|
On July 09 2012 00:40 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 00:38 Pisky wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
You assume wrong.
|
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, which one is it going to be? Christian or Islamic marriage? Which religion (or group of people) has the exclusive rights to the word 'marriage'?
No matter what definition of marriage you use, you're going to step on the toes of others. That's why discussing semantics is pointless. No one has a monopoly on the word marriage.
|
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.
In a way, I think (not that I'm married) that to me marriage is a commitment. A commitment that this is the person I want to share my life with. Baring a prenup, our lives are (atleast until divorced) intertwined and in many aspects our lives are as one. For good and for bad. This is why you grant marriage securities within the law. If one part were to pass away, the other would not suddenly be homeless.
|
On July 09 2012 00:42 Pisky wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 00:40 DoubleReed wrote:On July 09 2012 00:38 Pisky wrote: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:[quote] 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. You assume wrong.
Care to explain why you think you have the right to impose your marital views on others?
|
On July 09 2012 00:34 DoubleReed 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 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.
"A semantic argument is disgusting and horrible." reason please.
"The entire point is just to feel superior and insult homosexual relationships." just..why??
"In fact, you're insulting people's families, which I find incredibly shocking."...please, do not just randomly state things. If you want me to really understand your argument, go through reasoning. How am I insulting families?? What ??
|
On July 09 2012 00:44 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 00:42 Pisky wrote:On July 09 2012 00:40 DoubleReed wrote:On July 09 2012 00:38 Pisky wrote: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:
[quote]
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. You assume wrong. Care to explain why you think you have the right to impose your marital views on others?
He grew up believing in his inherent (potentially arbitrary) right to be entitled to the things some have to fight for. It is not uncommon. Imo he is sensible enough... Sometimes you have to perhaps experience before your eyes are opened. Sometimes certain views are so ingrained you'd go to your grave for them. Sometimes they are even worth it.
|
On July 09 2012 00:43 Cutlery wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 00:38 Pisky wrote: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:
[quote]
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. In a way, I think (not that I'm married) that to me marriage is a commitment. A commitment that this is the person I want to share my life with. Baring a prenup, our lives are (atleast until divorced) intertwined and in many aspects our lives are as one. For good and for bad. This is why you grant marriage securities within the law. If one part were to pass away, the other would not suddenly be homeless.
Seems legit to me.
|
On July 09 2012 00:48 Pisky wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 00:34 DoubleReed 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 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. "A semantic argument is disgusting and horrible." reason please. "The entire point is just to feel superior and insult homosexual relationships." just..why?? "In fact, you're insulting people's families, which I find incredibly shocking."...please, do not just randomly state things. If you want me to really understand your argument, go through reasoning. How am I insulting families?? What ??
So let's say a lesbian couple with their 2 kids came up to you, and started talking to you. Now, if you were to explain to this lesbian couple why they weren't wives, but in fact domestic partners, I think you would offend them. This is even worse, because you are trying to institutionalize this into law. Yes, guess what, that's going to offend people, and for purely logical reasons. They are married, you dolt.
If everything about it is a marriage, all the same rights, all the same things, then explain to me what the point is of calling it anything but a marriage? Explain. The only reason I can see is because you want to be an asshole.
|
On July 09 2012 00:48 Pisky wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 00:34 DoubleReed 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 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. "A semantic argument is disgusting and horrible." reason please. "The entire point is just to feel superior and insult homosexual relationships." just..why?? "In fact, you're insulting people's families, which I find incredibly shocking."...please, do not just randomly state things. If you want me to really understand your argument, go through reasoning. How am I insulting families?? What ??
You are justifying institutional prejudice on semantic grounds, when ample pragmatic evidence suggests that semantics be abandoned. Wordplay to justify prejudice.
|
On July 09 2012 00:51 Pisky wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 00:43 Cutlery wrote:On July 09 2012 00:38 Pisky wrote: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:[quote] 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. In a way, I think (not that I'm married) that to me marriage is a commitment. A commitment that this is the person I want to share my life with. Baring a prenup, our lives are (atleast until divorced) intertwined and in many aspects our lives are as one. For good and for bad. This is why you grant marriage securities within the law. If one part were to pass away, the other would not suddenly be homeless. Seems legit to me.
What I omitted, but at the same time is quite logical, is that what I wrote depends not on the genders involved. A woman can decide upon this commitment with another woman, irregardless of wether the state grants them security in their relationship status or not. I just think the state should. And that they are ever as much "married" as anyone else is.
Regardless of what certain people try to tell them.
Like: "you're not properly married" is not something you yell after people, like you have a need to make sure they know their union and their comitment and their love somehow is less.
|
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.
Just because you surround yourself with liberalism and homosexuality it won't be generally accepted. Even in the West there are a lot of racist, homophobic people.
|
On July 09 2012 00:44 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 00:42 Pisky wrote:On July 09 2012 00:40 DoubleReed wrote:On July 09 2012 00:38 Pisky wrote: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:
[quote]
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. You assume wrong. Care to explain why you think you have the right to impose your marital views on others?
Well, why do you think you have the right to impose your marital views on others? It is not just me, it is also you. We have different views on what marriage is and therefore we might support different legislation which forcing martial views on others.
|
On July 09 2012 00:59 Ottoxlol wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 00:20 bblack 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. 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. Just because you surround yourself with liberalism and homosexuality it won't be generally accepted. Even in the West there are a lot of racist, homophobic people.
