|
On July 11 2012 12:16 TOloseGT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2012 09:51 IamPryda wrote: Do homosexual deserve job benefits of there partner, my answer is yes but I think that. Could be arranged without them being married. The simplest way to do that would be give civil unions all the rights associated with state sponsored marriage. That's a good idea if gay marriage were to remain banned. Segregation worked very well before. Marriage isn't religious, so this shouldn't even be an issue, but some people don't want other people to be happy, so we ended up in this bullshit.
my point wasnt to segregate but the way things currently work most states arent making progress and then ones that do is by the court system which is a very slow process why not pass a law that bypasses the whole marriage thing but at the same time gives them the things they want. maybe it takes an extra form or two to make sure its a real partnership since u dont have a marrige license. but atleast in states that are less progressive due to strong religous lobbying that is going nowhere fast something could get passed. instead of making a smart ass comment about the seprate but equal idea trying thinking outside the box
|
On July 09 2012 08:16 Smat wrote:
Don't you have a moral obligation to treat them worse so that they get out of society? You realize you are actively encouraging the worsening of society by befriending those people right?
elaborate... this makes no sense... just because i'm friends with a football player doesn't mean I encourage football...
think before you speak/type my friend it'll save you and all of us a lot of time :D
|
On July 09 2012 08:09 DoubleReed wrote:
Would you go to your friend's wedding?
Cause I have a hard time believing you don't treat them differently and yet would have no problem with your heterosexual friends marrying but apparently you would have an issue with your homosexual friends marrying.
I haven't gone to any of my heterosexual friends weddings so i don't think i would end up going to his/hers either (good question btw)... if i did go to weddings though it would probably depend on how close of a friend they were more than their sexual orientation...
saying "treat them differently" all goes into context of each others preferences and personalities. I will behave and crack a few different jokes with my friend who i play soccer with every week verses my friend I work with everyday at a retail store. Both a good friends who i love spending time with yet I will behave and "treat" them differently according to the friendship we have established. If you want to call me out for not inviting my work buddy to play soccer with me or not inviting my soccer buddy out to drinks after work every once and a while... than go ahead lol.... I don't find that to being a failure at not treating them differently (if you see it as such... than GL my friend).
I'm not going to be screaming at my homosexual friend "YOU CAN'T MARRY THAT'S SO WRONG"... nor am i going to be jumping up for joy either... I'll tell him "congrats" and wish him "good luck in the future" as I've told all my heterosexual friends. Don't believe me? well that's your loss... I've got no guilt on the matter.
|
On July 09 2012 08:10 sereniity wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 07:57 Felwarrior wrote:
Sad day... google just lost a lot of my respect D:
Say what you wish... but until 2 men alone on an island can give birth to a newborn baby or 2 woman alone on an island can give birth to a newborn baby (with no prior or post modifications or additions to their own newborn state)... until that happens I don't think condoning their position improves our global society.
Call me what you like, bash whatever I say... but the truth stands out on it's own.
Edit:: and no, this doesn't mean to treat those with this challenge like idiots or ostracize them in anyway... I have gay/lesb friends and I don't treat them any different than any of my straight friends. So what's your stance on sterile people? Why are they allowed to get married then?
That's unfortunate that they are sterile... I don't know if it was a birth defect or something happened in their life that removed their ability to have literal offspring, but that is unfortunate. As far as my example is concerned it needs to be taken in a more general sense (meaning the higher probability... not being sterile).
If all the world came to an end and the only 2 too survive were a man and a woman on an island but one was sterile... well that just sucks. But my example still stands... so far the man & man or woman & woman have not had a baby together in the circumstances set within my example (according to my knowledge... which is very small compared to the grand scheme of things... if i'm wrong i'll gladly take any proof of my example being a reality and mend my ways).
|
On July 09 2012 08:21 Chocolate wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 07:57 Felwarrior wrote:
Sad day... google just lost a lot of my respect D:
Say what you wish... but until 2 men alone on an island can give birth to a newborn baby or 2 woman alone on an island can give birth to a newborn baby (with no prior or post modifications or additions to their own newborn state)... until that happens I don't think condoning their position improves our global society.
Call me what you like, bash whatever I say... but the truth stands out on it's own.
