On July 08 2012 21:49 munchmunch 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...
It's not discrimination to call something what it is. Discrimination is when you act upon a belief of yours in a way that causes harm to others. By calling a gay marriage, a "gay marriage", you're not doing that. You're just identifying something by its inherent characteristics without any intention of causing harm to anyone.
Some of the responses in this thread are hilarious.
No matter how many gay people I meet, or how many gay people there are in this world. I'll always be straight. There being gay people is not going to ruin anything in the world, others mentioned children needing to be adopted. Well I'm sorry to say this but I've meet more nice gay people than nice christians in my life by probably a for every 10 nice gay people I met I met one equally nice christian.
I USED to be a homophobe when I was like 12-13 and uneducated and very stupid about the whole process, now that I'm twice as old I understand let people who care about each other care about each other. And hell if you're a straight guy think about it, gay guys days guys, that means more women for you. And the lesbians weren't going to date you in the first place anyway, and it doesn't hurt to have more friends in life than enemies. Damn zerg.
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.
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:
On July 08 2012 21:43 peacenl wrote:
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?
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?
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?
I would let the whole world marry itself if every person on this planet was so inclined to participate in such a relationship. Could you please start using some logic? And by logic, I mean objective logic. Not this slippery slope bull shit which seems to be all you know how to understand.
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.
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:
On July 08 2012 21:43 peacenl wrote:
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?
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?
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?
...? Consent is an actual concept, you know. If they are underage then they do not have the ability to consent.
Although I fail to see how homosexuality is related to polygamy or pedophilia. Homosexuality is simply taking the sexism out of marriage. I don't think whether or not I have a penis should affect my civil rights.
Changing the numbers or age are completely unrelated issues, and have completely different arguments for and against them. It's not like polygamy is wrong because "marriage is between one man and one woman" because historically and biblically there are several cases of "one man and many women." If anything, allowing heterosexuals to get married is a slippery slope to incest and polygamy. You've got it backwards man. We should ban heterosexual marriage.
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.
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:
On July 08 2012 21:43 peacenl wrote:
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?
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?
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?
Wasn't the whole point for your bringing it up is to show that, if we agreed to allow gay marriage then anything would go. It's just a failed attempt at proving something. The simple fact is that some people would like to impose limitations on other people's lives, while they are not affected by them, this false ideology is only brought on by fear.
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.
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......
Pathology: (Medicine) the branch of medicine concerned with the cause, origin, and nature of disease, including the changes occurring as a result of disease.
Or
The scientific study of the nature of disease and its causes, processes, development, and consequences. Also called pathobiology.
You have to link homosexuality to a disease in order to call it a pathology. And then, if we really care anymore, we can start talking about who is making irrelevant arguments.
Or
The first word patho means feeling or suffering and logos means study.
What study concluded with homosexuality is suffering?
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?
You draw the line where Its start to become unhealthy or just fucking idiocy. animal-human marriage doesn't make any sense since animals cannot own property or money, a reason for marriage is the benefits you get as a couple regarding money tax and so forth, none of that applies to animals. Second it would be nice if your other half was intelligent enough to actually understand what he or she was getting themselves into, Animals cannot think in those terms, thus you would invoke marriage without them understanding. In order to make a marriage happen both parties must have their consent since it's a legal binding contract, and animals cannot make contracts.
EDIT: To the people in this thread that dislikes gay people and the arguments you have presented... like the one above is mind boggling O_o How the hell do you people even function in society?
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.
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:
On July 08 2012 21:43 peacenl wrote:
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?
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?
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?
Probably not, cause of that consent thing again. As our society defines it at the moment, children are not able to consent to sexual relationships. This could change, cause ultimately consent means whatever society defines it to mean. But I don't think it will, because even as we've become more accepting of homosexual relationships, we've become much more opposed to pedophilia and hebephilia.
On July 08 2012 21:55 Cutlery wrote: 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......
Homosexuality is an abnormal condition that causes a human being to think inaccurately about the genders amongst whom sexual activities make sense (refer to the plug-and-outlet image if you need clarification on the "makes sense" part). Pretty simple stuff though... not sure where you're having trouble.
On July 08 2012 21:58 Cutlery wrote: Pathology: (Medicine) the branch of medicine concerned with the cause, origin, and nature of disease, including the changes occurring as a result of disease.
Or
The scientific study of the nature of disease and its causes, processes, development, and consequences. Also called pathobiology.
You have to link homosexuality to a disease in order to call it a pathology. And then, if we really care anymore, we can start talking about who is making irrelevant arguments.
