|
On July 09 2012 00:03 Pisky wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2012 23:53 XeliN wrote:
Pisky imagine you are a heterosexual with no interest romantically or sexually whatsoever in the same sex. Then imagine your placed in a society that says ONLY people of the same sex are allowed to marry, but everyone! can do so.
Would you feel discriminated against? No I would not. It is my bad luck. I could also marry someone of the opposite sex just as everybody else, but I would not probably do it because she/he would not attract me.
Well, if you don't care about your civil rights then that's your choice. Others do, and I for one respect that.
|
On July 09 2012 00:03 Cutlery wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 00:01 Legate wrote:On July 08 2012 23:55 Sinensis wrote:
So much ignorance in this thread. This is like taking a time machine back to the 1950s and racism is not only everywhere, but widely accepted as a logical way to view the world. How did we get on the race topic now? Racial discrimination is just another way of discrimination, what has always been the topic.
A bit far fetched imo.
|
On July 08 2012 23:14 mdb wrote:
I`m opposed to gay marriage, because the main purpose of the marriage is to create a stable atmoshpere and conditions to raise children. I dont believe that a child can grow up normally when both of his parents are of the same gender.
What does it mean to grow up 'normally'? I don't think there's really a such thing.
|
On July 09 2012 00:05 Legate wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 00:03 Cutlery wrote:On July 09 2012 00:01 Legate wrote:On July 08 2012 23:55 Sinensis wrote:
So much ignorance in this thread. This is like taking a time machine back to the 1950s and racism is not only everywhere, but widely accepted as a logical way to view the world. How did we get on the race topic now? Racial discrimination is just another way of discrimination, what has always been the topic. A bit far fetched imo.
Well, when you consider that literally all the same arguements were used for inter racial marriage in recent history too, it's really not that far fetched. Though I should add I'm not accusing people who are for treating gays as second class citizens of also being racist.
|
On July 09 2012 00:05 Legate wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 00:03 Cutlery wrote:On July 09 2012 00:01 Legate wrote:On July 08 2012 23:55 Sinensis wrote:
So much ignorance in this thread. This is like taking a time machine back to the 1950s and racism is not only everywhere, but widely accepted as a logical way to view the world. How did we get on the race topic now? Racial discrimination is just another way of discrimination, what has always been the topic. A bit far fetched imo.
Nope. It really isn't. In other parts of the world it is much worse, and the similarities (to the dark parts of history) much more easy to see. It is discrimination (by the current law) to entitle a group of people to less civil rights than another.
|
On July 08 2012 23:58 Cutlery wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2012 23:54 Pisky wrote:On July 08 2012 23:42 Cutlery wrote:On July 08 2012 23:39 Pisky wrote:On July 08 2012 22:48 Cutlery wrote:On July 08 2012 22:33 Pisky wrote: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. For the first paragraph: Yes, I agree that in practice, people are treated differently. But I think the law itself does not treat them differently. The fact that things are different in practice and theory is inevitable. If the statement says that they can marry someone they dont want to, doesnt mean that the statement should allow them what they want, we cannot give rights and make laws just based on what people want and do not want. Yes we can. Women wanted the right to vote, so they were given the right to vote. Which is significant since they could not vote themselves to get this right to vote. Gays wanted financial and legal security in a relationship (equal to straight couples), so they were granted. (in norway). And the sky hasn't come down yet. What do you think is the main motivation for laws anyway  People wanted the right to own property; so such laws were created, that grant different kinds of ownerships. The opposite would be China during their revolution; the state owned everything, even the home you lived in and the farmland you worked on. I wrote "we cannot give rights and make laws just based on what people want and do not want" see the "just based" ? If everybody wanted to have the right to have one free steak a day, would it pass? Of course not, because it is just based on what we want and it is also not doable. But I think that those things you mentioned are not just based on what they wanted but it was also based on logical reasoning. If homosexuals wanted what you said " financial and legal security in a relationship (equal to straight couples)" I think that this might be OK. But they have to name it differently from "Marriage" and draw a strong line between it. No they don't have to draw a line between straight and gay marriage. In Norway they didn't. The only reason they might draw a line between gay and straight marriage, is because some people (like you) will want it. Therefore they'd be making laws based on what people want and don't want (AND they won't be making logical sense, for instance, we'd have to call it gay marriage and straight mawrraige; NOT gay marriage and marriage. Also, we don't say black marraige, etc etc). Therefore, in my eyes, you go against your own argument. You must realize that, when "suggesting" these laws (such as you do) and their restrictions; you are basing it upon what YOU want and don't want. And to me, "my way" makes much more logical sense, and is much more reasonable. For instance, I would not go around calling your marriage a "straight financially struggling marriage about to be ended" just because that would better describe you. Similarly I would not need to distinguish between straight and gay marriage; in my eyes there is marriage between two people, and to add any "mandatory" prefix is simply hilariously stupid.
