Edit: I find it weird that I haven't seen any articles from BBC or CNN
Click the picture for the article on Huffington Post
Google has announced a global campaign in support of equal marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples. The Internet giant announced its Legalize Love campaign at the Global LGBT Workplace Summit 2012, which took place in London. The campaign launches Saturday, July 7 in Poland and Singapore. Organizers plan to expand the campaign to every country where Google has an office, focusing on countries where anti-gay sentiment runs high. “We want our employees who are gay or lesbian or transgender to have the same experience outside the office as they do in the office,” Google's Mark Palmer-Edgecumbe is quoted by dot429.com as saying at the summit. “It is obviously a very ambitious piece of work.” “Singapore wants to be a global financial center and world leader and we can push them on the fact that being a global center and a world leader means you have to treat all people the same, irrespective of their sexual orientation,” Palmer-Edgecumbe said of the decision to include Singapore in the campaign's initial phase. Bob Amnnibale, an openly gay executive at Citi, applauded the effort: “The fact that Google is so virtual and its appeal is very wide and young demographically means it can help spread messaging very, very quickly.”
As a Singaporean I think I'm going to enjoy this. It would be hilarious to watch how my government responds to this, given how religious harmony is of utmost importance here. If the government loses the backing of religions, it's going to be a fiasco for them.
Personally, I think this is a good step forward for humanity if everything works out well.
Good to see Google is still thinking outside the box on how to spread their name. This will give them immense exposure and tons of support and use from the LGBT community.
Sick of talking about gay people.. Im not Christian, i dont believe in religion but that is totally the ANTICHRIST... With the same sex you cant make children soo is against nature but make people understant that is becoming hard.
Keep going, in the future you all gonna open your EYES.
On July 08 2012 18:36 TirramirooO wrote: Sick of talking about gay people.. Im not Christian, i dont believe in religion but that is totally the ANTICHRIST... With the same sex you cant make children soo is against nature but make people understant that is becoming hard.
Keep going, in the future you all gonna open your EYES.
If you're not Christian, then you don't believe in the Anti-Christ and such, so what are you going on about?
On July 08 2012 18:36 TirramirooO wrote: Sick of talking about gay people.. Im not Christian, i dont believe in religion but that is totally the ANTICHRIST... With the same sex you cant make children soo is against nature but make people understant that is becoming hard.
Keep going, in the future you all gonna open your EYES.
It's good if the couples adopt babies. There are tons of foster kids and orphans out there who need a loving family to support them.
On July 08 2012 18:36 TirramirooO wrote: Sick of talking about gay people.. Im not Christian, i dont believe in religion but that is totally the ANTICHRIST... With the same sex you cant make children soo is against nature but make people understant that is becoming hard.
Keep going, in the future you all gonna open your EYES.
Rofl what
Anyways I think this is a very good effort by Google, shaking up these 'norms' of religion ( and tradition).
Why would they want to get wed in a christian manner if christianity as a religion is totally against gay people. It would mean that christians would have to somehow change the religion for it to be possible for gay people to get married there. This should be more like a campaign for allowing gay people to register their "marriage" in like a state office or something, because they can't for christianity to change their views, that are based on "a holy book" just because some gay people want to get married in a church.
It's a little sad that the most effective way to fight for human right is through multinational corporations. I don't like what that says about the state of democracy in the World.
This seems like a good idea by Google to get some good press and exposure and since they will be in places where its a divisive issue there are sure to be counter protesters which gurentees press coverage.
On July 08 2012 18:41 Tripal wrote: Why would they want to get wed in a christian manner if christianity as a religion is totally against gay people. It would mean that christians would have to somehow change the religion for it to be possible for gay people to get married there. This should be more like a campaign for allowing gay people to register their "marriage" in like a state office or something, because they can't for christianity to change their views, that are based on "a holy book" just because some gay people want to get married in a church.
ps. not a christian, but this is just stupid.
It's not about Christian marriage, it's about marriage. Christian's don't have a monopoly on the word 'marriage'. There is state marriage, Christian marriage, muslim marriage, etc.
On July 08 2012 18:41 Tripal wrote: Why would they want to get wed in a christian manner if christianity as a religion is totally against gay people. It would mean that christians would have to somehow change the religion for it to be possible for gay people to get married there. This should be more like a campaign for allowing gay people to register their "marriage" in like a state office or something, because they can't for christianity to change their views, that are based on "a holy book" just because some gay people want to get married in a church.
ps. not a christian, but this is just stupid.
No, it's not what you think it is. It isn't some words in an aged piece of text that prevents the gays from getting married, it's law. The same law that bans murder, rape, molestation, robbery, and such.
On July 08 2012 18:36 TirramirooO wrote: Sick of talking about gay people.. Im not Christian, i dont believe in religion but that is totally the ANTICHRIST... With the same sex you cant make children soo is against nature but make people understant that is becoming hard.
Keep going, in the future you all gonna open your EYES.
This is a common misconception about what would happen if gay marriage were to be legalized. There are MILLIONS of babies that are available for adoption and the gay community doesnt even make up 50% of our population so we would barely even see a dent in our population increase. Even if gay marriage legalization does cause the population to go down, then it is a good thing (look at china/india and other countries with overpopulation problem). Also, if you dont believe in religion, then why does it matter if this is anti christ..?
On July 08 2012 18:41 Tripal wrote: Why would they want to get wed in a christian manner if christianity as a religion is totally against gay people. It would mean that christians would have to somehow change the religion for it to be possible for gay people to get married there. This should be more like a campaign for allowing gay people to register their "marriage" in like a state office or something, because they can't for christianity to change their views, that are based on "a holy book" just because some gay people want to get married in a church.
ps. not a christian, but this is just stupid.
Buddhists also marry fyi and muslims too. It is not a christian term (or limited to christians rather) by all means.
On July 08 2012 18:47 Tachion wrote: Great move by google, but also a little confusing. It seems like such a random thing for a company like them to get involved in.
I don't think it is. They could genuinely be trying to help society improve with all that cash.
In most countries Marriage is an institution that allows two people to get certain benefits from the state. Mostly tax and housing benefits. Any country that doesn't allow two people to get these benefits because they are of the same gender is committing gender discrimination against its citizens.
Marriage should not be tied to religion in any country in the world and this should be the ONLY focus of this campaign.
If some people want to celebrate the first day of their marriage in a religious environment, it should be their right based on religious freedom laws.
On July 08 2012 18:36 TirramirooO wrote: Sick of talking about gay people.. Im not Christian, i dont believe in religion but that is totally the ANTICHRIST... With the same sex you cant make children soo is against nature but make people understant that is becoming hard.
Keep going, in the future you all gonna open your EYES.
I seriously doubt that if gays can't get married they would stop being gay and get children.
Keep it up people, in the future you all gonna see the effects off such thing that you all talking about.. And one more thing i am not obligated to respect and not show my thoughts to such subject..
Clever people when you talk about gays and lesbians they right away see the big problem that causes those behaviors..
On July 08 2012 18:55 TirramirooO wrote: Keep it up people, in the future you all gonna see the effects off such thing that you all talking about.. And one more thing i am not obligated to respect and not show my thoughts to such subject..
Clever people when you talk about gays and lesbians they right away see the big problem that causes those behaviors..
On July 08 2012 18:55 TirramirooO wrote: Keep it up people, in the future you all gonna see the effects off such thing that you all talking about.. And one more thing i am not obligated to respect and not show my thoughts to such subject..
Clever people when you talk about gays and lesbians they right away see the big problem that causes those behaviors..
PEOPLE LOST THEIR PLACE IN THE WORLD.
The way I see it you have to provide some proof in order to attempt to predict the apocalypse that's going to happen when it really becomes legalized. And no, religious text will not be considered as evidence.
On July 08 2012 18:41 Tripal wrote: Why would they want to get wed in a christian manner if christianity as a religion is totally against gay people. It would mean that christians would have to somehow change the religion for it to be possible for gay people to get married there. This should be more like a campaign for allowing gay people to register their "marriage" in like a state office or something, because they can't for christianity to change their views, that are based on "a holy book" just because some gay people want to get married in a church.
ps. not a christian, but this is just stupid.
Because it's easier to adopt babies, visit your significant other in the hospital, get a loan from banks, get various kinds of allowances from the state as a married couple in most countries. Just from the top of my head and I'm sure there's a lot of other things I forgot. Also, as it's going on in some countries, inventing a special institution for gay couples instead of marriage to have similar rights is just discrimination. As for the christian part, a worldwide program can't exactly be about legalizing christian marriage since only the third of the world's population is christian a lot of them living in countries where they don't have tap water let alone google offices.
that a million homophobes switched to Yahoo as their standard search engine.
On July 08 2012 18:55 TirramirooO wrote: Keep it up people, in the future you all gonna see the effects off such thing that you all talking about.. And one more thing i am not obligated to respect and not show my thoughts to such subject..
Clever people when you talk about gays and lesbians they right away see the big problem that causes those behaviors..
PEOPLE LOST THEIR PLACE IN THE WORLD.
Uh... I... Sure I'll try; could you specify more of what will happen if we allow gay marriage?
On July 08 2012 18:49 Noam wrote: In most countries Marriage is an institution that allows two people to get certain benefits from the state. Mostly tax and housing benefits. Any country that doesn't allow two people to get these benefits because they are of the same gender is committing gender discrimination against its citizens.
Marriage should not be tied to religion in any country in the world and this should be the ONLY focus of this campaign.
If some people want to celebrate the first day of their marriage in a religious environment, it should be their right based on religious freedom laws.
Government, at least on paper, is an agent of the will of its citizens. The second you start blaming governments you've completely lost sight of the enemy, and you will never win the fight. You're not fighting government. You're fighting people. You're fighting you, you're fighting me, you're fighting your parents, you're fighting Hot_bid. The government is just the tool through which consensus and enforcement is made manifest. Don't blame countries for discriminating against their citizens. Blame citizens for discriminating against themselves.
I could see this thread getting really ugly really fast.
I think it's admirable of Google to push this forward even though I do not personally believe in gay marriage etc. Not sure how it will all work out but it's pretty surprising that such a big company has decided to push for such an action. Interested to see how this will all turn out.
On July 08 2012 18:49 Noam wrote: In most countries Marriage is an institution that allows two people to get certain benefits from the state. Mostly tax and housing benefits. Any country that doesn't allow two people to get these benefits because they are of the same gender is committing gender discrimination against its citizens.
Marriage should not be tied to religion in any country in the world and this should be the ONLY focus of this campaign.
If some people want to celebrate the first day of their marriage in a religious environment, it should be their right based on religious freedom laws.
Government, at least on paper, is an agent of the will of its citizens. The second you start blaming governments you've completely lost sight of the enemy, and you will never win the fight. You're not fighting government. You're fighting people. You're fighting you, you're fighting me, you're fighting your parents, you're fighting Hot_bid. The government is just the tool through which consensus and enforcement is made manifest. Don't blame countries for discriminating against their citizens. Blame citizens for discriminating against themselves.
I think this is very well-put and generally agree. However, there is a possibility for authoritarian states to rule temporarily against the will of the citizens, which is present in a number of nations as you know of course.
On July 08 2012 19:01 marttorn wrote: It was that day
that a million homophobes switched to Yahoo as their standard search engine.
Well that's great though isn't it? Just like when all bigoted idiots stop eating oreos now. If many big companies scare away homophobes eventually we can starve them out :p No industrial food, few technological resources, eventually hard core Christians would have to take a stand: either become a bit more accepting or go all amish..
On July 08 2012 19:05 Aerisky wrote: I could see this thread getting really ugly really fast.
I think it's admirable of Google to push this forward even though I do not personally believe in gay marriage etc. Not sure how it will all work out but it's pretty surprising that such a big company has decided to push for such an action. Interested to see how this will all turn out.
On July 08 2012 18:55 TirramirooO wrote: Keep it up people, in the future you all gonna see the effects off such thing that you all talking about.. And one more thing i am not obligated to respect and not show my thoughts to such subject..
Clever people when you talk about gays and lesbians they right away see the big problem that causes those behaviors..
PEOPLE LOST THEIR PLACE IN THE WORLD.
I'm pretty sure Destiny got into a pretty big mess spitting racial slurs. You're open to your opinions and you have a free speech but others are free to give you smack for it.
It's actually pretty common for people to dislike homophobic behaviour.
