|
On July 09 2012 23:28 RageBot wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 22:32 Elsid wrote:On July 09 2012 22:25 decker247777 wrote:On July 09 2012 22:12 HellRoxYa wrote:On July 09 2012 22:04 decker247777 wrote:On July 09 2012 21:59 Zorkmid wrote:On July 09 2012 21:56 decker247777 wrote:
This is stupid. I recognize that people should have a choice in what they do, however, I do not have to accept that it is the correct or right thing to do.The main problem i see with gay marriage is all of a sudden it starts becoming more normal and not seen as taboo. This would literally not be cool with me in any way shape or form, due to how it could open up a world of bullcrap ,such as; age is just a number, pedophiles should have human rights, Rapists should get free benefits, murderers should get second chances, and so on and forth. I am not cool with this, let them be gay if they want to be gay, but as far as marriage goes, it should be left to a man and a woman only. Also, straight couples have a higher chance of having kids then a gay couple even with today's scientific advancements and adoption methods. What the shit man? How does gay marriage lead to free pedophilia and rapist social security? See my above post. You mean gays in general? I only am against gay marriage not gay people. The reason it could is due to how things become normal and then people decide to change something else due to their bleeding heart ideology. Oh its wrong that we treat rapists that way, its not their fault they don't have a choice in how they act. DO YOU LITERALLY NOT SEE THIS BULLCRAP CONNECTION BETWEEN THE TWO LOGICS? I am saying it could happen and dammit there is a real possibility with how stupid people are becoming. Now what i am saying is that,we should let it stay at gay marriage debates and keep it there so we don't ever have to deal with this crap. Sounds great. The line isn't at gay marriage however, and once you realize that you also realize that you have no argument. And while I'm at it, pedophiles have human rights and, as they are human, they should have them. I would hope that you are confusing pedophiles with actively practicing pedophiles (that is, child rapists). A pedophile is someone who's sexual orientation means that they are attracted to kids. It does not mean that they act on it, or have acted on it. Even a rapist, of children or otherwise, still has basic human rights just like everyone else. Murderers should in general be given second chances as long as they are deemed rehabilitated and have served their term. Lastly, though, I'm sure this is how a lot of people argued for segregation. "Well, I think it should stay. I mean if we allow this, what's next? Gay people being okay?". Societal evolution is great and not something to be feared. Man andrew anders was right about being politically correct. Listen, you can believe or talk however you want. Due to my STANDARDS and the way i live. I cannot agree that child rapists should live, let alone have basic human rights.Murderers should have their lives taken from them as they have taken life from others.As far as political correctness goes, it can suck my dick. This is not how a society should be run in any way shape or form. I believe gay people have the right to be gay. That is their choice, and i have nothing against their choice except i believe it is wrong. Being gay although is like lying or having sex before marriage so its not like a big deal.If i support gay marriage i would support the fact that i believe it is correct and right to be gay when that goes against my very moral foundation. Yeah good luck being politically correct, dat marxism at work. i do agree with as long as they do not act on their sexual orientation they shouldn't lose their human rights. And pray tell what is your dim witted hair brained laughable obtuse half baked reasoning for why homosexual marriage is "wrong"? While I do support gay marriage, there is historical support for societies in which pedophilia was allowed - Classical Greece and Rome, the two civilization who were closest to our own when it comes to really big civilizations with to much emphasis on hedonism. Also - you guys really should be banned for the ways you are disrespecting another forum member, while the other guy's opinions seem to be mainly wrong from my point of view, he doesn't insult you guys and give you respect.
It was not pedophilia, exactly. The correct term is pederasty. The boys were in their teens, past puberty, and were past what could be called the Greek ''age of consent'', the same age girls were given away in marriage. But this is irrelevant, we should not look to the ancients for advice on sexual morals in any case. Women were worse off than in modern Saudi-Arabia and actual homosexuality between two equal adults was highly illegal, even if it was romanticized by some philosophers.
|
On July 09 2012 23:32 decker247777 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 23:27 Crushinator wrote:On July 09 2012 23:25 decker247777 wrote:On July 09 2012 23:21 Djzapz wrote:On July 09 2012 23:19 decker247777 wrote:On July 09 2012 23:09 Elsid wrote:On July 09 2012 22:59 decker247777 wrote:On July 09 2012 22:01 Elsid wrote:On July 09 2012 21:56 decker247777 wrote:
This is stupid. I recognize that people should have a choice in what they do, however, I do not have to accept that it is the correct or right thing to do.The main problem i see with gay marriage is all of a sudden it starts becoming more normal and not seen as taboo. This would literally not be cool with me in any way shape or form, due to how it could open up a world of bullcrap ,such as; age is just a number, pedophiles should have human rights, Rapists should get free benefits, murderers should get second chances, and so on and forth. I am not cool with this, let them be gay if they want to be gay, but as far as marriage goes, it should be left to a man and a woman only. Also, straight couples have a higher chance of having kids then a gay couple even with today's scientific advancements and adoption methods. What the fuck are you even saying, being gay has nothing to do with rape murder or pedophilia so first of all leave that out of your post. Second of all paragraphs are good , they make your writing easier to write , not that i think your writing has any merit as it stands as you're talking utter shite. Gay marriage =/= rapists get free benefits (whatever that means? benefits?) Gay marriage =/= murderers getting second chances (not that I see what's wrong with murderers who have been rehabilitated). Having children has nothing to do with this issue sterile people can be married so that automatically defeats that argument. Please before you post again consider thinking , reading , opening your mind , not making bullshit analogies. Thanks. Hi i heard you were a politically controlled noob. I hope you can actually form opinions without it being politically correct but with seeing how you agree that murderers should get a second chance that probably isn't going to happen. Now on to what i tried to say but kind of failed due to how its all over the place. Gay marriage is just another thing of political correctness. I despise political correctness with a passion therefore if it is against what i believe, i will stand against it.If it wasn't with political correctness would i stand against gay marriage, I honestly have no idea, but seeing as how that probably will never happen. Political correctness has tie ins with everything that could happen, i do not think gay marriage equals those thing but i believe what is the driving force behind it definitely could do that. So essentially what you're saying is that anyone who disagrees with you doesn't have a mind of their own? How novel, however I think you'll find that this is untrue and you're so full of shit that you're starting to believe yourself. Gay marriage has nothing to do with political correctness, it has to do with civil liberty, it has to do with being recognized as an equal in the eyes of government in your relationship. Consider what you say before you say it lest you want to be labeled as the dumbass that you are. Well, if your arguing with that, i guess i can share my viewpoint on that. Gay couples cannot have kids naturally therefore any benefit given to a married couple that can have kids naturally should not be given to a gay couple unless they adopt or otherwise do sperm donations or things of that nature. This is ridiculous at how they argue for equality yet do not even consider how straight couples can have any number of kids ,even with protection, they still can have an unexpected kid on the way due to mistakes or otherwise compromised condoms.Gay couples will never have to deal with this. So about equality do you really think they should share all the benefits? I don't, maybe some of them but definitely not all of them unless they adopt then sure. Should infertile straight couples lose benefits too because they can't have kids? Your viewpoint has one very specific flaw, gay couples will always not have kids. An infertile couple does not necessarily know they are infertile and even then weird things have happened to where supposedly infertile couples have had kids anyways.This main difference definitely cannot be over looked and therefore your logic is denied. Should really old people be denied marriage? What about women who have had historectomies? These things are easily done, would you be in favor of this? Again gays will never have children PERIOD. Now would i prefer that change as a single male. Maybe, but the problem is in the specifics of never ,and weird things have happened to where they have had kids.