Edit:: and no, this doesn't mean to treat those with this challenge like idiots or ostracize them in anyway... I have gay/lesb friends and I don't treat them any different than any of my straight friends. "My opinion is true and if you disagree then you're bashing." That's really all that I got out of your post other than that you don't seem to understand the issue at all. Why shouldn't they be allowed to be married? It's not like the sole purpose of marriage is to have children, and they could still adopt.
haha well ty for labeling me :D glad i'm now affiliated with something or some group... that i didn't even know existed (doesn't mean ignorance, just didn't expect that classification to become a group of it's own)
Just funny part "That's really all that I got out of your post" and than he writes what he really got out of my post... I"m sorry but that cracks me up. No offense to the writer I just find it humorous... like Larry the cable guy giving jokes.
If it's not apparent why they shouldn't marry maybe you should reread my post and try to get more out of it than labeling me...
It seems you answered your own question... you understand that the inability to not have offspring was my reason. So i guess you don't need to reread my post after all :D
Nope having children isn't the sole purpose of marriage but most would agree that it is a huge part of marriage (and i don't mean that it's necessary in anyway, simply that it's important(and yes adoption is wonderful especially for those who can't have kids of their own). Just food for thought... If all dogs decided to only have sex with their same gender they would die off pretty quick (without any human/machine assistance of any kind).
So there you have it... hope my reason was clear... if not i'll check back later and give it to you in greater depth and detail.
If you find my opinion/reason to be stupid or lacking something... well that's your opinion and your welcome to do with it as you wish. But I shared mine so I'm happy (I only respond to questions to my opinions... I don't give a hoot about any ravings about my opinions unless they are funny)
:D
|
On July 09 2012 08:21 Starshaped wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 07:57 Felwarrior wrote:
Sad day... google just lost a lot of my respect D:
Say what you wish... but until 2 men alone on an island can give birth to a newborn baby or 2 woman alone on an island can give birth to a newborn baby (with no prior or post modifications or additions to their own newborn state)... until that happens I don't think condoning their position improves our global society.
Call me what you like, bash whatever I say... but the truth stands out on it's own.
Edit:: and no, this doesn't mean to treat those with this challenge like idiots or ostracize them in anyway... I have gay/lesb friends and I don't treat them any different than any of my straight friends. What does that have to do with marriage? Honestly, the anti-gay crowd is so absurd it hurts. If a married couple can't have kids they don't "improve our global society"? What the fuck does that even mean?
haha
"improve our global society" means exactly what it says ...
(definitions according to http://dictionary.reference.com/)
improve - to bring into a more desirable or excellent condition
our - ((Hope you understand what this means... if not, ask one of your friends))
global - pertaining to the whole world
society - an organized group of persons associated together for religious, benevolent, cultural, scientific, political, patriotic, or other purposes (multiple definitions available: any of them will work)
so it means "to bring a more desirable or excellent condition to our organized group of persons in the whole world" -- I don't know about you but I find my first way of phrasing it easier to understand.
:D
|
On July 09 2012 11:03 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 07:57 Felwarrior wrote:
Sad day... google just lost a lot of my respect D:
Say what you wish... but until 2 men alone on an island can give birth to a newborn baby or 2 woman alone on an island can give birth to a newborn baby (with no prior or post modifications or additions to their own newborn state)... until that happens I don't think condoning their position improves our global society.
Call me what you like, bash whatever I say... but the truth stands out on it's own.
Edit:: and no, this doesn't mean to treat those with this challenge like idiots or ostracize them in anyway... I have gay/lesb friends and I don't treat them any different than any of my straight friends. Condoning their position actually improves our global society. By making homosexuality more acceptable, the odds that one of them will pass their genes on decreases as they will come out of the closet MUCH faster than before, and thus not reproduce with members of the opposite gender. (This is not my actual viewpoint, by the way. I do not want to wage a genetic war against homosexuals. I am just countering his logic) Furthermore, there is no harm in letting them go about their own business. Heck, by letting them go about their own business, we would have to deal with less trouble from them, such as protests and gay pride parades. Furthermore, they could adopt children (which is always a good thing. There are more orphans than homes available) and bring some commerce to marriage and child-rearing related products. Thus far, I have heard no reason to be against LGBT rights that is not either is based on morality (and thus is entirely subjective) or is based on faulty logic. Sometimes reasons are a combination thereof.
I like your points... though my post wasn't purposed to convince you to believe in my side/opinion... I admit many things can be casted with faulty logic but I personally fail to see the fault in mine (if you wish to enlighten me feel free, I appreciate being corrected).