On July 08 2012 19:01 marttorn wrote: It was that day
that a million homophobes switched to Yahoo as their standard search engine.
Well that's great though isn't it? Just like when all bigoted idiots stop eating oreos now. If many big companies scare away homophobes eventually we can starve them out :p No industrial food, few technological resources, eventually hard core Christians would have to take a stand: either become a bit more accepting or go all amish..
I for one, hope that they will just stop eating and 'pray' that jesus personally delivers their food.
That way, in a few weeks to a month, we will have about 99% less bigoted idiots walking around.
On July 08 2012 18:55 TirramirooO wrote: Keep it up people, in the future you all gonna see the effects off such thing that you all talking about.. And one more thing i am not obligated to respect and not show my thoughts to such subject..
Clever people when you talk about gays and lesbians they right away see the big problem that causes those behaviors..
PEOPLE LOST THEIR PLACE IN THE WORLD.
I'm pretty sure Destiny got into a pretty big mess spitting racial slurs. You're open to your opinions and you have a free speech but others are free to give you smack for it.
It's actually pretty common for people to dislike homophobic behaviour.
Not only did he not use a racial slur (even if he had used a demeaning word, gay isn't exactly a race), but also no, you're actually not free to smack people. That's battery. (lol)
On July 08 2012 19:01 marttorn wrote: It was that day
that a million homophobes switched to Yahoo as their standard search engine.
Well that's great though isn't it? Just like when all bigoted idiots stop eating oreos now. If many big companies scare away homophobes eventually we can starve them out :p No industrial food, few technological resources, eventually hard core Christians would have to take a stand: either become a bit more accepting or go all amish..
I for one, hope that they will just stop eating and 'pray' that jesus personally delivers their food.
That way, in a few weeks to a month, we will have about 99% less bigoted idiots walking around.
On July 08 2012 19:05 Aerisky wrote: I could see this thread getting really ugly really fast.
I think it's admirable of Google to push this forward even though I do not personally believe in gay marriage etc. Not sure how it will all work out but it's pretty surprising that such a big company has decided to push for such an action. Interested to see how this will all turn out.
Would you mind explaining why? Just curious.
To clarify, I am heterosexual. Much more concise/clear lol. Sorry for the confusion. ^^
Well to elaborate on it a little bit more, I guess I am slightly irrationally afraid of gay people, but I think they deserve the same full marriage rights and benefits of course. Christian marriage is one thing, but in modern society religions no longer have full control over the definition of marriage, so I think that homosexual marriage is something that should and probably eventually will be legalized nearly unilaterally.
On July 08 2012 19:05 Aerisky wrote: I could see this thread getting really ugly really fast.
I think it's admirable of Google to push this forward even though I do not personally believe in gay marriage etc. Not sure how it will all work out but it's pretty surprising that such a big company has decided to push for such an action. Interested to see how this will all turn out.
Would you mind explaining why? Just curious.
To clarify, I am heterosexual. Much more concise/clear lol. Sorry for the confusion. ^^
Well to elaborate on it a little bit more, I guess I am slightly irrationally afraid of gay people, but I think they deserve the same full marriage rights and benefits of course. Christian marriage is one thing, but in modern society religions no longer have full control over the definition of marriage, so I think that homosexual marriage is something that should and probably eventually will be legalized nearly unilaterally.
On July 08 2012 19:01 marttorn wrote: It was that day
that a million homophobes switched to Yahoo as their standard search engine.
Well that's great though isn't it? Just like when all bigoted idiots stop eating oreos now. If many big companies scare away homophobes eventually we can starve them out :p No industrial food, few technological resources, eventually hard core Christians would have to take a stand: either become a bit more accepting or go all amish..
I for one, hope that they will just stop eating and 'pray' that jesus personally delivers their food.
That way, in a few weeks to a month, we will have about 99% less bigoted idiots walking around.
Oh joyful day that will be!
Let's not continue this.
Well regardless, I think it's a great initiative. The point I was trying to make is that Google at least is big enough to survive mocking/hate from a part of the world population and still be an incredibly influential player on the market
On July 08 2012 19:14 BrTarolg wrote: Interesting, despite singapore being very mutlicultural, and very religiously harmonic, i wouldn't call it a very religious country at all.
To me, I feel that the government feels that it must not disappoint the religious communities because religion is tied with ethnicities, and so on and so forth. A shit storm, basically. I don't have anything to back this up though, just my own speculations.
On July 08 2012 19:01 marttorn wrote: It was that day
that a million homophobes switched to Yahoo as their standard search engine.
Well that's great though isn't it? Just like when all bigoted idiots stop eating oreos now. If many big companies scare away homophobes eventually we can starve them out :p No industrial food, few technological resources, eventually hard core Christians would have to take a stand: either become a bit more accepting or go all amish..
I for one, hope that they will just stop eating and 'pray' that jesus personally delivers their food.
That way, in a few weeks to a month, we will have about 99% less bigoted idiots walking around.
Oh joyful day that will be!
Let's not continue this.
Well regardless, I think it's a great initiative. The point I was trying to make is that Google at least is big enough to survive mocking/hate from a part of the world population and still be an incredibly influential on the market
On July 08 2012 18:55 TirramirooO wrote: Keep it up people, in the future you all gonna see the effects off such thing that you all talking about.. And one more thing i am not obligated to respect and not show my thoughts to such subject..
Clever people when you talk about gays and lesbians they right away see the big problem that causes those behaviors..
PEOPLE LOST THEIR PLACE IN THE WORLD.
No, but if you have such an offensive and ignorant view you might as well keep it to yourself. There is a large variety of people that support homosexuality - most of them most likely to be more intelligent than you.
Allowing private companies to meddle with public affairs is never a good idea, no matter how justified it seems to be. Google isn't the lamb it tries to appear as and this is just another setup in their attempt to solidify a monopoly over the young generation who is usually in favor of gay marriage.
On July 08 2012 19:01 marttorn wrote: It was that day
that a million homophobes switched to Yahoo as their standard search engine.
Well that's great though isn't it? Just like when all bigoted idiots stop eating oreos now. If many big companies scare away homophobes eventually we can starve them out :p No industrial food, few technological resources, eventually hard core Christians would have to take a stand: either become a bit more accepting or go all amish..
I for one, hope that they will just stop eating and 'pray' that jesus personally delivers their food.
That way, in a few weeks to a month, we will have about 99% less bigoted idiots walking around.
Oh joyful day that will be!
Let's not continue this.
Well regardless, I think it's a great initiative. The point I was trying to make is that Google at least is big enough to survive mocking/hate from a part of the world population and still be an incredibly influential on the market
Yes, it's a great initiative (though the ramifications of a corporation getting into sociopolitical issues--and a very very sensitive one at that--do probably remain to be seen). But actually no, that was not the point you were making at all with that post.
@Azera: yup. I mean personally if I had to be absolutely honest, I am a bit creeped out by gay people/gay marriage, but legalizing gay marriage does not affect me negatively, creates opportunities for adoptions, and furthermore it allows a growing population to be more happy. I don't see much wrong with it, except perhaps conflict between states and citizens in the event that governments do not wish to shift an anti-gay marriage stance, but that would me more of an indirect result I suppose.
On July 08 2012 18:41 Tripal wrote: Why would they want to get wed in a christian manner if christianity as a religion is totally against gay people. It would mean that christians would have to somehow change the religion for it to be possible for gay people to get married there. This should be more like a campaign for allowing gay people to register their "marriage" in like a state office or something, because they can't for christianity to change their views, that are based on "a holy book" just because some gay people want to get married in a church.
ps. not a christian, but this is just stupid.
People should realize marriage was never a Christian concept, it was just stolen and adopted off the pagans. So when Christians claim that gays ruin marriage.... you have no right to say that.. as marriage isn't owned by your religion..
On topic, GOOD ON YOU GOOGLE. It is great to see this kinda push happening, and it is going to be interesting to see the arguments coming from the homophobes about this.
On July 08 2012 18:55 TirramirooO wrote: Keep it up people, in the future you all gonna see the effects off such thing that you all talking about.. And one more thing i am not obligated to respect and not show my thoughts to such subject..
Clever people when you talk about gays and lesbians they right away see the big problem that causes those behaviors..
PEOPLE LOST THEIR PLACE IN THE WORLD.
Uh... I... Sure I'll try; could you specify more of what will happen if we allow gay marriage?
On July 08 2012 19:18 Otolia wrote: Allowing private companies to meddle with public affairs is never a good idea, no matter how justified it seems to be. Google isn't the lamb it tries to appear as and this is just another setup in their attempt to solidify a monopoly over the young generation who is usually in favor of gay marriage.
Regardless of their intentions, if they seek to do well in the world, even for personal gain, let them. Ride the Google bus to a better world. If once you reach your destination you see it fit to abandon Google, you can go ahead and burn the bus. But you have to get to your destination somehow, and it'll be a lot easier on their dime than on yours.
Don't know what google is trying to do here either they think this would make more people use google products than lose current customers or they are launching something soon that is related
On July 08 2012 19:01 marttorn wrote: It was that day
that a million homophobes switched to Yahoo as their standard search engine.
Well that's great though isn't it? Just like when all bigoted idiots stop eating oreos now. If many big companies scare away homophobes eventually we can starve them out :p No industrial food, few technological resources, eventually hard core Christians would have to take a stand: either become a bit more accepting or go all amish..
I for one, hope that they will just stop eating and 'pray' that jesus personally delivers their food.
That way, in a few weeks to a month, we will have about 99% less bigoted idiots walking around.
Oh joyful day that will be!
Let's not continue this.
Well regardless, I think it's a great initiative. The point I was trying to make is that Google at least is big enough to survive mocking/hate from a part of the world population and still be an incredibly influential on the market
Actually no, that was not the point you were making at all with that post.
@Azera: yup. I mean personally if I had to be absolutely honest, I am a bit creeped out by gay people/gay marriage, but legalizing gay marriage does not affect me negatively, creates opportunities for adoptions, and furthermore it allows a growing population to be more happy. I don't see much wrong with it, except perhaps conflict between states and citizens in the event that governments do not wish to shift their an anti-gay marriage stance, but that would me more of an indirect result I suppose.
I definitely understand where you're coming from. I, and many others, would be lying if we were to say that we don't find homosexual behaviour a little weird. It might be because of how we were brought up and the society we live in though.
I get a little " Hehe, that's nasty. " ala Cleveland Brown when I watch I Love You Philip Morris, but when it comes down to fighting for equal rights and such, expect to see me on the frontlines.
On July 08 2012 19:22 Herper wrote: Don't know what google is trying to do here either they think this would make more people use google products than lose current customers or they are launching something soon that is related
On July 08 2012 18:41 Tripal wrote: Why would they want to get wed in a christian manner if christianity as a religion is totally against gay people. It would mean that christians would have to somehow change the religion for it to be possible for gay people to get married there. This should be more like a campaign for allowing gay people to register their "marriage" in like a state office or something, because they can't for christianity to change their views, that are based on "a holy book" just because some gay people want to get married in a church.
ps. not a christian, but this is just stupid.
Buddhists also marry fyi and muslims too. It is not a christian term (or limited to christians rather) by all means.
Its more than that. All societies ever have had a concept of marriage. It is a cultural universal.
On July 08 2012 19:22 Herper wrote: Don't know what google is trying to do here either they think this would make more people use google products than lose current customers or they are launching something soon that is related
What they're trying to do?
Be humans.
Free people who feel trapped in their own body.
Okay lets not get carried away. They're not freeing people from their own bodies and confusions. They're supporting homosexual marriage.
On July 08 2012 19:22 Herper wrote: Don't know what google is trying to do here either they think this would make more people use google products than lose current customers or they are launching something soon that is related
They are supporting a good cause. Something big corporations do, all the time.
O_o Why would Google do this is beyond me... If they dont know what to do with their cash how about helping starving children of Africa? Or AIDS or whatever. Gay/Lesbian marriage is a political topic in many countries so by doing this it looks like one of the biggest companies in the world want to directly influence the politics of independent countries. I dont give a single fuck if its right because U belieave so. If they would lunch campaign on AIDS in Africa or children labor in India or something like that I would not have problem with this. Imagine Iran has ten times bigger GDP and one of their companies would launch a campaign in Greece with goal to ban homosexualis. It is not right because we think so, but their believes say otherwise.