So please point to an instance of a woman with no uterus getting pregnant.
|
On July 09 2012 23:38 decker247777 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 23:32 Djzapz wrote:On July 09 2012 23:25 decker247777 wrote:On July 09 2012 23:21 Djzapz wrote:On July 09 2012 23:19 decker247777 wrote:On July 09 2012 23:09 Elsid wrote:On July 09 2012 22:59 decker247777 wrote:On July 09 2012 22:01 Elsid wrote:On July 09 2012 21:56 decker247777 wrote:
This is stupid. I recognize that people should have a choice in what they do, however, I do not have to accept that it is the correct or right thing to do.The main problem i see with gay marriage is all of a sudden it starts becoming more normal and not seen as taboo. This would literally not be cool with me in any way shape or form, due to how it could open up a world of bullcrap ,such as; age is just a number, pedophiles should have human rights, Rapists should get free benefits, murderers should get second chances, and so on and forth. I am not cool with this, let them be gay if they want to be gay, but as far as marriage goes, it should be left to a man and a woman only. Also, straight couples have a higher chance of having kids then a gay couple even with today's scientific advancements and adoption methods. What the fuck are you even saying, being gay has nothing to do with rape murder or pedophilia so first of all leave that out of your post. Second of all paragraphs are good , they make your writing easier to write , not that i think your writing has any merit as it stands as you're talking utter shite. Gay marriage =/= rapists get free benefits (whatever that means? benefits?) Gay marriage =/= murderers getting second chances (not that I see what's wrong with murderers who have been rehabilitated). Having children has nothing to do with this issue sterile people can be married so that automatically defeats that argument. Please before you post again consider thinking , reading , opening your mind , not making bullshit analogies. Thanks. Hi i heard you were a politically controlled noob. I hope you can actually form opinions without it being politically correct but with seeing how you agree that murderers should get a second chance that probably isn't going to happen. Now on to what i tried to say but kind of failed due to how its all over the place. Gay marriage is just another thing of political correctness. I despise political correctness with a passion therefore if it is against what i believe, i will stand against it.If it wasn't with political correctness would i stand against gay marriage, I honestly have no idea, but seeing as how that probably will never happen. Political correctness has tie ins with everything that could happen, i do not think gay marriage equals those thing but i believe what is the driving force behind it definitely could do that. So essentially what you're saying is that anyone who disagrees with you doesn't have a mind of their own? How novel, however I think you'll find that this is untrue and you're so full of shit that you're starting to believe yourself. Gay marriage has nothing to do with political correctness, it has to do with civil liberty, it has to do with being recognized as an equal in the eyes of government in your relationship. Consider what you say before you say it lest you want to be labeled as the dumbass that you are. Well, if your arguing with that, i guess i can share my viewpoint on that. Gay couples cannot have kids naturally therefore any benefit given to a married couple that can have kids naturally should not be given to a gay couple unless they adopt or otherwise do sperm donations or things of that nature. This is ridiculous at how they argue for equality yet do not even consider how straight couples can have any number of kids ,even with protection, they still can have an unexpected kid on the way due to mistakes or otherwise compromised condoms.Gay couples will never have to deal with this. So about equality do you really think they should share all the benefits? I don't, maybe some of them but definitely not all of them unless they adopt then sure. Should infertile straight couples lose benefits too because they can't have kids? Your viewpoint has one very specific flaw, gay couples will always not have kids. An infertile couple does not necessarily know they are infertile and even then weird things have happened to where supposedly infertile couples have had kids anyways.This main difference definitely cannot be over looked and therefore your logic is denied. You misuse the word logic and you should look it up. You only addressed a part of my post, leaving out the rest - which is convenient because your reasoning (not logic) won't fly high. If there should be monetary incentives to having kids, why would the government dump millions of dollars on couples that won't have kids? If those benefits come for parents with kids only, then they should apply when the kids are there. But more importantly, there are plenty of kids in orphanages, locally and in other countries. Gay couples, research shows, are as capable of raising children as straight couples. And, because they can adopt babies, sometimes a gay couple WILL have more children than a straight couple. So, should it still be impossible for a gay couple to be married and to receive less money simply because YOU don't like them? I'm sure you'll clumsily try to make your way out of that, and fail horribly. Nah, its easy to look at something simple. Gay couples are never going to have kids just from them. Adoption are kids that have been the cause of natural reproduction as in they are already here. If i were a government i would dump millions of dollars into straight couples simply by the fact, the more kids we have the better our chances are in the future.
You live in a liberal democracy, you know. Shitting on minorities may be your motto, but it's technically not your country's.
And the money straight parents get from the government for having kids isn't for them to reproduce, which is what you seem to think. The money should be to RAISE the kids. The fact that adopted babies are "already there" is irrelevant.
|
On July 09 2012 23:32 decker247777 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 23:27 Crushinator wrote:On July 09 2012 23:25 decker247777 wrote:On July 09 2012 23:21 Djzapz wrote:On July 09 2012 23:19 decker247777 wrote:On July 09 2012 23:09 Elsid wrote:On July 09 2012 22:59 decker247777 wrote:On July 09 2012 22:01 Elsid wrote:On July 09 2012 21:56 decker247777 wrote:
This is stupid. I recognize that people should have a choice in what they do, however, I do not have to accept that it is the correct or right thing to do.The main problem i see with gay marriage is all of a sudden it starts becoming more normal and not seen as taboo. This would literally not be cool with me in any way shape or form, due to how it could open up a world of bullcrap ,such as; age is just a number, pedophiles should have human rights, Rapists should get free benefits, murderers should get second chances, and so on and forth. I am not cool with this, let them be gay if they want to be gay, but as far as marriage goes, it should be left to a man and a woman only. Also, straight couples have a higher chance of having kids then a gay couple even with today's scientific advancements and adoption methods. What the fuck are you even saying, being gay has nothing to do with rape murder or pedophilia so first of all leave that out of your post. Second of all paragraphs are good , they make your writing easier to write , not that i think your writing has any merit as it stands as you're talking utter shite. Gay marriage =/= rapists get free benefits (whatever that means? benefits?) Gay marriage =/= murderers getting second chances (not that I see what's wrong with murderers who have been rehabilitated). Having children has nothing to do with this issue sterile people can be married so that automatically defeats that argument. Please before you post again consider thinking , reading , opening your mind , not making bullshit analogies. Thanks. Hi i heard you were a politically controlled noob. I hope you can actually form opinions without it being politically correct but with seeing how you agree that murderers should get a second chance that probably isn't going to happen. Now on to what i tried to say but kind of failed due to how its all over the place. Gay marriage is just another thing of political correctness. I despise political correctness with a passion therefore if it is against what i believe, i will stand against it.If it wasn't with political correctness would i stand against gay marriage, I honestly have no idea, but seeing as how that probably will never happen. Political correctness has tie ins with everything that could happen, i do not think gay marriage equals those thing but i believe what is the driving force behind it definitely could do that. So essentially what you're saying is that anyone who disagrees with you doesn't have a mind of their own? How novel, however I think you'll find that this is untrue and you're so full of shit that you're starting to believe yourself. Gay marriage has nothing to do with political correctness, it has to do with civil liberty, it has to do with being recognized as an equal in the eyes of government in your relationship. Consider what you say before you say it lest you want to be labeled as the dumbass that you are. Well, if your arguing with that, i guess i can share my viewpoint on that. Gay couples cannot have kids naturally therefore any benefit given to a married couple that can have kids naturally should not be given to a gay couple unless they adopt or otherwise do sperm donations or things of that nature. This is ridiculous at how they argue for equality yet do not even consider how straight couples can have any number of kids ,even with protection, they still can have an unexpected kid on the way due to mistakes or otherwise compromised condoms.Gay couples will never have to deal with this. So about equality do you really think they should share all the benefits? I don't, maybe some of them but definitely not all of them unless they adopt then sure. Should infertile straight couples lose benefits too because they can't have kids? Your viewpoint has one very specific flaw, gay couples will always not have kids. An infertile couple does not necessarily know they are infertile and even then weird things have happened to where supposedly infertile couples have had kids anyways.This main difference definitely cannot be over looked and therefore your logic is denied. Should really old people be denied marriage? What about women who have had historectomies? These things are easily done, would you be in favor of this? Again gays will never have children PERIOD. Now would i prefer that change as a single male. Maybe, but the problem is in the specifics of never ,and weird things have happened to where they have had kids.
No no, sterile and old people are insulting the idea of marriage. Why are you not more angry about this? A woman who gets pregnant after a certain age and such is almost guaranteed to miscarry or be at risk of death.
Oh right, because the whole children thing is a completely fake reason.
