On July 08 2012 21:06 DonKey_ wrote: After reading all these comments it's making me wonder why we have a calssification for marriage in the first place, at least legaly. Why not get rid of the classification of marriage within law and just make a term to use cassualy.
Because they are embedded into all kinds of other laws pertaining to taxes, medical rights, adoption options, etc That's too ingrained to change now, so the most reasonable approach is to figure out who are and are not allowed to be legally married and therefore legally allowed these rights
I don't see what makes reforming those laws any different than reforming any other laws.
On July 08 2012 21:05 ahappystar wrote: Gay people being murdered in the streets because they are gay is a problem which can be put into the same category as people dieing from war/famine/disease. I look at 'gay marriage' as a first world 'problem' which takes valuable resources/time/interest away from more important things. Just like problems everyone has instead of a problem a minority group has should take precedent...
Exactly.
And why is it that homosexuals are so set on trying to expand the definition of marriage to include them? It's like the word marriage has some unique epicness to it? What's wrong with "union"? Or "gayrriage"? Or anything... why the need to re-define and spend extensive resources and time on this? After all, it's just a word. It's like homosexuals are obsessed with the word and need to be a part of it so badly otherwise their life is not complete. What is it about that word that is so special that dictionaries need to be re-written and laws need to be re-created?
Pretty positive thing to do, but at the same time I feel that if Google should be campaigning for something, it should be something in related to freedom of the information (and media), or a bunch of different more significant issues that Google is certainly powerful enough to have an effect on.
On July 08 2012 21:06 DonKey_ wrote: After reading all these comments it's making me wonder why we have a clssification for marriage in the first place, at least legaly. Why not get rid of the classification of marriage within law and just make it a term to use cassualy.
Simple minded people, that think marriage is reserved as a sacred institution for raising children (old fashioned thought). Marriage has quite a few legal benefits for people while church is only a ceremonial thing that doesn't have to be done. Banning gay marriage is simply a breaking of the human rights to live their own lives the way they want to. As far as being against gay marriage it's usually religion-based animosity. Religion was always driven by fear of the unknown, whether it be scientific gene research, creation of the universe or opposite sex relationships.
On July 08 2012 21:13 Talin wrote: Pretty positive thing to do, but at the same time I feel that if Google should be campaigning for something, it should be something in related to freedom of the information (and media), or a bunch of different more significant issues that Google is certainly powerful enough to have an effect on.
I'm with you. While it's all cool they fight for the LGBT's but how about fighting for something that affects us all, aka freedom of expression / information. Hell i'd prefer they spend their money lobbying against software patents.
On July 08 2012 20:50 Liquid`Drone wrote: You think the concept of man and man marrying is equally as stupid as the concept of man and donkey marrying. Why?
If you're wondering, I do understand the concept of an "opinion". I just think that opinions should not be free to ignore the shackles of factuality or logic.
This is why I think that: Source: Google Images
Notice how, magic (or science rather) happens when you plug one into the other? But when: 1. Plug - to - plug ... no magic 2. Power Outlet - to - power outlet ... no magic
Similarly to me (and don't worry, you don't need to agree because it's "moronic" to you): Man - to - man ... no marriage Woman - to - woman ... no marriage.
Now most of you will take my simple analogy so literally that you will bash me for my 60 IQ. But treat this post as a symbol, thought or idea, rather than take it literally... and maybe then, you'll understand my viewpoint. If not, I apologize for my low-level IQ.
:D
How do you justify that man-to-man relationships and woman-to-woman relationships should not get the same security and rights than man-to-woman relationships? Why should only male-to-female relationships get certain legal benefits (even when no children are involved) etc? If we were to follow the laws of nature, plug to plug gives the same conductivity as plug to outlet. The reason plug goes into an outlet is for convieniency. It "sticks" that way; but you should believe me when I say that the same magic happens just the same for plug-to-plug (DON'T stick random stuff into your outlet to test this out tho, you might get electrocuted rather quickly)
On July 08 2012 21:06 DonKey_ wrote: After reading all these comments it's making me wonder why we have a calssification for marriage in the first place, at least legaly. Why not get rid of the classification of marriage within law and just make a term to use cassualy.
Because they are embedded into all kinds of other laws pertaining to taxes, medical rights, adoption options, etc That's too ingrained to change now, so the most reasonable approach is to figure out who are and are not allowed to be legally married and therefore legally allowed these rights
I don't see what makes reforming those laws any different than reforming any other laws.