On July 08 2012 19:22 Herper wrote: Don't know what google is trying to do here either they think this would make more people use google products than lose current customers or they are launching something soon that is related
What they're trying to do?
Be humans.
Free people who feel trapped in their own body.
Okay lets not get carried away. They're not freeing people from their own bodies.
Not get carried away? By legalizing gay marriage, they are essentially letting LGBTs have an easier time coming out, I believe. Nothing oppresses like restriction by law.
On July 08 2012 19:27 Taktik wrote: O_o Why would Google do this is beyond me... If they dont know what to do with their cash how about helping starving children of Africa? Or AIDS or whatever. Gay/Lesbian marriage is a political topic in many countries so by doing this it looks like one of the biggest companies in the world want to directly influence the politics of independent countries. I dont give a single fuck if its right because U belieave so. If they would lunch campaign on AIDS in Africa or children labor in India or something like that I would not have problem with this. Imagine Iran has ten times bigger GDP and one of their companies would launch a campaign in Greece with goal to ban homosexualis. It is not right because we think so, but their believes say otherwise.
Iran is a country so it would be seen as one country meddling in another countries affairs. Google is a multinational coorporation with employees all over the world.
On July 08 2012 19:27 Taktik wrote: O_o Why would Google do this is beyond me... If they dont know what to do with their cash how about helping starving children of Africa? Or AIDS or whatever. Gay/Lesbian marriage is a political topic in many countries so by doing this it looks like one of the biggest companies in the world want to directly influence the politics of independent countries. I dont give a single fuck if its right because U belieave so. If they would lunch campaign on AIDS in Africa or children labor in India or something like that I would not have problem with this. Imagine Iran has ten times bigger GDP and one of their companies would launch a campaign in Greece with goal to ban homosexualis. It is not right because we think so, but their believes say otherwise.
Can they not do both? They're not restricted to doing one good thing.
On July 08 2012 19:22 Herper wrote: Don't know what google is trying to do here either they think this would make more people use google products than lose current customers or they are launching something soon that is related
What they're trying to do?
Be humans.
Free people who feel trapped in their own body.
Okay lets not get carried away. They're not freeing people from their own bodies.
Not get carried away? By legalizing gay marriage, they are essentially letting LGBTs have an easier time coming out, I believe. Nothing oppresses like restriction by law.
Restriction by society, friend. Law has its limits. Society permeates all the way down to the soul, if you will. The social tyrant is a hell of a lot scarier than the political tyrant. People will not be free from this oppression until you've changed hearts and minds. Laws are just details by comparison.
While i was a guy that used to back up gay kids getting bullied in high school, i can honestly say I’m seriously tired of this bullshit.
Considering that there are European countries with 1.20 fertility rates i wonder why there aren’t any companies supporting traditional families with kids, i guess normal families just aren’t "hip" anymore
On July 08 2012 19:22 Herper wrote: Don't know what google is trying to do here either they think this would make more people use google products than lose current customers or they are launching something soon that is related
What they're trying to do?
Be humans.
Free people who feel trapped in their own body.
Okay lets not get carried away. They're not freeing people from their own bodies.
Not get carried away? By legalizing gay marriage, they are essentially letting LGBTs have an easier time coming out, I believe. Nothing oppresses like restriction by law.
Restriction by society, friend. Law has its limits. Society permeates all the way down to the soul, if you will. The social tyrant is a hell of a lot scarier than the political tyrant. People will not be free from this oppression until you've changed hearts and minds. Laws are just details by comparison.
I definitely acknowledge that restriction by society may, and most probably is much stronger than restriction by law. However, I think we can both agree that it does help - to a certain extent.
On July 08 2012 19:31 Alexstrasas wrote: While i was a guy that used to back up gay kids getting bullied in high school, i can honestly say I’m seriously tired of this bullshit.
Considering that there are European countries with 1.20 fertility rates i wonder why there aren’t any companies supporting traditional families with kids, i guess normal families just aren’t "hip" anymore
Geuss what, you big dummy, traditional families aren't actually being discriminated against.
On July 08 2012 19:31 Alexstrasas wrote: While i was a guy that used to back up gay kids getting bullied in high school, i can honestly say I’m seriously tired of this bullshit.
Considering that there are European countries with 1.20 fertility rates i wonder why there aren’t any companies supporting traditional families with kids, i guess normal families just aren’t "hip" anymore
Normal families have the advantage of being "normal" or simply being a family.
I'm also confident that there are many companies out there that cater to needy families.
On July 08 2012 19:18 Otolia wrote: Allowing private companies to meddle with public affairs is never a good idea, no matter how justified it seems to be. Google isn't the lamb it tries to appear as and this is just another setup in their attempt to solidify a monopoly over the young generation who is usually in favor of gay marriage.
I don't see how this is a bad thing. So many companies use ethical practices to bring in consumers. Without companies doing this stuff companies wouldn't bother about the environment or slave labor. Private companies are another form of democracy for their consumers, remember SOPA and GoDaddy stuff. Consumers will only use products of companies with the same interests as them, the only problem with involving companies with public affairs is when money is involved (conflicting interests), which it isn't here. In my opinion this is more of a risk than a strategic business decision for Google, good on them.
On July 08 2012 19:33 1a2a3a[MB] wrote: What is delaying from happening I think nude gay parades where they paint there bodies and such gives a bad outlook on gays the general public
Wow, really? This sounds ridiculous and isn't really helping their course.
On July 08 2012 19:18 Otolia wrote: Allowing private companies to meddle with public affairs is never a good idea, no matter how justified it seems to be. Google isn't the lamb it tries to appear as and this is just another setup in their attempt to solidify a monopoly over the young generation who is usually in favor of gay marriage.
I don't see how this is a bad thing. So many companies use ethical practices to bring in consumers. Without companies doing this stuff companies wouldn't bother about the environment or slave labor. Private companies are another form of democracy for their consumers, remember SOPA and GoDaddy stuff. Consumers will only use products of companies with the same interests as them, the only problem with involving companies with public affairs is when money is involved, which it isn't here. In my opinion this is more of a risk than a strategic business decision for Google, good on them.
Yes, quite true! Private companies they may be, but they still require the public to function!
On July 08 2012 19:33 1a2a3a[MB] wrote: What is delaying from happening I think nude gay parades where they paint there bodies and such gives a bad outlook on gays the general public
This definitely does hurt the cause, so to speak. If you want a minority group to be assimilated into the majority group, you have to seem like you fit in with the norm. You can't violate literally every single social norm followed by the majority group and expect them to want you to fit in. It's the gay guy wearing a suit and tie that needs to be the spokesman. Not the nearly nude man dancing down the street with butterfly wings and a wand.
On July 08 2012 19:31 Alexstrasas wrote: While i was a guy that used to back up gay kids getting bullied in high school, i can honestly say I’m seriously tired of this bullshit.
Considering that there are European countries with 1.20 fertility rates i wonder why there aren’t any companies supporting traditional families with kids, i guess normal families just aren’t "hip" anymore
How do traditional families need help? They are in a favourable position.
I'm honestly curious about a statement like this.
The fact that you call them "normal" says it all, really.
On July 08 2012 18:36 TirramirooO wrote: Sick of talking about gay people.. Im not Christian, i dont believe in religion but that is totally the ANTICHRIST... With the same sex you cant make children soo is against nature but make people understant that is becoming hard.
Keep going, in the future you all gonna open your EYES.
antichrist is a christian only term so why are you bringing it up if you're not christian
years from now, people will look back and laugh at the fundamentalist nutjobs idiots who opposed gay marriage, just like those who opposed interacial marriage based on the bible back in the day
the only argument against gay marraige is religious, and as we all know, the christian bible supports slavery, genocide, misogyny, infanticide, and other things, so let's not derive morals from the bible.....
On July 08 2012 18:42 Adreme wrote: This seems like a good idea by Google to get some good press and exposure and since they will be in places where its a divisive issue there are sure to be counter protesters which gurentees press coverage.
People that think like this should just off themselves.
It's great that google are doing this but if they have more influence than people then it's a very sorry state of affairs the world is in.
OMG. The whole definition of marriage is male and female not male male or female female or dog dog or rabid hamster ninjitsu monkey badger raper. Gay marriage is a contradiction of what marriage is ment to be. I got nothing against gay its just they always seem to be the jealous sibling always wanting to get in on what ther other one has but that their no ment to have. Marriage should stick to its meaning of male and female!!!
On July 08 2012 19:33 1a2a3a[MB] wrote: What is delaying from happening I think nude gay parades where they paint there bodies and such gives a bad outlook on gays the general public
This definitely does hurt the cause, so to speak. If you want a minority group to be assimilated into the majority group, you have to seem like you fit in with the norm. You can't violate literally every single social norm followed by the majority group and expect them to want you to fit in. It's the gay guy wearing a suit and tie that needs to be the spokesman. Not the nearly nude man dancing down the street with butterfly wings and a wand.
Heh. Do they really do this? I know about gay parades and how extravagant some have been, but I think this is ludicrous ( although they certainly have the right to express themselves in such a manner, it really doesn't help their cause ). Then again, if they claim this is how they always behave ( the extravagant ones ), I really don't know what to say. What you see is what you get?
Maybe they'll (the extravagant) just be like Westboro, but different.
On July 08 2012 18:42 Adreme wrote: This seems like a good idea by Google to get some good press and exposure and since they will be in places where its a divisive issue there are sure to be counter protesters which gurentees press coverage.
People that think like this should just off themselves.
It's great that google are doing this but if they have more influence than people then it's a very sorry state of affairs the world is in.
One way to look at this is the more Hindu approach to it than the Buddhist-like approach. What does not really matter is the intent, but the impact instead.
On July 08 2012 19:42 shark. wrote: OMG. The whole definition of marriage is male and female not male male or female female or dog dog or rabid hamster ninjitsu monkey badger raper. Gay marriage is a contradiction of what marriage is ment to be. I got nothing against gay its just they always seem to be the jealous sibling always wanting to get in on what ther other one has but that their no ment to have. Marriage should stick to its meaning of male and female!!!
Definitions can change. A relevant example is the word 'gay'. Just be open to change.
On July 08 2012 19:42 shark. wrote: OMG. The whole definition of marriage is male and female not male male or female female or dog dog or rabid hamster ninjitsu monkey badger raper. Gay marriage is a contradiction of what marriage is ment to be. I got nothing against gay its just they always seem to be the jealous sibling always wanting to get in on what ther other one has but that their no ment to have. Marriage should stick to its meaning of male and female!!!
I totally agree with this. Equality is a terrible, terrible concept.
Damn those jealous gay people for wanting to have the same right as other human beings!
On July 08 2012 19:33 1a2a3a[MB] wrote: What is delaying from happening I think nude gay parades where they paint there bodies and such gives a bad outlook on gays the general public
This definitely does hurt the cause, so to speak. If you want a minority group to be assimilated into the majority group, you have to seem like you fit in with the norm. You can't violate literally every single social norm followed by the majority group and expect them to want you to fit in. It's the gay guy wearing a suit and tie that needs to be the spokesman. Not the nearly nude man dancing down the street with butterfly wings and a wand.
Heh. Do they really do this? I know about gay parades and how extravagant some have been, but I think this is ludicrous ( although they certainly have the right to express themselves in such a manner, it really doesn't help their cause ). Then again, if they claim this is how they always behave ( the extravagant ones ), I really don't know what to say. What you see is what you get?
Maybe they'll just be like Westboro, but different.
In the Netherlands, gays celebrate their new rights and freedoms, with an extravagant anual parade. That is what it is, a celebration. It is also a big fuck you to the few homophobes that still exist here. It is harmless and quite fun for them I imagine.
I don't think the man with the wand and butterfly wings is trying to be a spokesman.
On July 08 2012 18:42 Adreme wrote: This seems like a good idea by Google to get some good press and exposure and since they will be in places where its a divisive issue there are sure to be counter protesters which gurentees press coverage.
People that think like this should just off themselves.
It's great that google are doing this but if they have more influence than people then it's a very sorry state of affairs the world is in.
Thats not a very nice thing to tell me but aside from that Im not sure why you are mad at me because there will be counter protests since Google made a big deal about this campaign.
On July 08 2012 19:33 1a2a3a[MB] wrote: What is delaying from happening I think nude gay parades where they paint there bodies and such gives a bad outlook on gays the general public
This definitely does hurt the cause, so to speak. If you want a minority group to be assimilated into the majority group, you have to seem like you fit in with the norm. You can't violate literally every single social norm followed by the majority group and expect them to want you to fit in. It's the gay guy wearing a suit and tie that needs to be the spokesman. Not the nearly nude man dancing down the street with butterfly wings and a wand.