Also, what gives you the right to impose your religious views on others? You don't have to approve of their marriage. Let people do what they want. Sheesh.
|
On July 09 2012 23:11 binkman wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 22:54 BobbyT wrote:On July 09 2012 21:57 taintmachine wrote:On July 09 2012 21:28 BobbyT wrote:On July 09 2012 20:54 Santa Cruz wrote:On July 09 2012 19:45 Glurkenspurk wrote:The fact that in 2012 it's still socially acceptable to discriminate against homosexuals is fucking disgusting. Only because you live in a first world country. In many countries sexism is still acceptable, so is the death penalty. I know this is a controversial statement and I'm not saying I support it, but I genuinely believe that in the future pedophilia will become legal to some extent. Go back a few generations and Marilyn Monroe showing some leg was considered porn. Today we have teenagers wearing makeup and miniskirts and in general listening to pop songs about getting drunk and having promiscuous sex. It's only a matter of time before the age of consent is lowered, firstly for younger teenagers (so an adult can't have sex with a younger teenager, but two younger teenagers can legally have sex with one another), and then eventually you can watch porn with two consenting younger teenagers, until finally anyone can have sex with younger teenagers due to more education surrounding sex and the rapid development of maturity of young teenagers. If you don't believe me, ask your grandparents whether it was conceivable that people would be having sex without being married, and with multiple partners. It was simply out of the question back in their time. Most of the stunt in progress has been due to religion and it's good to see Google pushing forward with a secularist agenda. Agreed. With a rationale of "legalize love" there is of course no reason not to allow one type of relationship that involves love and not allow another. This is a problem with the gay marriage movement and a question that I think has yet to be answered by those supporting it. consent has a lot to do with sex in america. minors are generally not seen as being able to legally consent to various things. the homosexual marriage issue is concerned with a consenual relationship b/w adults. as the law sees it, a minor cannot legally consent to a sexual relationship with an adult. if americans changed their views on consent then maybe but as i said, this concerns adults to a few other people, being afraid of homosexual pedophiles as a result of homosexual rights is ridiculous. it'd make more sense to be morally outraged at heterosexual marriage, as afaik heterosexual pedophilia is more common (note some ppl don't even label pedophiles as being homosexual or heterosexual, tho i don't think that makes much sense) That's a fair enough point, although I don't think we should be satisfied with the idea that the only thing stopping an older adult from having a sexual relationship with a young teen is the idea that the teen cannot legally consent. Accepting your point however we still run into problems with the "legalize love" rationale in stopping polygamy, or in stopping incestual relationships by consenting adults (and even if you argue that it's unhealthy for their potential children, that doesnt stop a same sex incestual relationship or a relationship by people who are sterile). My basic point is that the idea that we should be "legalizing love" doesn't really make any sense with the actual changes people want. Obviously most people aren't in favor of legalizing polygamy or incestual marriage, and since both of those relationships involve love and are between consenting adults, how do you justify legalizing one but not the other? How do you justify legalizing heterosexual marriages and not same sex ones?
I don't really want to get into it too much. But here is a very short version of the justification. First, men and women are inherently different (in ways beyond mere differences in sexual organs). Second, because of this difference, heterosexual unions are inherently differnet from a same sex union. And third, that for various reasons the differences between these relationships are such that the state should prefer heterosexual unions to same sex unions because heterosexual unions provide more benefit to the socity than any other type of union. Now obviously this does not mean that same sex unions are bad, or that the state should discourage them, or any nonsense like that. The only thing this justification says is that the state should prefer the relationship that tends to give most benefit to society.
However this whole justification depends on the statement that men and women are inherently different in material ways. If you disagree with that and believe that the only difference is sexual organs etc. then this justification does nothing for you and you should favor same sex unions.
FYI My points in this thread have been about how this "legalize love" statement doesn't make sense with the actual changes people want. The reasons for having heterosexual marriage only is really a non sequitor to my point that "legalize love" rationale is a poor fit for the actual changes being promoted.
|
On July 09 2012 23:24 Elsid wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 23:20 BobbyT wrote:On July 09 2012 23:10 Elsid wrote:On July 09 2012 23:05 BobbyT wrote:On July 09 2012 22:55 Elsid wrote:On July 09 2012 22:54 BobbyT wrote:On July 09 2012 21:57 taintmachine wrote:On July 09 2012 21:28 BobbyT wrote:On July 09 2012 20:54 Santa Cruz wrote:On July 09 2012 19:45 Glurkenspurk wrote:The fact that in 2012 it's still socially acceptable to discriminate against homosexuals is fucking disgusting. Only because you live in a first world country. In many countries sexism is still acceptable, so is the death penalty. I know this is a controversial statement and I'm not saying I support it, but I genuinely believe that in the future pedophilia will become legal to some extent. Go back a few generations and Marilyn Monroe showing some leg was considered porn. Today we have teenagers wearing makeup and miniskirts and in general listening to pop songs about getting drunk and having promiscuous sex. It's only a matter of time before the age of consent is lowered, firstly for younger teenagers (so an adult can't have sex with a younger teenager, but two younger teenagers can legally have sex with one another), and then eventually you can watch porn with two consenting younger teenagers, until finally anyone can have sex with younger teenagers due to more education surrounding sex and the rapid development of maturity of young teenagers. If you don't believe me, ask your grandparents whether it was conceivable that people would be having sex without being married, and with multiple partners. It was simply out of the question back in their time. Most of the stunt in progress has been due to religion and it's good to see Google pushing forward with a secularist agenda. Agreed. With a rationale of "legalize love" there is of course no reason not to allow one type of relationship that involves love and not allow another. This is a problem with the gay marriage movement and a question that I think has yet to be answered by those supporting it. consent has a lot to do with sex in america. minors are generally not seen as being able to legally consent to various things. the homosexual marriage issue is concerned with a consenual relationship b/w adults. as the law sees it, a minor cannot legally consent to a sexual relationship with an adult. if americans changed their views on consent then maybe but as i said, this concerns adults to a few other people, being afraid of homosexual pedophiles as a result of homosexual rights is ridiculous. it'd make more sense to be morally outraged at heterosexual marriage, as afaik heterosexual pedophilia is more common (note some ppl don't even label pedophiles as being homosexual or heterosexual, tho i don't think that makes much sense) That's a fair enough point, although I don't think we should be satisfied with the idea that the only thing stopping an older adult from having a sexual relationship with a young teen is the idea that the teen cannot legally consent. Accepting your point however we still run into problems with the "legalize love" rationale in stopping polygamy, or in stopping incestual relationships by consenting adults (and even if you argue that it's unhealthy for their potential children, that doesnt stop a same sex incestual relationship or a relationship by people who are sterile). My basic point is that the idea that we should be "legalizing love" doesn't really make any sense with the actual changes people want. Obviously most people aren't in favor of legalizing polygamy or incestual marriage, and since of those relationships involve love and are between consenting adults, how do you justify legalizing one but not the other? I really don't think there is a problem with consensual polygamy or consensual incest. There done now it's all justified legally. Not to mention the law at the moment clearly shows it doesn't have to make sense with straight people being fine to marry but gay people not. Sorry, but the standards by which society governs itself should be logically consistent. All I'm trying to say is that you can support gay marriage, but you're gonna need a better reason to do so than "legalize love". Otherwise we're gonna run into weird unintended consequences. As I said I have no problem with consensual relationships between any number of people of any number of genders or relation. It really doesn't matter to me as long as both parties are consenting and are of the legal age to consent. This is logically consistent. I was responding to your statement that "the law at the moment clearly shows it doesn't have to make sense". I disagree, it does need to make sense otherwise we have terrible laws. If you are in favor of those types of relationships having state sponsored marriage then you're right, you are logically consistent. But in the U.S. the gay marriage movement is about same sex unions between two people, and they specifically reject any notion that it opens the door to having marriage for other relaitionships. As a mainstream company, I assume Google mirrors this position. Thus, their statement of "legalizing love" is not logically consistent with the law they want passed. As has been said many times in this thread only legalizing heterosexual marriage is not logically consistent. Also legalizing love may just be a poetic slogan.
Whether or not only legalizing heterosexual unions is logically consistent is a non sequitor to my point that "legalize love" is a poor reason to justify the proposed changes in the law. It is not a poetic statement, it is an often used slogan by the gay marriage movement to convince others, and I get a little annoyed everytime I see it because it really makes no sense. I often wonder if any of them even take just a moment to even think about it.
|
On July 09 2012 23:24 Gnosis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 23:53 Iyerbeth wrote:On July 09 2012 23:13 Gnosis wrote:On July 09 2012 23:03 Iyerbeth wrote:On July 09 2012 22:41 Gnosis wrote:
As for me, I don't agree with gay marriage, but I hesitate to say that, frankly, in a discussion dominated by self-enlightened moralists who have nothing better to do than to try to shame people into their belief (or out of the discussion). If gay marriage isn't wrong because there's no 'right or wrong' (strictly speaking), then there's nothing wrong with my view either. If morality is relative, then please shut up. If there is something substantial to morality, I haven't really seen that sort of thinking on display. Causing unnecessary harm to other people is wrong. Segregating a portion of the population for no reason, denying them the same treatment as is afforded to others or imposing one person's belief system over others causes such harm. Wrong according to what (or whose) standard? I believe it would be an almost universal understanding that causing unnecessary harm is wrong. It is the basis for a huge amount of laws, literature, philosophy, etc. If you're saying you disagree with that I'd be quite happy to attempt to further back my claim up, but I'm a little surprised by your reply so wanted to make sure that's what you meant. That's what I meant, yes. It seemed to me a far more interesting response than going after your claim that the prohibition of gay marriage represents segregation for no reason, or that the prohibition of gay marriage is an example of an illegitimate imposition of belief (beliefs are imposed all the time, so this in itself isn't much of an issue). So yes, why should I accept this particular moral precept?
