|
On July 08 2012 18:49 Noam wrote:
In most countries Marriage is an institution that allows two people to get certain benefits from the state. Mostly tax and housing benefits. Any country that doesn't allow two people to get these benefits because they are of the same gender is committing gender discrimination against its citizens.
Marriage should not be tied to religion in any country in the world and this should be the ONLY focus of this campaign.
If some people want to celebrate the first day of their marriage in a religious environment, it should be their right based on religious freedom laws.
Frankly, if you want to have a secular state, then benefits should not be tied to anything that is called "marriage." I'm all for having the government give out civil unions to whatever couples want one, but marriage is religious in nature. Saying that marriage should not be tied to religion is just a ridiculous statement, instead marriage should not be tied to the state at all.
|
On July 09 2012 00:25 The Final Boss wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2012 18:49 Noam wrote:
In most countries Marriage is an institution that allows two people to get certain benefits from the state. Mostly tax and housing benefits. Any country that doesn't allow two people to get these benefits because they are of the same gender is committing gender discrimination against its citizens.
Marriage should not be tied to religion in any country in the world and this should be the ONLY focus of this campaign.
If some people want to celebrate the first day of their marriage in a religious environment, it should be their right based on religious freedom laws. Frankly, if you want to have a secular state, then benefits should not be tied to anything that is called "marriage." I'm all for having the government give out civil unions to whatever couples want one, but marriage is religious in nature. Saying that marriage should not be tied to religion is just a ridiculous statement, instead marriage should not be tied to the state at all. Religious people do not have the monopoly on the word marriage. You're only arguing semantics.
Hell, both Christian's and Muslims use the word marriage, why should both of them be allowed to use the word since it obviously means something different for both of them? I hope you can see why the word 'marriage' does not belong to any one group of people.
|
On July 09 2012 00:23 Legate wrote:
"and there's alot of speculation that it is genetically determined."
Well that sentence on a diffrent topic and shit would hit the fan ...
I hope it isn't genetically predetermined, cause then some people will try to enforce a cure upon it. Society isn't ready for bioscience to find the cause for homosexuality; it would be abused for evil.
But there is speculation in it. Why is it wrong to say?
Is this your way of arguing that it is a "choice"? At the age of 10-20, they made the choice to never ever touch a woman? ^^
|
On July 09 2012 00:22 Cutlery wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 00:17 Pisky wrote: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? Proposing humans should get the same civil rights as animals is completely backwards and offensive.
Well that is blatant Speciesism ! 
|
On July 09 2012 00:27 Legate wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 00:22 Cutlery wrote:On July 09 2012 00:17 Pisky wrote: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? Proposing humans should get the same civil rights as animals is completely backwards and offensive. Well that is blatant Speciesism !
^^ humanity above all else. But on a sidenote, I'd love to meet aliens, and I would not hold it against anyone if some humans wanted to marry an alien.
|
If forbidding gay marriage is discrimination agains gay people, is forbidding having more than one husband/wife discrimantion against people who would like to live a life with polygamous marriage?
|
On July 09 2012 00:14 Thorakh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 00:09 Pisky wrote: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.
Please read my whole discussion, dont confuse two things: particular reason for marriage and reason for the marrige as an institution. I am not against granting gay couples the rights to make decisions if someone gets a terminal illness, it is completely reasonable I think. I am against calling it marriage. Because as I said in my previous posts, I believe that marriage is to complement procreation on the social and other levels. If you allow gay to "marry" you simply twist the meaning of marriage. If you want the same particular rights then I am not against making a different institution dealing with gay partners rights. It looks to me that our argument is just about how it should be named :D
|
On July 09 2012 00:26 Cutlery wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 00:23 Legate wrote:
"and there's alot of speculation that it is genetically determined."
Well that sentence on a diffrent topic and shit would hit the fan ...
I hope it isn't genetically predetermined, cause then some people will try to enforce a cure upon it. Society isn't ready for bioscience to find the cause for homosexuality; it would be abused for evil. But there is speculation in it. Why is it wrong to say? Is this your way of arguing that it is a "choice"? They chose to never touch a woman?
I don't say its wrong at all, its just that most people are very sensitive when it comes to correlation between genes and behaviour.
|
On July 09 2012 00:28 mdb wrote:
If forbidding gay marriage is discrimination agains gay people, is forbidding having more than one husband/wife discrimantion against people who would like to live a life with polygamous marriage?
