EPTGoogle Announces Campaign to Legalize Gay Marriage - Page 12
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Munk-E
United States672 Posts
| ||
|
FireSA
Australia555 Posts
In any case I do support Google's move, hopefully something tangible comes of it. It is scary to see how many people don't understand the social, cultural, and economic tangents and concepts associated with homosexuality and gay marriage, and how critical it is to comprehend that beliefs of homosexuality and right and wrong are entirely socially constructed. There is no complete rational argument for prohibiting gay marriage ''-__- | ||
|
_Book
United States51 Posts
On July 08 2012 22:05 solidbebe wrote: Yeah that's what you think, but that doesn't mean that's how it actually is. 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. I really don't understand why people use slippery slope arguments. Are you really that stupid? Don't leave your house guys! Someone may break in and take all your stuff and eat your food! If you stay home a bomb will explode and kill you inside of it! Or a flood may drown you! The amount of slippery slope arguments in this thread is fucking hilarious. Anyway, OT: It's a nice initiative from Google. Let's see if it actually does anything though. If anything Facebook should come out and help Google so maybe we can see all the fundie Christians delete their facebooks so i don't have to see Jesus posts all damn day. | ||
|
Cutlery
Norway565 Posts
On July 08 2012 22:01 Kahuna. wrote: 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. 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! Making up your own definitions is usually not preferable in a discussion. Got nothing to say other than You're wrong. Plain simple. Have a nice day. Ok, one mor thing for curiosity. Is your sexuality mostly based on thinking? Or would "homosexuality suffering from irrational emotions" be more accurate? And then; what are irrational emotions? Or is your sexuality really only about thinking? (Above you attribute sexuality mainly to the act of thought.) | ||
|
Kahuna.
Canada196 Posts
On July 08 2012 22:07 munchmunch wrote: 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". Women and men are legally equivalent. Yet we don't refer to a woman as a man (or the other way around) in our legal system? Thus, even if there is a legal equivalence between the two unions there is still a substantial enough difference between the two that it justifies calling it something else. In fact, it's probably advantageous to do so for the purposes of clarity and transparency. Gay people refer to their spouses as their "partner", not their "wife" or "husband". It clarifies that they are gay and helps people not assume that they are not gay. So to be honest, it's actually more advantageous than it is discriminatory. And your point about legal equivalence is not that important either, when you consider what I mentioned above. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On July 08 2012 22:11 Munk-E wrote: Yeah, I know it's a good cause and all, but I don't like the idea of Google using the fact that hundreds of millions of people use it everyday to spread political views. It's popular because it's a good search engine, and bringing politics into this to exploit their user base seems wrong to me, no matter what the cause. Google has always been a huge supporter of gay rights, and campaigned both in California and Washington state for it. You have to understand that they are a company, and many of their employees are homosexual. These employees want to get married, but they also want to stay with Google. Google got more involved in it because they were frustrated with their employees having to make such a ridiculous decision. | ||
|
peacenl
550 Posts
On July 08 2012 22:12 Cutlery wrote: Got nothing to say other than You're wrong. Plain simple. Have a nice day. Much like a small spiders are disgusting but not at all dangerous, yet many people fear it because if something looks disgusting we've learned to fear it because it must carry diseases or pack deadly bites (evolutionary). Eventually in the same way gay marriage creates a lot of disgust around (haters want us to believe that homosexuals are all ridden with genital diseases and try to hit on you all the time), some people start fearing it after a while (these are the people who oppose usually), yet they might have only had a few encounters with homosexual persons (polarization). Which is why for the sake of aliens, they should never show up on this planet, because we are not ready yet to start looking beyond our own inner fears. | ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On July 08 2012 20:33 DonKey_ wrote: See thats the thing, I don't think that the kind of discrimination that existed in the 1900s for African Americans is any where near the same as the kind of discrimination that exists for Gay marriage currently. If you are gay you are not going to be forced out of a restraunt or forced to use different restrooms. Our society today with innovations such as the Internet and mass media media will not allow for such discrimination to exist. In fact look at the groups who discriminate, (westboro) they are made out as pariahs. More information on legal classifications will only help matters in the long run. Edit: I can't understand why pertinent information would be censored for a presumed sense that it will make marriage of any type more legitimate. If our laws say it is a marriage then it is a marriage. Yes you can just legally be fired from your job in a fairly large majority of US states JUST for being gay(I dont know international law), not to mention all the benefits both tax and legal that one is denied not having the right to get married. | ||
|
Dark supplydepo
Sweden103 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44185 Posts
