On July 08 2012 22:23 Firesilver wrote: I really don't see how anyone can be against this. It's been far too long that same sex couples can't get the same rights as straight couples can.
I think it's a compilation of three things:
1. Religious beliefs (e.g. Leviticus 18:22- although there are plenty of other absurd things in Leviticus and other Biblical books that are completely ignored nowadays)
2. The fact that homosexuals have been a nearly-voiceless minority and therefore there isn't a rush to give them civil rights or see them as equals (see: women, blacks, atheists, etc.)
3. The "ick" factor that the majority of (straight) people get when they see intimacy that they can't relate to (which is rather ironic, since homosexuals need to put up with straight sex and public displays of affection in the media, television, and movies all the time).
Regardless, these are things we need to get over eventually, we will get over eventually, and years from now we'll look back and shake our heads at how bigoted our society was, even after we bragged about formally ending slavery and giving extra rights to some people. I'm very proud of Google.
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.
It can be viewed as political, but frankly it's bigger than that. Supporting human rights is not only political.
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.
It can be viewed as political, but frankly it's bigger than that. Supporting human rights is not only political.
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.
It can be viewed as political, but frankly it's bigger than that. Supporting human rights is not only political.
Good on them, I say.
Since when is gay marriage a human right ?
Since the law discriminated against relationship statuses based upon the people involved in them. Thus there are rights for humans tied to the status of marriage. It's not an inherent UN "human right" like food and water and what not.. (which have issues on their own, but that's different). This is more comparable to the stripping of rights from jews in europe many decades ago, or the stripping of rights of blacks in south africa and the US.
Things have progressed for sure, atleast "here". But in many countries you still get killed and deserve death by law if you are homosexual. And then it suddenly becomes a "UN human right" as no one deserves death like that.
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 21:32 Pisky wrote:
On July 08 2012 20:56 Cutlery wrote:
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.
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???
Ah, so you're just a sexist. I don't know any other way to say it. I do not think the law should treat people differently because of their genitals. Why are you claiming that we do not look at every possible circumstance and condition? It would be rather easy to ban women from marrying over age 50, where it's extremely unlikely that they can bear children (and if they can it's incredibly dangerous), or banning women from marrying if they get a hysterectomy. Why couldn't we do that, if we are saying that marriage is about babies? Come on, these people are destroying the institution of marriage.
"You are allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex" is quite similar to "you are allowed to marry a person of the same race" in terms of equality. Yes, actually, it does treat people differently. I have no idea what magical world you live in where that doesn't treat people differently. Maybe you don't consider women to be people? I'm not sure what mental gymnastics you're performing here.
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.
Hello list of terrible arguments, seriously if you don't see what's wrong with this train of thought, I don't even know what to say anymore.
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.
It can be viewed as political, but frankly it's bigger than that. Supporting human rights is not only political.
Good on them, I say.
Since when is gay marriage a human right ?
Since the law discriminated against relationship statuses based upon the people involved in them. Thus there are rights for humans tied to the status of marriage. It's not an inherent UN "human right" like food and what not..
At least "The European Court of Human Rights" does not agree with you.
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.
I'm not sure if you realize this, but giving homosexuals equal rights is a civil rights issue. There's a reason to be loud about this.
We're not smugly and omnisciently talking about how chocolate chip cookies are better than oatmeal raisin. We're talking about a topic that affects people's lives on a daily basis (gay people; marriage; the right to love one another and receive the same benefits and responsibilities as everyone else).
Some people care about social issues. Other people care about economic issues. Whatever you care about, make sure you're well-informed and well-educated on the topic, pick a side, and get loud about it. But don't roll your eyes at people who are passionate about believing in human rights.
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.
It can be viewed as political, but frankly it's bigger than that. Supporting human rights is not only political.
Good on them, I say.
Since when is gay marriage a human right ?
Since the law discriminated against relationship statuses based upon the people involved in them. Thus there are rights for humans tied to the status of marriage. It's not an inherent UN "human right" like food and what not..
At least "The European Court of Human Rights" does not agree with you.
So that specific one sets the tone for every piece of paper on Human Rights, or is it only one of them, which was thrown together by fallible humans like ourselves?
Does "The European Court of Human Rights" talk about equality at all? Why would homosexuals be treated as inferiors? Why would they have less rights?
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.
I'm not sure if you realize this, but giving homosexuals equal rights is a civil rights issue. There's a reason to be loud about this.
We're not smugly and omnisciently talking about how chocolate chip cookies are better than oatmeal raisin. We're talking about a topic that affects people's lives on a daily basis (gay people; marriage; the right to love one another and receive the same benefits and responsibilities as everyone else).
Some people care about social issues. Other people care about economic issues. Whatever you care about, make sure you're well-informed and well-educated on the topic, pick a side, and get loud about it. But don't roll your eyes at people who are passionate about believing in human rights.
The kind of view that Kokobongo perpetuates is exactly what made the West "great".
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.
It can be viewed as political, but frankly it's bigger than that. Supporting human rights is not only political.
Good on them, I say.
Since when is gay marriage a human right ?
Since the law discriminated against relationship statuses based upon the people involved in them. Thus there are rights for humans tied to the status of marriage. It's not an inherent UN "human right" like food and what not..
At least "The European Court of Human Rights" does not agree with you.
Are you seriously trying to use the 'slippery slope' argument to oppose gay marriage? Or "they'll get made fun of by kids in school'? I ask because they are both poorly constructed and don't really make sense.
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???
