100%. While person is free to love anyone, there is also the wide reasoning behind having marriage exactly as it is now(male+female), and working out some other legal frame and viev on the gay-sesbian alliances. Also, it is quite interesting that from all the curious thoughts in my first post (single-payer healthcare, changes to how education financed, internal&external problems of US), only gay marriage and incorect % of achievements of obama were noted. And it is so sad. What are these objective and rational reasons for disallowing gay marriage. Im not gonna lie and say I don't have a stake in the outcome but I am genuinely interested in both sides. The benefits for gays in allowing them to be married is really obvious and profound yet I have never heard a reason against it that didnt hinge on somebody's personal beliefs. Where is the data that gay marriage is destroying other countries or that the gay marriages in selected states are hurting straight marriages? At the end of the day, you can think whatever you want but "just because" should never be reason enough to deny something as fundamental as marriage. You first fail here is that you view marriage as something fundamental without fundamental conditions. For about 3-4 thousands of years of reasonably documented history mariage is man+woman=>family, children. I would even say that the right to divorce is not fundamental at all because it is something that appeared for a very few time. I would go ahead and question, why should we even change what traditionally marriage means, should we really extend marriage or let it be, and create the other things for gay-couples? Than your argument is way biassed. The benefit of allowing gay to marriage is obviously beneficial for them, the others do not benefit, but loss due to the expanding benefits, and thus expanded price of sustaining it, as any other form of wellfare increases. It also means that the benefits of marriage, which are created for a reason, and they were created before the gay-marriage issue even existed, and existed for a specific purpose of encouraging something, may no longer encourage that something, and render marriage as we understand it useless. I think it was proved long ago that demographics and birthrate is extremely important, right? Disallowing gay-marriage certainly does decrease the attractiveness of gay-relations compared to straight relations. That is true, useless to argue. Does increase in attractivnes of straight marriage increases birth rate? Well while it is not that distinguishable from other factors, there are simple facts: 1. Birthrate is always more in rural aerias, than in urban, where the number of potential partners is lower, and the chance of finding a "better partner"/risk or divourse is also way lower. 2. maried people statistically have more children and do better. 3. the number of gay-couples is lower in places where there is no allowance for gay marriages. Now if we assume that at least some of the people who otherwise would be in gay mariage actually marry straight, then there will be some amount of children born that there would otherwise be not. This post is so absurd its hard to know where to start. Marriage has been a constantly evolving institution since its inception. You are applying a whole bunch of your ideas about what marriage SHOULD be (something you are completely entitled to) onto what marriage IS. They are not the same thing! Take a step back and look at the mandates of marriage as a contract and the requirements for participation. This is the true nature of marriage. Once I strip away all of your bias and personal "we need as many children as possible" stuff, you basically make an argument that there should be no marriage. Because once you accept that your personal views, which are based on nothing but opinion, dont apply your initial cost argument applies to all marriage. It is fine to be against any marriage at all, its just totally unrealistic. And in our world, where marriage is considered a fundamental right, the onus is on the naysayers to show how sex distinction is less arbitrary than race distinction within the marriage contract.
So you dismissed averything based on your sole oppinion?
How thoughtfull,
|
Honestly, why do people even debate this? Marriage is just a formality that should be available to any couple, what is there to discuss?? Some people may have trouble to accept it, but marriage is no longer a thing about children (or religion or tradition or birthrate??!! ), it is about aknowledging the couple from a legal and political standpoint, nothing to do with anthing else. Unless you deny the fact that gay couple exist, it is a right that can't be denied.
That whole thing reminds me of what happened in my country not so long ago when everyone was making big fusses about highly controversial but somewhat irrelevant matters in order to distract people from more painful issues. I guess US is no exception.
|
On May 10 2012 14:06 tomatriedes wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 13:51 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 13:10 Velocirapture wrote:On May 10 2012 12:58 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 12:37 BluePanther wrote:On May 10 2012 12:28 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 11:36 Kamille wrote:On May 10 2012 11:28 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 11:09 Kamille wrote:On May 10 2012 10:50 naastyOne wrote:
[quote]
Not couples, individuals in said couple. They are considered children of the individual, because they cannot be treated as a child of both parents Because the child is indeed children of the individual and an anonymous donor to sperm bank? So should heterosexual couples who adopt have no legal rights as parents, because they are not blood related? If your argument is based on blood relation, heterosexual adoption should be treated the same way. Why should adopters have same right as biological parents in the first place? there certanly needs to be at least much tighter watch on them. Again, stop throwing adoption around. Adoption rights&responsibilities are different, and not related to marriage. Period. I think the whole point is not that they are related, but that gay marriage isn't some universally accepted idea and that people object to it for reasons that are not strictly religiously based. At least that's my understanding of how this conversation evolved. I agree 100%. While person is free to love anyone, there is also the wide reasoning behind having marriage exactly as it is now(male+female), and working out some other legal frame and viev on the gay-sesbian