You're right, there is no conceptual difference. But changing one law is way easier than changing hundreds, when they both yield the same result. The way the law works is you first define something (like marriage) and then go on to describe a lot of laws related to being married. Changing the definition or inclusion criteria is just way more simple and comprehensible.
On July 08 2012 21:05 ahappystar wrote: Gay people being murdered in the streets because they are gay is a problem which can be put into the same category as people dieing from war/famine/disease. I look at 'gay marriage' as a first world 'problem' which takes valuable resources/time/interest away from more important things. Just like problems everyone has instead of a problem a minority group has should take precedent...
Exactly. And why is it that homosexuals are so set on trying to expand the definition of marriage to include them? It's like the word marriage has some unique epicness to it? What's wrong with "union"? Or "gayrriage"? Or anything... why the need to re-define and spend extensive resources and time on this? After all, it's just a word. It's like homosexuals are obsessed with the word and need to be a part of it so badly otherwise their life is not complete. What is it about that word that is so special that dictionaries need to be re-written and laws need to be re-created?
Read above comments :p The right of marriage coincides with dozens of other rights, and it's those that are important. Whatever name the beast is given is most likely less important.
On July 08 2012 21:06 DonKey_ wrote: After reading all these comments it's making me wonder why we have a clssification for marriage in the first place, at least legaly. Why not get rid of the classification of marriage within law and just make it a term to use cassualy.
Simple minded people, that think marriage is reserved as a sacred institution for raising children (old fashioned thought). Marriage has quite a few legal benefits for people while church is only a ceremonial thing that doesn't have to be done. Banning gay marriage is simply a breaking of the human rights to live their own lives the way they want to. As far as being against gay marriage it's usually religion-based animosity. Religion was always driven by fear of the unknown, whether it be scientific gene research, creation of the universe or opposite sex relationships.
Well of course the benefits that pertain to raising children would still go to Homo or Hetero relationships, but why not get rid of the whole point of contention, marriage.
On July 08 2012 21:20 Cutlery wrote: How do you justify that man-to-man relationships and woman-to-woman relationships should not get the same security and rights than man-to-woman relationships? Why should only male-to-female get tax exemptions (or what you might call them) etc?
Did I ever say they shouldn't get a tax-exemption? Where do you come up with your crazy extrapolations man? If they're living in a common-law relationship, they should be entitled to the same thing that married couples are entitled to. I never claimed that they're not humans... or citizens. Think a bit, before jumping to assumptions about what I think. Gay couples are fully entitled to tax-exemptions if they're in a common-law relationship. There's just no need to call it marriage and spend decades discussing what marriage is and whether it should apply to same-sex couples. But since the gay population is depressed that the word didn't originally apply to them, we have to spend all this time and money on the state of a word.
On July 08 2012 20:38 Cutlery wrote: That's the same thing they said about negros. Supporting slaves, and giving them rights is stupid, right? They have no need to be like us, haha. What's next? Animals get their freedom to live freely aswell? Haha, this is a slippery slope.
Slavery isn't a pathology though. So your point is irrelevant.
Wait, discussing animal rights is relevant, but black rights is not? Slippery slope here my friend.
Like I said the animals rights example was to highlight a point. If you missed that read above. And secondly, yes, it's irrelevant, because also, like I said above slavery is not a pathology.
Like I said above, marriage, freedom and homosexuality are not pathologies either. So it is you who are bringing up irrelevant points.
On July 08 2012 21:21 bblack wrote: Read above comments :p The right of marriage coincides with dozens of other rights, and it's those that are important. Whatever name the beast is given is most likely less important.
Well, you might think so. But, tell that to the rest people on the forum who are so upset about the thought that it should be dubbed "gay marriage"? "Oh no, don't do that!" they scream.
On July 08 2012 20:38 Cutlery wrote: That's the same thing they said about negros. Supporting slaves, and giving them rights is stupid, right? They have no need to be like us, haha. What's next? Animals get their freedom to live freely aswell? Haha, this is a slippery slope.
Slavery isn't a pathology though. So your point is irrelevant.
Wait, discussing animal rights is relevant, but black rights is not? Slippery slope here my friend.