Haha it's not 100% proven that homosexuality or even heterosexuality is a "gene" thing but I find your first point funny either way
Your second paragraph/line/point (not sure what to call it) actually goes against your first point in regards to adopting into a homosexual household. Being that it's more likely to grow verses die out (or how you said it "the odds that one of them will pass their genes on decreases as they will come out")
but again I'm not trying to convince just relaying my opinion and make sure that it's understood properly... ty for you points i thoroughly enjoyed them
User was warned for sextuple posting
|
On July 11 2012 17:16 Felwarrior wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 08:21 Starshaped wrote:On July 09 2012 07:57 Felwarrior wrote:
Sad day... google just lost a lot of my respect D:
Say what you wish... but until 2 men alone on an island can give birth to a newborn baby or 2 woman alone on an island can give birth to a newborn baby (with no prior or post modifications or additions to their own newborn state)... until that happens I don't think condoning their position improves our global society.
Call me what you like, bash whatever I say... but the truth stands out on it's own.
Edit:: and no, this doesn't mean to treat those with this challenge like idiots or ostracize them in anyway... I have gay/lesb friends and I don't treat them any different than any of my straight friends. What does that have to do with marriage? Honestly, the anti-gay crowd is so absurd it hurts. If a married couple can't have kids they don't "improve our global society"? What the fuck does that even mean? haha "improve our global society" means exactly what it says ... (definitions according to http://dictionary.reference.com/)improve - to bring into a more desirable or excellent condition our - ((Hope you understand what this means... if not, ask one of your friends)) global - pertaining to the whole world society - an organized group of persons associated together for religious, benevolent, cultural, scientific, political, patriotic, or other purposes (multiple definitions available: any of them will work) so it means "to bring a more desirable or excellent condition to our organized group of persons in the whole world" -- I don't know about you but I find my first way of phrasing it easier to understand. :D
Your reasoning is so awful, it hurts. All the arguments against gay marriage are just bigoted nonsense. There are actually no good reasons to not allow gay marriage. So instead they bring up crazy arguments like yours to hide behind the fact that they are just scared. Scared of people being different.
|
On July 11 2012 17:16 Felwarrior wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 08:21 Starshaped wrote:On July 09 2012 07:57 Felwarrior wrote:
Sad day... google just lost a lot of my respect D:
Say what you wish... but until 2 men alone on an island can give birth to a newborn baby or 2 woman alone on an island can give birth to a newborn baby (with no prior or post modifications or additions to their own newborn state)... until that happens I don't think condoning their position improves our global society.
Call me what you like, bash whatever I say... but the truth stands out on it's own.
Edit:: and no, this doesn't mean to treat those with this challenge like idiots or ostracize them in anyway... I have gay/lesb friends and I don't treat them any different than any of my straight friends. What does that have to do with marriage? Honestly, the anti-gay crowd is so absurd it hurts. If a married couple can't have kids they don't "improve our global society"? What the fuck does that even mean? haha "improve our global society" means exactly what it says ... (definitions according to http://dictionary.reference.com/)improve - to bring into a more desirable or excellent condition our - ((Hope you understand what this means... if not, ask one of your friends)) global - pertaining to the whole world society - an organized group of persons associated together for religious, benevolent, cultural, scientific, political, patriotic, or other purposes (multiple definitions available: any of them will work) so it means "to bring a more desirable or excellent condition to our organized group of persons in the whole world" -- I don't know about you but I find my first way of phrasing it easier to understand. :D
Considering the problems of overpopulation you should actually conclude that gay marriage in fact does "bring a more desirable or excellent condition to our organized group of persons in the whole world". Unfortunately I feel you will never be able to concede.
Even if you disregard the advantages of not having children, NOT improving doesn't mean devaluating. Even if you cannot see any advantages, or arguments in favor of gay marriage, so far you have been unable to provide any counterarguments either.
Regardless, it appears to be simply a matter of time before people like you yield, but I find it interesting to discover how you can possibly be so narrow-mindedly wrong.
Perhaps the above post is correct, and you are merely scared.