Heh. Do they really do this? I know about gay parades and how extravagant some have been, but I think this is ludicrous ( although they certainly have the right to express themselves in such a manner, it really doesn't help their cause ). Then again, if they claim this is how they always behave ( the extravagant ones ), I really don't know what to say. What you see is what you get?
Maybe they'll just be like Westboro, but different.
In the Netherlands, gays celebrate their new rights and freedoms, with an extravagant anual parade. That is what it is, a celebration. It is also a big fuck you to the few homophobes that still exist here. It is harmless and quite fun for them I imagine.
I don't think the man with the wand and butterfly wand is trying to be a spokesman.
I think he was making a metaphor anyway
Yeah and I think how they celebrate may be odd, but people should be welcoming of their behaviour since they are not, technically, harming anybody. Of course public nudity is a big no no!
However, such behaviour might be detrimental to their cause though. But as I said, it's a display of "What you see is what you get."
On July 08 2012 19:42 shark. wrote: OMG. The whole definition of marriage is male and female not male male or female female or dog dog or rabid hamster ninjitsu monkey badger raper. Gay marriage is a contradiction of what marriage is ment to be. I got nothing against gay its just they always seem to be the jealous sibling always wanting to get in on what ther other one has but that their no ment to have. Marriage should stick to its meaning of male and female!!!
Meant by whom? As defined by whom? This idea that you have an objective truth which is self evident to you but which you cannot share the logical source of is quite frustrating. It's a concept created by the human mind and you only speak for one human mind. Marriage for you doesn't necessarily have to mean the same thing as it does for somebody else and if you fundamentally disagree with the idea of a gay marriage that much then I suggest that you don't marry a man. Interfering with the marriage of two other people who may have a completely different definition of marriage to yours is a massive encroachment on their personal liberty. You don't own marriage.
Also I might be wrong but I believe most colleges will accept wikipedia as a source still.
This is getting off topic, but I think it depends more on the professor than the college. Technologically inclined professors who understand wikipedia are more willing to accept it as one of many sources, while other (typically older) professors don't.
On July 08 2012 18:36 TirramirooO wrote: Sick of talking about gay people.. Im not Christian, i dont believe in religion but that is totally the ANTICHRIST... With the same sex you cant make children soo is against nature but make people understant that is becoming hard.
Keep going, in the future you all gonna open your EYES.
People are already gay, letting them marry changes nothing, it just gives them the rights they deserve.
Lol at this initiative. Even Google has succumed to this backwardness that has been on the rise over the last couple of decades. It would be most fitting for them to now change the company's name to Gaygle, no?
Also I might be wrong but I believe most colleges will accept wikipedia as a source still.
Wikipedia isn't a source of information. It's a collection of sources to form well-written articles about various subjects.
Wikipedia is a good source to get an idea about a subject, but you can't take everything there for granted.
@ Topic: I can't really see the point in doing this? I mean, it's a positive thing, but what is it supposed to be? Some kind of PR campaign?
Anyways, a company of the size of Google not being afraid to lose a huge part of their customers with such a statement means a shift in society into a good direction.
Hm I realy don't have any problem with gay marriage as long it is labeled "gay marriage" and not "marriage". It would only serve to confuse the situation if two separate instances of marriage (Hetero and Homo) were refered to as the same thing when a fundamental difference exists in them.
Of course all legal rights and privelages would be the same in each, I would just hope a distinction would be made between the two.
On July 08 2012 20:07 DonKey_ wrote: Hm I realy don't have any problem with gay marriage as long it is labeled "gay marriage" and not "marriage". It would only serve to confuse the situation if two separate instances of marriage (Hetero and Homo) were refered to as the same thing when a fundamental difference exists in them.
Of course all legal rights and privelages would be the same in each, I would just hope a distinction would be made between the two.
How is there a difference? Can you please elaborate? Marriage is a legal contract between two people who love each other. Be it two men, two women or a man and a woman.
On July 08 2012 20:06 Kahuna. wrote: Lol at this initiative. Even Google has succumed to this backwardness that has been on the rise over the last couple of decades. It would be most fitting for them to now change the company's name to Gaygle, no?
On July 08 2012 18:41 Tripal wrote: Why would they want to get wed in a christian manner if christianity as a religion is totally against gay people. It would mean that christians would have to somehow change the religion for it to be possible for gay people to get married there. This should be more like a campaign for allowing gay people to register their "marriage" in like a state office or something, because they can't for christianity to change their views, that are based on "a holy book" just because some gay people want to get married in a church.
ps. not a christian, but this is just stupid.
It's even more stupid that christianity monopolized marriage and got away with it, and got to dictate laws because of it.
On July 08 2012 20:07 DonKey_ wrote: Hm I realy don't have any problem with gay marriage as long it is labeled "gay marriage" and not "marriage". It would only serve to confuse the situation if two separate instances of marriage (Hetero and Homo) were refered to as the same thing when a fundamental difference exists in them.
Of course all legal rights and privelages would be the same in each, I would just hope a distinction would be made between the two.
Marriage between a black man and a white woman is called marriage. Marriage between an older man and a younger woman is called marriage. If it is self evident to people that discrimination based upon age and race are unnecessary then why the sticking point over orientation. No two people are the same and therefore no two marriages will ever be the same. Deciding you need to describe these marriages in detail, but not those, is absurd.
Also I might be wrong but I believe most colleges will accept wikipedia as a source still.
Wikipedia isn't a source of information. It's a collection of sources to form well-written articles about various subjects.
Wikipedia is a good source to get an idea about a subject, but you can't take everything there for granted.
@ Topic: I can't really see the point in doing this? I mean, it's a positive thing, but what is it supposed to be? Some kind of PR campaign?
Anyways, a company of the size of Google not being afraid to lose a huge part of their customers with such a statement means a shift in society into a good direction.
Don't think they will actually lose customers. People might say they'll stay away from Google, but when nobody is looking, well there is no good enough alternative.. Think it'll be mostly big talk from some homophobes, but no way android users will sell their phones, gmail users will switch accounts, or Google users will stop googling.
On July 08 2012 20:07 DonKey_ wrote: Hm I realy don't have any problem with gay marriage as long it is labeled "gay marriage" and not "marriage". It would only serve to confuse the situation if two separate instances of marriage (Hetero and Homo) were refered to as the same thing when a fundamental difference exists in them.
Of course all legal rights and privelages would be the same in each, I would just hope a distinction would be made between the two.
How is there a difference? Can you please elaborate? Marriage is a legal contract between two people who love each other. Be it two men, two women or a man and a woman.
Then why limit it at all? Why not man and donkey? Or woman and horse? Or a koala and a rhinoceros? Why not just let entropy and chaos take its course... screw the legal contracts.
Also I might be wrong but I believe most colleges will accept wikipedia as a source still.
Wikipedia isn't a source of information. It's a collection of sources to form well-written articles about various subjects.
Wikipedia is a good source to get an idea about a subject, but you can't take everything there for granted.
@ Topic: I can't really see the point in doing this? I mean, it's a positive thing, but what is it supposed to be? Some kind of PR campaign?
Anyways, a company of the size of Google not being afraid to lose a huge part of their customers with such a statement means a shift in society into a good direction.
Don't think they will actually lose customers. People might say they'll stay away from Google, but when nobody is looking, well there is no good enough alternative.. Think it'll be mostly big talk from some homophobes, but no way android users will sell their phones, gmail users will switch accounts, or Google users will stop googling.
There will probably be the temporary outrage where people say they will never use google or any of there products again and then 2 weeks later are buying an android and googling a new cooking recipe.
On July 08 2012 20:07 DonKey_ wrote: Hm I realy don't have any problem with gay marriage as long it is labeled "gay marriage" and not "marriage". It would only serve to confuse the situation if two separate instances of marriage (Hetero and Homo) were refered to as the same thing when a fundamental difference exists in them.
Of course all legal rights and privelages would be the same in each, I would just hope a distinction would be made between the two.
Why do you promote segregation of sexualities? Would you propose a segregation in white and black marriage aswell? Would you had done so had you lived 50-100 years ago?
Why would you not propose a segregation of religion and state? Wouldnt that make more sense, specially since not separating between law and religion is unbiblical? I mean, if you prefer living by religious law, you could move to the middle east.
Google has announced a global campaign in support of equal marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples. The Internet giant announced its Legalize Love campaign at the Global LGBT Workplace Summit 2012, which took place in London. The campaign launches Saturday, July 7 in Poland and Singapore. Organizers plan to expand the campaign to every country where Google has an office, focusing on countries where anti-gay sentiment runs high. “We want our employees who are gay or lesbian or transgender to have the same experience outside the office as they do in the office,” Google's Mark Palmer-Edgecumbe is quoted by dot429.com as saying at the summit. “It is obviously a very ambitious piece of work.” “Singapore wants to be a global financial center and world leader and we can push them on the fact that being a global center and a world leader means you have to treat all people the same, irrespective of their sexual orientation,” Palmer-Edgecumbe said of the decision to include Singapore in the campaign's initial phase. Bob Amnnibale, an openly gay executive at Citi, applauded the effort: “The fact that Google is so virtual and its appeal is very wide and young demographically means it can help spread messaging very, very quickly.”
As a Singaporean I think I'm going to enjoy this. It would be hilarious to watch how my government responds to this, given how religious harmony is of utmost importance here. If the government loses the backing of religions, it's going to be a fiasco for them.
Personally, I think this is a good step forward for humanity if everything works out well.
The only thing Google is going to achieve it to cause discord in Singapore. While theoretically the law dictates that homosexuality can technically be illegal, it has never been, and will never be enforced in such a manner.
On July 08 2012 20:07 DonKey_ wrote: Hm I realy don't have any problem with gay marriage as long it is labeled "gay marriage" and not "marriage". It would only serve to confuse the situation if two separate instances of marriage (Hetero and Homo) were refered to as the same thing when a fundamental difference exists in them.
Of course all legal rights and privelages would be the same in each, I would just hope a distinction would be made between the two.
Marriage between a black man and a white woman is called marriage. Marriage between an older man and a younger woman is called marriage. If it is self evident to people that discrimination based upon age and race are unnecessary then why the sticking point over orientation. No two people are the same and therefore no two marriages will ever be the same. Deciding you need to describe these marriages in detail, but not those, is absurd.
That's a good point you raise actualy, I think if wasn't a logistics problem it would be a good idea to go back and define all marriages more clearly.
How does it hurt anyone when all the same rules apply to all different instances of marriage, but we actualy describe them as what they are?
On July 08 2012 20:07 DonKey_ wrote: Hm I realy don't have any problem with gay marriage as long it is labeled "gay marriage" and not "marriage". It would only serve to confuse the situation if two separate instances of marriage (Hetero and Homo) were refered to as the same thing when a fundamental difference exists in them.
Of course all legal rights and privelages would be the same in each, I would just hope a distinction would be made between the two.
How is there a difference? Can you please elaborate? Marriage is a legal contract between two people who love each other. Be it two men, two women or a man and a woman.
Then why limit it at all? Why not man and donkey? Or woman and horse? Or a koala and a rhinoceros? Why not just let entropy and chaos take its course... screw the legal contracts.
The answer to your comment is fairly simple, the examples you provided lack the understanding to even comprehend the union they are forming. As long as both parties are fully able to understand what they are doing than they have the right to marry and live as they see fit (so long as how they live doesnt intrude on someone else's rights but that isnt case here).
On July 08 2012 20:07 DonKey_ wrote: Hm I realy don't have any problem with gay marriage as long it is labeled "gay marriage" and not "marriage". It would only serve to confuse the situation if two separate instances of marriage (Hetero and Homo) were refered to as the same thing when a fundamental difference exists in them.
Of course all legal rights and privelages would be the same in each, I would just hope a distinction would be made between the two.
How is there a difference? Can you please elaborate? Marriage is a legal contract between two people who love each other. Be it two men, two women or a man and a woman.
Then why limit it at all? Why not man and donkey? Or woman and horse? Or a koala and a rhinoceros? Why not just let entropy and chaos take its course... screw the legal contracts.