I admit that putting it in the way of wanting/not wanting is unfortunate and inconsistent. But in the end, I still see difference between same and different sex, and again, the fundamental difference (and in my opinion the thing why marriage exists in the first place) is being able/not being able to make babies (and again of course: in principle)
|
On July 09 2012 00:04 Cutlery wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 00:03 Pisky wrote:On July 08 2012 23:53 XeliN wrote:
Pisky imagine you are a heterosexual with no interest romantically or sexually whatsoever in the same sex. Then imagine your placed in a society that says ONLY people of the same sex are allowed to marry, but everyone! can do so.
Would you feel discriminated against? No I would not. It is my bad luck. I could also marry someone of the opposite sex just as everybody else, but I would not probably do it because she/he would not attract me. Well, if you don't care about your civil rights then that's your choice. Others do, and I for one respect that.
Pretty much this, if you are perfectly willing to allow yourself to be discriminated against and view it as simply bad luck fine.
I for one don't and am glad that throughout history there have been many others who are not prepared to do so either.
|
On July 08 2012 23:46 Pisky wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2012 23:22 Djzapz wrote:On July 08 2012 23:18 Pisky wrote:On July 08 2012 22:35 Nyarly wrote:On July 08 2012 22:33 Pisky wrote: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??? 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 ? Sorry but in my case EVERYONE is allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex, but in your case JUST BLONDE hairs will recieve an icecream. This is just failed attempt to make an analogy and in fact you made the exact opposite analogy :-D The whole point is that by forcing everyone to be only allowed to marry people of the other sex, you discriminate against people who are not interested in doing that. You can pretend all you want that they have the same right, but the reality of it is you're forcing one way onto people. To pretend like that's anything resembling equality is a cheap argument. I just do not see the discrimination in allowing everyone to marry the opposite sex.
You're thinking of it the opposite way. The state doesn't "allow" people to marry. It's not like heterosexual marriage is allowed. No, it's the reverse. Polygamy is outlawed. Pedophilia is outlawed. Homosexual marriage is outlawed. And for homosexuality, there's no reason for the outlaw. It's just bullshit tradition.
So please describe to me why it's discrimination to ban races from marrying each other.