Like I said the animals rights example was to highlight a point. If you missed that read above. And secondly, yes, it's irrelevant, because also, like I said above slavery is not a pathology.
On July 08 2012 20:47 ahappystar wrote: Why stop there? Why should marriage be between only two people? that's racist/discriminatory/human rights violation and antisemitism... at least! If I want to marry 3 women why cant I? They all gave there consent? If a 36 year old woman wants to marry her 15 year old son why cant she? In 20 years pedophilia and incest will be legalized, why should we be so close-minded now? What about a man and a goat, or should one person even be alive to marry?
This is stupid, this is a non-issue. In the US, 1 in 6 people, or almost 50 million Americans rely on food stamps, how many people die each year because of disease/war? Something like 8% of children drop out of school. NOOO, don't put money into education, suck up to the gay lobby, because it makes you look 'cool' and 'intellectual' to 'stick up' for gay people.
Stop pushing gay marriage and abortion down everybody's throats, seriously, like every thread 'gay marriage this/abortion that', give it a rest, yes we know you want to look the the savior of the universe, but please take your 'I am all-powerfull everyone-should-think-like-me-or-else-they-are-the-devil' somewhere else
Now, this a post that everyone should read and understand. Well-said. Thanks for reminding the world of the real problems.
This changes nothing. People are starving in africa, yet others take their time to get married. Why don't THEY focus on the real issues instead of getting married?
EDIT: Also, if we want to focus on the *real* problems, why create such "minor" problems in the first place; by simply getting rid of discrimination, we could focus on other things, likes famine
On July 08 2012 21:06 DonKey_ wrote: After reading all these comments it's making me wonder why we have a clssification for marriage in the first place, at least legaly. Why not get rid of the classification of marriage within law and just make it a term to use cassualy.
Simple minded people, that think marriage is reserved as a sacred institution for raising children (old fashioned thought). Marriage has quite a few legal benefits for people while church is only a ceremonial thing that doesn't have to be done. Banning gay marriage is simply a breaking of the human rights to live their own lives the way they want to. As far as being against gay marriage it's usually religion-based animosity. Religion was always driven by fear of the unknown, whether it be scientific gene research, creation of the universe or opposite sex relationships.
Well of course the benefits that pertain to raising children would still go to Homo or Hetero relationships, but why not get rid of the whole point of contention, marriage.
It is what it is, as long as there is not a new convention with the same legal benefits, then we can safely say we're not going forward as a society because some people are discriminated against.
On July 08 2012 20:51 Pisky wrote: I think this is a strong argument against:
and in my personal view, it really depends on the question if marriage can or cannot be understood apart from procreation.
Procreation can be understood apart from marriage.
Why can't marriage be understood apart from procreation?
Why is marrital status given legal benefits that do not depend on any children being in the picture, if marriage was only understood through procreation?
Why is marriage a "spiritual union" if only understood by procreation?
Are you saying that every vow and "i do" and tear and "spiritual fulfillment" is only expressed in context with procreation? Would you now, after considering this, feel slightly perverted if you said "I do" in front of your mom and the rest of your family, with everybody knowing the ceremony cannot be understood apart from procreation?
Ok, I am not trying to mock you but I will use the same method as you:
Procreation cannot be understood apart from marriage.
Why can marriage be understood apart from procreation?
For the rest of your arguments, I think you are just twisting my initial argument. My opinion is: Marriage exists to take care of the social and other aspects of procreation. Your arguments make it look as if i am saying that marriage is in fact the same thing as procreation. Yes, I think marriage exists because of procreation but it also affirms the "spiritual union" (and many other things) you mentioned. Of couse marriage is a spiritual union, and again, I think it exists because of procreation. And for your last argument: I would not feel perverted and what does it have to do with our discussion ? :-D
On July 08 2012 21:06 DonKey_ wrote: After reading all these comments it's making me wonder why we have a calssification for marriage in the first place, at least legaly. Why not get rid of the classification of marriage within law and just make a term to use cassualy.
Because they are embedded into all kinds of other laws pertaining to taxes, medical rights, adoption options, etc That's too ingrained to change now, so the most reasonable approach is to figure out who are and are not allowed to be legally married and therefore legally allowed these rights
I don't see what makes reforming those laws any different than reforming any other laws.