What's so legal about discrimination? Oh that's right, the arguments against gay marriage are based on the bible. Wait, marriage is (in alot of places) law based upon religion. Wait, doesn't the bible say to not mix the two? :s
Why would the law give rights to horses and rhinos? Like if you marry your Rhino, would it be covered by your health insurance? Or, if you married your cat, would she inherit your posessions when you pass away? I don't see the need for such a law. And how do you propose a rhino consents to marriage? Why are we arguing about the rights of rhinos again?
On July 08 2012 20:07 DonKey_ wrote: Hm I realy don't have any problem with gay marriage as long it is labeled "gay marriage" and not "marriage". It would only serve to confuse the situation if two separate instances of marriage (Hetero and Homo) were refered to as the same thing when a fundamental difference exists in them.
Of course all legal rights and privelages would be the same in each, I would just hope a distinction would be made between the two.
Marriage between a black man and a white woman is called marriage. Marriage between an older man and a younger woman is called marriage. If it is self evident to people that discrimination based upon age and race are unnecessary then why the sticking point over orientation. No two people are the same and therefore no two marriages will ever be the same. Deciding you need to describe these marriages in detail, but not those, is absurd.
That's a good point you raise actualy, I think if wasn't a logistics problem it would be a good idea to go back and define all marriages more clearly.
How does it hurt anyone when all the same rules apply to all different instances of marriage, but we actualy describe them as what they are?
It gives the unnessecary implication that some marriages are better than others. Its the same reason the "seperate but equal" ruling was overtuned in the supreme court(for the US). They said it does not have to be unfair it merely has to be percieved as such for it to be discrimination.
On July 08 2012 20:07 DonKey_ wrote: Hm I realy don't have any problem with gay marriage as long it is labeled "gay marriage" and not "marriage". It would only serve to confuse the situation if two separate instances of marriage (Hetero and Homo) were refered to as the same thing when a fundamental difference exists in them.
Of course all legal rights and privelages would be the same in each, I would just hope a distinction would be made between the two.
How is there a difference? Can you please elaborate? Marriage is a legal contract between two people who love each other. Be it two men, two women or a man and a woman.
Then why limit it at all? Why not man and donkey? Or woman and horse? Or a koala and a rhinoceros? Why not just let entropy and chaos take its course... screw the legal contracts.
I'm sorry, are you some sort of moron? In what way does an agreement between two consenting adults in any way resemble "man and donkey"?
As a Singaporean I think I'm going to enjoy this. It would be hilarious to watch how my government responds to this, given how religious harmony is of utmost importance here. If the government loses the backing of religions, it's going to be a fiasco for them.
Personally, I think this is a good step forward for humanity if everything works out well.
Fellow Singaporean here! I honestly don't think that the government will even respond to this. I have this feeling that like many other social issues, the media is just not going to report it. I think both Mediacorp and SPH will not mention it, seeing that they have not made any mention of it.
On July 08 2012 20:07 DonKey_ wrote: Hm I realy don't have any problem with gay marriage as long it is labeled "gay marriage" and not "marriage". It would only serve to confuse the situation if two separate instances of marriage (Hetero and Homo) were refered to as the same thing when a fundamental difference exists in them.
Of course all legal rights and privelages would be the same in each, I would just hope a distinction would be made between the two.
How is there a difference? Can you please elaborate? Marriage is a legal contract between two people who love each other. Be it two men, two women or a man and a woman.
Then why limit it at all? Why not man and donkey? Or woman and horse? Or a koala and a rhinoceros? Why not just let entropy and chaos take its course... screw the legal contracts.
Hey, you big dummy, donkeys and horses are actually not humans and as such cannot read or enter a legal contract.
On July 08 2012 20:07 DonKey_ wrote: Hm I realy don't have any problem with gay marriage as long it is labeled "gay marriage" and not "marriage". It would only serve to confuse the situation if two separate instances of marriage (Hetero and Homo) were refered to as the same thing when a fundamental difference exists in them.
Of course all legal rights and privelages would be the same in each, I would just hope a distinction would be made between the two.
How is there a difference? Can you please elaborate? Marriage is a legal contract between two people who love each other. Be it two men, two women or a man and a woman.
Then why limit it at all? Why not man and donkey? Or woman and horse? Or a koala and a rhinoceros? Why not just let entropy and chaos take its course... screw the legal contracts.
The answer to your comment is fairly simple, the examples you provided lack the understanding to even comprehend the union they are forming. As long as both parties are fully able to understand what they are doing than they have the right to marry and live as they see fit (so long as how they live doesnt intrude on someone else's rights but that isnt case here).
You're making an assumption. Until you're able to experience the cognitive and emotional capabilities of an animal you don't know whether they can and/or can't comprehend anything.
Nevertheless, this is a good business decision by Google. It's a corporation, and like any other and will do anything to increase its stock price. In the long-run this is a good move, especially with the increases we've been seeing in the homo population over the last couple of decades - in particular the movement towards the tolerance of homosexuality.
On July 08 2012 20:24 Crushinator wrote: Hey, you big dummy, donkeys and horses are actually not humans and as such cannot read or enter a legal contract.
Well, I find that upsetting and wrong. Donkeys and horses should be given the right to enter legal contracts. Why should humans have that right and not animals?
That's essentially the same argument the gay population has been making, right? A "why them, but not us?" argument...
On July 08 2012 20:07 DonKey_ wrote: Hm I realy don't have any problem with gay marriage as long it is labeled "gay marriage" and not "marriage". It would only serve to confuse the situation if two separate instances of marriage (Hetero and Homo) were refered to as the same thing when a fundamental difference exists in them.
Of course all legal rights and privelages would be the same in each, I would just hope a distinction would be made between the two.
Marriage between a black man and a white woman is called marriage. Marriage between an older man and a younger woman is called marriage. If it is self evident to people that discrimination based upon age and race are unnecessary then why the sticking point over orientation. No two people are the same and therefore no two marriages will ever be the same. Deciding you need to describe these marriages in detail, but not those, is absurd.
That's a good point you raise actualy, I think if wasn't a logistics problem it would be a good idea to go back and define all marriages more clearly.
How does it hurt anyone when all the same rules apply to all different instances of marriage, but we actualy describe them as what they are?
It'll inevitably lead to gay marriage being seen as a second class marriage. You're not going to convince society to start calling marriages interracial marriage or intergenerational marriage or intersocioeconomicclass marriage. Marriage is a catch all term for the infinite spectrum of potential marriages which gives them all the same rights and assumptions. Making an issue of describing just one subgroup of marriages distinguishes it from the rest of them and makes it appear a separate group, leaving it vulnerable to attack. It makes it confusing about whether it's a different type of marriage or just describing the people who are married. The only way to give it equal treatment is to treat it equally. Linguistics matters.
Click the picture for the article on Huffington Post
Google has announced a global campaign in support of equal marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples. The Internet giant announced its Legalize Love campaign at the Global LGBT Workplace Summit 2012, which took place in London. The campaign launches Saturday, July 7 in Poland and Singapore. Organizers plan to expand the campaign to every country where Google has an office, focusing on countries where anti-gay sentiment runs high. “We want our employees who are gay or lesbian or transgender to have the same experience outside the office as they do in the office,” Google's Mark Palmer-Edgecumbe is quoted by dot429.com as saying at the summit. “It is obviously a very ambitious piece of work.” “Singapore wants to be a global financial center and world leader and we can push them on the fact that being a global center and a world leader means you have to treat all people the same, irrespective of their sexual orientation,” Palmer-Edgecumbe said of the decision to include Singapore in the campaign's initial phase. Bob Amnnibale, an openly gay executive at Citi, applauded the effort: “The fact that Google is so virtual and its appeal is very wide and young demographically means it can help spread messaging very, very quickly.”
As a Singaporean I think I'm going to enjoy this. It would be hilarious to watch how my government responds to this, given how religious harmony is of utmost importance here. If the government loses the backing of religions, it's going to be a fiasco for them.
Personally, I think this is a good step forward for humanity if everything works out well.
Honestly speaking I doubt that this will cause much discord in Singapore at all, Singapore has a very large and flourishing gay community.
On July 08 2012 20:07 DonKey_ wrote: Hm I realy don't have any problem with gay marriage as long it is labeled "gay marriage" and not "marriage". It would only serve to confuse the situation if two separate instances of marriage (Hetero and Homo) were refered to as the same thing when a fundamental difference exists in them.
Of course all legal rights and privelages would be the same in each, I would just hope a distinction would be made between the two.
How is there a difference? Can you please elaborate? Marriage is a legal contract between two people who love each other. Be it two men, two women or a man and a woman.
Then why limit it at all? Why not man and donkey? Or woman and horse? Or a koala and a rhinoceros? Why not just let entropy and chaos take its course... screw the legal contracts.
The answer to your comment is fairly simple, the examples you provided lack the understanding to even comprehend the union they are forming. As long as both parties are fully able to understand what they are doing than they have the right to marry and live as they see fit (so long as how they live doesnt intrude on someone else's rights but that isnt case here).
You're making an assumption. Until you're able to experience the cognitive and emotional capabilities of an animal you don't know whether they can and/or can't comprehend anything.
Nevertheless, this is a good business decision by Google. It's a corporation, and like any other and will do anything to increase its stock price. In the long-run this is a good move, especially with the increases we've been seeing in the homo population over the last couple of decades - in particular the movement towards the tolerance of homosexuality.
If aliens were to visit us tomorrow. If people eventually formed relationships with those aliens. Would, or Should, their marriage be recognized by the law?
Why is the assumption that cats don't understand the implication of marriage and can't consent to it and be bound by legal contract, possibly an erroneous one? Pls explain. Does your cat handle her own traveling documents perhaps?
On July 08 2012 20:07 DonKey_ wrote: Hm I realy don't have any problem with gay marriage as long it is labeled "gay marriage" and not "marriage". It would only serve to confuse the situation if two separate instances of marriage (Hetero and Homo) were refered to as the same thing when a fundamental difference exists in them.
Of course all legal rights and privelages would be the same in each, I would just hope a distinction would be made between the two.
How is there a difference? Can you please elaborate? Marriage is a legal contract between two people who love each other. Be it two men, two women or a man and a woman.
Then why limit it at all? Why not man and donkey? Or woman and horse? Or a koala and a rhinoceros? Why not just let entropy and chaos take its course... screw the legal contracts.
The answer to your comment is fairly simple, the examples you provided lack the understanding to even comprehend the union they are forming. As long as both parties are fully able to understand what they are doing than they have the right to marry and live as they see fit (so long as how they live doesnt intrude on someone else's rights but that isnt case here).
You're making an assumption. Until you're able to experience the cognitive and emotional capabilities of an animal you don't know whether they can and/or can't comprehend anything.
Nevertheless, this is a good business decision by Google. It's a corporation, and like any other and will do anything to increase its stock price. In the long-run this is a good move, especially with the increases we've been seeing in the homo population over the last couple of decades - in particular the movement towards the tolerance of homosexuality.
On July 08 2012 20:24 Crushinator wrote: Hey, you big dummy, donkeys and horses are actually not humans and as such cannot read or enter a legal contract.
Well, I find that upsetting and wrong. Donkeys and horses should be given the right to enter legal contracts. Why should humans have that right and not animals?
That's essentially the same argument the gay population has been making, right? A "why them, but not us?" argument...
Gays have the mental faculties to understand what a contract is and consent to it. Consent is built upon understanding, donkeys cannot consent. If you really don't understand this perhaps you should be denied marriage.
On July 08 2012 20:07 DonKey_ wrote: Hm I realy don't have any problem with gay marriage as long it is labeled "gay marriage" and not "marriage". It would only serve to confuse the situation if two separate instances of marriage (Hetero and Homo) were refered to as the same thing when a fundamental difference exists in them.
Of course all legal rights and privelages would be the same in each, I would just hope a distinction would be made between the two.
Marriage between a black man and a white woman is called marriage. Marriage between an older man and a younger woman is called marriage. If it is self evident to people that discrimination based upon age and race are unnecessary then why the sticking point over orientation. No two people are the same and therefore no two marriages will ever be the same. Deciding you need to describe these marriages in detail, but not those, is absurd.
That's a good point you raise actualy, I think if wasn't a logistics problem it would be a good idea to go back and define all marriages more clearly.
How does it hurt anyone when all the same rules apply to all different instances of marriage, but we actualy describe them as what they are?