While I am pretty cynical about homosexuals gaining their rights, the evidence is there showing that people are changing their views on homosexuality at an accelerating rate. So I would not be surprised if people continue to change their views as the issue continues to gain momentum like this.
|
On July 09 2012 01:01 Pisky wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 00:44 DoubleReed wrote:On July 09 2012 00:42 Pisky wrote:On July 09 2012 00:40 DoubleReed wrote:On July 09 2012 00:38 Pisky wrote: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:
[quote]
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. You assume wrong. Care to explain why you think you have the right to impose your marital views on others? Well, why do you think you have the right to impose your marital views on others? It is not just me, it is also you. We have different views on what marriage is and therefore we might support different legislation which forcing martial views on others.
I'm not forcing anyone to do anything or stopping anyone from doing anything. If you want to marry a woman, marry a woman. If you want to marry a man, marry a man. I am not imposing my beliefs on anyone. If I were to marry someone, guy or girl, how does that affect you?
You need to understand this whole 'freedom' thing. It means you can't use the law to tell people what they can and can't do simply due to personal viewpoints.
|
Being from Sweden I have a hard time understanding the big deal about same-sex marriage, then again we dont really give a fuck about religion over here.
But good on companies taking a stance I guess, I wonder if those bigots who said they would stop eating oreos now will stop using google products? Probably not, maybe they will be Googling "with Bing."
|
The bit that confuses marriage discussions is this: government-endorsed marriage isn't really a coherent right, for anyone. It's simpler and more natural for the government to step out of the 'marriage' or 'civil union' business entirely.
However, folks keep using that as an excuse to give arbitrary special privileges to male-female pairs. It isn't one. Stop.
|
I'm reminded of an article in a norwegian newspaper. A gay politician is marching in a parade; and later a tabloid asks him a few questions. Among what he says is that he saw the "man of his dreams" while marching; and so some 50 year old guy is critizising him for talking about his personal life when he is marching in a "political" parade; and that he should instead be 100% political. The reply the old man got was basically "sorry, don't care to answer. Looking for the man of my dreams". Which is quite the strong reply indeed. What he is saying is that the cause has come far enough that he is allowed to crack a few jokes, and can talk to tabloids in whatever manner he wants (not that he has power over which part of their interviews that are actually gonna get printed; and so he shouldn't even have a need to "defend" himself), and no one can critizise him for not being a "proper" activist, simply because that is belittling and he does not have to give these people a serious reply or the time of day. No one will side against him in any manner.
|
This is a good idea! People need to learn how to not be bothered by things that don't affect them and things they can't control...
|
On July 09 2012 00:53 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 00:48 Pisky wrote:On July 09 2012 00:34 DoubleReed 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:
[quote]
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. "A semantic argument is disgusting and horrible." reason please. "The entire point is just to feel superior and insult homosexual relationships." just..why?? "In fact, you're insulting people's families, which I find incredibly shocking."...please, do not just randomly state things. If you want me to really understand your argument, go through reasoning. How am I insulting families?? What ?? So let's say a lesbian couple with their 2 kids came up to you, and started talking to you. Now, if you were to explain to this lesbian couple why they weren't wives, but in fact domestic partners, I think you would offend them. This is even worse, because you are trying to institutionalize this into law. Yes, guess what, that's going to offend people, and for purely logical reasons. They are married, you dolt. If everything about it is a marriage, all the same rights, all the same things, then explain to me what the point is of calling it anything but a marriage? Explain. The only reason I can see is because you want to be an asshole.
"If everything about it is a marriage, all the same rights, all the same things" sorry, its NOT the same.
For the first paragraph, simply stating that someone would find something offensive does not prove me wrong. What are those purely logical reasons? It is something like: people call you James but you do not like it and you find it really really offensive.
|
On July 09 2012 01:11 Pisky wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 00:53 DoubleReed wrote:On July 09 2012 00:48 Pisky wrote:On July 09 2012 00:34 DoubleReed 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:[quote] 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. "A semantic argument is disgusting and horrible." reason please. "The entire point is just to feel superior and insult homosexual relationships." just..why?? "In fact, you're insulting people's families, which I find incredibly shocking."...please, do not just randomly state things. If you want me to really understand your argument, go through reasoning. How am I insulting families?? What ?? So let's say a lesbian couple with their 2 kids came up to you, and started talking to you. Now, if you were to explain to this lesbian couple why they weren't wives, but in fact domestic partners, I think you would offend them. This is even worse, because you are trying to institutionalize this into law. Yes, guess what, that's going to offend people, and for purely logical reasons. They are married, you dolt. If everything about it is a marriage, all the same rights, all the same things, then explain to me what the point is of calling it anything but a marriage? Explain. The only reason I can see is because you want to be an asshole. "If everything about it is a marriage, all the same rights, all the same things" sorry, its NOT the same. For the first paragraph, simply stating that someone would find something offensive does not prove me wrong. What are those purely logical reasons? It is something like: people call you James but you do not like it and you find it really really offensive.
It is inhumane to say to a same-sex couple that their marriage means less than your own. If I heard someone say that I might punch them in the gut. Their commitment and life journey is no less, and you're only trying to make people feel bad, because you think you're being "correct", when infact you could have been atleast slightly empathic and 'humane'. Also you would be incorrect. Their lives, their love and their commitment are no less than yours, except for possibly in the areas where you infringe and try to take things away from Them. Otherwise their lives are the same, and you're not entitled to it in any way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