I like your question especially because we both already know the answer is that you either do already or you almost certainly won't. Were I to attempt to argue that it is universal I instead argue for an objective morality, defeating the purpose of my original point. I'll shoot somewhere in the middle and cover the point is almost a universal value amongst sentient beings and why it is therefore the best we've got to work on.
Humans, like most sentient life we've encountered, have certain needs to be able function without being caused distress. As people we are forced on a daily basis to live within that framework, as are those around us. We're able to identify many of the needs based on our own personal experiences and by comparing those experiences with those around us. We also know that negative feedback causes distress - when I don't eat my body begins signalling it is hungry and should I further not eat the effects become damaging and painful. I know that I prefer to not be in pain. Through communication with others I know that most share that impression. We then have a point of foundation for a society to be built upon - I don't like pain, and my neighbours don't like pain, therefore we should not cause pain.
We run in to certain problems when trying to use that point of social morality though. The murderer in our society does cause pain, and to stop him we would likely cause distress to him, violating our own rule. We then as a society measure the harm caused by causing distress to him (say, locking him away) against the distress caused to the group (fear, pain, death). We decide then that there are instances where causing pain for one person will reduce the pain for others which means that I and my neighbours can lessen the overall pain. Therefore we should not cause pain, if it isn't necessary.
There are plenty of other points of morality which can be reached this way, and we see them in daily life fairly regularly. Not causing unnecessary harm is just one of the most universally accepted. It's true that these aren't set in stone, nor that they wouldn't be different for a different species in a different environment, or even different cultures at different times with different understandings. We can clearly see in our own history that our understanding of morale issues changes.
Therefore I'm unable to argue that you should follow the morality system, rather I'm assuming that as a human being you share in what is a fairly universal one on the issue of harm, and appealing to it.
|
On July 09 2012 23:41 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 23:38 decker247777 wrote:On July 09 2012 23:32 Djzapz wrote:On July 09 2012 23:25 decker247777 wrote:On July 09 2012 23:21 Djzapz wrote:On July 09 2012 23:19 decker247777 wrote:On July 09 2012 23:09 Elsid wrote:On July 09 2012 22:59 decker247777 wrote:On July 09 2012 22:01 Elsid wrote:On July 09 2012 21:56 decker247777 wrote:
This is stupid. I recognize that people should have a choice in what they do, however, I do not have to accept that it is the correct or right thing to do.The main problem i see with gay marriage is all of a sudden it starts becoming more normal and not seen as taboo. This would literally not be cool with me in any way shape or form, due to how it could open up a world of bullcrap ,such as; age is just a number, pedophiles should have human rights, Rapists should get free benefits, murderers should get second chances, and so on and forth. I am not cool with this, let them be gay if they want to be gay, but as far as marriage goes, it should be left to a man and a woman only. Also, straight couples have a higher chance of having kids then a gay couple even with today's scientific advancements and adoption methods. What the fuck are you even saying, being gay has nothing to do with rape murder or pedophilia so first of all leave that out of your post. Second of all paragraphs are good , they make your writing easier to write , not that i think your writing has any merit as it stands as you're talking utter shite. Gay marriage =/= rapists get free benefits (whatever that means? benefits?) Gay marriage =/= murderers getting second chances (not that I see what's wrong with murderers who have been rehabilitated). Having children has nothing to do with this issue sterile people can be married so that automatically defeats that argument. Please before you post again consider thinking , reading , opening your mind , not making bullshit analogies. Thanks. Hi i heard you were a politically controlled noob. I hope you can actually form opinions without it being politically correct but with seeing how you agree that murderers should get a second chance that probably isn't going to happen. Now on to what i tried to say but kind of failed due to how its all over the place. Gay marriage is just another thing of political correctness. I despise political correctness with a passion therefore if it is against what i believe, i will stand against it.If it wasn't with political correctness would i stand against gay marriage, I honestly have no idea, but seeing as how that probably will never happen. Political correctness has tie ins with everything that could happen, i do not think gay marriage equals those thing but i believe what is the driving force behind it definitely could do that. So essentially what you're saying is that anyone who disagrees with you doesn't have a mind of their own? How novel, however I think you'll find that this is untrue and you're so full of shit that you're starting to believe yourself. Gay marriage has nothing to do with political correctness, it has to do with civil liberty, it has to do with being recognized as an equal in the eyes of government in your relationship. Consider what you say before you say it lest you want to be labeled as the dumbass that you are. Well, if your arguing with that, i guess i can share my viewpoint on that. Gay couples cannot have kids naturally therefore any benefit given to a married couple that can have kids naturally should not be given to a gay couple unless they adopt or otherwise do sperm donations or things of that nature. This is ridiculous at how they argue for equality yet do not even consider how straight couples can have any number of kids ,even with protection, they still can have an unexpected kid on the way due to mistakes or otherwise compromised condoms.Gay couples will never have to deal with this. So about equality do you really think they should share all the benefits? I don't, maybe some of them but definitely not all of them unless they adopt then sure. Should infertile straight couples lose benefits too because they can't have kids? Your viewpoint has one very specific flaw, gay couples will always not have kids. An infertile couple does not necessarily know they are infertile and even then weird things have happened to where supposedly infertile couples have had kids anyways.This main difference definitely cannot be over looked and therefore your logic is denied. You misuse the word logic and you should look it up. You only addressed a part of my post, leaving out the rest - which is convenient because your reasoning (not logic) won't fly high. If there should be monetary incentives to having kids, why would the government dump millions of dollars on couples that won't have kids? If those benefits come for parents with kids only, then they should apply when the kids are there. But more importantly, there are plenty of kids in orphanages, locally and in other countries. Gay couples, research shows, are as capable of raising children as straight couples. And, because they can adopt babies, sometimes a gay couple WILL have more children than a straight couple. So, should it still be impossible for a gay couple to be married and to receive less money simply because YOU don't like them? I'm sure you'll clumsily try to make your way out of that, and fail horribly. Nah, its easy to look at something simple. Gay couples are never going to have kids just from them. Adoption are kids that have been the cause of natural reproduction as in they are already here. If i were a government i would dump millions of dollars into straight couples simply by the fact, the more kids we have the better our chances are in the future. You live in a liberal democracy, you know. Shitting on minorities may be your motto, but it's technically not your country's. And the money straight parents get from the government for having kids isn't for them to reproduce, which is what you seem to think. The money should be to RAISE the kids. The fact that adopted babies are "already there" is irrelevant.
From a government standpoint, this logic or reasoning does not hold up. Straight couples have incentives to get married and have kids.In general just to get married. Governments have public schools so they do not necessarily care about you raising them as long as they are educated to do jobs.
Also your the one who took the government road first so I suggest you suck it up and just admit I have you on this one.
