|
On July 09 2012 01:16 Cutlery wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 01:11 Pisky wrote: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:
[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 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 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.
Show me, where I wrote that their marriage means less?? I do not think it means less but I think, as I wrote, it is just not the same.
|
On July 09 2012 01:19 Pisky wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 01:16 Cutlery wrote:On July 09 2012 01:11 Pisky wrote: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:
[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 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 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. Show me, where I wrote that their marriage means less?? I do not think it means less but I think, as I wrote, it is just not the same.
Seperate but equal?
|
On July 09 2012 01:20 Iyerbeth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 01:19 Pisky wrote:On July 09 2012 01:16 Cutlery wrote:On July 09 2012 01:11 Pisky wrote: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:
[quote]
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 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. Show me, where I wrote that their marriage means less?? I do not think it means less but I think, as I wrote, it is just not the same. Seperate but equal?
???
|
On July 09 2012 01:22 Pisky wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 01:20 Iyerbeth wrote:On July 09 2012 01:19 Pisky wrote:On July 09 2012 01:16 Cutlery wrote:On July 09 2012 01:11 Pisky wrote: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:
[quote]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 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. Show me, where I wrote that their marriage means less?? I do not think it means less but I think, as I wrote, it is just not the same. Seperate but equal? ???
Was asking if you were meaning that gays should be seperate but equal, specifically here with regards to the marriage system. The link explains the concept as it was used in the past when race issues were dealt with that way.
|
On July 09 2012 01:19 Pisky wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 01:16 Cutlery wrote:On July 09 2012 01:11 Pisky wrote: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:
[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 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 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. Show me, where I wrote that their marriage means less?? I do not think it means less but I think, as I wrote, it is just not the same.
You didn't have to. You simply say their marriage can never be the same as "your" marriage. Not that I know exactly what it means. Atleast that's how I read it. "sorry, its NOT the same." .. It could be, couldn't it? If only you changed the law to give them the same benefits; their "marriage" would be exactly the same. And even if you don't give them benefits, their marriage is still the same kind of marriage between two people, regardless of wether you can stomach actually calling it a "marriage" or not.
I'm gonna butt out. Your implication about "the same but different" does not compute. Based upon what marriage is, to me, there must not be any specific gender roles involved, only people.
|
On July 09 2012 01:24 Iyerbeth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 01:22 Pisky wrote:On July 09 2012 01:20 Iyerbeth wrote:On July 09 2012 01:19 Pisky wrote:On July 09 2012 01:16 Cutlery wrote:On July 09 2012 01:11 Pisky wrote: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:
[quote]
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 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. Show me, where I wrote that their marriage means less?? I do not think it means less but I think, as I wrote, it is just not the same. Seperate but equal? ??? Was asking if you were meaning that gays should be seperate but equal, specifically here with regards to the marriage system. The link explains the concept as it was used in the past when race issues were dealt with that way.
No, they should not.
|
On July 09 2012 01:19 Pisky wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 01:16 Cutlery wrote:On July 09 2012 01:11 Pisky wrote: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:
[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 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 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. Show me, where I wrote that their marriage means less?? I do not think it means less but I think, as I wrote, it is just not the same.
So if same sex marriage isn't less than opposite sex marriage, that means it's atleast equal or above (to you), then why should it not be legal again ?
|
On July 09 2012 01:27 Pisky wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 01:24 Iyerbeth wrote:On July 09 2012 01:22 Pisky wrote:On July 09 2012 01:20 Iyerbeth wrote:On July 09 2012 01:19 Pisky wrote:On July 09 2012 01:16 Cutlery wrote:On July 09 2012 01:11 Pisky wrote:On July 09 2012 00:53 DoubleReed wrote:On July 09 2012 00:48 Pisky wrote:On July 09 2012 00:34 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
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 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. Show me, where I wrote that their marriage means less?? I do not think it means less but I think, as I wrote, it is just not the same. Seperate but equal? ??? Was asking if you were meaning that gays should be seperate but equal, specifically here with regards to the marriage system. The link explains the concept as it was used in the past when race issues were dealt with that way. No, they should not.
I think you are. You think it's ok that they get a recognized relationship status, but that should not be the same as your marriage. They are the same but different (atleast different in name). And this is where history repeats itself 
It's ok. rome wasn't built in a day.
But really, you're allowed to think that marriage between man and woman is somehow different. It's ok. In a way it is, but not in any way that actually matter. And it wouldn't be the first time things started with "same but different". Before we unified civil union and marriage in Norway, we also had the "same but different" policy and philosophy. We don't anymore. It's only a natural step.
|
On July 08 2012 18:44 phodacbiet wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2012 18:36 TirramirooO wrote:
Sick of talking about gay people.. Im not Christian, i dont believe in religion but that is totally the ANTICHRIST... With the same sex you cant make children soo is against nature but make people understant that is becoming hard.