Or
The first word patho means feeling or suffering and logos means study.
What study concluded with homosexuality is suffering?
Root words are not always indicative of the meaning of the word that they make up. So you're being too literal when you break a word down into parts like that. Nevertheless, one could perhaps interpret homosexuality as suffering from irrational thinking if suffering is so essential to your definition.
And no, I don't care enough to go into it. But you seem quite interested, so you should definitely read the works of doctors, philosophers and scientists who are actively involved in the discussion. Have fun!
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.
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:
On July 08 2012 21:43 peacenl wrote:
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?
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?
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?
I would let the whole world marry itself if every person on this planet was so inclined to participate in such a relationship. Could you please start using some logic? And by logic, I mean objective logic. Not this slippery slope bull shit which seems to be all you know how to understand.
I don't think you understand the point I am making.... Do have any idea what marriage laws would look like with so many people taking part in them?
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.
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:
On July 08 2012 21:43 peacenl wrote:
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?
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?
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?
Probably not, cause of that consent thing again. As our society defines it at the moment, children are not able to consent to sexual relationships. This could change, cause ultimately consent means whatever society defines it to mean. But I don't think it will, because even as we've become more accepting of homosexual relationships, we've become much more opposed to pedophilia and hebephilia.
Actually the legal age for sexual consent is changing, in numerous countries the age for legalizing sexual relationships has already been brought up by politicians.
I didn't think it would be possible for me to love google even more, but they proved me wrong once again. I've never seen a better mentality for a company, no wonder why they are growing so much, they're "human".
On July 08 2012 21:39 DoubleReed wrote: I think I remember that Google was a big push to get same-sex marriage legalized in Washington State. Gay people want to live in states where they can get married, and many companies were frustrated that employees had to make the choice between staying at their job and getting married.
On July 08 2012 20:51 Pisky wrote: I think this is a strong argument against:
and in my personal view, it really depends on the question if marriage can or cannot be understood apart from procreation.
Procreation can be understood apart from marriage.
Why can't marriage be understood apart from procreation?
Why is marrital status given legal benefits that do not depend on any children being in the picture, if marriage was only understood through procreation?
Why is marriage a "spiritual union" if only understood by procreation?
Are you saying that every vow and "i do" and tear and "spiritual fulfillment" is only expressed in context with procreation? Would you now, after considering this, feel slightly perverted if you said "I do" in front of your mom and the rest of your family, with everybody knowing the ceremony cannot be understood apart from procreation?
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.
Yes, it IS more than making babies but my point is that it exists because of procreation to complement it in the social and other aspects of life. It looks like you have not watched the video. So I will repeat: between man and woman, it is IN PRINCIPLE possible to have babies, IN PRINCIPLE means: relating to the definition. So women with hysterectomies or infertile couples can IN PRINCIPLE have babies with other man, the fact that some particular circumstances does not allow man and woman to have babies does not make it the same case as man+man and woman+woman because between man and man making babies is IN PRINCIPLE impossible.
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.
The law does not treat homosexuals differently, all men and all women have the right to be married. The thing is that homosexuals try to expand their rights not trying to equalize them, because they in fact ARE equal even if you can marry just between male and female. In short: the fact that you can marry someone of the opposing sex does treat EVERYONE the same.
On July 08 2012 21:55 Cutlery wrote: 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......
Homosexuality is an abnormal condition that causes a human being to think inaccurately about the genders amongst whom sexual activities make sense (refer to the plug-and-outlet image if you need clarification on the "makes sense" part). Pretty simple stuff though... not sure where you're having trouble.
I'm really confused that people actually think human sexuality is as simple as plumbing. Grow up.
On July 08 2012 21:55 Cutlery wrote: 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......
Homosexuality is an abnormal condition that causes a human being to think inaccurately about the genders amongst whom sexual activities make sense (refer to the plug-and-outlet image if you need clarification on the "makes sense" part). Pretty simple stuff though... not sure where you're having trouble.
Its a sex drive, it has nothing to do with thought or thinking, its instinct. Sexual activities is about sensation and emotions, there is no Sense or logic involved whatsoever.
On July 08 2012 21:55 Cutlery wrote: 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......
Homosexuality is an abnormal condition that causes a human being to think inaccurately about the genders amongst whom sexual activities make sense (refer to the plug-and-outlet image if you need clarification on the "makes sense" part). Pretty simple stuff though... not sure where you're having trouble.
Yeah that's what you think, but that doesn't mean that's how it actually is.
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.