If you browse the history of this thread you will find a wonderful scientific article where a positive relationship between fear of homosexual behavior and homosexual urges is shown..
|
Serious question, without discussing the merits there of, are the people who argue that marriage is for children only and that gays might caue the end of the species also anti-abortion? I don't want to drag the discussion off topic with whether that position is right or not but it seems there's a lot of discussion which centres around controlling other people's reproductive organs for the perceived benefit of humanity and I can't help drawing a comparison.
|
I am enjoying this debate quite immensely. There are quite a few valid points in the thread and if I may, I'd like to contribute:
While I would agree that there are far more important topics that require extensive debate, this outdated discrimination towards a big chunk of the world's population, really needs to be dealt with. A few points in regards to this debate, that beg your consideration:
1. What is our overall goal as humans, as people and as a society? What are we trying to achieve? Do we prefer to live in a world of segregated societies each with its own micro-cosmos of rules and regulations, constantly trying to prove to each other that their way of thinking is better and superior to other societies? Or are we striving for one huge heterogeneous society built upon respect and a strive for understanding, where each individual can freely express himself/herself, as long as he/she brings no harm (direct or indirect) to others? Or something in between the two, or perhaps even something completely different?
2. In which cases is isolation or depriviligation of certain individuals in a society acceptable or indeed, needed for the overall health of said society? What makes a person different and which level of differences is no longer acceptable? Since I personally believe that different views and opinions often produce better results once a compromise is made, I would argue that a high tolerance for differences is needed if we want to nurture innovation and produce better products and services. But where do we draw the line? In my honest opinion, I would say: Physical or psychological harm. If my actions are harmful to another person, than I fully accept social isolation and punishment.
3. What does this have to do with gay marriage you ask? Quite simple: How does implementation of homosexual marriage affect others and the society as a whole? For one, it only affects homosexual couples. Ok, so it clearly has no impact and certainly brings no harm to heterosexual couples. Does it give any benefits that a heterosexual couple can not attain? No, it doesn't. It just levels the playing field. The argument that I've seen is that we should also consider general "good taste" ("It's just not right"; "It's disgusting."; "It's weird." etc.) This argument should always be a factor with such issues, but it doesn't apply in this specific case. Why? Legalizing homosexual marriage does not force anyone to go to said marriages, and in fact, has no impact on the daily lives of non-homosexual couples. If the general public would be forced to go to homosexual marriages or be forced to watch the events, then this would be a legitimate argument. This however, is not the case.
4. We can safely say that gay marriages do not inflict harm to others, they do not disrupt the daily lives of non-homosexual couples in any major or minor way, so in reality, the question "Should homosexual marriage be legalized?" should be asked to homosexual couples/individuals. I don't really see the reason why other people who are not affected by the outcome of this issue have any say on the matter, other than being able to express their opinions. You can be for it, or against it or ambiguous. That is your right, and you are free to exercise it, but if you are not part of the LGBT community, your opinions should have no impact on the issue at hand. None.
5. Like many people have stated before me: This debate is similar to the racial debate not long ago, or "Should women have the right to vote" debate before that. Similar, but in reality, it's even more onesided. It was possible to speculate that treating minorities/women equally would have socio-economic consequences, but here, you can hardly make such a claim.
6. Everyone should be equal when it comes to the law. We are FAR from weeding out discrimination on a personal level, but each individual should at least be equal to others when it comes to the law and his/her civil rights.
7. Should huge corporations meddle in political affairs? Now this is what this topic should be focused on. At the moment I am pleased to see Google's support for this particular issue, but only because I happen to support the same cause. I would probably oppose it, if their support would contradict my personal opinion. I'm guessing that we'll just have to wait and see how far certain corporations will push their agendas and just how public they will go, when it comes to taking sides.
I realize that I failed to address this topic's real discussion, but after reading pages and pages of comments regarding homosexual marriage, I felt like expressing my view on the matter.
I would like to stress that, although I do express my position on the matter, I urge you to consider the arguments and try to look at the problem from both sides and try to make up your own mind. Do you honestly think that focusing on our differences and exclusion of people considered to be "different" than the rest (but who cause no harm to others), is the best thing for our society and humanity as a whole?
Regards, MrZZ
|
On July 11 2012 16:43 Felwarrior wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 08:09 DoubleReed wrote:
Would you go to your friend's wedding?