alliances. Also, it is quite interesting that from all the curious thoughts in my first post (single-payer healthcare, changes to how education financed, internal&external problems of US), only gay marriage and incorect % of achievements of obama were noted. And it is so sad. What are these objective and rational reasons for disallowing gay marriage. Im not gonna lie and say I don't have a stake in the outcome but I am genuinely interested in both sides. The benefits for gays in allowing them to be married is really obvious and profound yet I have never heard a reason against it that didnt hinge on somebody's personal beliefs. Where is the data that gay marriage is destroying other countries or that the gay marriages in selected states are hurting straight marriages? At the end of the day, you can think whatever you want but "just because" should never be reason enough to deny something as fundamental as marriage. You first fail here is that you view marriage as something fundamental without fundamental conditions. For about 3-4 thousands of years of reasonably documented history mariage is man+woman=>family, children. I would even say that the right to divorce is not fundamental at all because it is something that appeared for a very few time. I would go ahead and question, why should we even change what traditionally marriage means, should we really extend marriage or let it be, and create the other things for gay-couples? Than your argument is way biassed. The benefit of allowing gay to marriage is obviously beneficial for them, the others do not benefit, but loss due to the expanding benefits, and thus expanded price of sustaining it, as any other form of wellfare increases. It also means that the benefits of marriage, which are created for a reason, and they were created before the gay-marriage issue even existed, and existed for a specific purpose of encouraging something, may no longer encourage that something, and render marriage as we understand it useless. I think it was proved long ago that demographics and birthrate is extremely important, right? Disallowing gay-marriage certainly does decrease the attractiveness of gay-relations compared to straight relations. That is true, useless to argue. Does increase in attractivnes of straight marriage increases birth rate? Well while it is not that distinguishable from other factors, there are simple facts: 1. Birthrate is always more in rural aerias, than in urban, where the number of potential partners is lower, and the chance of finding a "better partner"/risk or divourse is also way lower. 2. maried people statistically have more children and do better. 3. the number of gay-couples is lower in places where there is no allowance for gay marriages. Now if we assume that at least some of the people who otherwise would be in gay mariage actually marry straight, then there will be some amount of children born that there would otherwise be not. The world is already overpopulated; The last thing we need to worry about is increasing birth rates.
Then die and free up some space, would you be so kind?
|
On May 10 2012 13:45 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 13:38 heliusx wrote:On May 10 2012 13:18 BluePanther wrote:On May 10 2012 13:10 Velocirapture wrote:On May 10 2012 12:58 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 12:37 BluePanther wrote:On May 10 2012 12:28 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 11:36 Kamille wrote:On May 10 2012 11:28 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 11:09 Kamille wrote:
[quote]
They are considered children of the individual, because they cannot be treated as a child of both parents Because the child is indeed children of the individual and an anonymous donor to sperm bank? So should heterosexual couples who adopt have no legal rights as parents, because they are not blood related? If your argument is based on blood relation, heterosexual adoption should be treated the same way. Why should adopters have same right as biological parents in the first place? there certanly needs to be at least much tighter watch on them. Again, stop throwing adoption around. Adoption rights&responsibilities are different, and not related to marriage. Period. I think the whole point is not that they are related, but that gay marriage isn't some universally accepted idea and that people object to it for reasons that are not strictly religiously based. At least that's my understanding of how this conversation evolved. I agree 100%. While person is free to love anyone, there is also the wide reasoning behind having marriage exactly as it is now(male+female), and working out some other legal frame and viev on the gay-sesbian alliances. Also, it is quite interesting that from all the curious thoughts in my first post (single-payer healthcare, changes to how education financed, internal&external problems of US), only gay marriage and incorect % of achievements of obama were noted. And it is so sad. What are these objective and rational reasons for disallowing gay marriage. Im not gonna lie and say I don't have a stake in the outcome but I am genuinely interested in both sides. The benefits for gays in allowing them to be married is really obvious and profound yet I have never heard a reason against it that didnt hinge on somebody's personal beliefs. Where is the data that gay marriage is destroying other countries or that the gay marriages in selected states are hurting straight marriages? At the end of the day, you can think whatever you want but "just because" should never be reason enough to deny something as fundamental as marriage. It's because it tears down social structures and intrudes on people's personal beliefs. Most importantly, it's not a requirement to give them marriage to give them equal rights. Religious people want marraige, gays want equal rights. Those two aren't mutually exclusive. Yet both sides act like they are, for reasons that baffle me (and apparently the President too, based on his musings in that interview). Riddle me this, why should anyone care about you or his "personal beliefs". So beyond irrelevant. It's my personal belief and opinion that religion is dumb. Do I demand religion illegal? no, because i dont give a shit what people do as long as it doesnt hurt anyone else. It's descrimination plain and simple. If you can't see that you're deluding yourself. love is love no matter what your little book says. Take your anger out on someone else kid. I merely stated that people oppose gay marriage for reasons beyond religion. I didn't say "I oppose" gay marriage. I'm not even remotely religious.
