EPTGoogle Announces Campaign to Legalize Gay Marriage - Page 10
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Kokobongo
Poland7 Posts
| ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On July 08 2012 21:32 Pisky wrote: Ok, I am not trying to mock you but I will use the same method as you: Procreation cannot be understood apart from marriage. Why can marriage be understood apart from procreation? For the rest of your arguments, I think you are just twisting my initial argument. My opinion is: Marriage exists to take care of the social and other aspects of procreation. Your arguments make it look as if i am saying that marriage is in fact the same thing as procreation. Yes, I think marriage exists because of procreation but it also affirms the "spiritual union" (and many other things) you mentioned. Of couse marriage is a spiritual union, and again, I think it exists because of procreation. And for your last argument: I would not feel perverted and what does it have to do with our discussion ? :-D Once again, homosexuals can adopt children. This argument holds no water and is incredibly offensive to married people everywhere. Marriage is more than whether your bits dangle or not and it is more than making babies. The law does not treat women who have had hysterectomies differently than women who haven't had hysterectomies. The law is not suppose to treat women differently from men or homosexuals differently from heterosexuals. That is not what the law is for. So stop it. | ||
|
Legate
46 Posts
I guess its just not as popular, yet... Where do you draw the line? | ||
|
Cutlery
Norway565 Posts
On July 08 2012 21:36 Kahuna. wrote: You're entitled to that opinion. We differ in that I think homosexuality is a pathology. By definition to me a pathology is: an abnormal condition or disease affecting the body of an animal. In the case of homosexuals, I would think that the abnormal condition lies somewhere in the brain, genitals, or genes. I'm not an expert on the matter, but I think scientists have identified the "gay gene". So yes, very unlike freedom/slavery, it is a pathology. Maybe, you define pathology with the same leniency that you define the word marriage. But most people prefer their definitions to be consistent. Scientifically it is not a pathology. The fact is we don't know exactly what causes it, while we do know what causes pathologies. Most likely it is the same kind of "pathology" as simply being left-handed is, or having a different skin colour. (genetically, or hormon"ically" which in turn is based on genetics.) Bio-science ethics pretty much goes against "curing" certain genes that are not defective, just because some people may not like them e.g being left handed. Should we "cure" people from this attribute? My grandmother was a leftie, and was forced to write with her right hand. She had to endure ridicule from her teachers, and long hours of detention; having to rewrite papers that didn't look "pretty" enough, simply because she had to write with her right hand, which was hard for her. Society tried to cure her of her lefthandedness. They saw it as a pathology. Nowhere was there any evidence that it, infact, was a pathology. And now we know it is based on genetics. If genetic attributes are pathologies in general, then we're all full of them. For now we distinguish between genetical "defects" that need treatment and special care, and recognize them as such; while other genetic attributes (like being left-handed) are merely a curiosity, and not a defect, or a pathology (abnormal condition, according to you). | ||
|
peacenl
550 Posts
On July 08 2012 21:41 Legate wrote: What about polygamy or Human–animal marriage? Wouldn't it be discriminating to exclude them ? I guess its just not as popular, yet... Where do you draw the line? Ever heard of mutual-consent? | ||
|
Kahuna.