On July 08 2012 22:01 DonKey_ wrote: 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? Just because you can pose a hypothetical question does not mean it has any practical sense. There are responsibilities and obligations that go into getting married- not just extra legal and financial benefits. Do you really think 200 men and 300 women are all going to get married in a huge 500-some marriage? Do you actually think that will happen? But guess what? If they're all consenting adults, and can financially and morally provide for every person involved in that family (e.g. kids), then who cares? It's an unrealistic hypothetical situation, but a polygamous marriage should be fine as long as everyone involved is okay with it. And if you don't want to get involved, don't have a polygamous marriage. Same with a gay couple or a straight couple. Don't like gay marriage? Don't get one. Move on. But we should draw the line at adult consent. None of this marrying animals or rocks or children nonsense; that's a slippery slope argument that I've heard way too frequently from idiots like Glenn Beck. Also, relevant (and funny and NSFW): | ||
|
Shikyo
Finland33997 Posts
Hilarious how some people compare gay people to animals, lovely. This thread should probably be a bit better moderated, you get fired from jobs for that kind of stuff over here. | ||
|
Firesilver
United Kingdom1190 Posts
If you have the time, this video explains why it needs to be legalized. Edit: Also that Wanda Sykes video DarkPlasmaBall posted, just wanted to pull what I think is a really important quote there. "I don't understand people all up in arms over shit that don't affect them." | ||
|
Chargelot
2275 Posts
| ||
|
munchmunch
Canada789 Posts
On July 08 2012 22:14 Kahuna. wrote: Once again, the gay marriage debate is not about what gay people should call their spouses (although for the record, many gay people do use the terms "husband" or "wife"). The debate is (partially) about what language governments should use for their laws. And since that is what we are arguing about, the point about legal equivalence is key. So for example, it could be discriminatory if the government referred to men and women in a law that had no need for such a distinction. For example, I think it would be discriminatory if we had a special crime called "reckless driving while female", even if the crime was equivalent to the ordinary type of reckless driving. It's not discriminatory to make distinctions between men and women if there is a rational basis to do so. For example, it's perfectly fine to have a health insurance law where men are covered for visits to a urologist, and women are covered for visits to a gynecologist, but not vice-versa. Women and men are legally equivalent. Yet we don't refer to a woman as a man (or the other way around) in our legal system? Thus, even if there is a legal equivalence between the two unions there is still a substantial enough difference between the two that it justifies calling it something else. In fact, it's probably advantageous to do so for the purposes of clarity and transparency. Gay people refer to their spouses as their "partner", not their "wife" or "husband". It clarifies that they are gay and helps people not assume that they are not gay. So to be honest, it's actually more advantageous than it is discriminatory. And your point about legal equivalence is not that important either, when you consider what I mentioned above. And I might also point out that this is not my idea; I learned about this by reading about court decisions concerning gay marriage. This is one of the legal principles that is being used by judges (in the US, at least) to decide what types of laws are allowable concerning gay marriage / civil unions / etc. | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6282 Posts
On July 08 2012 21:39 Kokobongo wrote: Wow quite risky of Google to get involved in this controversial and ideological stuff but i guess they can afford it, cause most likely they still won't lose their current users. I only wonder if there is a possibility that in the future less people will want to take part in some of their new projects because of what google just declared That's why I use Yandex  If you asked me 2-3 years ago if I was for gay marriage I would say 'don't really care, if there is a referendum in my country would probably vote yes because its such a minor thing, let them have it'... But after listening/reading the exhaustive, bigot posts these 'intellectuals' spew out every day on the internet I would say 'HELL NO', not because I don't like gays, its just i'm sick and tired of listening to the same crap on teamliquid which seems to attract the worst kind of liberals, do they even realize how many 'normal' people they put off and alienate, all these threads do is spread hate, extremist religonists and these teamliquid liberals = same thing: I hate you because you don't think like me, you are stupid, everyone like you is stupid I hate people that hate you because you don't think like me, you are stupid, everyone like you is stupid I hate the people that hate people because they don't think this or that I hate this/I hate that Cycle of hate that goes on and on and on as long as this site allows thousands of threads dedicated to the same shit being said over and over and over. I'm not saying 'gay marriage' is evil, just calm down and let it go its own course, it will happen somewhere down the line. People in this thread from NATO countries are involved in countless wars, their country men and women are dieing, getting themselves involved in warcrimes, why isn't there more effort involved in swaying public opinion against this, why aren't you spending more time on the economic problems of your country. Oh, who cares about healthcare, and social security, the insane amounts of money involved in politics these days and the fact that it does not matter who you vote for, lets put this shiny thing called 'gay marriage and abortion' on the agenda... EVERY SINGLE DAY, lets make it so its the only thing we talk about, like its the most important thing in the world, let everything else fall into the background. Why is there a constant need to bombard everyone with useless threads that we all know will end up the same way? Not saying that this OP has ego issues, but some people here have a constant need to open stupid threads to feed their 'look at me i'm so smart and open-minded' egos. | ||