Yes, there is nothing wrong with polygamy if all involved parties consent.
|
On July 09 2012 00:27 Legate wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 00:22 Cutlery wrote:On July 09 2012 00:17 Pisky wrote: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? Proposing humans should get the same civil rights as animals is completely backwards and offensive. Well that is blatant Speciesism !
Yes. Yes it is. Come to think of it, it's almost as if non-humans don't have any legal standing whatsoever. So do you actually have a point or are you trolling?
|
On July 09 2012 00:29 Pisky wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 00:14 Thorakh wrote:On July 09 2012 00:09 Pisky wrote: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. Please read my whole discussion, dont confuse two things: particular reason for marriage and reason for the marrige as an institution. I am not against granting gay couples the rights to make decisions if someone gets a terminal illness, it is completely reasonable I think. I am against calling it marriage. Because as I said in my previous posts, I believe that marriage is to complement procreation on the social and other levels. If you allow gay to "marry" you simply twist the meaning of marriage. If you want the same particular rights then I am not against making a different institution dealing with gay partners rights. It looks to me that our argument is just about how it should be named :D
Thorakh wrote:
Religious people do not have the monopoly on the word marriage. You're only arguing semantics.
Hell, both Christian's and Muslims use the word marriage, why should both of them be allowed to use the word since it obviously means something different for both of them? I hope you can see why the word 'marriage' does not belong to any one group of people. Marriage and the concept of bonding was around before any Christians even existed.
|
On July 09 2012 00:30 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 00:27 Legate wrote:On July 09 2012 00:22 Cutlery wrote:On July 09 2012 00:17 Pisky wrote: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? Proposing humans should get the same civil rights as animals is completely backwards and offensive. Well that is blatant Speciesism ! Yes. Yes it is. Come to think of it, it's almost as if non-humans don't have any legal standing whatsoever. So do you actually have a point or are you trolling?
Do you have any point?
|
On July 09 2012 00:29 Pisky wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 00:14 Thorakh wrote:On July 09 2012 00:09 Pisky wrote: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. Please read my whole discussion, dont confuse two things: particular reason for marriage and reason for the marrige as an institution. I am not against granting gay couples the rights to make decisions if someone gets a terminal illness, it is completely reasonable I think. I am against calling it marriage. Because as I said in my previous posts, I believe that marriage is to complement procreation on the social and other levels. If you allow gay to "marry" you simply twist the meaning of marriage. If you want the same particular rights then I am not against making a different institution dealing with gay partners rights. It looks to me that our argument is just about how it should be named :D
Again, what is the difference between homosexuals adopting a child and heterosexuals adopting a child? I can't see how any mechanism is different in any way, shape, or form, both legally and practically.
A semantic argument is disgusting and horrible. The entire point is just to feel superior and insult homosexual relationships. This is not what the law is for. The law is not a tool used for degrading the dignity of other people. In fact, you're insulting people's families, which I find incredibly shocking. Gay people are getting married, they have spouses. Get over it, and move on.
|
On July 09 2012 00:33 Legate wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 00:30 DoubleReed wrote:On July 09 2012 00:27 Legate wrote:On July 09 2012 00:22 Cutlery wrote:On July 09 2012 00:17 Pisky wrote: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? Proposing humans should get the same civil rights as animals is completely backwards and offensive. Well that is blatant Speciesism ! Yes. Yes it is. Come to think of it, it's almost as if non-humans don't have any legal standing whatsoever. So do you actually have a point or are you trolling? Do you have any point?
Uhh... that beastality has nothing to do with anything?
|
Well its official, Google's come out of the closet, and after those thousands upon thousands of searches involving big boobs I cant believe hes turned out this way, I think i might have to use Bing or Yahoo now.
jk bing and yahoo suck
|
honestly, the google company is the only company in the world doing things right and standing up for those who need it.
|
On July 09 2012 00:28 mdb wrote:
If forbidding gay marriage is discrimination agains gay people, is forbidding having more than one husband/wife discrimantion against people who would like to live a life with polygamous marriage?
Yes. Haven't you tried to make this point a few pages earlier?
|
On July 09 2012 00:28 mdb wrote:
If forbidding gay marriage is discrimination agains gay people, is forbidding having more than one husband/wife discrimantion against people who would like to live a life with polygamous marriage?