You're right, there is no conceptual difference. But changing one law is way easier than changing hundreds, when they both yield the same result. The way the law works is you first define something (like marriage) and then go on to describe a lot of laws related to being married. Changing the definition or inclusion criteria is just way more simple and comprehensible.
By eliminating marriage however we would eliminate the argument over gay marriage and pass hundreds of laws much more quickly than we could passing the one law which is many times more controversial.
On July 08 2012 21:21 bblack wrote: Read above comments :p The right of marriage coincides with dozens of other rights, and it's those that are important. Whatever name the beast is given is most likely less important.
Well, you might think so. But, tell that to the rest people on the forum who are so upset about the thought that it should be dubbed "gay marriage"? "Oh no, don't do that!" they scream.
?? Haha, what now? You take one form of discrimination and, according to court, change it with another form of discrimination? Nice. I think you're missing the overarching setting here.
On July 08 2012 21:28 Cutlery wrote: Like I said above, marriage, freedom and homosexuality are not pathologies either. So it is you who are bringing up irrelevant points.
You're entitled to that opinion. We differ in that I think homosexuality is a pathology.
By definition to me a pathology is: an abnormal condition or disease affecting the body of an animal.
In the case of homosexuals, I would think that the abnormal condition lies somewhere in the brain, genitals, or genes. I'm not an expert on the matter, but I think scientists have identified the "gay gene". So yes, very unlike freedom/slavery, it is a pathology. Maybe, you define pathology with the same leniency that you define the word marriage. But most people prefer their definitions to be consistent.
On July 08 2012 21:34 Cutlery wrote: ?? Haha, what now? You take one form of discrimination and, according to court, change it with another form of discrimination? Nice. I think you're missing the overarching setting here.
If I call you Norwegian, I don't think that is discriminatory. I'm calling you what you are. Similarly, calling a gay marriage a "gay marriage" is calling it what it is. No discrimination there. Unless your definition of discrimination is also unconventional. Lol.
On July 08 2012 21:20 Cutlery wrote: How do you justify that man-to-man relationships and woman-to-woman relationships should not get the same security and rights than man-to-woman relationships? Why should only male-to-female get tax exemptions (or what you might call them) etc?
Did I ever say they shouldn't get a tax-exemption? Where do you come up with your crazy extrapolations man? If they're living in a common-law relationship, they should be entitled to the same thing that married couples are entitled to. I never claimed that they're not humans... or citizens. Think a bit, before jumping to assumptions about what I think. Gay couples are fully entitled to tax-exemptions if they're in a common-law relationship. There's just no need to call it marriage and spend decades discussing what marriage is and whether it should apply to same-sex couples. But since the gay population is depressed that the word didn't originally apply to them, we have to spend all this time and money on the state of a word.
And I've been saying that we should separate religion and law; and NOT separate human beings within a law based on anything from skin colour to sexual orientation. These are all 'random' attributes (and not pathologies), and distinguishing between them is discrimination. . .
On July 08 2012 21:05 ahappystar wrote: Gay people being murdered in the streets because they are gay is a problem which can be put into the same category as people dieing from war/famine/disease. I look at 'gay marriage' as a first world 'problem' which takes valuable resources/time/interest away from more important things. Just like problems everyone has instead of a problem a minority group has should take precedent...
Exactly.
And why is it that homosexuals are so set on trying to expand the definition of marriage to include them? It's like the word marriage has some unique epicness to it? What's wrong with "union"? Or "gayrriage"? Or anything... why the need to re-define and spend extensive resources and time on this? After all, it's just a word. It's like homosexuals are obsessed with the word and need to be a part of it so badly otherwise their life is not complete. What is it about that word that is so special that dictionaries need to be re-written and laws need to be re-created?
To turn it around, imagine that you pass a civil union law, where people in civil unions have all the same rights as married people. Gay people can not marry, but can join a civil union. Sounds great, right? But think about it again, you're basically forcing one group of people to wear a special label. Imagine that Jewish people could only have "Jewish marriages". Even if Jewish marriages were the same as normal marriages, forcing that extra label on it is discriminatory on the face of it. There was actually a recent court decision, where a state had passed a civil union law, and the state supreme court ruled that gay people should be allowed to marry, because not allowing them to use the word "marriage" was discriminatory.
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.stockphotopro.com/photo-thumbs-2/stockphotopro_73018778KEZ_no_title.jpg)