|
Pisky
29 Posts
On July 08 2012 22:08 DoubleReed wrote: 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. Because no, a woman with a hysterecotomy cannot IN PRINCIPLE have babies. Yes, that is true. But in marriage you look at two individuals, you look at man and woman, you DO NOT look at every possible circumstance and condition, you just look at the definition of man and woman, not woman with hysterectomy or ANY other condition. So again, between man and woman it is in principle (ok, i will type it in lower case, i dont want to irritate you ) possible. I use "in principle" just as tight as possible to make the discussion reasonable, and in this case I use it always the same not looser or tighter. Laws cannot solve every possible circumstance, thats why they function by means of principles and definitions.The law treats men and women differently. They are only allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex. Really? Please read it again. Think about it - statement: "You are allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex." ...does that treat ANYONE differently??? | ||
|
Cutlery
Norway565 Posts
On July 08 2012 22:30 ahappystar wrote: That's why I use Yandex If you asked me 2-3 years ago if I was for gay marriage I would say 'don't really care, if there is a referendum in my country would probably vote yes because its such a minor thing, let them have it'... But after listening/reading the exhaustive, bigot posts these 'intellectuals' spew out every day on the internet I would say 'HELL NO', not because I don't like gays, its just i'm sick and tired of listening to the same crap on teamliquid which seems to attract the worst kind of liberals, So.. Instead of voting for a quicker resolution to the issues of unequal human rights, so that we could move on to other issues; you'd stall it even further? I find the rest of your post as a reason to quickly resolve this issue, not the other way around. "Let them have it.." human rights don't really matter, right?^^ On July 08 2012 22:30 ahappystar wrote: why aren't you spending more time on the economic problems of your country. Why arent you? ^^ | ||
|
Nyarly
France1030 Posts
On July 08 2012 22:33 Pisky wrote: Really? Please read it again. Think about it - statement: "You are allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex." ...does that treat ANYONE differently??? Everyone with blonde hairs will receive a free icecream. Would you think you're being treated like everyone else if you're a ginger ? Why would you not be allowed to receive this succulent icecream just because your hairs looks different ? | ||
|
Legate
46 Posts
Btw, just a random thought, does anyone here think that it will be fun for an adopted kid, to be the one with the two dads when he enters school? | ||
|
munchmunch
Canada789 Posts
On July 08 2012 22:30 ahappystar wrote: We're sorry you're upset. We abjectly apologize. We didn't realize that talking about something which deeply affects our friends and people we love was annoying you and other "normal" people so much. We'll stop now.That's why I use Yandex If you asked me 2-3 years ago if I was for gay marriage I would say 'don't really care, if there is a referendum in my country would probably vote yes because its such a minor thing, let them have it'... But after listening/reading the exhaustive, bigot posts these 'intellectuals' spew out every day on the internet I would say 'HELL NO', not because I don't like gays, its just i'm sick and tired of listening to the same crap on teamliquid which seems to attract the worst kind of liberals, do they even realize how many 'normal' people they put off and alienate, all these threads do is spread hate, extremist religonists and these teamliquid liberals = same thing: I hate you because you don't think like me, you are stupid, everyone like you is stupid I hate people that hate you because you don't think like me, you are stupid, everyone like you is stupid I hate the people that hate people because they don't think this or that I hate this/I hate that Cycle of hate that goes on and on and on as long as this site allows thousands of threads dedicated to the same shit being said over and over and over. I'm not saying 'gay marriage' is evil, just calm down and let it go its own course, it will happen somewhere down the line. People in this thread from NATO countries are involved in countless wars, their country men and women are dieing, getting themselves involved in warcrimes, why isn't there more effort involved in swaying public opinion against this, why aren't you spending more time on the economic problems of your country. Oh, who cares about healthcare, and social security, the insane amounts of money involved in politics these days and the fact that it does not matter who you vote for, lets put this shiny thing called 'gay marriage and abortion' on the agenda... EVERY SINGLE DAY, lets make it so its the only thing we talk about, like its the most important thing in the world, let everything else fall into the background. Why is there a constant need to bombard everyone with useless threads that we all know will end up the same way? Not saying that this OP has ego issues, but some people here have a constant need to open stupid threads to feed their 'look at me i'm so smart and open-minded' egos. + Show Spoiler + Yes, this is sarcasm. | ||
| ||