Tricky one. Depends if polygamous people find they lose out on civil rights and are treated second class just because they are who they are. For now polygamy is (almost?) criminalized, isn't it?
It isn't unheard of that 3 adults live together and are effectively married (even if not on paper). And frankly, it's none of our business. Basically, if the owner of their home dies, where they have lived for 10 years, the property + house would go to the immediate family of the deceased (like his/her parents), and the 2 others who've lived and loved there for huge parts of their lives would get evicted.
But I do not want to get involved in a debate on wether polygamy is inherently wrong or not (harmless). Polygamy is real. Often it is used "criminally" or to subjugate (like marrying 30 women in religious sects); which is moraly shoddy to me. But there are healthy relationships that could be viewed as "polygamy" for sure, without being harmful at all. Maybe we can touch this issue at some later date. For now there hasn't been a great need to legaly recognize a partnership of 3 people.
Well, that might not be entirely true. If a child effectively has 3 parents, only 1 or 2 of which are biological; and something "happens", only the 2 parents that on paper are the guardians will be allowed into emergency rooms etc etc. So maybe, if agreed upon, a child could have 3 legal guardians instead of 2, for instance.
In a way there's nothing wrong to legally aknowledge that there's a household with three people who've commited their lives to eachother, and that this should be respected when it comes to legal benefits and redistribution of property. I don't see the need for church to give its concent to such practice. Maybe with a few regulations, so that extreme cases of subjugation through polygamy actually still are criminalized, and don't cause a paradox within the law.
|
On July 09 2012 00:31 Thorakh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 00:29 Pisky wrote:On July 09 2012 00:14 Thorakh wrote:On July 09 2012 00:09 Pisky wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Please read my whole discussion, dont confuse two things: particular reason for marriage and reason for the marrige as an institution. I am not against granting gay couples the rights to make decisions if someone gets a terminal illness, it is completely reasonable I think. I am against calling it marriage. Because as I said in my previous posts, I believe that marriage is to complement procreation on the social and other levels. If you allow gay to "marry" you simply twist the meaning of marriage. If you want the same particular rights then I am not against making a different institution dealing with gay partners rights. It looks to me that our argument is just about how it should be named :D Show nested quote +Thorakh wrote:
Religious people do not have the monopoly on the word marriage. You're only arguing semantics.
Hell, both Christian's and Muslims use the word marriage, why should both of them be allowed to use the word since it obviously means something different for both of them? I hope you can see why the word 'marriage' does not belong to any one group of people. Marriage and the concept of bonding was around before any Christians even existed.
1) I am not religious.
2) Yes I am arguing semantics.
3) Then it comes down to what you believe marriage is (since it does not belong to anyone), so that does not prove you or me right or wrong. You just understand marriage differently than me, and it is ok, thats why we have different opinions.
|
On July 09 2012 00:38 Pisky wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 00:31 Thorakh wrote:On July 09 2012 00:29 Pisky wrote:On July 09 2012 00:14 Thorakh wrote:On July 09 2012 00:09 Pisky wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Please read my whole discussion, dont confuse two things: particular reason for marriage and reason for the marrige as an institution. I am not against granting gay couples the rights to make decisions if someone gets a terminal illness, it is completely reasonable I think. I am against calling it marriage. Because as I said in my previous posts, I believe that marriage is to complement procreation on the social and other levels. If you allow gay to "marry" you simply twist the meaning of marriage. If you want the same particular rights then I am not against making a different institution dealing with gay partners rights. It looks to me that our argument is just about how it should be named :D Thorakh wrote:
Religious people do not have the monopoly on the word marriage. You're only arguing semantics.
Hell, both Christian's and Muslims use the word marriage, why should both of them be allowed to use the word since it obviously means something different for both of them? I hope you can see why the word 'marriage' does not belong to any one group of people. Marriage and the concept of bonding was around before any Christians even existed. 1) I am not religious. 2) Yes I am arguing semantics. 3) Then it comes down to what you believe marriage is (since it does not belong to anyone), so that does not prove you or me right or wrong. You just understand marriage differently than me, and it is ok, thats why we have different opinions.
So I assume that means that if there was such a referendum, you would vote to legalize gay marriage, because you recognize that people have different opinions about marriage. Therefore it is not your duty to impose your views on others using the law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