Why is "gay" an attribute that has to be specified? Why not "stupid marriage" (in the event of two really dumb people marrying)? Or "into pissing on eachother-marriage" (something I personally feel is more deviant than homosexuality!)
Why this incredible petty behavior towards homosexuals? There's no reason why gay marriage has to be specifically defined in this way, there's no societal benefit through tagging a red badge of gayness on every gay man.
As a Singaporean I think I'm going to enjoy this. It would be hilarious to watch how my government responds to this, given how religious harmony is of utmost importance here. If the government loses the backing of religions, it's going to be a fiasco for them.
Personally, I think this is a good step forward for humanity if everything works out well.
Fellow Singaporean here! I honestly don't think that the government will even respond to this. I have this feeling that like many other social issues, the media is just not going to report it. I think both Mediacorp and SPH will not mention it, seeing that they have not made any mention of it.
I'll give them time. It's only been announced a few hours ago
On July 08 2012 20:07 DonKey_ wrote: Hm I realy don't have any problem with gay marriage as long it is labeled "gay marriage" and not "marriage". It would only serve to confuse the situation if two separate instances of marriage (Hetero and Homo) were refered to as the same thing when a fundamental difference exists in them.
Of course all legal rights and privelages would be the same in each, I would just hope a distinction would be made between the two.
How is there a difference? Can you please elaborate? Marriage is a legal contract between two people who love each other. Be it two men, two women or a man and a woman.
Then why limit it at all? Why not man and donkey? Or woman and horse? Or a koala and a rhinoceros? Why not just let entropy and chaos take its course... screw the legal contracts.
The answer to your comment is fairly simple, the examples you provided lack the understanding to even comprehend the union they are forming. As long as both parties are fully able to understand what they are doing than they have the right to marry and live as they see fit (so long as how they live doesnt intrude on someone else's rights but that isnt case here).
You're making an assumption. Until you're able to experience the cognitive and emotional capabilities of an animal you don't know whether they can and/or can't comprehend anything.
Nevertheless, this is a good business decision by Google. It's a corporation, and like any other and will do anything to increase its stock price. In the long-run this is a good move, especially with the increases we've been seeing in the homo population over the last couple of decades - in particular the movement towards the tolerance of homosexuality.
On July 08 2012 20:24 Crushinator wrote: Hey, you big dummy, donkeys and horses are actually not humans and as such cannot read or enter a legal contract.
Well, I find that upsetting and wrong. Donkeys and horses should be given the right to enter legal contracts. Why should humans have that right and not animals?
That's essentially the same argument the gay population has been making, right? A "why them, but not us?" argument...
The day donkeys can articulate such an argument is the day we will consider it.
On July 08 2012 20:07 DonKey_ wrote: Hm I realy don't have any problem with gay marriage as long it is labeled "gay marriage" and not "marriage". It would only serve to confuse the situation if two separate instances of marriage (Hetero and Homo) were refered to as the same thing when a fundamental difference exists in them.
Of course all legal rights and privelages would be the same in each, I would just hope a distinction would be made between the two.
Marriage between a black man and a white woman is called marriage. Marriage between an older man and a younger woman is called marriage. If it is self evident to people that discrimination based upon age and race are unnecessary then why the sticking point over orientation. No two people are the same and therefore no two marriages will ever be the same. Deciding you need to describe these marriages in detail, but not those, is absurd.
That's a good point you raise actualy, I think if wasn't a logistics problem it would be a good idea to go back and define all marriages more clearly.
How does it hurt anyone when all the same rules apply to all different instances of marriage, but we actualy describe them as what they are?
It gives the unnessecary implication that some marriages are better than others. Its the same reason the "seperate but equal" ruling was overtuned in the supreme court. They said it does not have to be unfair it merely has to be percieved as such for it to be discrimination.
See thats the thing, I don't think that the kind of discrimination that existed in the 1900s for African Americans is any where near the same as the kind of discrimination that exists for Gay marriage currently.
If you are gay you are not going to be forced out of a restraunt or forced to use different restrooms. Our society today with innovations such as the Internet and mass media media will not allow for such discrimination to exist. In fact look at the groups who discriminate, (westboro) they are made out as pariahs.
More information on legal classifications will only help matters in the long run.
Edit: I can't understand why pertinent information would be censored for a presumed sense that it will make marriage of any type more legitimate. If our laws say it is a marriage then it is a marriage.
On July 08 2012 20:07 DonKey_ wrote: Hm I realy don't have any problem with gay marriage as long it is labeled "gay marriage" and not "marriage". It would only serve to confuse the situation if two separate instances of marriage (Hetero and Homo) were refered to as the same thing when a fundamental difference exists in them.
Of course all legal rights and privelages would be the same in each, I would just hope a distinction would be made between the two.
How is there a difference? Can you please elaborate? Marriage is a legal contract between two people who love each other. Be it two men, two women or a man and a woman.
Then why limit it at all? Why not man and donkey? Or woman and horse? Or a koala and a rhinoceros? Why not just let entropy and chaos take its course... screw the legal contracts.
The answer to your comment is fairly simple, the examples you provided lack the understanding to even comprehend the union they are forming. As long as both parties are fully able to understand what they are doing than they have the right to marry and live as they see fit (so long as how they live doesnt intrude on someone else's rights but that isnt case here).
You're making an assumption. Until you're able to experience the cognitive and emotional capabilities of an animal you don't know whether they can and/or can't comprehend anything.
Nevertheless, this is a good business decision by Google. It's a corporation, and like any other and will do anything to increase its stock price. In the long-run this is a good move, especially with the increases we've been seeing in the homo population over the last couple of decades - in particular the movement towards the tolerance of homosexuality.
On July 08 2012 20:24 Crushinator wrote: Hey, you big dummy, donkeys and horses are actually not humans and as such cannot read or enter a legal contract.
Well, I find that upsetting and wrong. Donkeys and horses should be given the right to enter legal contracts. Why should humans have that right and not animals?
That's essentially the same argument the gay population has been making, right? A "why them, but not us?" argument...
The day donkeys can articulate such an argument is the day we will consider it.
Ok maybe we should stop bashing this guy. What we're saying, basically is
"LOLLLL I LAUGH'D SO HARD AT UR 60 IQ COMMENT PLEASE KILL URSELF STONE AGE NOOB."
On July 08 2012 20:21 Liquid`Drone wrote: I'm sorry, are you some sort of moron? In what way does an agreement between two consenting adults in any way resemble "man and donkey"?
No, I'm not a moron. I'm using the argument to try and show how I perceive the argument for same-sex marriage to look like. The concept of two individuals of the same sex to marry was (until recently, because of initiatives like this) so foreign a concept that it was almost the equivalent of my current proposition of allowing two animals to marry. That's just how see it. I'm not enforcing the view upon anyone. Just trying to show how I see it by way of a stupid example... because I think the concept being supported is equally stupid. And I'm not even religious... Lol.
On July 08 2012 20:07 DonKey_ wrote: Hm I realy don't have any problem with gay marriage as long it is labeled "gay marriage" and not "marriage". It would only serve to confuse the situation if two separate instances of marriage (Hetero and Homo) were refered to as the same thing when a fundamental difference exists in them.
Of course all legal rights and privelages would be the same in each, I would just hope a distinction would be made between the two.
How is there a difference? Can you please elaborate? Marriage is a legal contract between two people who love each other. Be it two men, two women or a man and a woman.
Then why limit it at all? Why not man and donkey? Or woman and horse? Or a koala and a rhinoceros? Why not just let entropy and chaos take its course... screw the legal contracts.
The answer to your comment is fairly simple, the examples you provided lack the understanding to even comprehend the union they are forming. As long as both parties are fully able to understand what they are doing than they have the right to marry and live as they see fit (so long as how they live doesnt intrude on someone else's rights but that isnt case here).
On July 08 2012 20:24 Crushinator wrote: Hey, you big dummy, donkeys and horses are actually not humans and as such cannot read or enter a legal contract.
Well, I find that upsetting and wrong. Donkeys and horses should be given the right to enter legal contracts. Why should humans have that right and not animals?
That's essentially the same argument the gay population has been making, right? A "why them, but not us?" argument...
Right. Just like every other human has been arguing for their rights, if they weren't born with them, within a democracy. Explain why you would rather fight for equal rights for animals, than for human beings. And if animals want to be legally recognized by democracy, should they not atleast express the want to, first? And again: Why are we discussing animal rights? I doubt they would even want to vote or anything of the sort, so you should not waste your time and energy thinking about this... Really. It's not rational and, maybe you're high but, you might wanna get your brain scanned. I'm getting abit concerned.
Or did I misunderstand and you're actually equating gays with animals?
On July 08 2012 20:07 DonKey_ wrote: Hm I realy don't have any problem with gay marriage as long it is labeled "gay marriage" and not "marriage". It would only serve to confuse the situation if two separate instances of marriage (Hetero and Homo) were refered to as the same thing when a fundamental difference exists in them.
Of course all legal rights and privelages would be the same in each, I would just hope a distinction would be made between the two.
How is there a difference? Can you please elaborate? Marriage is a legal contract between two people who love each other. Be it two men, two women or a man and a woman.
Then why limit it at all? Why not man and donkey? Or woman and horse? Or a koala and a rhinoceros? Why not just let entropy and chaos take its course... screw the legal contracts.
Wow that slope sure does look slippery. I'm afraid of slippery slopes, I once broke my spine on one Personally, if a Koala and a Rhino walked into a courthouse and demanded that they be allowed to be married, I think we should let them. But since they are incapable of performing such tasks, lets restrict our stupidity to the realm of reality, shall we?
On July 08 2012 20:07 DonKey_ wrote: Hm I realy don't have any problem with gay marriage as long it is labeled "gay marriage" and not "marriage". It would only serve to confuse the situation if two separate instances of marriage (Hetero and Homo) were refered to as the same thing when a fundamental difference exists in them.
Of course all legal rights and privelages would be the same in each, I would just hope a distinction would be made between the two.
How is there a difference? Can you please elaborate? Marriage is a legal contract between two people who love each other. Be it two men, two women or a man and a woman.
Then why limit it at all? Why not man and donkey? Or woman and horse? Or a koala and a rhinoceros? Why not just let entropy and chaos take its course... screw the legal contracts.
The answer to your comment is fairly simple, the examples you provided lack the understanding to even comprehend the union they are forming. As long as both parties are fully able to understand what they are doing than they have the right to marry and live as they see fit (so long as how they live doesnt intrude on someone else's rights but that isnt case here).
You're making an assumption. Until you're able to experience the cognitive and emotional capabilities of an animal you don't know whether they can and/or can't comprehend anything.
Nevertheless, this is a good business decision by Google. It's a corporation, and like any other and will do anything to increase its stock price. In the long-run this is a good move, especially with the increases we've been seeing in the homo population over the last couple of decades - in particular the movement towards the tolerance of homosexuality.
On July 08 2012 20:24 Crushinator wrote: Hey, you big dummy, donkeys and horses are actually not humans and as such cannot read or enter a legal contract.
Well, I find that upsetting and wrong. Donkeys and horses should be given the right to enter legal contracts. Why should humans have that right and not animals?
That's essentially the same argument the gay population has been making, right? A "why them, but not us?" argument...
The day donkeys can articulate such an argument is the day we will consider it.
Ok maybe we should stop bashing this guy. What we're saying, basically is
"LOLLLL I LAUGH'D SO HARD AT UR 60 IQ COMMENT PLEASE KILL URSELF STONE AGE NOOB."
I would do that but I've found that being slightly subtle about it is less likely to get you banned.
On July 08 2012 20:21 Liquid`Drone wrote: I'm sorry, are you some sort of moron? In what way does an agreement between two consenting adults in any way resemble "man and donkey"?
No, I'm not a moron. I'm using the argument to try and show how I perceive the argument for same-sex marriage to look like. The concept of two individuals of the same sex to marry was (until recently, because of initiatives like this) so foreign a concept that it was almost the equivalent of my current proposition of allowing two animals to marry. That's just how see it. I'm not enforcing the view upon anyone. Just trying to show how I see it by way of a stupid example... because I think the concept being supported is equally stupid. And I'm not even religious... Lol.
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.
On July 08 2012 18:36 TirramirooO wrote: Sick of talking about gay people.. Im not Christian, i dont believe in religion but that is totally the ANTICHRIST... With the same sex you cant make children soo is against nature but make people understant that is becoming hard.