Cause I have a hard time believing you don't treat them differently and yet would have no problem with your heterosexual friends marrying but apparently you would have an issue with your homosexual friends marrying. I haven't gone to any of my heterosexual friends weddings so i don't think i would end up going to his/hers either (good question btw)... if i did go to weddings though it would probably depend on how close of a friend they were more than their sexual orientation... saying "treat them differently" all goes into context of each others preferences and personalities. I will behave and crack a few different jokes with my friend who i play soccer with every week verses my friend I work with everyday at a retail store. Both a good friends who i love spending time with yet I will behave and "treat" them differently according to the friendship we have established. If you want to call me out for not inviting my work buddy to play soccer with me or not inviting my soccer buddy out to drinks after work every once and a while... than go ahead lol.... I don't find that to being a failure at not treating them differently (if you see it as such... than GL my friend). I'm not going to be screaming at my homosexual friend "YOU CAN'T MARRY THAT'S SO WRONG"... nor am i going to be jumping up for joy either... I'll tell him "congrats" and wish him "good luck in the future" as I've told all my heterosexual friends. Don't believe me? well that's your loss... I've got no guilt on the matter.
May I ask why you would not be telling your friend that them getting married is so wrong? Because if you're not comfortable doing that then I don't see how you could possibly be comfortable institutionalizing it into law. That is a way more serious offense.
Similarly why would ever go to a homosexual wedding if you believe the whole thing is wrong? You're telling me that one you support and the other you don't, but you have just as equal chance of going to either one? I'm not interested in talking to cowards and liars. If you're not going to be intellectually honest, then I don't know what we're talking about.
|
There often arises the statement that we have more important things to resolve. When we look back in time these same statements came when people started to question apartheid laws, I doubt some sane person would argue about these changes now.
There is nothing more important than to protect our democratic principles when it comes to still legitimated oppression of minority groups.
|
On July 10 2012 13:01 zebaty wrote:I haven`t read the whole thread but as it`s supposed to be happening( havent seen anything, living in the center of cracow but good for me  ) in poland, here i go: 1st of all , I`ve only known 2 "homosexuals" in my life and both of them weren`t born this way. One of them always wanted to be different than the others ,and the other had terrible terrible experiences with women. I`m positive that if there wasn`t all this talk about gay rights and gay that ( with repulsive, for me , parades on top) 90% of people that call themselves gay wouldn`t even probably know something like this exists. How many people do you know that were born gay and never felt any attraction towards opposite sex? 2nd of all, almost all of us are hetero but yet we don`t do parades that are getting more and more repulsive every year ,we don`t tell other people at every opportunity we love fuckin women(men in case of women ) . If they kept they private life to themselves , they could fuck whole barn in their bedroom , i don`t care. But why do i need to know what are they doing there? I, personally find it really disgusting, and it is my nature and right to think so, isn`t it? You will say... what would you ? you are not being "discriminated against"? I will respond: In some countries they got full rights + "anti discrimination package" ( which I as hetero white male can only dream of lol). Has it all stopped ? Right ... it`s where it`s the worst . coincidence? I belive they just feel they can so they do so. And you let them , your problem. But why do you wanna do it in my country too? By "anti discrimation package" I mean - you can hardly even not smile back at black guy anymore if you don`t wanna be racist. Try firing openly homo compared to hetero ? it is ridiculous even in poland , not to mention western nations. They are privilaged in some countries BY FAR as it stands now but it is not enough of course The truth , I belive is I need to get the fuck out of europe asap as it truly seems like they want ( and are succeding in) to destroy what I call western civilisation. I don`t wanna be here and watch this shit happen anymore. Regards,
I don't blame you for your opinion. In Poland 95% of the population is roman-catholic and the situation for gays there is bad for obvious reason. May you reconsider, your opinion might be a little bit biased? In an environment where gays get criminalized you can imagine why people adapt their behavior to become "invisible". Now you might understand why gays tend to celebrate in non-hostile environments where they are able to live free and not in fear.
|
On July 10 2012 13:19 zebaty wrote:
Check where your "scientific" studies were financed 1st ,ok?
This isn`t science, this is propaganda , unless you wanna call gender studies real higher education? I mean, come on...
And i never said it doesn`t exist, i just said the number of gays is inflated by talk about this, and i estimate it to be 90%, might be less but there are cases like this and no study can tell me otherwise. I`ve known those people personally , one for a really long time and i know he fucked women. Even if all the studies said it does not happen , I`ve seen it with my own eyes.What more can I ask for?
Which studies exactly do you mean (sources)? And what are your sources that qualify you to come to any conclusions (sources) which other people might have overseen?