Keep going, in the future you all gonna open your EYES.
This is a common misconception about what would happen if gay marriage were to be legalized. There are MILLIONS of babies that are available for adoption and the gay community doesnt even make up 50% of our population so we would barely even see a dent in our population increase. Even if gay marriage legalization does cause the population to go down, then it is a good thing (look at china/india and other countries with overpopulation problem). Also, if you dont believe in religion, then why does it matter if this is anti christ..?
1 in 10 people are actually gay.
|
On July 09 2012 01:27 Cutlery wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 01:19 Pisky wrote:On July 09 2012 01:16 Cutlery wrote:On July 09 2012 01:11 Pisky wrote: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:
[quote]
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 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. Show me, where I wrote that their marriage means less?? I do not think it means less but I think, as I wrote, it is just not the same. You didn't have to. You simply say their marriage can never be the same as "your" marriage. Not that I know exactly what it means. Atleast that's how I read it. "sorry, its NOT the same." .. It could be, couldn't it? If only you changed the law to give them the same benefits; their "marriage" would be exactly the same. And even if you don't give them benefits, their marriage is still the same kind of marriage between two people, regardless of wether you can stomach actually calling it a "marriage" or not. I'm gonna butt out. Your implication about "the same but different" does not compute. Based upon what marriage is, to me, there must not be any specific gender roles involved, only people.
You are right.
|
On July 08 2012 18:42 hypercube wrote:
It's a little sad that the most effective way to fight for human right is through multinational corporations. I don't like what that says about the state of democracy in the World.
I think it's great that democracy can support google advocating an issue. It's good that our society makes it benefical.
|
Massive shitstorm so far with many people not liking it. You know what I call people who get disturbed by this? CAVE MEN. Grow up and evolve, please.
Homosexuality isn't a choice and it should be perfectly fine & legal for two homosexuals/lesbians (same shit but just to every1 understands) too marry and live togheter for life.
And I like how Google is liberal. Sweden is liberal, and is it a bad country overall? No, it's one of the best....
|
On July 09 2012 01:30 thezanursic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2012 18:44 phodacbiet wrote:On July 08 2012 18:36 TirramirooO wrote:
Sick of talking about gay people.. Im not Christian, i dont believe in religion but that is totally the ANTICHRIST... With the same sex you cant make children soo is against nature but make people understant that is becoming hard.
Keep going, in the future you all gonna open your EYES.
This is a common misconception about what would happen if gay marriage were to be legalized. There are MILLIONS of babies that are available for adoption and the gay community doesnt even make up 50% of our population so we would barely even see a dent in our population increase. Even if gay marriage legalization does cause the population to go down, then it is a good thing (look at china/india and other countries with overpopulation problem). Also, if you dont believe in religion, then why does it matter if this is anti christ..? 1 in 10 people are actually gay.
its more around 2-3% actually. depends on how do you define gay, where do you look at.
|
On July 09 2012 01:53 Ottoxlol wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 01:30 thezanursic wrote:On July 08 2012 18:44 phodacbiet wrote:On July 08 2012 18:36 TirramirooO wrote:
Sick of talking about gay people.. Im not Christian, i dont believe in religion but that is totally the ANTICHRIST... With the same sex you cant make children soo is against nature but make people understant that is becoming hard.
Keep going, in the future you all gonna open your EYES.
This is a common misconception about what would happen if gay marriage were to be legalized. There are MILLIONS of babies that are available for adoption and the gay community doesnt even make up 50% of our population so we would barely even see a dent in our population increase. Even if gay marriage legalization does cause the population to go down, then it is a good thing (look at china/india and other countries with overpopulation problem). Also, if you dont believe in religion, then why does it matter if this is anti christ..? 1 in 10 people are actually gay. its more around 2-3% actually. depends on how do you define gay, where do you look at.
Where are you getting this statistic?
|
I always find it funny when people try to justify hating on gay people and imposing upon their rights, it is almost embarrassing that they're even a part of this community. But like anything, even the most unarguable data (homosexuality isn't a choice) will have idiots clambering to input their respective PhD level education on the specific topic and try to allude it's a choice.
|
On July 09 2012 01:54 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 01:53 Ottoxlol wrote:On July 09 2012 01:30 thezanursic wrote:On July 08 2012 18:44 phodacbiet wrote:On July 08 2012 18:36 TirramirooO wrote:
Sick of talking about gay people.. Im not Christian, i dont believe in religion but that is totally the ANTICHRIST... With the same sex you cant make children soo is against nature but make people understant that is becoming hard.