On July 09 2012 00:09 Pisky wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2012 23:58 Cutlery wrote:On July 08 2012 23:54 Pisky wrote:On July 08 2012 23:42 Cutlery wrote:On July 08 2012 23:39 Pisky wrote:On July 08 2012 22:48 Cutlery wrote:On July 08 2012 22:33 Pisky wrote: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. For the first paragraph: Yes, I agree that in practice, people are treated differently. But I think the law itself does not treat them differently. The fact that things are different in practice and theory is inevitable. If the statement says that they can marry someone they dont want to, doesnt mean that the statement should allow them what they want, we cannot give rights and make laws just based on what people want and do not want. Yes we can. Women wanted the right to vote, so they were given the right to vote. Which is significant since they could not vote themselves to get this right to vote. Gays wanted financial and legal security in a relationship (equal to straight couples), so they were granted. (in norway). And the sky hasn't come down yet. What do you think is the main motivation for laws anyway People wanted the right to own property; so such laws were created, that grant different kinds of ownerships. The opposite would be China during their revolution; the state owned everything, even the home you lived in and the farmland you worked on. I wrote "we cannot give rights and make laws just based on what people want and do not want" see the "just based" ? If everybody wanted to have the right to have one free steak a day, would it pass? Of course not, because it is just based on what we want and it is also not doable. But I think that those things you mentioned are not just based on what they wanted but it was also based on logical reasoning. If homosexuals wanted what you said " financial and legal security in a relationship (equal to straight couples)" I think that this might be OK. But they have to name it differently from "Marriage" and draw a strong line between it. No they don't have to draw a line between straight and gay marriage. In Norway they didn't. The only reason they might draw a line between gay and straight marriage, is because some people (like you) will want it. Therefore they'd be making laws based on what people want and don't want (AND they won't be making logical sense, for instance, we'd have to call it gay marriage and straight mawrraige; NOT gay marriage and marriage. Also, we don't say black marraige, etc etc). Therefore, in my eyes, you go against your own argument. You must realize that, when "suggesting" these laws (such as you do) and their restrictions; you are basing it upon what YOU want and don't want. And to me, "my way" makes much more logical sense, and is much more reasonable. For instance, I would not go around calling your marriage a "straight financially struggling marriage about to be ended" just because that would better describe you. Similarly I would not need to distinguish between straight and gay marriage; in my eyes there is marriage between two people, and to add any "mandatory" prefix is simply hilariously stupid. I admit that putting it in the way of wanting/not wanting is unfortunate and inconsistent. But in the end, I still see difference between same and different sex, and again, the fundamental difference (and in my opinion the thing why marriage exists in the first place) is being able/not being able to make babies (and again of course: in principle)
And in principle, homosexual couples can adopt. Which is a perfectly valid way to have children nowadays for both heterosexual and homosexual couples.
And also, that's a psychopathic way to view marriage. As if there is zero relationship between human beings.
|
On July 09 2012 00:09 Pisky wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2012 23:58 Cutlery wrote:On July 08 2012 23:54 Pisky wrote:On July 08 2012 23:42 Cutlery wrote:On July 08 2012 23:39 Pisky wrote:On July 08 2012 22:48 Cutlery wrote:On July 08 2012 22:33 Pisky wrote: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. For the first paragraph: Yes, I agree that in practice, people are treated differently. But I think the law itself does not treat them differently. The fact that things are different in practice and theory is inevitable. If the statement says that they can marry someone they dont want to, doesnt mean that the statement should allow them what they want, we cannot give rights and make laws just based on what people want and do not want. Yes we can. Women wanted the right to vote, so they were given the right to vote. Which is significant since they could not vote themselves to get this right to vote. Gays wanted financial and legal security in a relationship (equal to straight couples), so they were granted. (in norway). And the sky hasn't come down yet. What do you think is the main motivation for laws anyway People wanted the right to own property; so such laws were created, that grant different kinds of ownerships. The opposite would be China during their revolution; the state owned everything, even the home you lived in and the farmland you worked on. I wrote "we cannot give rights and make laws just based on what people want and do not want" see the "just based" ? If everybody wanted to have the right to have one free steak a day, would it pass? Of course not, because it is just based on what we want and it is also not doable. But I think that those things you mentioned are not just based on what they wanted but it was also based on logical reasoning. If homosexuals wanted what you said " financial and legal security in a relationship (equal to straight couples)" I think that this might be OK. But they have to name it differently from "Marriage" and draw a strong line between it. No they don't have to draw a line between straight and gay marriage. In Norway they didn't. The only reason they might draw a line between gay and straight marriage, is because some people (like you) will want it. Therefore they'd be making laws based on what people want and don't want (AND they won't be making logical sense, for instance, we'd have to call it gay marriage and straight mawrraige; NOT gay marriage and marriage. Also, we don't say black marraige, etc etc). Therefore, in my eyes, you go against your own argument. You must realize that, when "suggesting" these laws (such as you do) and their restrictions; you are basing it upon what YOU want and don't want. And to me, "my way" makes much more logical sense, and is much more reasonable. For instance, I would not go around calling your marriage a "straight financially struggling marriage about to be ended" just because that would better describe you. Similarly I would not need to distinguish between straight and gay marriage; in my eyes there is marriage between two people, and to add any "mandatory" prefix is simply hilariously stupid. I admit that putting it in the way of wanting/not wanting is unfortunate and inconsistent. But in the end, I still see difference between same and different sex, and again, the fundamental difference (and in my opinion the thing why marriage exists in the first place) is being able/not being able to make babies (and again of course: in principle)
If you look at the evolution of marriage, you will see it has little to do with the possibility of making babies. Everything from financial and social standing, to arranged marriage to love. My mom for instance can still get remarried to any man she wants, even tho' she's much too old to have babies, and she always had that posibility, to remarry in her "matron days".