Sorry but I don't believe you. I have a strong suspicion perhaps you are raised in a Christian family, attend a Pentecostal Church, and call your Christianity "a relationship with God and not a religion". Please feel free to prove me wrong by disclosing any links you have (or do not have) with religion in your life.
|
On May 10 2012 14:05 overt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 14:02 BluePanther wrote:On May 10 2012 13:51 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 13:10 Velocirapture wrote:On May 10 2012 12:58 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 12:37 BluePanther wrote:On May 10 2012 12:28 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 11:36 Kamille wrote:On May 10 2012 11:28 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 11:09 Kamille wrote:
[quote]
They are considered children of the individual, because they cannot be treated as a child of both parents Because the child is indeed children of the individual and an anonymous donor to sperm bank? So should heterosexual couples who adopt have no legal rights as parents, because they are not blood related? If your argument is based on blood relation, heterosexual adoption should be treated the same way. Why should adopters have same right as biological parents in the first place? there certanly needs to be at least much tighter watch on them. Again, stop throwing adoption around. Adoption rights&responsibilities are different, and not related to marriage. Period. I think the whole point is not that they are related, but that gay marriage isn't some universally accepted idea and that people object to it for reasons that are not strictly religiously based. At least that's my understanding of how this conversation evolved. I agree 100%. While person is free to love anyone, there is also the wide reasoning behind having marriage exactly as it is now(male+female), and working out some other legal frame and viev on the gay-sesbian alliances. Also, it is quite interesting that from all the curious thoughts in my first post (single-payer healthcare, changes to how education financed, internal&external problems of US), only gay marriage and incorect % of achievements of obama were noted. And it is so sad. What are these objective and rational reasons for disallowing gay marriage. Im not gonna lie and say I don't have a stake in the outcome but I am genuinely interested in both sides. The benefits for gays in allowing them to be married is really obvious and profound yet I have never heard a reason against it that didnt hinge on somebody's personal beliefs. Where is the data that gay marriage is destroying other countries or that the gay marriages in selected states are hurting straight marriages? At the end of the day, you can think whatever you want but "just because" should never be reason enough to deny something as fundamental as marriage. You first fail here is that you view marriage as something fundamental without fundamental conditions. For about 3-4 thousands of years of reasonably documented history mariage is man+woman=>family, children. I would even say that the right to divorce is not fundamental at all because it is something that appeared for a very few time. I would go ahead and question, why should we even change what traditionally marriage means, should we really extend marriage or let it be, and create the other things for gay-couples? Than your argument is way biassed. The benefit of allowing gay to marriage is obviously beneficial for them, the others do not benefit, but loss due to the expanding benefits, and thus expanded price of sustaining it, as any other form of wellfare increases. It also means that the benefits of marriage, which are created for a reason, and they were created before the gay-marriage issue even existed, and existed for a specific purpose of encouraging something, may no longer encourage that something, and render marriage as we understand it useless. I think it was proved long ago that demographics and birthrate is extremely important, right? Disallowing gay-marriage certainly does decrease the attractiveness of gay-relations compared to straight relations. That is true, useless to argue. Does increase in attractivnes of straight marriage increases birth rate? Well while it is not that distinguishable from other factors, there are simple facts: 1. Birthrate is always more in rural aerias, than in urban, where the number of potential partners is lower, and the chance of finding a "better partner"/risk or divourse is also way lower. 2. maried people statistically have more children and do better. 3. the number of gay-couples is lower in places where there is no allowance for gay marriages. Now if we assume that at least some of the people who otherwise would be in gay mariage actually marry straight, then there will be some amount of children born that there would otherwise be not. I think this post sums up a few of the potential arguments. There are more arguments out this should be enough to satisfy the demands for reasons that aren't based on religion. Yes, I have concerns about it. But I was convinced a while back that the benefits of equality are more important than these longer term effects. Do I like gay marriage? No. But if put to a vote on it, I would support it. All of his arguments fall apart with any amount of critical thinking. I would be willing to bet that most, if not all, of those arguments are rooted in religion or homophobia. You could easily come up with arguments why we shouldn't allow inter-racial marriage. That doesn't mean those arguments aren't rooted in racism.
So fare you managed to produce nothing exept for stupidly crying religion! religion! everywere!
|
On May 10 2012 14:09 Elitios wrote:
Honestly, why do people even debate this? Marriage is just a formality that should be available to any couple, what is there to discuss??
Because, at least in the US, there are financial and legal benefits to being legally recognized. You file paperwork with the local government to get legal recognition. Marriages in churches are not "marriages" under the law. You have the ceremony, but you also must go to the courthouse and file the paperwork. You don't need the ceremony to get the actual marriage.