Canada196 Posts
On July 08 2012 21:37 munchmunch wrote: To turn it around, imagine that you pass a civil union law, where people in civil unions have all the same rights as married people. Gay people can not marry, but can join a civil union. Sounds great, right? But think about it again, you're basically forcing one group of people to wear a special label. Imagine that Jewish people could only have "Jewish marriages". Even if Jewish marriages were the same as normal marriages, forcing that extra label on it is discriminatory on the face of it. There was actually a recent court decision, where a state had passed a civil union law, and the state supreme court ruled that gay people should be allowed to marry, because not allowing them to use the word "marriage" was discriminatory. Well, then, let's just get rid of all borders and country name. And let's supplement that with a skin-toning innovation that will change the skin colour of all humans to one single colour. C'mon man!... it's not discrimination to call someone Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Black, Gay, Straight... It's discrimination if you take specific rights away from them that make them worse off. By giving gays the same rights and calling it something else, I really don't think you're doing the world any harm at all. | ||
|
Cutlery
Norway565 Posts
On July 08 2012 21:32 Pisky wrote: Ok, I am not trying to mock you but I will use the same method as you: Procreation cannot be understood apart from marriage. Why can marriage be understood apart from procreation? For the rest of your arguments, I think you are just twisting my initial argument. My opinion is: Marriage exists to take care of the social and other aspects of procreation. Your arguments make it look as if i am saying that marriage is in fact the same thing as procreation. Yes, I think marriage exists because of procreation but it also affirms the "spiritual union" (and many other things) you mentioned. Of couse marriage is a spiritual union, and again, I think it exists because of procreation. And for your last argument: I would not feel perverted and what does it have to do with our discussion ? :-D My method was logic. The sentence "Procreation cannot be understood apart from marriage" is illogical. Contra-"example": People get pregnant outside of marriage. So you agree that marriage is about more thawn procreation. Then you cannot claim that marriage can not be understood apart from procreation, can you? Or, look at it historically. "First" there were arranged marriages, one way or another. For instance, marrying for money and political standing was very common. The reason for such marriages is/was to create certain financial or political "bonds" (or whatever you want to call them). For instance between royal families, or families with good standing. For a rich daughter to run off with the stable-boy was a travesty. Currently we marry for love, more or less. There are other reasons, but we atleast like to think that we marry for love. I don't see procreation as a defining attribute for marrige. It is merely one attribute among many. As has been mentioned; women above 50 can get married while in reality being unable to conceive for the rest of their lives. Infertile (sterile) men and women can get married, without being able to procreate, ever. And so on. Therefore I'll claim that my "method" is logic, and it works. Using logic illogically does not prove a point. | ||
|
Legate
46 Posts
So it would be ok if one marries lets say, 2 men and 3 woman if they all agree with it? | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On July 08 2012 21:44 Kahuna. wrote: Well, then, let's just get rid of all borders and country name. And let's supplement that with a skin-toning innovation that will change the skin colour of all humans to one single colour. C'mon man!... it's not discrimination to call someone Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Black, Gay, Straight... It's discrimination if you take specific rights away from them that make them worse off. By giving gays the same rights and calling it something else, I really don't think you're doing the world any harm at all. What exactly is the point of calling it something different? Believe it or not, Homosexuals are just as sentimental about the word marriage as heterosexuals are. The only point of changing the name is to insult homosexual marriages. Insulting people is not what the law is for. It doesn't matter though, because at the moment they don't get nearly the same rights. On July 08 2012 21:47 Legate wrote: So it would be ok if one marries lets say, 2 men and 3 woman if they all agree with it? Sure, why not? Are you going to stop them? | ||
|
munchmunch
Canada789 Posts
On July 08 2012 21:44 Kahuna. wrote: Uh, the gay marriage debate is about discrimination by a government as related to the people living within the jurisdiction of said government. No need to get carried away...Well, then, let's just get rid of all borders and country name. And let's supplement that with a skin-toning innovation that will change the skin colour of all humans to one single colour. C'mon man!... it's not discrimination to call someone Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Black, Gay, Straight... It's discrimination if you take specific rights away from them that make them worse off. By giving gays the same rights and calling it something else, I really don't think you're doing the world any harm at all. | ||
|
Bippzy
United States1466 Posts
On July 08 2012 18:35 Magrath wrote: Good to see Google is still thinking outside the box on how to spread their name. This will give them immense exposure and tons of support and use from the LGBT community. This was what i thought before the article, and what i think afterwards as well. Seems good for marketing. | ||
|
Tuthur
France985 Posts
| ||
|
Kahuna.