Keep going, in the future you all gonna open your EYES.
Nature granted us with the free will - so why should nature care about some people not choosing to spread their DNA? Nature does not care about anything. Let them do what they want to do. They do no harm to anyone.
Google seems to be running out of ideas for getting publicity. This is a move that will alienate a good number of their users too. Nobody wants other people's opinion on social issues rammed down their throat. Pretty stupid move. Personally I don't care about the issue either way and will continue to use google but there are literally billions of people who would be offended by this.
Google wins all of the internets. Congrats and thanks to them for this.
Also, until marriage is nothing but a religious ceremony, I'm all for gay marriage. The day I don't have to state that I'm single or married on official paperwork (for benefits or any kind of purchase) will be the day I ask myself why gays need to be married..
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.
On July 08 2012 20:39 bubblegumbo wrote: Google seems to be running out of ideas for getting publicity. This is a move that will alienate a good number of their users too. Nobody wants other people's opinion on social issues rammed down their throat. Pretty stupid move. Personally I don't care about the issue either way and will continue to use google but there are literally billions of people who would be offended by this.
I think Google controls too many aspects of most people's lives though. So even if people feel offended, they'll have to live with it. For example, I doubt offended people will permanently stop using Google as their primary search engine over this. Or throw out their Android devices, or delete their Gmail accounts, etc.
I hope OP updates his post to reflect the context of the government's stance on homosexuality in Singapore. The government does not oppose homosexuals or discriminate against them.
I think it's good that a company expresses some moral obligation towards their employees; trying to make sure that their employees aren't discriminated against whereever they may be currently working for google.
This isn't their entire reason to get politically active, but they have to be commended for it, for expressing a moral obligation to their workers.
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. Maybe only you are allowed to make examples. No matter how stupid.
Anyway, marriage isn't a pathology either. Nor is freedom or homosexuality. So it is you who are mistaken, and have so far not brought up anything remotely relevant.
On July 08 2012 20:07 DonKey_ wrote: Hm I realy don't have any problem with gay marriage as long it is labeled "gay marriage" and not "marriage". It would only serve to confuse the situation if two separate instances of marriage (Hetero and Homo) were refered to as the same thing when a fundamental difference exists in them.
Of course all legal rights and privelages would be the same in each, I would just hope a distinction would be made between the two.
How is there a difference? Can you please elaborate? Marriage is a legal contract between two people who love each other. Be it two men, two women or a man and a woman.
Then why limit it at all? Why not man and donkey? Or woman and horse? Or a koala and a rhinoceros? Why not just let entropy and chaos take its course... screw the legal contracts.
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
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.
On July 08 2012 20:21 Liquid`Drone wrote: I'm sorry, are you some sort of moron? In what way does an agreement between two consenting adults in any way resemble "man and donkey"?
No, I'm not a moron. I'm using the argument to try and show how I perceive the argument for same-sex marriage to look like. The concept of two individuals of the same sex to marry was (until recently, because of initiatives like this) so foreign a concept that it was almost the equivalent of my current proposition of allowing two animals to marry. That's just how see it. I'm not enforcing the view upon anyone. Just trying to show how I see it by way of a stupid example... because I think the concept being supported is equally stupid. And I'm not even religious... Lol.
Marriage is a contract. Contracts are built on informed consent. Gays can make it, animals can't. What you think doesn't make any sense.
On July 08 2012 20:07 DonKey_ wrote: Hm I realy don't have any problem with gay marriage as long it is labeled "gay marriage" and not "marriage". It would only serve to confuse the situation if two separate instances of marriage (Hetero and Homo) were refered to as the same thing when a fundamental difference exists in them.
Of course all legal rights and privelages would be the same in each, I would just hope a distinction would be made between the two.
How is there a difference? Can you please elaborate? Marriage is a legal contract between two people who love each other. Be it two men, two women or a man and a woman.
Then why limit it at all? Why not man and donkey? Or woman and horse? Or a koala and a rhinoceros? Why not just let entropy and chaos take its course... screw the legal contracts.
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
Ok but, if ending poverty takes precedent, I propose no one be allowed to get legally married until poverty is ended.
Also, they prolly don't wanna look like the saviours of the universe; I think they'd rather want to get married. Don't you?
On July 08 2012 20:21 Liquid`Drone wrote: I'm sorry, are you some sort of moron? In what way does an agreement between two consenting adults in any way resemble "man and donkey"?
No, I'm not a moron. I'm using the argument to try and show how I perceive the argument for same-sex marriage to look like. The concept of two individuals of the same sex to marry was (until recently, because of initiatives like this) so foreign a concept that it was almost the equivalent of my current proposition of allowing two animals to marry. That's just how see it. I'm not enforcing the view upon anyone. Just trying to show how I see it by way of a stupid example... because I think the concept being supported is equally stupid. And I'm not even religious... Lol.
Marriage is a contract. Contracts are built on informed consent. Gays can make it, animals can't. What you think doesn't make any sense.
What about if a brother wants to marry his sister, they are older than 18 and both consentient?
On July 08 2012 20:21 Liquid`Drone wrote: I'm sorry, are you some sort of moron? In what way does an agreement between two consenting adults in any way resemble "man and donkey"?
No, I'm not a moron. I'm using the argument to try and show how I perceive the argument for same-sex marriage to look like. The concept of two individuals of the same sex to marry was (until recently, because of initiatives like this) so foreign a concept that it was almost the equivalent of my current proposition of allowing two animals to marry. That's just how see it. I'm not enforcing the view upon anyone. Just trying to show how I see it by way of a stupid example... because I think the concept being supported is equally stupid. And I'm not even religious... Lol.
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.
On July 08 2012 20:21 Liquid`Drone wrote: I'm sorry, are you some sort of moron? In what way does an agreement between two consenting adults in any way resemble "man and donkey"?
No, I'm not a moron. I'm using the argument to try and show how I perceive the argument for same-sex marriage to look like. The concept of two individuals of the same sex to marry was (until recently, because of initiatives like this) so foreign a concept that it was almost the equivalent of my current proposition of allowing two animals to marry. That's just how see it. I'm not enforcing the view upon anyone. Just trying to show how I see it by way of a stupid example... because I think the concept being supported is equally stupid. And I'm not even religious... Lol.
Marriage is a contract. Contracts are built on informed consent. Gays can make it, animals can't. What you think doesn't make any sense.
What about if a brother wants to marry his sister, they are older than 18 and both consentient?
They already live together and fu*k together. They can try to get married as is; one of them changes their name and hopefully no one will notice haha. But why do you care about incest so much? ..The rights of one group can't be denied based upon the fact that there are "groups" without the same rights. If anything, gays should be equated with law abiding citizens, and not with pseudo criminals.
On July 08 2012 20:21 Liquid`Drone wrote: I'm sorry, are you some sort of moron? In what way does an agreement between two consenting adults in any way resemble "man and donkey"?
No, I'm not a moron. I'm using the argument to try and show how I perceive the argument for same-sex marriage to look like. The concept of two individuals of the same sex to marry was (until recently, because of initiatives like this) so foreign a concept that it was almost the equivalent of my current proposition of allowing two animals to marry. That's just how see it. I'm not enforcing the view upon anyone. Just trying to show how I see it by way of a stupid example... because I think the concept being supported is equally stupid. And I'm not even religious... Lol.
Marriage is a contract. Contracts are built on informed consent. Gays can make it, animals can't. What you think doesn't make any sense.
What about if a brother wants to marry his sister, they are older than 18 and both consentient?
That is absolutely fine by me. I would expect their doctor to inform them of the medical risks should they wish to reproduce but that's a medical rather than legal issue.
You guys that seem so upset about this for some reason... nobody will force you into gay marriage, promise! Unless that's what you really want of course.
On July 08 2012 18:36 TirramirooO wrote: Sick of talking about gay people.. Im not Christian, i dont believe in religion but that is totally the ANTICHRIST... With the same sex you cant make children soo is against nature but make people understant that is becoming hard.
Keep going, in the future you all gonna open your EYES.
Stop being so boring and let people be happy. If they love someone of the same gender as themselves then let them.
I think what google is doing is great since this needs more attention. It´s just silly that our society isnt more tolerant already and open about this.
Click the picture for the article on Huffington Post
Google has announced a global campaign in support of equal marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples. The Internet giant announced its Legalize Love campaign at the Global LGBT Workplace Summit 2012, which took place in London. The campaign launches Saturday, July 7 in Poland and Singapore. Organizers plan to expand the campaign to every country where Google has an office, focusing on countries where anti-gay sentiment runs high. “We want our employees who are gay or lesbian or transgender to have the same experience outside the office as they do in the office,” Google's Mark Palmer-Edgecumbe is quoted by dot429.com as saying at the summit. “It is obviously a very ambitious piece of work.” “Singapore wants to be a global financial center and world leader and we can push them on the fact that being a global center and a world leader means you have to treat all people the same, irrespective of their sexual orientation,” Palmer-Edgecumbe said of the decision to include Singapore in the campaign's initial phase. Bob Amnnibale, an openly gay executive at Citi, applauded the effort: “The fact that Google is so virtual and its appeal is very wide and young demographically means it can help spread messaging very, very quickly.”
As a Singaporean I think I'm going to enjoy this. It would be hilarious to watch how my government responds to this, given how religious harmony is of utmost importance here. If the government loses the backing of religions, it's going to be a fiasco for them.
Personally, I think this is a good step forward for humanity if everything works out well.
Honestly speaking I doubt that this will cause much discord in Singapore at all, Singapore has a very large and flourishing gay community.
I'm going to sound like some retard conspiracy theorist, but the truth is that the government intentionally wants to keep such issues hush hush. The government's official stance is simple: We believe that homosexuality is a 'thing' and we shouldn't discriminate them. The only reason why homosexuality is technically outlawed here is due to the fact that the government believes, and rightfully so, that the Singaporean public has not matured enough to openly accept homosexuals. However homosexuals of today are rarely if ever discriminated against, Singapore has changed a lot
On July 08 2012 20:21 Liquid`Drone wrote: I'm sorry, are you some sort of moron? In what way does an agreement between two consenting adults in any way resemble "man and donkey"?
No, I'm not a moron. I'm using the argument to try and show how I perceive the argument for same-sex marriage to look like. The concept of two individuals of the same sex to marry was (until recently, because of initiatives like this) so foreign a concept that it was almost the equivalent of my current proposition of allowing two animals to marry. That's just how see it. I'm not enforcing the view upon anyone. Just trying to show how I see it by way of a stupid example... because I think the concept being supported is equally stupid. And I'm not even religious... Lol.
Marriage is a contract. Contracts are built on informed consent. Gays can make it, animals can't. What you think doesn't make any sense.
What about if a brother wants to marry his sister, they are older than 18 and both consentient?
That is absolutely fine by me. I would expect their doctor to inform them of the medical risks should they wish to reproduce but that's a medical rather than legal issue.
Well, apart from incest, which I consider morally wrong, on an utilitarian point of view the State should not incentivate the procreation of children with genetic problems - the majority of children of incestuos relationships - this is because I consider children, and thus the future of man, to be the key of marriage.
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?
I'm personally not inclined to be against gay marriage but I can definetly understand why the state would not allow it. Since the state bans psychedelics ( imo because they radically change the order on society, for the better or the worse, we won't know it until is done ) why shouldn't they ban gay marriage ? Just like psychadelics, same sex marriage does not help the state, no babies, no soldiers, no workers, no economy, no nothing - this coming from an "anti-statist". I might be wrong but that's my interpretation on why the state would not allow gay marriage.
On July 08 2012 20:07 DonKey_ wrote: Hm I realy don't have any problem with gay marriage as long it is labeled "gay marriage" and not "marriage". It would only serve to confuse the situation if two separate instances of marriage (Hetero and Homo) were refered to as the same thing when a fundamental difference exists in them.
Of course all legal rights and privelages would be the same in each, I would just hope a distinction would be made between the two.
How is there a difference? Can you please elaborate? Marriage is a legal contract between two people who love each other. Be it two men, two women or a man and a woman.
Then why limit it at all? Why not man and donkey? Or woman and horse? Or a koala and a rhinoceros? Why not just let entropy and chaos take its course... screw the legal contracts.
The answer to your comment is fairly simple, the examples you provided lack the understanding to even comprehend the union they are forming. As long as both parties are fully able to understand what they are doing than they have the right to marry and live as they see fit (so long as how they live doesnt intrude on someone else's rights but that isnt case here).