|
On May 10 2012 13:59 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 13:30 Velocirapture wrote:On May 10 2012 13:18 BluePanther wrote:On May 10 2012 13:10 Velocirapture wrote:On May 10 2012 12:58 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 12:37 BluePanther wrote:On May 10 2012 12:28 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 11:36 Kamille wrote:On May 10 2012 11:28 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 11:09 Kamille wrote:
[quote]
They are considered children of the individual, because they cannot be treated as a child of both parents Because the child is indeed children of the individual and an anonymous donor to sperm bank? So should heterosexual couples who adopt have no legal rights as parents, because they are not blood related? If your argument is based on blood relation, heterosexual adoption should be treated the same way. Why should adopters have same right as biological parents in the first place? there certanly needs to be at least much tighter watch on them. Again, stop throwing adoption around. Adoption rights&responsibilities are different, and not related to marriage. Period. I think the whole point is not that they are related, but that gay marriage isn't some universally accepted idea and that people object to it for reasons that are not strictly religiously based. At least that's my understanding of how this conversation evolved. I agree 100%. While person is free to love anyone, there is also the wide reasoning behind having marriage exactly as it is now(male+female), and working out some other legal frame and viev on the gay-sesbian alliances. Also, it is quite interesting that from all the curious thoughts in my first post (single-payer healthcare, changes to how education financed, internal&external problems of US), only gay marriage and incorect % of achievements of obama were noted. And it is so sad. What are these objective and rational reasons for disallowing gay marriage. Im not gonna lie and say I don't have a stake in the outcome but I am genuinely interested in both sides. The benefits for gays in allowing them to be married is really obvious and profound yet I have never heard a reason against it that didnt hinge on somebody's personal beliefs. Where is the data that gay marriage is destroying other countries or that the gay marriages in selected states are hurting straight marriages? At the end of the day, you can think whatever you want but "just because" should never be reason enough to deny something as fundamental as marriage. It's because it tears down social structures and intrudes on people's personal beliefs. Most importantly, it's not a requirement to give them marriage to give them equal rights. Religious people want marraige, gays want equal rights. Those two aren't mutually exclusive. Yet both sides act like they are, for reasons that baffle me (and apparently the President too, based on his musings in that interview). "Tear's down social structures" is valid how? Infringes on people's personal beliefs? This is exactly what I was talking about. When interracial marriage was forced through by the courts 70%-90% (depending on which source you trust) of Americans thought it was wrong. This didn't matter because this belief is irrational. There is absolutely nothing inherent to the marriage contract that can not be done equally be all ethnicities. Dis people say it would destroy marriage and infringe on others beliefs then? Absolutely. Why does this logic hold sway with gay marriage and not interracial? Should interracial couple be given "interracial unions" instead of marriages? Why you even mention this? Mariage is Man+woman. Race is irrelevant to the point. Now Man+Man or Woman+Woman was not how mariage worked, and imor, it shouldn`t. Stop trying to compare apples and oranges.
I don't know where you get this man plus woman formula from, can't be from the Bible - FYI:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bHp6k.jpg)
|
On May 10 2012 14:13 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 14:05 overt wrote:On May 10 2012 14:02 BluePanther wrote:On May 10 2012 13:51 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 13:10 Velocirapture wrote:On May 10 2012 12:58 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 12:37 BluePanther wrote:On May 10 2012 12:28 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 11:36 Kamille wrote:On May 10 2012 11:28 naastyOne wrote:
[quote]
Because the child is indeed children of the individual and an anonymous donor to sperm bank? So should heterosexual couples who adopt have no legal rights as parents, because they are not blood related? If your argument is based on blood relation, heterosexual adoption should be treated the same way. Why should adopters have same right as biological parents in the first place? there certanly needs to be at least much tighter watch on them. Again, stop throwing adoption around. Adoption rights&responsibilities are different, and not related to marriage. Period. I think the whole point is not that they are related, but that gay marriage isn't some universally accepted idea and that people object to it for reasons that are not strictly religiously based. At least that's my understanding of how this conversation evolved. I agree 100%. While person is free to love anyone, there is also the wide reasoning behind having marriage exactly as it is now(male+female), and working out some other legal frame and viev on the gay-sesbian alliances. Also, it is quite interesting that from all the curious thoughts in my first post (single-payer healthcare, changes to how education financed, internal&external problems of US), only gay marriage and incorect % of achievements of obama were noted. And it is so sad. What are these objective and rational reasons for disallowing gay marriage. Im not gonna lie and say I don't have a stake in the outcome but I am genuinely interested in both sides. The benefits for gays in allowing them to be married is really obvious and profound yet I have never heard a reason against it that didnt hinge on somebody's personal beliefs. Where is the data that gay marriage is destroying other countries or that the gay marriages in selected states are hurting straight marriages? At the end of the day, you can think whatever you want but "just because" should never be reason enough to deny something as fundamental as marriage. You first fail here is that you view marriage as something fundamental without fundamental conditions. For about 3-4 thousands of years of reasonably documented history mariage is man+woman=>family, children. I would even say that the right to divorce is not fundamental at all because it is something that appeared for a very few time. I would go ahead and question, why should we even change what traditionally marriage means, should we really extend marriage or let it be, and create the other things for gay-couples? Than your argument is way biassed. The benefit of allowing gay to marriage is obviously beneficial for them, the others do not benefit, but loss due to the expanding benefits, and thus expanded price of sustaining it, as any other form of wellfare increases. It also means that the benefits of marriage, which are created for a reason, and they were created before the gay-marriage issue even existed, and existed for a specific purpose of encouraging something, may no longer encourage that something, and render marriage as we understand it useless. I think it was proved long ago that demographics and birthrate is extremely important, right? Disallowing gay-marriage certainly does decrease the attractiveness of gay-relations compared to straight relations. That is true, useless to argue. Does increase in attractivnes of straight marriage increases birth rate? Well while it is not that distinguishable from other factors, there are simple facts: 1. Birthrate is always more in rural aerias, than in urban, where the number of potential partners is lower, and the chance of finding a "better partner"/risk or divourse is also way lower. 2. maried people statistically have more children and do better. 3. the number of gay-couples is lower in places where there is no allowance for gay marriages. Now if we assume that at least some of the people who otherwise would be in gay mariage actually marry straight, then there will be some amount of children born that there would otherwise be not. I think this post sums up a few of the potential arguments. There are more arguments out this should be enough to satisfy the demands for reasons that aren't based on religion. Yes, I have concerns about it. But I was convinced a while back that the benefits of equality are more important than these longer term effects. Do I like gay marriage? No. But if put to a vote on it, I would support it. All of his arguments fall apart with any amount of critical thinking. I would be willing to bet that most, if not all, of those arguments are rooted in religion or homophobia. You could easily come up with arguments why we shouldn't allow inter-racial marriage. That doesn't mean those arguments aren't rooted in racism. So fare you managed to produce nothing exept for stupidly crying religion! religion! everywere!