Canada196 Posts
On July 08 2012 21:42 Cutlery wrote: Scientifically it is not a pathology. The fact is we don't know exactly what causes it, while we do know what causes pathologies. Most likely it is the same kind of "pathology" as simply being left-handed is, or having a different skin colour. (genetically, or hormon"ically" which in turn is based on genetics.) Bio-science ethics pretty much goes against "curing" certain genes that are not defective, just because some people may not like them e.g being left handed. Should we "cure" people from this attribute? My grandmother was a leftie, and was forced to write with her right hand. She had to endure ridicule from her teachers, and long hours of detention; having to rewrite papers that didn't look "pretty" enough, simply because she had to write with her right hand, which was hard for her. Society tried to cure her of her lefthandedness. They saw it as a pathology. Nowhere was there any evidence that it, infact, was a pathology. And now we know it is based on genetics. If genetic attributes are pathologies in general, then we're all full of them. For now we distinguish between genetical "defects" that need treatment and special care, and recognize them as such; while other genetic attributes (like being left-handed) are merely a curiosity, and not a defect, or a pathology (abnormal condition, according to you). Left-handedness has to do with opposite side brain dominance. It's not an unnatural dysfunction which is characteristic of pathologies. More irrelevant points. | ||
|
Arnstein
Norway3381 Posts
| ||
|
peacenl
550 Posts
On July 08 2012 21:47 Legate wrote: So it would be ok if one marries lets say, 2 men and 3 woman if they all agree with it? Yes, as long as all parties are deemed capable (old enough etc..) to make that decision. | ||
|
DonKey_
Liechtenstein1356 Posts
On July 08 2012 21:48 DoubleReed wrote: What exactly is the point of calling it something different? Believe it or not, Homosexuals are just as sentimental about the word marriage as heterosexuals are. The only point of changing the name is to insult homosexual marriages. Insulting people is not what the law is for. It doesn't matter though, because at the moment they don't get nearly the same rights. Sure, why not? Are you going to stop them? So what if you inflate those numbers to say 200 men and 300 women, or even higher than that? Is there a number where it stops? | ||
|
Legate
46 Posts
On July 08 2012 21:48 DoubleReed wrote: What exactly is the point of calling it something different? Believe it or not, Homosexuals are just as sentimental about the word marriage as heterosexuals are. The only point of changing the name is to insult homosexual marriages. Insulting people is not what the law is for. It doesn't matter though, because at the moment they don't get nearly the same rights. Sure, why not? Are you going to stop them? Not me , but the law, at least in most western countrys. But i guess this will change too. Do you think it would be ok to marrie a bunch of underage girls if i could convince them? | ||
|
Equity213
Canada873 Posts
On July 08 2012 18:42 hypercube wrote: It's a little sad that the most effective way to fight for human right is through multinational corporations. I don't like what that says about the state of democracy in the World. Anti capitalist to the bitter end eh? What exactly has google done for you to resent them so much? Googles done more for humanity than democracy ever has IMHO. Democracy is thousands of years old. The rise in humanitys living standards coincided with advances in technology, not democracy. | ||
|
Cutlery
Norway565 Posts
On July 08 2012 21:50 Kahuna. wrote: Left-handedness has to do with opposite side brain dominance. It's not an unnatural dysfunction which is characteristic of pathologies. More irrelevant points. You have not explained why homosexuality is a pathology. All I got from you was that certain abnormal traits (or whatever) were explained by pathologies. This does not apply to homosexuality without further reasoning. Pathology is merely another irrelevant point, atleast as you presented it...... | ||
|
Equity213
Canada873 Posts
On July 08 2012 21:41 Legate wrote: What about polygamy or Human–animal marriage? Wouldn't it be discriminating to exclude them ? I guess its just not as popular, yet... Where do you draw the line? Animals cant give consent. Consent is where you draw the line. | ||
| ||