|
On July 09 2012 23:43 BobbyT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 23:11 binkman wrote:On July 09 2012 22:54 BobbyT wrote:On July 09 2012 21:57 taintmachine wrote:On July 09 2012 21:28 BobbyT wrote:On July 09 2012 20:54 Santa Cruz wrote:On July 09 2012 19:45 Glurkenspurk wrote:The fact that in 2012 it's still socially acceptable to discriminate against homosexuals is fucking disgusting. Only because you live in a first world country. In many countries sexism is still acceptable, so is the death penalty. I know this is a controversial statement and I'm not saying I support it, but I genuinely believe that in the future pedophilia will become legal to some extent. Go back a few generations and Marilyn Monroe showing some leg was considered porn. Today we have teenagers wearing makeup and miniskirts and in general listening to pop songs about getting drunk and having promiscuous sex. It's only a matter of time before the age of consent is lowered, firstly for younger teenagers (so an adult can't have sex with a younger teenager, but two younger teenagers can legally have sex with one another), and then eventually you can watch porn with two consenting younger teenagers, until finally anyone can have sex with younger teenagers due to more education surrounding sex and the rapid development of maturity of young teenagers. If you don't believe me, ask your grandparents whether it was conceivable that people would be having sex without being married, and with multiple partners. It was simply out of the question back in their time. Most of the stunt in progress has been due to religion and it's good to see Google pushing forward with a secularist agenda. Agreed. With a rationale of "legalize love" there is of course no reason not to allow one type of relationship that involves love and not allow another. This is a problem with the gay marriage movement and a question that I think has yet to be answered by those supporting it. consent has a lot to do with sex in america. minors are generally not seen as being able to legally consent to various things. the homosexual marriage issue is concerned with a consenual relationship b/w adults. as the law sees it, a minor cannot legally consent to a sexual relationship with an adult. if americans changed their views on consent then maybe but as i said, this concerns adults to a few other people, being afraid of homosexual pedophiles as a result of homosexual rights is ridiculous. it'd make more sense to be morally outraged at heterosexual marriage, as afaik heterosexual pedophilia is more common (note some ppl don't even label pedophiles as being homosexual or heterosexual, tho i don't think that makes much sense) That's a fair enough point, although I don't think we should be satisfied with the idea that the only thing stopping an older adult from having a sexual relationship with a young teen is the idea that the teen cannot legally consent. Accepting your point however we still run into problems with the "legalize love" rationale in stopping polygamy, or in stopping incestual relationships by consenting adults (and even if you argue that it's unhealthy for their potential children, that doesnt stop a same sex incestual relationship or a relationship by people who are sterile). My basic point is that the idea that we should be "legalizing love" doesn't really make any sense with the actual changes people want. Obviously most people aren't in favor of legalizing polygamy or incestual marriage, and since both of those relationships involve love and are between consenting adults, how do you justify legalizing one but not the other? How do you justify legalizing heterosexual marriages and not same sex ones? I don't really want to get into it too much. But here is a very short version of the justification. First, men and women are inherently different (in ways beyond mere differences in sexual organs). Second, because of this difference, heterosexual unions are inherently differnet from a same sex union. And third, that for various reasons the differences between these relationships are such that the state should prefer heterosexual unions to same sex unions because heterosexual unions provide more benefit to the socity than any other type of union. Now obviously this does not mean that same sex unions are bad, or that the state should discourage them, or any nonsense like that. The only thing this justification says is that the state should prefer the relationship that tends to give most benefit to society. However this whole justification depends on the statement that men and women are inherently different in material ways. If you disagree with that and believe that the only difference is sexual organs etc. then this justification does nothing for you and you should favor same sex unions. FYI My points in this thread have been about how this "legalize love" statement doesn't make sense with the actual changes people want. The reasons for having heterosexual marriage only is really a non sequitor to my point that "legalize love" rationale is a poor fit for the actual changes being promoted.
Among other things, for this line of reasoning to hold you must prove that by legalizing gay marriage, less heterosexual unions will occur. At the very least you must come up with a plausible hypothesis as to why this would happen. Right now I expect that this decrease would be exactly zero.
|
On July 09 2012 23:32 decker247777 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 23:27 Crushinator wrote:On July 09 2012 23:25 decker247777 wrote:On July 09 2012 23:21 Djzapz wrote:On July 09 2012 23:19 decker247777 wrote:On July 09 2012 23:09 Elsid wrote:On July 09 2012 22:59 decker247777 wrote:On July 09 2012 22:01 Elsid wrote:On July 09 2012 21:56 decker247777 wrote:
This is stupid. I recognize that people should have a choice in what they do, however, I do not have to accept that it is the correct or right thing to do.The main problem i see with gay marriage is all of a sudden it starts becoming more normal and not seen as taboo. This would literally not be cool with me in any way shape or form, due to how it could open up a world of bullcrap ,such as; age is just a number, pedophiles should have human rights, Rapists should get free benefits, murderers should get second chances, and so on and forth. I am not cool with this, let them be gay if they want to be gay, but as far as marriage goes, it should be left to a man and a woman only. Also, straight couples have a higher chance of having kids then a gay couple even with today's scientific advancements and adoption methods. What the fuck are you even saying, being gay has nothing to do with rape murder or pedophilia so first of all leave that out of your post. Second of all paragraphs are good , they make your writing easier to write , not that i think your writing has any merit as it stands as you're talking utter shite. Gay marriage =/= rapists get free benefits (whatever that means? benefits?) Gay marriage =/= murderers getting second chances (not that I see what's wrong with murderers who have been rehabilitated). Having children has nothing to do with this issue sterile people can be married so that automatically defeats that argument. Please before you post again consider thinking , reading , opening your mind , not making bullshit analogies. Thanks. Hi i heard you were a politically controlled noob. I hope you can actually form opinions without it being politically correct but with seeing how you agree that murderers should get a second chance that probably isn't going to happen. Now on to what i tried to say but kind of failed due to how its all over the place. Gay marriage is just another thing of political correctness. I despise political correctness with a passion therefore if it is against what i believe, i will stand against it.If it wasn't with political correctness would i stand against gay marriage, I honestly have no idea, but seeing as how that probably will never happen. Political correctness has tie ins with everything that could happen, i do not think gay marriage equals those thing but i believe what is the driving force behind it definitely could do that. So essentially what you're saying is that anyone who disagrees with you doesn't have a mind of their own? How novel, however I think you'll find that this is untrue and you're so full of shit that you're starting to believe yourself. Gay marriage has nothing to do with political correctness, it has to do with civil liberty, it has to do with being recognized as an equal in the eyes of government in your relationship. Consider what you say before you say it lest you want to be labeled as the dumbass that you are. Well, if your arguing with that, i guess i can share my viewpoint on that. Gay couples cannot have kids naturally therefore any benefit given to a married couple that can have kids naturally should not be given to a gay couple unless they adopt or otherwise do sperm donations or things of that nature. This is ridiculous at how they argue for equality yet do not even consider how straight couples can have any number of kids ,even with protection, they still can have an unexpected kid on the way due to mistakes or otherwise compromised condoms.Gay couples will never have to deal with this. So about equality do you really think they should share all the benefits? I don't, maybe some of them but definitely not all of them unless they adopt then sure. Should infertile straight couples lose benefits too because they can't have kids? Your viewpoint has one very specific flaw, gay couples will always not have kids. An infertile couple does not necessarily know they are infertile and even then weird things have happened to where supposedly infertile couples have had kids anyways.This main difference definitely cannot be over looked and therefore your logic is denied. Should really old people be denied marriage? What about women who have had historectomies? These things are easily done, would you be in favor of this? Again gays will never have children PERIOD. Now would i prefer that change as a single male. Maybe, but the problem is in the specifics of never ,and weird things have happened to where they have had kids.
Why in the hell are people linking marriage with children? A very large proportion of children are born in to unwed families, to single parents (single father's exist too you know), are given up for adoption at birth etc. Marriage and children have NOTHING to do with each other.
Gay people should be able to marry and have children. In the not too distant future they will find a way for a gay couple to have a child using both parents DNA and a surrogate mother (in the case of a male gay couple) but that is completely besides the point.
Marriage was never about children, it was and always has been a social contract between two parties for mutual benefit. Until very recently marriage wasn't about love, it was more often than not arranged by the parties parents and often involved some kind of monetary element (or other economic property), political alliance or for religious reasons (i.e the girl got up the duff and the guy had to marry her so they wouldn't go to hell).
Anyone who gives the whole "it's a religious thing"... it's not. Marriage has been around since long before the major Abrahamic religions, hell its been around since long before any religion you've ever heard about, read about or learned about. It's been around since we were nomadic tribes and it was nearly always used to ally with another tribe or group. Lets even go back further than that to when mating for life wasn't even something humans did. We are animals, we evolved, we changed and so did our customs.
There are over 400 species of animal on this planet alone that are known to have homosexuality and only that has homophobia. Yes, the "most evolved" species on the planet is the only one who could give a shit about who you have sex with. 150 years ago (or somewhere around that mark) you could go to your local baths and have sex with whomever you wanted, male or female and it was considered normal... no labels, no bullshit, because they understood that sex is just sex and is perfectly natural.
Love is not between a man and a woman, love is between two people... sometimes even between 3 people. Personally I don't think love and marriage are things that should be linked, because marriage was never intended to be about love. However, in modern times we marry for love and excluding people from being able to do so just because you think it is wrong is moronic.