This is exactly why I didn't bother trying to discuss how wrong your post was.
If it makes you feel better I feel that it's less about religion and more about homophobia. Just like inter-racial marriage which was primarily fueled by racism but that used religion to help argue their points so as not to appear racist.
|
On May 10 2012 14:05 heliusx wrote:
My point is it's no ones business if dudes wanna get married. Your personal opinions or religious views shouldnt be taken into account when we are speaking about equality.
How about other "it's no ones business" es?
like freedom of speech? Nut we ban more stuff than we are allowed. Who cares if dude has his home full of swasticas and thinks that holocost was the right thing. What is your buisness? Shut up and tolerate.
You`r oppinion doesn`t matter.
Or if a person is openly rasist? What is your buisness?
maybe freedom of movement? How about prisins? Borders? ex,..
maybe "it's no ones business" that somebody is pirating copyrated stuff?
"What is you buisness" is pure bullshit. "Freedom" is nothing more than an agreed set of rules, and equality is just a way for one`s that do not have something to justify their want for somenthing.
|
On May 10 2012 14:21 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 14:05 heliusx wrote:
My point is it's no ones business if dudes wanna get married. Your personal opinions or religious views shouldnt be taken into account when we are speaking about equality.
How about other "it's no ones business" es? like freedom of speech? Nut we ban more stuff than we are allowed. Who cares if dude has his home full of swasticas and thinks that holocost was the right thing. What is your buisness? Shut up and tolerate. You`r oppinion doesn`t matter. Or if a person is openly rasist? What is your buisness? maybe freedom of movement? How about prisins? Borders? ex,.. maybe "it's no ones business" that somebody is pirating copyrated stuff? "What is you buisness" is pure bullshit. "Freedom" is nothing more than an agreed set of rules, and equality is just a way for one`s that do not have something to justify their want for somenthing.
You just leaped into the next star system.
|
-deleted-
realized i was discussing personal information with a bigot...
|
On May 10 2012 14:14 Sakata Gintoki wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 13:59 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 13:30 Velocirapture wrote:On May 10 2012 13:18 BluePanther wrote:On May 10 2012 13:10 Velocirapture wrote:On May 10 2012 12:58 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 12:37 BluePanther wrote:On May 10 2012 12:28 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 11:36 Kamille wrote:On May 10 2012 11:28 naastyOne wrote:
[quote]
Because the child is indeed children of the individual and an anonymous donor to sperm bank? So should heterosexual couples who adopt have no legal rights as parents, because they are not blood related? If your argument is based on blood relation, heterosexual adoption should be treated the same way. Why should adopters have same right as biological parents in the first place? there certanly needs to be at least much tighter watch on them. Again, stop throwing adoption around. Adoption rights&responsibilities are different, and not related to marriage. Period. I think the whole point is not that they are related, but that gay marriage isn't some universally accepted idea and that people object to it for reasons that are not strictly religiously based. At least that's my understanding of how this conversation evolved. I agree 100%. While person is free to love anyone, there is also the wide reasoning behind having marriage exactly as it is now(male+female), and working out some other legal frame and viev on the gay-sesbian alliances. Also, it is quite interesting that from all the curious thoughts in my first post (single-payer healthcare, changes to how education financed, internal&external problems of US), only gay marriage and incorect % of achievements of obama were noted. And it is so sad. What are these objective and rational reasons for disallowing gay marriage. Im not gonna lie and say I don't have a stake in the outcome but I am genuinely interested in both sides. The benefits for gays in allowing them to be married is really obvious and profound yet I have never heard a reason against it that didnt hinge on somebody's personal beliefs. Where is the data that gay marriage is destroying other countries or that the gay marriages in selected states are hurting straight marriages? At the end of the day, you can think whatever you want but "just because" should never be reason enough to deny something as fundamental as marriage. It's because it tears down social structures and intrudes on people's personal beliefs. Most importantly, it's not a requirement to give them marriage to give them equal rights. Religious people want marraige, gays want equal rights. Those two aren't mutually exclusive. Yet both sides act like they are, for reasons that baffle me (and apparently the President too, based on his musings in that interview). "Tear's down social structures" is valid how? Infringes on people's personal beliefs? This is exactly what I was talking about. When interracial marriage was forced through by the courts 70%-90% (depending on which source you trust) of Americans thought it was wrong. This didn't matter because this belief is irrational. There is absolutely nothing inherent to the marriage contract that can not be done equally be all ethnicities. Dis people say it would destroy marriage and infringe on others beliefs then? Absolutely. Why does this logic hold sway with gay marriage and not interracial? Should interracial couple be given "interracial unions" instead of marriages? Why you even mention this? Mariage is Man+woman. Race is irrelevant to the point. Now Man+Man or Woman+Woman was not how mariage worked, and imor, it shouldn`t. Stop trying to compare apples and oranges. I don't know where you get this man plus woman formula from, can't be from the Bible - FYI:
I do not know, neither care about what bible says. Why do you bring it?
Oh, and by the way it is Man+woman anyway. Sometimes in form of Man+X*woman.