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:
On July 08 2012 21:43 peacenl wrote:
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?
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?
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?
I would let the whole world marry itself if every person on this planet was so inclined to participate in such a relationship. Could you please start using some logic? And by logic, I mean objective logic. Not this slippery slope bull shit which seems to be all you know how to understand.
I don't think you understand the point I am making.... Do have any idea what marriage laws would look like with so many people taking part in them?
The slippery slope argument is a terrible one, you can keep fantasizing about all the horrible scenarios that would occur if you would do this, but that doesn't mean any of them would actually happen. You can apply the slippery slope argument to nearly anything, and guess what, if we DID do that, no one would actually ever do something because oh lord look at all the horrible things that COULD happen.
We allows gays to marry and suddenly we get groups of HUNDREDS of people that want to marry each other..... hmm no.
On July 08 2012 21:49 munchmunch 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...
It's not discrimination to call something what it is. Discrimination is when you act upon a belief of yours in a way that causes harm to others. By calling a gay marriage, a "gay marriage", you're not doing that. You're just identifying something by its inherent characteristics without any intention of causing harm to anyone.
Whether you or I calling "gay marriage" by that term harms anyone depends on context. It could be purely descriptive, loving and supportive, or hateful, depending on what you are saying along with it. But we are not talking about what you or I are allowed to say. No matter what is decided on the gay marriage debate, you will still be allowed to use the term "gay marriage", even if you are using it as part of a long gay-bashing rant. That's free speech. What we're debating is whether or not the government should use the term "gay marriage" as part of its law. You can certainly make a case that having the government single out a group of people for special treatment, with no rational basis, is harmful. And even if it's not harmful, it's a legal principle in the Western world that laws should always have a rational basis, i.e. if it's legally equivalent to marriage, you shouldn't call it something else "just because".
On July 08 2012 21:39 DoubleReed wrote: I think I remember that Google was a big push to get same-sex marriage legalized in Washington State. Gay people want to live in states where they can get married, and many companies were frustrated that employees had to make the choice between staying at their job and getting married.
and in my personal view, it really depends on the question if marriage can or cannot be understood apart from procreation.
Procreation can be understood apart from marriage.
Why can't marriage be understood apart from procreation?
Why is marrital status given legal benefits that do not depend on any children being in the picture, if marriage was only understood through procreation?
Why is marriage a "spiritual union" if only understood by procreation?
Are you saying that every vow and "i do" and tear and "spiritual fulfillment" is only expressed in context with procreation? Would you now, after considering this, feel slightly perverted if you said "I do" in front of your mom and the rest of your family, with everybody knowing the ceremony cannot be understood apart from procreation?
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.
Yes, it IS more than making babies but my point is that it exists because of procreation to complement it in the social and other aspects of life. It looks like you have not watched the video. So I will repeat: between man and woman, it is IN PRINCIPLE possible to have babies, IN PRINCIPLE means: relating to the definition. So women with hysterectomies or infertile couples can IN PRINCIPLE have babies with other man, the fact that some particular circumstances does not allow man and woman to have babies does not make it the same case as man+man and woman+woman because between man and man making babies is IN PRINCIPLE impossible.
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.
The law does not treat homosexuals differently, all men and all women have the right to be married. The thing is that homosexuals try to expand their rights not trying to equalize them, because they in fact ARE equal even if you can marry just between male and female. In short: the fact that you can marry someone of the opposing sex does treat EVERYONE the same.
You keep saying "IN PRINCIPLE" which is hilarious. Because no, a woman with a hysterecotomy cannot IN PRINCIPLE have babies. She lacks the necessary equipment to make babies. She's just as likely to give birth as a man. It is incidental that homosexuals cannot have sex and produce children in this specific way, due to them having the same genitalia.
If you're going to take a looser definition of "In Principle," then once again, heterosexuals can adopt, and so can homosexuals. Explain to me what the difference is between a heterosexual couple adopting a child and a homosexual couple adopting a child. You (and the idiot in the video) are trying to use "in principle" as a way to make your argument more ambiguous, so you can use a looser definition when you want to, and then a tighter definition when you don't want to.
The law treats men and women differently. They are only allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex. That means you have different rights. If I want to marry a man, then whether or not I have the right to do so is completely based around my genitals.
Well, I certainly didn't expect such a strong move from Google. Very awesome.
Also with regards to the discussion in this thread, arguing slippery slope arguments with people is pointless. If they're using them they've clearly not thought about the issues and are giving obviously absurd opinions that even 1 minute of research would debunk.
EPT