Good job google, if only the rest of the world was as accepting as you we would be able to get on with each other instead of blowing each other up.
|
On July 09 2012 23:41 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 23:32 decker247777 wrote:On July 09 2012 23:27 Crushinator wrote:On July 09 2012 23:25 decker247777 wrote:On July 09 2012 23:21 Djzapz wrote:On July 09 2012 23:19 decker247777 wrote:On July 09 2012 23:09 Elsid wrote:On July 09 2012 22:59 decker247777 wrote:On July 09 2012 22:01 Elsid wrote:On July 09 2012 21:56 decker247777 wrote:
This is stupid. I recognize that people should have a choice in what they do, however, I do not have to accept that it is the correct or right thing to do.The main problem i see with gay marriage is all of a sudden it starts becoming more normal and not seen as taboo. This would literally not be cool with me in any way shape or form, due to how it could open up a world of bullcrap ,such as; age is just a number, pedophiles should have human rights, Rapists should get free benefits, murderers should get second chances, and so on and forth. I am not cool with this, let them be gay if they want to be gay, but as far as marriage goes, it should be left to a man and a woman only. Also, straight couples have a higher chance of having kids then a gay couple even with today's scientific advancements and adoption methods. What the fuck are you even saying, being gay has nothing to do with rape murder or pedophilia so first of all leave that out of your post. Second of all paragraphs are good , they make your writing easier to write , not that i think your writing has any merit as it stands as you're talking utter shite. Gay marriage =/= rapists get free benefits (whatever that means? benefits?) Gay marriage =/= murderers getting second chances (not that I see what's wrong with murderers who have been rehabilitated). Having children has nothing to do with this issue sterile people can be married so that automatically defeats that argument. Please before you post again consider thinking , reading , opening your mind , not making bullshit analogies. Thanks. Hi i heard you were a politically controlled noob. I hope you can actually form opinions without it being politically correct but with seeing how you agree that murderers should get a second chance that probably isn't going to happen. Now on to what i tried to say but kind of failed due to how its all over the place. Gay marriage is just another thing of political correctness. I despise political correctness with a passion therefore if it is against what i believe, i will stand against it.If it wasn't with political correctness would i stand against gay marriage, I honestly have no idea, but seeing as how that probably will never happen. Political correctness has tie ins with everything that could happen, i do not think gay marriage equals those thing but i believe what is the driving force behind it definitely could do that. So essentially what you're saying is that anyone who disagrees with you doesn't have a mind of their own? How novel, however I think you'll find that this is untrue and you're so full of shit that you're starting to believe yourself. Gay marriage has nothing to do with political correctness, it has to do with civil liberty, it has to do with being recognized as an equal in the eyes of government in your relationship. Consider what you say before you say it lest you want to be labeled as the dumbass that you are. Well, if your arguing with that, i guess i can share my viewpoint on that. Gay couples cannot have kids naturally therefore any benefit given to a married couple that can have kids naturally should not be given to a gay couple unless they adopt or otherwise do sperm donations or things of that nature. This is ridiculous at how they argue for equality yet do not even consider how straight couples can have any number of kids ,even with protection, they still can have an unexpected kid on the way due to mistakes or otherwise compromised condoms.Gay couples will never have to deal with this. So about equality do you really think they should share all the benefits? I don't, maybe some of them but definitely not all of them unless they adopt then sure. Should infertile straight couples lose benefits too because they can't have kids? Your viewpoint has one very specific flaw, gay couples will always not have kids. An infertile couple does not necessarily know they are infertile and even then weird things have happened to where supposedly infertile couples have had kids anyways.This main difference definitely cannot be over looked and therefore your logic is denied. Should really old people be denied marriage? What about women who have had historectomies? These things are easily done, would you be in favor of this? Again gays will never have children PERIOD. Now would i prefer that change as a single male. Maybe, but the problem is in the specifics of never ,and weird things have happened to where they have had kids. So please point to an instance of a woman with no uterus getting pregnant.
Ok, you got me on one point even then. This was only me trying to disprove you completely . I admit you have a point there. From a government standpoint , however, it is more reasonable to give an incentive just to get married let alone have kids. The logic behind it is simple, a married couple is more likely to have kids than an unmarried couple.
|
|
|
On July 09 2012 23:51 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 23:43 BobbyT wrote:On July 09 2012 23:11 binkman wrote:On July 09 2012 22:54 BobbyT wrote:On July 09 2012 21:57 taintmachine wrote:On July 09 2012 21:28 BobbyT wrote:On July 09 2012 20:54 Santa Cruz wrote:On July 09 2012 19:45 Glurkenspurk wrote:The fact that in 2012 it's still socially acceptable to discriminate against homosexuals is fucking disgusting. Only because you live in a first world country. In many countries sexism is still acceptable, so is the death penalty. I know this is a controversial statement and I'm not saying I support it, but I genuinely believe that in the future pedophilia will become legal to some extent. Go back a few generations and Marilyn Monroe showing some leg was considered porn. Today we have teenagers wearing makeup and miniskirts and in general listening to pop songs about getting drunk and having promiscuous sex. It's only a matter of time before the age of consent is lowered, firstly for younger teenagers (so an adult can't have sex with a younger teenager, but two younger teenagers can legally have sex with one another), and then eventually you can watch porn with two consenting younger teenagers, until finally anyone can have sex with younger teenagers due to more education surrounding sex and the rapid development of maturity of young teenagers. If you don't believe me, ask your grandparents whether it was conceivable that people would be having sex without being married, and with multiple partners. It was simply out of the question back in their time. Most of the stunt in progress has been due to religion and it's good to see Google pushing forward with a secularist agenda. Agreed. With a rationale of "legalize love" there is of course no reason not to allow one type of relationship that involves love and not allow another. This is a problem with the gay marriage movement and a question that I think has yet to be answered by those supporting it. consent has a lot to do with sex in america. minors are generally not seen as being able to legally consent to various things. the homosexual marriage issue is concerned with a consenual relationship b/w adults. as the law sees it, a minor cannot legally consent to a sexual relationship with an adult. if americans changed their views on consent then maybe but as i said, this concerns adults to a few other people, being afraid of homosexual pedophiles as a result of homosexual rights is ridiculous. it'd make more sense to be morally outraged at heterosexual marriage, as afaik heterosexual pedophilia is more common (note some ppl don't even label pedophiles as being homosexual or heterosexual, tho i don't think that makes much sense) That's a fair enough point, although I don't think we should be satisfied with the idea that the only thing stopping an older adult from having a sexual relationship with a young teen is the idea that the teen cannot legally consent. Accepting your point however we still run into problems with the "legalize love" rationale in stopping polygamy, or in stopping incestual relationships by consenting adults (and even if you argue that it's unhealthy for their potential children, that doesnt stop a same sex incestual relationship or a relationship by people who are sterile). My basic point is that the idea that we should be "legalizing love" doesn't really make any sense with the actual changes people want. Obviously most people aren't in favor of legalizing polygamy or incestual marriage, and since both of those relationships involve love and are between consenting adults, how do you justify legalizing one but not the other? How do you justify legalizing heterosexual marriages and not same sex ones? I don't really want to get into it too much. But here is a very short version of the justification. First, men and women are inherently different (in ways beyond mere differences in sexual organs). Second, because of this difference, heterosexual unions are inherently differnet from a same sex union. And third, that for various reasons the differences between these relationships are such that the state should prefer heterosexual unions to same sex unions because heterosexual unions provide more benefit to the socity than any other type of union. Now obviously this does not mean that same sex unions are bad, or that the state should discourage them, or any nonsense like that. The only thing this justification says is that the state should prefer the relationship that tends to give most benefit to society. However this whole justification depends on the statement that men and women are inherently different in material ways. If you disagree with that and believe that the only difference is sexual organs etc. then this justification does nothing for you and you should favor same sex unions. FYI My points in this thread have been about how this "legalize love" statement doesn't make sense with the actual changes people want. The reasons for having heterosexual marriage only is really a non sequitor to my point that "legalize love" rationale is a poor fit for the actual changes being promoted. Among other things, for this line of reasoning to hold you must prove that by legalizing gay marriage, less heterosexual unions will occur. At the very least you must come up with a plausible hypothesis as to why this would happen. Right now I expect that this decrease would be exactly zero.
I do not need to prove that. Which is a good thing too, because I agree with you that having gay marriage would not lessen heterosexual marriage.
This justifcation is only a justification for distinguishing marriage from same sex unions. I would be in favor of having civil unions for gays. My only issue is that the state should distinguish between marriage and those civil unions because they are different in material ways.
|
On July 09 2012 23:53 decker247777 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 23:41 Crushinator wrote:On July 09 2012 23:32 decker247777 wrote:On July 09 2012 23:27 Crushinator wrote:On July 09 2012 23:25 decker247777 wrote:On July 09 2012 23:21 Djzapz wrote:On July 09 2012 23:19 decker247777 wrote:On July 09 2012 23:09 Elsid wrote:On July 09 2012 22:59 decker247777 wrote:On July 09 2012 22:01 Elsid wrote:
[quote]
What the fuck are you even saying, being gay has nothing to do with rape murder or pedophilia so first of all leave that out of your post. Second of all paragraphs are good , they make your writing easier to write , not that i think your writing has any merit as it stands as you're talking utter shite.
Gay marriage =/= rapists get free benefits (whatever that means? benefits?) Gay marriage =/= murderers getting second chances (not that I see what's wrong with murderers who have been rehabilitated).