On May 10 2012 14:14 overt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 14:13 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 14:05 overt wrote:On May 10 2012 14:02 BluePanther wrote:On May 10 2012 13:51 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 13:10 Velocirapture wrote:On May 10 2012 12:58 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 12:37 BluePanther wrote:On May 10 2012 12:28 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 11:36 Kamille wrote:
[quote]
So should heterosexual couples who adopt have no legal rights as parents, because they are not blood related? If your argument is based on blood relation, heterosexual adoption should be treated the same way. Why should adopters have same right as biological parents in the first place? there certanly needs to be at least much tighter watch on them. Again, stop throwing adoption around. Adoption rights&responsibilities are different, and not related to marriage. Period. I think the whole point is not that they are related, but that gay marriage isn't some universally accepted idea and that people object to it for reasons that are not strictly religiously based. At least that's my understanding of how this conversation evolved. I agree 100%. While person is free to love anyone, there is also the wide reasoning behind having marriage exactly as it is now(male+female), and working out some other legal frame and viev on the gay-sesbian alliances. Also, it is quite interesting that from all the curious thoughts in my first post (single-payer healthcare, changes to how education financed, internal&external problems of US), only gay marriage and incorect % of achievements of obama were noted. And it is so sad. What are these objective and rational reasons for disallowing gay marriage. Im not gonna lie and say I don't have a stake in the outcome but I am genuinely interested in both sides. The benefits for gays in allowing them to be married is really obvious and profound yet I have never heard a reason against it that didnt hinge on somebody's personal beliefs. Where is the data that gay marriage is destroying other countries or that the gay marriages in selected states are hurting straight marriages? At the end of the day, you can think whatever you want but "just because" should never be reason enough to deny something as fundamental as marriage. You first fail here is that you view marriage as something fundamental without fundamental conditions. For about 3-4 thousands of years of reasonably documented history mariage is man+woman=>family, children. I would even say that the right to divorce is not fundamental at all because it is something that appeared for a very few time. I would go ahead and question, why should we even change what traditionally marriage means, should we really extend marriage or let it be, and create the other things for gay-couples? Than your argument is way biassed. The benefit of allowing gay to marriage is obviously beneficial for them, the others do not benefit, but loss due to the expanding benefits, and thus expanded price of sustaining it, as any other form of wellfare increases. It also means that the benefits of marriage, which are created for a reason, and they were created before the gay-marriage issue even existed, and existed for a specific purpose of encouraging something, may no longer encourage that something, and render marriage as we understand it useless. I think it was proved long ago that demographics and birthrate is extremely important, right? Disallowing gay-marriage certainly does decrease the attractiveness of gay-relations compared to straight relations. That is true, useless to argue. Does increase in attractivnes of straight marriage increases birth rate? Well while it is not that distinguishable from other factors, there are simple facts: 1. Birthrate is always more in rural aerias, than in urban, where the number of potential partners is lower, and the chance of finding a "better partner"/risk or divourse is also way lower. 2. maried people statistically have more children and do better. 3. the number of gay-couples is lower in places where there is no allowance for gay marriages. Now if we assume that at least some of the people who otherwise would be in gay mariage actually marry straight, then there will be some amount of children born that there would otherwise be not. I think this post sums up a few of the potential arguments. There are more arguments out this should be enough to satisfy the demands for reasons that aren't based on religion. Yes, I have concerns about it. But I was convinced a while back that the benefits of equality are more important than these longer term effects. Do I like gay marriage? No. But if put to a vote on it, I would support it. All of his arguments fall apart with any amount of critical thinking. I would be willing to bet that most, if not all, of those arguments are rooted in religion or homophobia. You could easily come up with arguments why we shouldn't allow inter-racial marriage. That doesn't mean those arguments aren't rooted in racism. So fare you managed to produce nothing exept for stupidly crying religion! religion! everywere! This is exactly why I didn't bother trying to discuss how wrong your post was. If it makes you feel better I feel that it's less about religion and more about homophobia. Just like inter-racial marriage which was primarily fueled by racism but that used religion to help argue their points so as not to appear racist.
Because all you manage to do is to draw absolutely incorect argument about rasism?
Which was very easy to debunk.
And by the way, Biology suggest far away-breading is very beneficial for ansestors, while breading with close relatives and in a limited group only brings to stagnation of the specie.