I must admit, I don't put much "prestige" in the word marriage. It is more a classification of a relationship: Everyone and themselves included know that they are an item. And there are legal benefits that follow. The recognition of a loving relationship AND the benefits that go with, should be accessible for everyone (or no one. I mean, we don't NEED "benefits" for married partners; but if we do have them, they should be included for ALL partners in such a relationship).
|
On July 09 2012 00:09 Pisky wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2012 23:58 Cutlery wrote:On July 08 2012 23:54 Pisky wrote:On July 08 2012 23:42 Cutlery wrote:On July 08 2012 23:39 Pisky wrote:On July 08 2012 22:48 Cutlery wrote:On July 08 2012 22:33 Pisky wrote: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. For the first paragraph: Yes, I agree that in practice, people are treated differently. But I think the law itself does not treat them differently. The fact that things are different in practice and theory is inevitable. If the statement says that they can marry someone they dont want to, doesnt mean that the statement should allow them what they want, we cannot give rights and make laws just based on what people want and do not want. Yes we can. Women wanted the right to vote, so they were given the right to vote. Which is significant since they could not vote themselves to get this right to vote. Gays wanted financial and legal security in a relationship (equal to straight couples), so they were granted. (in norway). And the sky hasn't come down yet. What do you think is the main motivation for laws anyway People wanted the right to own property; so such laws were created, that grant different kinds of ownerships. The opposite would be China during their revolution; the state owned everything, even the home you lived in and the farmland you worked on. I wrote "we cannot give rights and make laws just based on what people want and do not want" see the "just based" ? If everybody wanted to have the right to have one free steak a day, would it pass? Of course not, because it is just based on what we want and it is also not doable. But I think that those things you mentioned are not just based on what they wanted but it was also based on logical reasoning. If homosexuals wanted what you said " financial and legal security in a relationship (equal to straight couples)" I think that this might be OK. But they have to name it differently from "Marriage" and draw a strong line between it. No they don't have to draw a line between straight and gay marriage. In Norway they didn't. The only reason they might draw a line between gay and straight marriage, is because some people (like you) will want it. Therefore they'd be making laws based on what people want and don't want (AND they won't be making logical sense, for instance, we'd have to call it gay marriage and straight mawrraige; NOT gay marriage and marriage. Also, we don't say black marraige, etc etc). Therefore, in my eyes, you go against your own argument. You must realize that, when "suggesting" these laws (such as you do) and their restrictions; you are basing it upon what YOU want and don't want. And to me, "my way" makes much more logical sense, and is much more reasonable. For instance, I would not go around calling your marriage a "straight financially struggling marriage about to be ended" just because that would better describe you. Similarly I would not need to distinguish between straight and gay marriage; in my eyes there is marriage between two people, and to add any "mandatory" prefix is simply hilariously stupid. I admit that putting it in the way of wanting/not wanting is unfortunate and inconsistent. But in the end, I still see difference between same and different sex, and again, the fundamental difference (and in my opinion the thing why marriage exists in the first place) is being able/not being able to make babies (and again of course: in principle) Marriage is not about procreation, it's about love and making your relationship 'official' in order to receive legal benefits. Hell, I've heard about gay couples who couldn't get married, one of them got a terminal illness and the partner was not legally allowed to make decisions. I'm sure that's just one of the many cases where not being married works against a couple in dire situations.
|
On July 09 2012 00:09 Cutlery wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 00:05 Legate wrote:On July 09 2012 00:03 Cutlery wrote:On July 09 2012 00:01 Legate wrote:On July 08 2012 23:55 Sinensis wrote:
So much ignorance in this thread. This is like taking a time machine back to the 1950s and racism is not only everywhere, but widely accepted as a logical way to view the world. How did we get on the race topic now? Racial discrimination is just another way of discrimination, what has always been the topic. A bit far fetched imo. Nope. It really isn't. In other parts of the world it is much worse, and the similarities (to the dark parts of history) much more easy to see. It is discrimination (by the current law) to entitle a group of people to less civil rights than another.