Having children has nothing to do with this issue sterile people can be married so that automatically defeats that argument. Please before you post again consider thinking , reading , opening your mind , not making bullshit analogies. Thanks. Hi i heard you were a politically controlled noob. I hope you can actually form opinions without it being politically correct but with seeing how you agree that murderers should get a second chance that probably isn't going to happen. Now on to what i tried to say but kind of failed due to how its all over the place. Gay marriage is just another thing of political correctness. I despise political correctness with a passion therefore if it is against what i believe, i will stand against it.If it wasn't with political correctness would i stand against gay marriage, I honestly have no idea, but seeing as how that probably will never happen. Political correctness has tie ins with everything that could happen, i do not think gay marriage equals those thing but i believe what is the driving force behind it definitely could do that. So essentially what you're saying is that anyone who disagrees with you doesn't have a mind of their own? How novel, however I think you'll find that this is untrue and you're so full of shit that you're starting to believe yourself. Gay marriage has nothing to do with political correctness, it has to do with civil liberty, it has to do with being recognized as an equal in the eyes of government in your relationship. Consider what you say before you say it lest you want to be labeled as the dumbass that you are. Well, if your arguing with that, i guess i can share my viewpoint on that. Gay couples cannot have kids naturally therefore any benefit given to a married couple that can have kids naturally should not be given to a gay couple unless they adopt or otherwise do sperm donations or things of that nature. This is ridiculous at how they argue for equality yet do not even consider how straight couples can have any number of kids ,even with protection, they still can have an unexpected kid on the way due to mistakes or otherwise compromised condoms.Gay couples will never have to deal with this. So about equality do you really think they should share all the benefits? I don't, maybe some of them but definitely not all of them unless they adopt then sure. Should infertile straight couples lose benefits too because they can't have kids? Your viewpoint has one very specific flaw, gay couples will always not have kids. An infertile couple does not necessarily know they are infertile and even then weird things have happened to where supposedly infertile couples have had kids anyways.This main difference definitely cannot be over looked and therefore your logic is denied. Should really old people be denied marriage? What about women who have had historectomies? These things are easily done, would you be in favor of this? Again gays will never have children PERIOD. Now would i prefer that change as a single male. Maybe, but the problem is in the specifics of never ,and weird things have happened to where they have had kids. So please point to an instance of a woman with no uterus getting pregnant. Ok, you got me on one point even then. This was only me trying to disprove you completely . I admit you have a point there. From a government standpoint , however, it is more reasonable to give an incentive just to get married let alone have kids. The logic behind it is simple, a married couple is more likely to have kids than an unmarried couple.
Why should the government give people incentives to have children? We need people to have LESS children, not more. We have finite resources and space, eventually we will run out of both. The government should give incentives for people to work, stay within the law, be charitable, help the environment etc.... they should definitely not be encouraging them to have more children.
|
On July 09 2012 23:53 decker247777 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 23:41 Crushinator wrote:On July 09 2012 23:32 decker247777 wrote:On July 09 2012 23:27 Crushinator wrote:On July 09 2012 23:25 decker247777 wrote:On July 09 2012 23:21 Djzapz wrote:On July 09 2012 23:19 decker247777 wrote:On July 09 2012 23:09 Elsid wrote:On July 09 2012 22:59 decker247777 wrote:On July 09 2012 22:01 Elsid wrote:
[quote]
What the fuck are you even saying, being gay has nothing to do with rape murder or pedophilia so first of all leave that out of your post. Second of all paragraphs are good , they make your writing easier to write , not that i think your writing has any merit as it stands as you're talking utter shite.
Gay marriage =/= rapists get free benefits (whatever that means? benefits?) Gay marriage =/= murderers getting second chances (not that I see what's wrong with murderers who have been rehabilitated).
Having children has nothing to do with this issue sterile people can be married so that automatically defeats that argument. Please before you post again consider thinking , reading , opening your mind , not making bullshit analogies. Thanks. Hi i heard you were a politically controlled noob. I hope you can actually form opinions without it being politically correct but with seeing how you agree that murderers should get a second chance that probably isn't going to happen. Now on to what i tried to say but kind of failed due to how its all over the place. Gay marriage is just another thing of political correctness. I despise political correctness with a passion therefore if it is against what i believe, i will stand against it.If it wasn't with political correctness would i stand against gay marriage, I honestly have no idea, but seeing as how that probably will never happen. Political correctness has tie ins with everything that could happen, i do not think gay marriage equals those thing but i believe what is the driving force behind it definitely could do that. So essentially what you're saying is that anyone who disagrees with you doesn't have a mind of their own? How novel, however I think you'll find that this is untrue and you're so full of shit that you're starting to believe yourself. Gay marriage has nothing to do with political correctness, it has to do with civil liberty, it has to do with being recognized as an equal in the eyes of government in your relationship. Consider what you say before you say it lest you want to be labeled as the dumbass that you are. Well, if your arguing with that, i guess i can share my viewpoint on that. Gay couples cannot have kids naturally therefore any benefit given to a married couple that can have kids naturally should not be given to a gay couple unless they adopt or otherwise do sperm donations or things of that nature. This is ridiculous at how they argue for equality yet do not even consider how straight couples can have any number of kids ,even with protection, they still can have an unexpected kid on the way due to mistakes or otherwise compromised condoms.Gay couples will never have to deal with this. So about equality do you really think they should share all the benefits? I don't, maybe some of them but definitely not all of them unless they adopt then sure. Should infertile straight couples lose benefits too because they can't have kids? Your viewpoint has one very specific flaw, gay couples will always not have kids. An infertile couple does not necessarily know they are infertile and even then weird things have happened to where supposedly infertile couples have had kids anyways.This main difference definitely cannot be over looked and therefore your logic is denied. Should really old people be denied marriage? What about women who have had historectomies? These things are easily done, would you be in favor of this? Again gays will never have children PERIOD. Now would i prefer that change as a single male. Maybe, but the problem is in the specifics of never ,and weird things have happened to where they have had kids. So please point to an instance of a woman with no uterus getting pregnant. Ok, you got me on one point even then. This was only me trying to disprove you completely . I admit you have a point there. From a government standpoint , however, it is more reasonable to give an incentive just to get married let alone have kids. The logic behind it is simple, a married couple is more likely to have kids than an unmarried couple.
No that is bullshit. A couple that wants to spend the rest of their lives together are both more likely to have kids, and more likely to get married.This is an important distinction.
If you got rid of marriage entirely, no fewer children would be born.
|
On July 09 2012 23:51 decker247777 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 23:41 Djzapz wrote:On July 09 2012 23:38 decker247777 wrote:On July 09 2012 23:32 Djzapz wrote:On July 09 2012 23:25 decker247777 wrote:On July 09 2012 23:21 Djzapz wrote:On July 09 2012 23:19 decker247777 wrote:On July 09 2012 23:09 Elsid wrote:On July 09 2012 22:59 decker247777 wrote:On July 09 2012 22:01 Elsid wrote:
[quote]
What the fuck are you even saying, being gay has nothing to do with rape murder or pedophilia so first of all leave that out of your post. Second of all paragraphs are good , they make your writing easier to write , not that i think your writing has any merit as it stands as you're talking utter shite.
Gay marriage =/= rapists get free benefits (whatever that means? benefits?) Gay marriage =/= murderers getting second chances (not that I see what's wrong with murderers who have been rehabilitated).