|
On May 10 2012 14:09 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 14:04 Velocirapture wrote:On May 10 2012 13:51 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 13:10 Velocirapture wrote:On May 10 2012 12:58 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 12:37 BluePanther wrote:On May 10 2012 12:28 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 11:36 Kamille wrote:On May 10 2012 11:28 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 11:09 Kamille wrote:
[quote]
They are considered children of the individual, because they cannot be treated as a child of both parents Because the child is indeed children of the individual and an anonymous donor to sperm bank? So should heterosexual couples who adopt have no legal rights as parents, because they are not blood related? If your argument is based on blood relation, heterosexual adoption should be treated the same way. Why should adopters have same right as biological parents in the first place? there certanly needs to be at least much tighter watch on them. Again, stop throwing adoption around. Adoption rights&responsibilities are different, and not related to marriage. Period. I think the whole point is not that they are related, but that gay marriage isn't some universally accepted idea and that people object to it for reasons that are not strictly religiously based. At least that's my understanding of how this conversation evolved. I agree 100%. While person is free to love anyone, there is also the wide reasoning behind having marriage exactly as it is now(male+female), and working out some other legal frame and viev on the gay-sesbian alliances. Also, it is quite interesting that from all the curious thoughts in my first post (single-payer healthcare, changes to how education financed, internal&external problems of US), only gay marriage and incorect % of achievements of obama were noted. And it is so sad. What are these objective and rational reasons for disallowing gay marriage. Im not gonna lie and say I don't have a stake in the outcome but I am genuinely interested in both sides. The benefits for gays in allowing them to be married is really obvious and profound yet I have never heard a reason against it that didnt hinge on somebody's personal beliefs. Where is the data that gay marriage is destroying other countries or that the gay marriages in selected states are hurting straight marriages? At the end of the day, you can think whatever you want but "just because" should never be reason enough to deny something as fundamental as marriage. You first fail here is that you view marriage as something fundamental without fundamental conditions. For about 3-4 thousands of years of reasonably documented history mariage is man+woman=>family, children. I would even say that the right to divorce is not fundamental at all because it is something that appeared for a very few time. I would go ahead and question, why should we even change what traditionally marriage means, should we really extend marriage or let it be, and create the other things for gay-couples? Than your argument is way biassed. The benefit of allowing gay to marriage is obviously beneficial for them, the others do not benefit, but loss due to the expanding benefits, and thus expanded price of sustaining it, as any other form of wellfare increases. It also means that the benefits of marriage, which are created for a reason, and they were created before the gay-marriage issue even existed, and existed for a specific purpose of encouraging something, may no longer encourage that something, and render marriage as we understand it useless. I think it was proved long ago that demographics and birthrate is extremely important, right? Disallowing gay-marriage certainly does decrease the attractiveness of gay-relations compared to straight relations. That is true, useless to argue. Does increase in attractivnes of straight marriage increases birth rate? Well while it is not that distinguishable from other factors, there are simple facts: 1. Birthrate is always more in rural aerias, than in urban, where the number of potential partners is lower, and the chance of finding a "better partner"/risk or divourse is also way lower. 2. maried people statistically have more children and do better. 3. the number of gay-couples is lower in places where there is no allowance for gay marriages. Now if we assume that at least some of the people who otherwise would be in gay mariage actually marry straight, then there will be some amount of children born that there would otherwise be not. This post is so absurd its hard to know where to start. Marriage has been a constantly evolving institution since its inception. You are applying a whole bunch of your ideas about what marriage SHOULD be (something you are completely entitled to) onto what marriage IS. They are not the same thing! Take a step back and look at the mandates of marriage as a contract and the requirements for participation. This is the true nature of marriage. Once I strip away all of your bias and personal "we need as many children as possible" stuff, you basically make an argument that there should be no marriage. Because once you accept that your personal views, which are based on nothing but opinion, dont apply your initial cost argument applies to all marriage. It is fine to be against any marriage at all, its just totally unrealistic. And in our world, where marriage is considered a fundamental right, the onus is on the naysayers to show how sex distinction is less arbitrary than race distinction within the marriage contract. So you dismissed averything based on your sole oppinion? How thoughtfull,
The whole point is that I have my own opinions and I accept that you are allowed to have yours. Never have I said that you should change or are an idiot for thinking what you do. I am saying that when forming legislation personal opinions are not relevant. As a thought exercise, completely remove all of your opinions and just look at the data. Then go back and try to justify your opinions in that context. Doing this it is very hard to justify the exclusion of gays from marriage without shutting down marriage all together.
For example, instead of just saying that we need more people look for reputable peer reviewed studies or expert testimonials that show dramatic underpopulation and studies that show a homosexuality as the cause for significant reduction in birth rates. It is my experience that such data doesn't exist from any reputable source. In fact I have never seen any data that suggests gay marriage would have a cost/benefit ratio any different from a straight marriage with no children (a fully supported and realized incarnation of marriage) which makes sense since they are logistically exactly the same.
I am not trying to convince anybody of anything, I am just curious.
|
On May 10 2012 14:32 Velocirapture wrote:
I am saying that when forming legislation personal opinions are not relevant. As a thought exercise, completely remove all of your opinions and just look at the data. Then go back and try to justify your opinions in that context. Doing this it is very hard to justify the exclusion of gays from marriage without shutting down marriage all together.
It also makes it impossible to justify nearly every single criminal law we have on our books, but we still have them. Why is marriage not allowed until 18? Science? No. It's because of morality. Why is rape not allowed? Science? No, it's because it tears apart social constructs. I could go on and on about why this argument is flawed, but I think these will do.
Laws aren't science, they are emotions and preferences that embody what we as a culture want to tolerate.
Remember that your stance is also a personal opinion. There is no raw data that says "humans are better off if gays are allowed to carry the title of 'marriage'". It just doesn't exist, nor am I even capable of understanding how it could exist. Everybody, on every side of this issue, has a personal opinion. And not every opinion is formed under the guise of "relgion told me to" or "science told me to".
|
On May 10 2012 14:21 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 14:05 heliusx wrote:
My point is it's no ones business if dudes wanna get married. Your personal opinions or religious views shouldnt be taken into account when we are speaking about equality.