But its something diffrent to get discriminated for having certain genes, than for example wearing funny cloth or what ever. You basically say its the same because its both discrimination. I think its a dagerous relativization.
|
On July 09 2012 00:04 Cutlery wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 00:03 Pisky wrote:On July 08 2012 23:53 XeliN wrote:
Pisky imagine you are a heterosexual with no interest romantically or sexually whatsoever in the same sex. Then imagine your placed in a society that says ONLY people of the same sex are allowed to marry, but everyone! can do so.
Would you feel discriminated against? No I would not. It is my bad luck. I could also marry someone of the opposite sex just as everybody else, but I would not probably do it because she/he would not attract me. Well, if you don't care about your civil rights then that's your choice. Others do, and I for one respect that.
Imagine you have no interest romantically or sexually whatsoever in the same and opposite sex. Then imagine you are place in a society that says ONLY people of the same sex or the opposite are allowed to marry, but everyone can do so. But that hippo looks really sexy and you really like him because you were raised along with him and you love him and all..so you want to marry him. How that is NOT discriminating in your eyes?
|
On July 09 2012 00:15 Legate wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 00:09 Cutlery wrote:On July 09 2012 00:05 Legate wrote:On July 09 2012 00:03 Cutlery wrote:On July 09 2012 00:01 Legate wrote:On July 08 2012 23:55 Sinensis wrote:
So much ignorance in this thread. This is like taking a time machine back to the 1950s and racism is not only everywhere, but widely accepted as a logical way to view the world. How did we get on the race topic now? Racial discrimination is just another way of discrimination, what has always been the topic. A bit far fetched imo. Nope. It really isn't. In other parts of the world it is much worse, and the similarities (to the dark parts of history) much more easy to see. It is discrimination (by the current law) to entitle a group of people to less civil rights than another. But its something diffrent to get discriminated for having certain genes, than for example wearing funny cloth or what ever. You basically say its the same because its both discrimination. I think its a dagerous relativization.
I think it isn't. Homosexuality is not the same as choosing what to wear. It's not like "you chose to be gay so therefore you also chose not to be able to get married". It's "you were born gay, so now society has decided you can't get married". Just like "You were born black so now society has decided you can't get married".
We don't know for certain, but there have been studies finding patterns within the brain that cause people to be attracted to the same sex; and there's alot of speculation that it is genetically determined.
|
On July 09 2012 00:17 Pisky wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 00:04 Cutlery wrote:On July 09 2012 00:03 Pisky wrote:On July 08 2012 23:53 XeliN wrote:
Pisky imagine you are a heterosexual with no interest romantically or sexually whatsoever in the same sex. Then imagine your placed in a society that says ONLY people of the same sex are allowed to marry, but everyone! can do so.
Would you feel discriminated against? No I would not. It is my bad luck. I could also marry someone of the opposite sex just as everybody else, but I would not probably do it because she/he would not attract me. Well, if you don't care about your civil rights then that's your choice. Others do, and I for one respect that. Imagine you have no interest romantically or sexually whatsoever in the same and opposite sex. Then imagine you are place in a society that says ONLY people of the same sex or the opposite are allowed to marry, but everyone can do so. But that hippo looks really sexy and you really like him because you were raised along with him and you love him and all..so you want to marry him. How that is NOT discriminating in your eyes?
Because a hippo can't consent. I mean seriously do you even think before you post anything at all?
|
On July 08 2012 23:55 Sinensis wrote:
So much ignorance in this thread. This is like taking a time machine back to the 1950s and racism is not only everywhere, but widely accepted as a logical way to view the world.