Keep going, in the future you all gonna open your EYES.
This is a common misconception about what would happen if gay marriage were to be legalized. There are MILLIONS of babies that are available for adoption and the gay community doesnt even make up 50% of our population so we would barely even see a dent in our population increase. Even if gay marriage legalization does cause the population to go down, then it is a good thing (look at china/india and other countries with overpopulation problem). Also, if you dont believe in religion, then why does it matter if this is anti christ..? 1 in 10 people are actually gay. its more around 2-3% actually. depends on how do you define gay, where do you look at. Where are you getting this statistic?
From what I've heard, 1-3% of the population is out of the closet, while it is estimated that up to 10% are homosexual (including the previous 1-3%)
|
On July 09 2012 01:30 thezanursic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2012 18:44 phodacbiet wrote:On July 08 2012 18:36 TirramirooO wrote:
Sick of talking about gay people.. Im not Christian, i dont believe in religion but that is totally the ANTICHRIST... With the same sex you cant make children soo is against nature but make people understant that is becoming hard.
Keep going, in the future you all gonna open your EYES.
This is a common misconception about what would happen if gay marriage were to be legalized. There are MILLIONS of babies that are available for adoption and the gay community doesnt even make up 50% of our population so we would barely even see a dent in our population increase. Even if gay marriage legalization does cause the population to go down, then it is a good thing (look at china/india and other countries with overpopulation problem). Also, if you dont believe in religion, then why does it matter if this is anti christ..? 1 in 10 people are actually gay.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/americans-have-no-idea-how-few-gay-people-there-are/257753/
But if anything their smaller numbers means it's more important to uphold their civil rights.
|
On July 09 2012 02:02 Demonhunter04 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 01:54 Roe wrote:On July 09 2012 01:53 Ottoxlol wrote:On July 09 2012 01:30 thezanursic wrote:On July 08 2012 18:44 phodacbiet wrote:On July 08 2012 18:36 TirramirooO wrote:
Sick of talking about gay people.. Im not Christian, i dont believe in religion but that is totally the ANTICHRIST... With the same sex you cant make children soo is against nature but make people understant that is becoming hard.
Keep going, in the future you all gonna open your EYES.
This is a common misconception about what would happen if gay marriage were to be legalized. There are MILLIONS of babies that are available for adoption and the gay community doesnt even make up 50% of our population so we would barely even see a dent in our population increase. Even if gay marriage legalization does cause the population to go down, then it is a good thing (look at china/india and other countries with overpopulation problem). Also, if you dont believe in religion, then why does it matter if this is anti christ..? 1 in 10 people are actually gay. its more around 2-3% actually. depends on how do you define gay, where do you look at. Where are you getting this statistic? From what I've heard, 1-3% of the population is out of the closet, while it is estimated that up to 10% are homosexual (including the previous 1-3%)
No. around 7-8% had some kind of homosexual experience, 1-3% thinks themselves as gays.
|
On July 09 2012 02:10 Ottoxlol wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 02:02 Demonhunter04 wrote:On July 09 2012 01:54 Roe wrote:On July 09 2012 01:53 Ottoxlol wrote:On July 09 2012 01:30 thezanursic wrote:On July 08 2012 18:44 phodacbiet wrote:On July 08 2012 18:36 TirramirooO wrote:
Sick of talking about gay people.. Im not Christian, i dont believe in religion but that is totally the ANTICHRIST... With the same sex you cant make children soo is against nature but make people understant that is becoming hard.
Keep going, in the future you all gonna open your EYES.
This is a common misconception about what would happen if gay marriage were to be legalized. There are MILLIONS of babies that are available for adoption and the gay community doesnt even make up 50% of our population so we would barely even see a dent in our population increase. Even if gay marriage legalization does cause the population to go down, then it is a good thing (look at china/india and other countries with overpopulation problem). Also, if you dont believe in religion, then why does it matter if this is anti christ..? 1 in 10 people are actually gay. its more around 2-3% actually. depends on how do you define gay, where do you look at. Where are you getting this statistic? From what I've heard, 1-3% of the population is out of the closet, while it is estimated that up to 10% are homosexual (including the previous 1-3%) No. around 7-8% had some kind of homosexual experience, 1-3% thinks themselves as gays.
Yeah I read the article posted above. 10% was an estimate from some report in 1948 lol.
|
Guys stop arguing about how man people are gay. The statistics are all completely biased because of the social implications of admiting you are gay. 10 percent is acutally probably the best estimate. Anything below 5 percent is way to low given the size of current gay communities in relation to the their countries population. But the point is, no one really knows.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