How about other "it's no ones business" es? like freedom of speech? Nut we ban more stuff than we are allowed. Who cares if dude has his home full of swasticas and thinks that holocost was the right thing. What is your buisness? Shut up and tolerate. You`r oppinion doesn`t matter. Or if a person is openly rasist? What is your buisness? maybe freedom of movement? How about prisins? Borders? ex,.. maybe "it's no ones business" that somebody is pirating copyrated stuff? "What is you buisness" is pure bullshit. "Freedom" is nothing more than an agreed set of rules, and equality is just a way for one`s that do not have something to justify their want for somenthing.
It's not illegal to think that holocaust was the right thing. It's not illegal to have swasticas all over your home, and etc, it's not illegal to be a racist.
So once again, why should marriage between two people of the same gender be illegal?
|
Fenrax
United States5018 Posts
On May 10 2012 14:22 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 14:21 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 14:05 heliusx wrote:
My point is it's no ones business if dudes wanna get married. Your personal opinions or religious views shouldnt be taken into account when we are speaking about equality.
How about other "it's no ones business" es? like freedom of speech? Nut we ban more stuff than we are allowed. Who cares if dude has his home full of swasticas and thinks that holocost was the right thing. What is your buisness? Shut up and tolerate. You`r oppinion doesn`t matter. Or if a person is openly rasist? What is your buisness? maybe freedom of movement? How about prisins? Borders? ex,.. maybe "it's no ones business" that somebody is pirating copyrated stuff? "What is you buisness" is pure bullshit. "Freedom" is nothing more than an agreed set of rules, and equality is just a way for one`s that do not have something to justify their want for somenthing. You just leaped into the next star system.
Not from his point of view. And I find it disturbing that there are people like him out there in numbers. People who honestly think that being homosexual is a crime. He compared being homosexual to being a racist, and that is not a coincidence. In his mind they are commiting a crime by simply consensually loving each other.
I have big respect for Obama's courage to stand up for what is right despite the knowledge that Republicans will try to mobilize the homophob tendencies in Christian parts of the USA.
|
On May 10 2012 14:34 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 14:32 Velocirapture wrote:
I am saying that when forming legislation personal opinions are not relevant. As a thought exercise, completely remove all of your opinions and just look at the data. Then go back and try to justify your opinions in that context. Doing this it is very hard to justify the exclusion of gays from marriage without shutting down marriage all together.
It also makes it impossible to justify nearly every single criminal law we have on our books, but we still have them. Laws aren't science, they are emotions and preferences that embody what we as a culture want to tolerate.
No, it doesn't. We have laws to prevent behavior that is harmful to others. Gay marriage doesn't harm anyone. Making it illegal does though.
|
On May 10 2012 14:36 Fenrax wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 14:22 heliusx wrote:On May 10 2012 14:21 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 14:05 heliusx wrote:
My point is it's no ones business if dudes wanna get married. Your personal opinions or religious views shouldnt be taken into account when we are speaking about equality.
How about other "it's no ones business" es? like freedom of speech? Nut we ban more stuff than we are allowed. Who cares if dude has his home full of swasticas and thinks that holocost was the right thing. What is your buisness? Shut up and tolerate. You`r oppinion doesn`t matter. Or if a person is openly rasist? What is your buisness? maybe freedom of movement? How about prisins? Borders? ex,.. maybe "it's no ones business" that somebody is pirating copyrated stuff? "What is you buisness" is pure bullshit. "Freedom" is nothing more than an agreed set of rules, and equality is just a way for one`s that do not have something to justify their want for somenthing. You just leaped into the next star system. Not from his point of view. And I find it disturbing that there are people like him out there in numbers. People who honestly think that being homosexual is a crime. He compared being homosexual to being a racist, and that is not a coincidence. In his mind they are commiting a crime by simply consensually loving each other. I have big respect for Obama's courage to stand up for what is right despite the knowledge that Republicans will try to mobilize the homophob tendencies in Christian parts of the USA.
yes, i admire him for his courage also. at first i believed it was political suicide, but after some consideration his strategy
is maybe to show people just how rediculous the republican party is on the issue of gay marriage. He is giving them the rope to hang themself
|
On May 10 2012 14:36 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 14:21 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 14:05 heliusx wrote:
My point is it's no ones business if dudes wanna get married. Your personal opinions or religious views shouldnt be taken into account when we are speaking about equality.
How about other "it's no ones business" es? like freedom of speech? Nut we ban more stuff than we are allowed. Who cares if dude has his home full of swasticas and thinks that holocost was the right thing. What is your buisness? Shut up and tolerate. You`r oppinion doesn`t matter. Or if a person is openly rasist? What is your buisness? maybe freedom of movement? How about prisins? Borders? ex,.. maybe "it's no ones business" that somebody is pirating copyrated stuff? "What is you buisness" is pure bullshit. "Freedom" is nothing more than an agreed set of rules, and equality is just a way for one`s that do not have something to justify their want for somenthing. It's not illegal to think that holocaust was the right thing. It's not illegal to have swasticas all over your home, and etc, it's not illegal to be a racist. So once again, why should marriage between two people of the same gender be illegal?
Ok, not that i agree with him, but that's apples and oranges. Having a personal relationship legally recognized is not the same as freedom of speech. Gay couples are already allowed freedom of relationship, and laws agaisnt it were struck down in Lawrence v. Texas.
|
So can we bring this argument to and end? These two have yet to answer any important questions brought up about the gay marriage. And I dont beleive they will start. Tired of asking the same question 15 times.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