So, you know "those people" and one was apparently bisexual. So, what exactly do you want to say? That someone can be attracted to both genders?
|
On July 11 2012 16:51 Felwarrior wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 08:10 sereniity wrote:On July 09 2012 07:57 Felwarrior wrote:
Sad day... google just lost a lot of my respect D:
Say what you wish... but until 2 men alone on an island can give birth to a newborn baby or 2 woman alone on an island can give birth to a newborn baby (with no prior or post modifications or additions to their own newborn state)... until that happens I don't think condoning their position improves our global society.
Call me what you like, bash whatever I say... but the truth stands out on it's own.
Edit:: and no, this doesn't mean to treat those with this challenge like idiots or ostracize them in anyway... I have gay/lesb friends and I don't treat them any different than any of my straight friends. So what's your stance on sterile people? Why are they allowed to get married then? That's unfortunate that they are sterile... I don't know if it was a birth defect or something happened in their life that removed their ability to have literal offspring, but that is unfortunate. As far as my example is concerned it needs to be taken in a more general sense (meaning the higher probability... not being sterile). If all the world came to an end and the only 2 too survive were a man and a woman on an island but one was sterile... well that just sucks. But my example still stands... so far the man & man or woman & woman have not had a baby together in the circumstances set within my example (according to my knowledge... which is very small compared to the grand scheme of things... if i'm wrong i'll gladly take any proof of my example being a reality and mend my ways).
You realize 1 man and 1 woman can't breed a new population due to incest??
|
On July 11 2012 21:20 BillClinton wrote:
There often arises the statement that we have more important things to resolve. When we look back in time these same statements came when people started to question apartheid laws, I doubt some sane person would argue about these changes now.
There is nothing more important than to protect our democratic principles when it comes to still legitimated oppression of minority groups.
Excluding the ultra zealous right wing relgious nut jobs who just flat out hate gays. Is it not fair to say that there is a good percentage of the population who feel that gay marriage is not a civil right for plenty of reasons? At some point there has to be a limit to what can be called legal no matter a persons beliefs. For instance polygamy is illegal, is it a violation of a polygamist civil rights to not have his marriage recognized to his second wife? Now there are reasons we outlaw polygamy but u could use some of the very same agruments used for legalizing gay marriage as for legalizing polygamy. At some point a line has to be drawn not let me be clear I am not saying this 2 things are the same or that the line needs to be drawn at either one I am just trying to state at some point it is fair to ask the question of what should be acceptable and what should not in society. Democratic principles are important and keeping an open mind is important but it works both ways and sometimes people forget change is not always better.
|
On July 12 2012 05:19 IamPryda wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2012 21:20 BillClinton wrote:
There often arises the statement that we have more important things to resolve. When we look back in time these same statements came when people started to question apartheid laws, I doubt some sane person would argue about these changes now.
There is nothing more important than to protect our democratic principles when it comes to still legitimated oppression of minority groups. Excluding the ultra zealous right wing relgious nut jobs who just flat out hate gays. Is it not fair to say that there is a good percentage of the population who feel that gay marriage is not a civil right for plenty of reasons? At some point there has to be a limit to what can be called legal no matter a persons beliefs. For instance polygamy is illegal, is it a violation of a polygamist civil rights to not have his marriage recognized to his second wife? Now there are reasons we outlaw polygamy but u could use some of the very same agruments used for legalizing gay marriage as for legalizing polygamy. At some point a line has to be drawn not let me be clear I am not saying this 2 things are the same or that the line needs to be drawn at either one I am just trying to state at some point it is fair to ask the question of what should be acceptable and what should not in society. Democratic principles are important and keeping an open mind is important but it works both ways and sometimes people forget change is not always better.
I can't think of a single argument that is the same for polygamy and gay marriage other than "Marriage is between a man and a woman" which is an assertion, not an argument.
And any libertarian-minded person would argue that people should be able to enter into nearly any contract they'd like with one another, including polygamy.
As far as what is acceptable and what is not: Consent is the obvious modern principle to base marriage laws on (so issues where consent is ambiguous is where this becomes ambiguous). You're saying we need to draw the line somewhere, but that doesn't mean we just draw it arbitrarily because we need a line. You actually need some logical reasoning behind it.
|
On July 12 2012 05:45 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2012 05:19 IamPryda wrote:On July 11 2012 21:20 BillClinton wrote:
There often arises the statement that we have more important things to resolve. When we look back in time these same statements came when people started to question apartheid laws, I doubt some sane person would argue about these changes now.