I'd have to say yes. Based on what we know today, it does treat some people differently. To some, marrying a woman is not fathomable, so that "statement" tells them they can only get married to someone they don't want to marry. In a way it is a non-functional statement to them. A "dysfunctional" "law" even.
So if marriage should be based, atleast in part, on love, then your statement treats people differently. If marriage had nothing to do with love or personal feelings, I would have agreed with you.
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
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.
Your contra example does not refute my argument.
Marriage is about more than procreation, but the institution of marriage exists because of it, thats what i was trying to say, so when you say that people marry because of love, politics and whatever, yes that is true, your reason to marry someone can be whatever, but I believe the institution of marriage exists because of procreation so if you allow couples that in principle cannot procreate you just destroy the meaning of marriage.
If you start to loosen the conditions, you can (and notice I do not say that necessarily will) end up having marriage absolutely different meaning and I think thats bad.
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.
It can be viewed as political, but frankly it's bigger than that. Supporting human rights is not only political.
Good on them, I say.
Since when is gay marriage a human right ?
Since the law discriminated against relationship statuses based upon the people involved in them. Thus there are rights for humans tied to the status of marriage. It's not an inherent UN "human right" like food and what not..
At least "The European Court of Human Rights" does not agree with you.
Are you seriously trying to use the 'slippery slope' argument to oppose gay marriage? Or "they'll get made fun of by kids in school'? I ask because they are both poorly constructed and don't really make sense.
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?^^
This is such a non-issue, how do I explain this... A little girl asks me for a lollypop. Instead of think about how much money this lollypop costs or if it is bad for her I say 'fuck it, here's your lollypop' because it's just a lollypop, no need to make an issue about a lollypop.
On July 08 2012 22:30 ahappystar wrote: why aren't you spending more time on the economic problems of your country.
I am, but then again no need to shove the problems of my country down everybody's throats and make stupid threads on teamliquid now is there?^^
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.
Ohhh I see what you did there, you think when I was talking about self-centered know-it-alls quasi-intelectuals I was talking about you? Well thank you for saying you will stop, even if it was a bit sarcastic, thats the first step ^^
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.
It can be viewed as political, but frankly it's bigger than that. Supporting human rights is not only political.
Good on them, I say.
Since when is gay marriage a human right ?
Since the law discriminated against relationship statuses based upon the people involved in them. Thus there are rights for humans tied to the status of marriage. It's not an inherent UN "human right" like food and what not..
At least "The European Court of Human Rights" does not agree with you.
Are you seriously trying to use the 'slippery slope' argument to oppose gay marriage? Or "they'll get made fun of by kids in school'? I ask because they are both poorly constructed and don't really make sense.
But are they false?
The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy, so yes, by definition it is false.
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.
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???
Ah, so you're just a sexist. I don't know any other way to say it. I do not think the law should treat people differently because of their genitals. Why are you claiming that we do not look at every possible circumstance and condition? It would be rather easy to ban women from marrying over age 50, where it's extremely unlikely that they can bear children (and if they can it's incredibly dangerous), or banning women from marrying if they get a hysterectomy. Why couldn't we do that, if we are saying that marriage is about babies? Come on, these people are destroying the institution of marriage.
"You are allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex" is quite similar to "you are allowed to marry a person of the same race" in terms of equality. Yes, actually, it does treat people differently. I have no idea what magical world you live in where that doesn't treat people differently. Maybe you don't consider women to be people? I'm not sure what mental gymnastics you're performing here.
Please stop putting words in my mouth, it is quite irritating. I am not a sexist and I consider women people. I also think that the law should not treat people differently because of their genitals, did I ever say that the law should??? You interchange two things: Reason for marriage for some particular couple and the reason for marriage to exist as an institution.
Your "opposite sex" and "same race" thing is something completely different, comparing race with marriage and sex seems crazy to me. I dont say people actually ARE treated equaly, and the law cannot possibly assure it, but the law should treat them equally and it does. "Everybody can marry someone of the opposite sex" please point directly how someone is treated differently by that.
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.
It can be viewed as political, but frankly it's bigger than that. Supporting human rights is not only political.
Good on them, I say.
Since when is gay marriage a human right ?
Since the law discriminated against relationship statuses based upon the people involved in them. Thus there are rights for humans tied to the status of marriage. It's not an inherent UN "human right" like food and what not..
At least "The European Court of Human Rights" does not agree with you.
Elaborate. Because what you just said is not black and white. If you say what I *think* you're saying, it is that civil partnerships have, in some EU countries, taken over as "gay marriage", and comes with its own problems regarding adoption; because the adoption laws are (for now) kept separate for whatever reason. And that civil partnerships are therefor not fully equated with marriage because of certain laws (in some countries). All your sentence implies is that, by law, gays can't get married; only partake in civil union: Therefore gay marriage is not a right in that country; only the civil union.
I also think we're misunderstanding eachother on "human rights" and "civil rights"; I'm not too used to law sp34k.
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.
I'm not sure if you realize this, but giving homosexuals equal rights is a civil rights issue. There's a reason to be loud about this.
We're not smugly and omnisciently talking about how chocolate chip cookies are better than oatmeal raisin. We're talking about a topic that affects people's lives on a daily basis (gay people; marriage; the right to love one another and receive the same benefits and responsibilities as everyone else).
Some people care about social issues. Other people care about economic issues. Whatever you care about, make sure you're well-informed and well-educated on the topic, pick a side, and get loud about it. But don't roll your eyes at people who are passionate about believing in human rights.
I understand where you are coming from at the end of the day both sides are talking to brick walls, isn't there another way to go about this instead of the same threads over and over again? Wouldn't it be a bit more productive?
EPT
) 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.