Looking at it like that, we might be the last generation to experience this bigot foolishness. From a historical tourism perspective we should perhaps appreciate that, while we're changing for the better.
|
On July 09 2012 00:17 Pisky wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 00:04 Cutlery wrote:On July 09 2012 00:03 Pisky wrote:On July 08 2012 23:53 XeliN wrote:
Pisky imagine you are a heterosexual with no interest romantically or sexually whatsoever in the same sex. Then imagine your placed in a society that says ONLY people of the same sex are allowed to marry, but everyone! can do so.
Would you feel discriminated against? No I would not. It is my bad luck. I could also marry someone of the opposite sex just as everybody else, but I would not probably do it because she/he would not attract me. Well, if you don't care about your civil rights then that's your choice. Others do, and I for one respect that. Imagine you have no interest romantically or sexually whatsoever in the same and opposite sex. Then imagine you are place in a society that says ONLY people of the same sex or the opposite are allowed to marry, but everyone can do so. But that hippo looks really sexy and you really like him because you were raised along with him and you love him and all..so you want to marry him. How that is NOT discriminating in your eyes? Oh dear, the bestiality argument. Marriage is between two consenting human adults. Animals cannot consent and are therefore not eligible for marriage.
|
On July 09 2012 00:17 Pisky wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 00:04 Cutlery wrote:On July 09 2012 00:03 Pisky wrote:On July 08 2012 23:53 XeliN wrote:
Pisky imagine you are a heterosexual with no interest romantically or sexually whatsoever in the same sex. Then imagine your placed in a society that says ONLY people of the same sex are allowed to marry, but everyone! can do so.
Would you feel discriminated against? No I would not. It is my bad luck. I could also marry someone of the opposite sex just as everybody else, but I would not probably do it because she/he would not attract me. Well, if you don't care about your civil rights then that's your choice. Others do, and I for one respect that. Imagine you have no interest romantically or sexually whatsoever in the same and opposite sex. Then imagine you are place in a society that says ONLY people of the same sex or the opposite are allowed to marry, but everyone can do so. But that hippo looks really sexy and you really like him because you were raised along with him and you love him and all..so you want to marry him. How that is NOT discriminating in your eyes?
Propose to the hippo, I'll be awaiting its answer. If it accepts, and defends its case well, and argues well for its civil rights as a hippo, I will personally marry you and the hippo.
Other than that, I will not have you equate human being with animals in the eyes of the law. Proposing humans should get the same civil rights as animals is completely backwards and offensive.
|
On July 09 2012 00:20 bblack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2012 23:55 Sinensis wrote:
So much ignorance in this thread. This is like taking a time machine back to the 1950s and racism is not only everywhere, but widely accepted as a logical way to view the world. Looking at it like that, we might be the last generation to experience this bigot foolishness. From a historical tourism perspective we should perhaps appreciate that, while we're changing for the better.
Once same-sex marriage is universally accepted people will find something else to get worked up over for no reason. I don't see an end to bigotry any time soon.
|
On July 09 2012 00:18 Cutlery wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 00:15 Legate wrote:On July 09 2012 00:09 Cutlery wrote:On July 09 2012 00:05 Legate wrote:On July 09 2012 00:03 Cutlery wrote:On July 09 2012 00:01 Legate wrote:On July 08 2012 23:55 Sinensis wrote:
So much ignorance in this thread. This is like taking a time machine back to the 1950s and racism is not only everywhere, but widely accepted as a logical way to view the world. How did we get on the race topic now? Racial discrimination is just another way of discrimination, what has always been the topic. A bit far fetched imo. Nope. It really isn't. In other parts of the world it is much worse, and the similarities (to the dark parts of history) much more easy to see. It is discrimination (by the current law) to entitle a group of people to less civil rights than another. But its something diffrent to get discriminated for having certain genes, than for example wearing funny cloth or what ever. You basically say its the same because its both discrimination. I think its a dagerous relativization. the same sex; and there's alot of speculation that it is genetically determined.
Well that sentence on a diffrent topic and shit would hit the fan ...
|
World is full of children and people already. Denying same-sex marriage because they can't have biological children when there are so many orphans out there is bullshit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