There is nothing more important than to protect our democratic principles when it comes to still legitimated oppression of minority groups. Excluding the ultra zealous right wing relgious nut jobs who just flat out hate gays. Is it not fair to say that there is a good percentage of the population who feel that gay marriage is not a civil right for plenty of reasons? At some point there has to be a limit to what can be called legal no matter a persons beliefs. For instance polygamy is illegal, is it a violation of a polygamist civil rights to not have his marriage recognized to his second wife? Now there are reasons we outlaw polygamy but u could use some of the very same agruments used for legalizing gay marriage as for legalizing polygamy. At some point a line has to be drawn not let me be clear I am not saying this 2 things are the same or that the line needs to be drawn at either one I am just trying to state at some point it is fair to ask the question of what should be acceptable and what should not in society. Democratic principles are important and keeping an open mind is important but it works both ways and sometimes people forget change is not always better. I can't think of a single argument that is the same for polygamy and gay marriage other than "Marriage is between a man and a woman" which is an assertion, not an argument. And any libertarian-minded person would argue that people should be able to enter into nearly any contract they'd like with one another, including polygamy. As far as what is acceptable and what is not: Consent is the obvious modern principle to base marriage laws on (so issues where consent is ambiguous is where this becomes ambiguous). You're saying we need to draw the line somewhere, but that doesn't mean we just draw it arbitrarily because we need a line. You actually need some logical reasoning behind it. That's my point no matter where u draw the line it will be arbitrarily drawn because boundaries are always being pushed in every aspect of life. I used polygamy as an example not because it's anything like gay marriage but the law is applied to both in the same way, in that they are both Against the law and for no definitive reason other then thats the way it has always been. So who draws this new line saying now gay marriage Is ok? I think the reason this is such a hot button issue is because even open minded people who have no prejudice towards the gay community Still have mixed feelings on the subject of marriage.
|
On July 12 2012 06:34 IamPryda wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2012 05:45 DoubleReed wrote:On July 12 2012 05:19 IamPryda wrote:On July 11 2012 21:20 BillClinton wrote:
There often arises the statement that we have more important things to resolve. When we look back in time these same statements came when people started to question apartheid laws, I doubt some sane person would argue about these changes now.
There is nothing more important than to protect our democratic principles when it comes to still legitimated oppression of minority groups. Excluding the ultra zealous right wing relgious nut jobs who just flat out hate gays. Is it not fair to say that there is a good percentage of the population who feel that gay marriage is not a civil right for plenty of reasons? At some point there has to be a limit to what can be called legal no matter a persons beliefs. For instance polygamy is illegal, is it a violation of a polygamist civil rights to not have his marriage recognized to his second wife? Now there are reasons we outlaw polygamy but u could use some of the very same agruments used for legalizing gay marriage as for legalizing polygamy. At some point a line has to be drawn not let me be clear I am not saying this 2 things are the same or that the line needs to be drawn at either one I am just trying to state at some point it is fair to ask the question of what should be acceptable and what should not in society. Democratic principles are important and keeping an open mind is important but it works both ways and sometimes people forget change is not always better. I can't think of a single argument that is the same for polygamy and gay marriage other than "Marriage is between a man and a woman" which is an assertion, not an argument. And any libertarian-minded person would argue that people should be able to enter into nearly any contract they'd like with one another, including polygamy. As far as what is acceptable and what is not: Consent is the obvious modern principle to base marriage laws on (so issues where consent is ambiguous is where this becomes ambiguous). You're saying we need to draw the line somewhere, but that doesn't mean we just draw it arbitrarily because we need a line. You actually need some logical reasoning behind it. That's my point no matter where u draw the line it will be arbitrarily drawn because boundaries are always being pushed in every aspect of life. I used polygamy as an example not because it's anything like gay marriage but the law is applied to both in the same way, in that they are both Against the law and for no definitive reason other then thats the way it has always been. So who draws this new line saying now gay marriage Is ok? I think the reason this is such a hot button issue is because even open minded people who have no prejudice towards the gay community Still have mixed feelings on the subject of marriage.
No. Why is the line arbitrary? What part of 'consent' don't you understand? Consent is not arbitrary.
And quite frankly an open minded person with no prejudice towards the gay community would be apathetic toward the subject of gay marriage. And apathetic means pro gay marriage, because the opinion would be "Eh, if they want to get married, let them get married, sheesh. What do I care?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