Having children has nothing to do with this issue sterile people can be married so that automatically defeats that argument. Please before you post again consider thinking , reading , opening your mind , not making bullshit analogies. Thanks. Hi i heard you were a politically controlled noob. I hope you can actually form opinions without it being politically correct but with seeing how you agree that murderers should get a second chance that probably isn't going to happen. Now on to what i tried to say but kind of failed due to how its all over the place. Gay marriage is just another thing of political correctness. I despise political correctness with a passion therefore if it is against what i believe, i will stand against it.If it wasn't with political correctness would i stand against gay marriage, I honestly have no idea, but seeing as how that probably will never happen. Political correctness has tie ins with everything that could happen, i do not think gay marriage equals those thing but i believe what is the driving force behind it definitely could do that. So essentially what you're saying is that anyone who disagrees with you doesn't have a mind of their own? How novel, however I think you'll find that this is untrue and you're so full of shit that you're starting to believe yourself. Gay marriage has nothing to do with political correctness, it has to do with civil liberty, it has to do with being recognized as an equal in the eyes of government in your relationship. Consider what you say before you say it lest you want to be labeled as the dumbass that you are. Well, if your arguing with that, i guess i can share my viewpoint on that. Gay couples cannot have kids naturally therefore any benefit given to a married couple that can have kids naturally should not be given to a gay couple unless they adopt or otherwise do sperm donations or things of that nature. This is ridiculous at how they argue for equality yet do not even consider how straight couples can have any number of kids ,even with protection, they still can have an unexpected kid on the way due to mistakes or otherwise compromised condoms.Gay couples will never have to deal with this. So about equality do you really think they should share all the benefits? I don't, maybe some of them but definitely not all of them unless they adopt then sure. Should infertile straight couples lose benefits too because they can't have kids? Your viewpoint has one very specific flaw, gay couples will always not have kids. An infertile couple does not necessarily know they are infertile and even then weird things have happened to where supposedly infertile couples have had kids anyways.This main difference definitely cannot be over looked and therefore your logic is denied. You misuse the word logic and you should look it up. You only addressed a part of my post, leaving out the rest - which is convenient because your reasoning (not logic) won't fly high. If there should be monetary incentives to having kids, why would the government dump millions of dollars on couples that won't have kids? If those benefits come for parents with kids only, then they should apply when the kids are there. But more importantly, there are plenty of kids in orphanages, locally and in other countries. Gay couples, research shows, are as capable of raising children as straight couples. And, because they can adopt babies, sometimes a gay couple WILL have more children than a straight couple. So, should it still be impossible for a gay couple to be married and to receive less money simply because YOU don't like them? I'm sure you'll clumsily try to make your way out of that, and fail horribly. Nah, its easy to look at something simple. Gay couples are never going to have kids just from them. Adoption are kids that have been the cause of natural reproduction as in they are already here. If i were a government i would dump millions of dollars into straight couples simply by the fact, the more kids we have the better our chances are in the future. You live in a liberal democracy, you know. Shitting on minorities may be your motto, but it's technically not your country's. And the money straight parents get from the government for having kids isn't for them to reproduce, which is what you seem to think. The money should be to RAISE the kids. The fact that adopted babies are "already there" is irrelevant. From a government standpoint, this logic or reasoning does not hold up. Straight couples have incentives to get married and have kids.In general just to get married. Governments have public schools so they do not necessarily care about you raising them as long as they are educated to do jobs. Also your the one who took the government road first so I suggest you suck it up and just admit I have you on this one.
You don't, and it's incredibly surprising that you think that you actually have me in any way at all. Yes straight couples have incentives to get married and have kids - so do sterile couples who have incentives to get married and collect cash for not having children.
And the government does know that children with parents turn out better. Public schools on their own do not process children into workers without a good life in the background. That's why it's better to yank kids from orphanages to put them in a good family, which does help them.
Quality before quantity. The government's job on this issue is not to create a bunch of dumpster baby situations. It's about raising kids, not making them.
As at least one other person mentioned before, you're making fake, weak arguments because they work well with your dislike of homosexuals.
|
On July 09 2012 23:53 decker247777 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 23:41 Crushinator wrote:On July 09 2012 23:32 decker247777 wrote:On July 09 2012 23:27 Crushinator wrote:On July 09 2012 23:25 decker247777 wrote:On July 09 2012 23:21 Djzapz wrote:On July 09 2012 23:19 decker247777 wrote:On July 09 2012 23:09 Elsid wrote:On July 09 2012 22:59 decker247777 wrote:On July 09 2012 22:01 Elsid wrote:
[quote]
What the fuck are you even saying, being gay has nothing to do with rape murder or pedophilia so first of all leave that out of your post. Second of all paragraphs are good , they make your writing easier to write , not that i think your writing has any merit as it stands as you're talking utter shite.
Gay marriage =/= rapists get free benefits (whatever that means? benefits?) Gay marriage =/= murderers getting second chances (not that I see what's wrong with murderers who have been rehabilitated).
Having children has nothing to do with this issue sterile people can be married so that automatically defeats that argument. Please before you post again consider thinking , reading , opening your mind , not making bullshit analogies. Thanks. Hi i heard you were a politically controlled noob. I hope you can actually form opinions without it being politically correct but with seeing how you agree that murderers should get a second chance that probably isn't going to happen. Now on to what i tried to say but kind of failed due to how its all over the place. Gay marriage is just another thing of political correctness. I despise political correctness with a passion therefore if it is against what i believe, i will stand against it.If it wasn't with political correctness would i stand against gay marriage, I honestly have no idea, but seeing as how that probably will never happen. Political correctness has tie ins with everything that could happen, i do not think gay marriage equals those thing but i believe what is the driving force behind it definitely could do that. So essentially what you're saying is that anyone who disagrees with you doesn't have a mind of their own? How novel, however I think you'll find that this is untrue and you're so full of shit that you're starting to believe yourself. Gay marriage has nothing to do with political correctness, it has to do with civil liberty, it has to do with being recognized as an equal in the eyes of government in your relationship. Consider what you say before you say it lest you want to be labeled as the dumbass that you are. Well, if your arguing with that, i guess i can share my viewpoint on that. Gay couples cannot have kids naturally therefore any benefit given to a married couple that can have kids naturally should not be given to a gay couple unless they adopt or otherwise do sperm donations or things of that nature. This is ridiculous at how they argue for equality yet do not even consider how straight couples can have any number of kids ,even with protection, they still can have an unexpected kid on the way due to mistakes or otherwise compromised condoms.Gay couples will never have to deal with this. So about equality do you really think they should share all the benefits? I don't, maybe some of them but definitely not all of them unless they adopt then sure. Should infertile straight couples lose benefits too because they can't have kids? Your viewpoint has one very specific flaw, gay couples will always not have kids. An infertile couple does not necessarily know they are infertile and even then weird things have happened to where supposedly infertile couples have had kids anyways.This main difference definitely cannot be over looked and therefore your logic is denied. Should really old people be denied marriage? What about women who have had historectomies? These things are easily done, would you be in favor of this? Again gays will never have children PERIOD. Now would i prefer that change as a single male. Maybe, but the problem is in the specifics of never ,and weird things have happened to where they have had kids. So please point to an instance of a woman with no uterus getting pregnant. Ok, you got me on one point even then. This was only me trying to disprove you completely . I admit you have a point there. From a government standpoint , however, it is more reasonable to give an incentive just to get married let alone have kids. The logic behind it is simple, a married couple is more likely to have kids than an unmarried couple.
The government isn't really in the business of making babies. That's kind of creepy and unnecessary. We make babies just fine without the government.
Raising children is more of the government concern. They want to promote adoption in good loving parents, which homosexual parents all too often are because they can't have accidental children.
I still don't understand why you aren't railing more on old and sterile couples. If you actually believed this whole babies angle, you would be just as pissed off at them as homosexual marriage.
|
I'm glad Google is doing this, and doing it openly. I hope it makes a difference.
On July 08 2012 22:30 ahappystar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2012 21:39 Kokobongo wrote:
Wow quite risky of Google to get involved in this controversial and ideological stuff but i guess they can afford it, cause most likely they still won't lose their current users. I only wonder if there is a possibility that in the future less people will want to take part in some of their new projects because of what google just declared That's why I use Yandex  If you asked me 2-3 years ago if I was for gay marriage I would say 'don't really care, if there is a referendum in my country would probably vote yes because its such a minor thing, let them have it'... But after listening/reading the exhaustive, bigot posts these 'intellectuals' spew out every day on the internet I would say 'HELL NO', not because I don't like gays, its just i'm sick and tired of listening to the same crap on teamliquid which seems to attract the worst kind of liberals, do they even realize how many 'normal' people they put off and alienate, all these threads do is spread hate, extremist religonists and these teamliquid liberals = same thing: I hate you because you don't think like me, you are stupid, everyone like you is stupid I hate people that hate you because you don't think like me, you are stupid, everyone like you is stupid I hate the people that hate people because they don't think this or that I hate this/I hate that Cycle of hate that goes on and on and on as long as this site allows thousands of threads dedicated to the same shit being said over and over and over. I'm not saying 'gay marriage' is evil, just calm down and let it go its own course, it will happen somewhere down the line. People in this thread from NATO countries are involved in countless wars, their country men and women are dieing, getting themselves involved in warcrimes, why isn't there more effort involved in swaying public opinion against this, why aren't you spending more time on the economic problems of your country. Oh, who cares about healthcare, and social security, the insane amounts of money involved in politics these days and the fact that it does not matter who you vote for, lets put this shiny thing called 'gay marriage and abortion' on the agenda... EVERY SINGLE DAY, lets make it so its the only thing we talk about, like its the most important thing in the world, let everything else fall into the background. Why is there a constant need to bombard everyone with useless threads that we all know will end up the same way? Not saying that this OP has ego issues, but some people here have a constant need to open stupid threads to feed their 'look at me i'm so smart and open-minded' egos.
Wat?
|
I find it hard to believe that Google actually would care for gay rights and such. I believe they have ulterior motive behind this and just want to get publicity. But supporting gay rights is bit of a double-edged sword since they will get hate from gay haters. I personally think gays should just settle for the legalized intimate relationship and leave the marital business to heterosexuals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