You're making an assumption. Until you're able to experience the cognitive and emotional capabilities of an animal you don't know whether they can and/or can't comprehend anything.
Nevertheless, this is a good business decision by Google. It's a corporation, and like any other and will do anything to increase its stock price. In the long-run this is a good move, especially with the increases we've been seeing in the homo population over the last couple of decades - in particular the movement towards the tolerance of homosexuality.
On July 08 2012 20:24 Crushinator wrote: Hey, you big dummy, donkeys and horses are actually not humans and as such cannot read or enter a legal contract.
Well, I find that upsetting and wrong. Donkeys and horses should be given the right to enter legal contracts. Why should humans have that right and not animals?
That's essentially the same argument the gay population has been making, right? A "why them, but not us?" argument...
While you seem to lack understanding of pretty much everything, we are talking about all human beings having the same rights. The argument could be made if certain donkeys could marry, others could not. However that is not the case.
Right now certain human beings have more rights than others, which obviously is an issue.
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.
On July 08 2012 20:07 DonKey_ wrote: Hm I realy don't have any problem with gay marriage as long it is labeled "gay marriage" and not "marriage". It would only serve to confuse the situation if two separate instances of marriage (Hetero and Homo) were refered to as the same thing when a fundamental difference exists in them.
Of course all legal rights and privelages would be the same in each, I would just hope a distinction would be made between the two.
How is there a difference? Can you please elaborate? Marriage is a legal contract between two people who love each other. Be it two men, two women or a man and a woman.
Then why limit it at all? Why not man and donkey? Or woman and horse? Or a koala and a rhinoceros? Why not just let entropy and chaos take its course... screw the legal contracts.
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
No. You make a good argument in a retarded manner.
Why should a company limit itself to certain good causes?
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
You are an actual moron. If someone like you is allowed to marry and procreate - there would definitely be no harm in allowing homosexuals to marry.
On July 08 2012 20:51 Pisky wrote: I think this is a strong argument against: + Show Spoiler +
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrD8zvCUtWc
and in my personal view, it really depends on the question if marriage can or cannot be understood apart from procreation.
It's actually a pathetically weak argument against. All I have to do is say "Adoption" and suddenly his argument goes out the window. Gay people can have children through adoption. So if we're talking "theoretically" or "in principle" then they can have children, just like heterosexuals can. I have no idea how a heterosexual couple adopting a child is so much different than a homosexual couple adopting a child.
It reduces marriage down to two things: Making Babies and Genitalia. Personally I find that to be rather offensive to marriage, myself. Who cares if someone can have children or neither of their bits dangle?
I mean these anti-gay advocates have the gall to claim that marriage is under attack while slamming marriage constantly with their arguments. It's a great example of doublespeak. FFS, they want to prevent people from having families! That is literally what their goal is. How this could possibly be construed as "pro-family" is beyond me. All the harm to the family has been coming from the "pro-family" side of things.
On July 08 2012 20:21 Liquid`Drone wrote: I'm sorry, are you some sort of moron? In what way does an agreement between two consenting adults in any way resemble "man and donkey"?
No, I'm not a moron. I'm using the argument to try and show how I perceive the argument for same-sex marriage to look like. The concept of two individuals of the same sex to marry was (until recently, because of initiatives like this) so foreign a concept that it was almost the equivalent of my current proposition of allowing two animals to marry. That's just how see it. I'm not enforcing the view upon anyone. Just trying to show how I see it by way of a stupid example... because I think the concept being supported is equally stupid. And I'm not even religious... Lol.
Marriage is a contract. Contracts are built on informed consent. Gays can make it, animals can't. What you think doesn't make any sense.
What about if a brother wants to marry his sister, they are older than 18 and both consentient?
That is absolutely fine by me. I would expect their doctor to inform them of the medical risks should they wish to reproduce but that's a medical rather than legal issue.
Well, apart from incest, which I consider morally wrong, on an utilitarian point of view the State should not incentivate the procreation of children with genetic problems - the majority of children of incestuos relationships - this is because I consider children, and thus the future of man, to be the key of marriage.
We already have a word for when two people have children together. It's called reproducing. I'm not sure why you think marriage, a word which covers infertile people, people beyond childbearing age, people using contraception and the like, to mean the same thing, but only when gays are involved. Your definition does not bear any resemblance to how marriage works in society or what it means. In fact, I think the only reason this obsession over children as being the point of marriage in an age where marriage is no longer seen as necessary to the raising of children is to serve an anti-gay agenda. You don't see homophobic activists campaigning for a one person marriage that single parents can get and yet they insist that children is the definition of marriage.
On July 08 2012 18:36 TirramirooO wrote: Sick of talking about gay people.. Im not Christian, i dont believe in religion but that is totally the ANTICHRIST... With the same sex you cant make children soo is against nature but make people understant that is becoming hard.
Keep going, in the future you all gonna open your EYES.
Ever heard of overpopulation, left behind children and hunger problems? The thing you don't have to worry about is making even more children. It's not like if you forbid gays to marry that they will become straight all of sudden, plus who are you to tell someone who to love?
On July 08 2012 18:36 TirramirooO wrote: Sick of talking about gay people.. Im not Christian, i dont believe in religion but that is totally the ANTICHRIST... With the same sex you cant make children soo is against nature but make people understant that is becoming hard.
Keep going, in the future you all gonna open your EYES.
You're right, homosexuality is unnatural...but that's an issue that's long term, and there's no evidence to imply that would even end up being a problem.
On July 08 2012 20:07 DonKey_ wrote: Hm I realy don't have any problem with gay marriage as long it is labeled "gay marriage" and not "marriage". It would only serve to confuse the situation if two separate instances of marriage (Hetero and Homo) were refered to as the same thing when a fundamental difference exists in them.
Of course all legal rights and privelages would be the same in each, I would just hope a distinction would be made between the two.
How is there a difference? Can you please elaborate? Marriage is a legal contract between two people who love each other. Be it two men, two women or a man and a woman.
Then why limit it at all? Why not man and donkey? Or woman and horse? Or a koala and a rhinoceros? Why not just let entropy and chaos take its course... screw the legal contracts.
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
Ok but, if ending poverty takes precedent, I propose no one be allowed to get legally married until poverty is ended.
Also, they prolly don't wanna look like the saviours of the universe; I think they'd rather want to get married. Don't you?
But it's the same crap over and over and over again, these are issues that people already have already made up there minds about, writing a post in this thread is not going to change anything. Reading somebody else's post against your view is not going to change anything. It's just the same crap being said over and over and over. I think if somebody is dieing of hunger in your own back yard it takes precedent over something like 'gay marriage'. 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...
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 it a term to use cassualy.
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
Maybe we should stop talking about gay marriage rights and start talking about the real issue: equal marriage rights. Also how about an end to comparisons between homosexual pair bonding and inter familial bonding.
There is a giant boon to be had from the appropriation, propagation and legitimisation of homosexual relationships. Imagine a world in the near future where homosexuals can enjoy socially approved long term stable relationships and inclusive adoption rights granting millions of children the chance of a brighter future within a loving family environment.
Incestuous pair bonding on the other hand leads to damaged DNA entering the gene pool and so is detrimental to future generations.
Kudos to Google for being part of the solution and not part of the problem, whether it's a cynical business move or a genuine drive to increase the well being of ~10% of the population.
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.
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.
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
I think I remember that Google was a big push to get same-sex marriage legalized in Washington State. Gay people want to live in states where they can get married, and many companies were frustrated that employees had to make the choice between staying at their job and getting married.
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
Once again, homosexuals can adopt children. This argument holds no water and is incredibly offensive to married people everywhere. Marriage is more than whether your bits dangle or not and it is more than making babies.
The law does not treat women who have had hysterectomies differently than women who haven't had hysterectomies. The law is not suppose to treat women differently from men or homosexuals differently from heterosexuals. That is not what the law is for. So stop it.
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.
Scientifically it is not a pathology. The fact is we don't know exactly what causes it, while we do know what causes pathologies. Most likely it is the same kind of "pathology" as simply being left-handed is, or having a different skin colour. (genetically, or hormon"ically" which in turn is based on genetics.)
Bio-science ethics pretty much goes against "curing" certain genes that are not defective, just because some people may not like them e.g being left handed. Should we "cure" people from this attribute? My grandmother was a leftie, and was forced to write with her right hand. She had to endure ridicule from her teachers, and long hours of detention; having to rewrite papers that didn't look "pretty" enough, simply because she had to write with her right hand, which was hard for her. Society tried to cure her of her lefthandedness. They saw it as a pathology. Nowhere was there any evidence that it, infact, was a pathology. And now we know it is based on genetics. If genetic attributes are pathologies in general, then we're all full of them. For now we distinguish between genetical "defects" that need treatment and special care, and recognize them as such; while other genetic attributes (like being left-handed) are merely a curiosity, and not a defect, or a pathology (abnormal condition, according to you).
On July 08 2012 21:41 Legate wrote: What about polygamy or Human–animal marriage? Wouldn't it be discriminating to exclude them ? I guess its just not as popular, yet...
On July 08 2012 21:37 munchmunch wrote: 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.
Well, then, let's just get rid of all borders and country name. And let's supplement that with a skin-toning innovation that will change the skin colour of all humans to one single colour. C'mon man!... it's not discrimination to call someone Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Black, Gay, Straight... It's discrimination if you take specific rights away from them that make them worse off. By giving gays the same rights and calling it something else, I really don't think you're doing the world any harm at all.
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
My method was logic. The sentence "Procreation cannot be understood apart from marriage" is illogical.
Contra-"example": People get pregnant outside of marriage.
So you agree that marriage is about more thawn procreation. Then you cannot claim that marriage can not be understood apart from procreation, can you?
Or, look at it historically.
"First" there were arranged marriages, one way or another.
For instance, marrying for money and political standing was very common. The reason for such marriages is/was to create certain financial or political "bonds" (or whatever you want to call them). For instance between royal families, or families with good standing. For a rich daughter to run off with the stable-boy was a travesty.
Currently we marry for love, more or less. There are other reasons, but we atleast like to think that we marry for love. I don't see procreation as a defining attribute for marrige. It is merely one attribute among many. As has been mentioned; women above 50 can get married while in reality being unable to conceive for the rest of their lives. Infertile (sterile) men and women can get married, without being able to procreate, ever. And so on.
Therefore I'll claim that my "method" is logic, and it works. Using logic illogically does not prove a point.
On July 08 2012 21:41 Legate wrote: What about polygamy or Human–animal marriage? Wouldn't it be discriminating to exclude them ? I guess its just not as popular, yet...
Where do you draw the line?
Ever heard of mutual-consent?
So it would be ok if one marries lets say, 2 men and 3 woman if they all agree with it?
On July 08 2012 21:37 munchmunch wrote: 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.
Well, then, let's just get rid of all borders and country name. And let's supplement that with a skin-toning innovation that will change the skin colour of all humans to one single colour. C'mon man!... it's not discrimination to call someone Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Black, Gay, Straight... It's discrimination if you take specific rights away from them that make them worse off. By giving gays the same rights and calling it something else, I really don't think you're doing the world any harm at all.
What exactly is the point of calling it something different? Believe it or not, Homosexuals are just as sentimental about the word marriage as heterosexuals are. The only point of changing the name is to insult homosexual marriages. Insulting people is not what the law is for.
It doesn't matter though, because at the moment they don't get nearly the same rights.
On July 08 2012 21:41 Legate wrote: What about polygamy or Human–animal marriage? Wouldn't it be discriminating to exclude them ? I guess its just not as popular, yet...
Where do you draw the line?
Ever heard of mutual-consent?
So it would be ok if one marries lets say, 2 men and 3 woman if they all agree with it?
On July 08 2012 21:37 munchmunch wrote: 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.
Well, then, let's just get rid of all borders and country name. And let's supplement that with a skin-toning innovation that will change the skin colour of all humans to one single colour. C'mon man!... it's not discrimination to call someone Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Black, Gay, Straight... It's discrimination if you take specific rights away from them that make them worse off. By giving gays the same rights and calling it something else, I really don't think you're doing the world any harm at all.
Uh, the gay marriage debate is about discrimination by a government as related to the people living within the jurisdiction of said government. No need to get carried away...
On July 08 2012 18:35 Magrath wrote: Good to see Google is still thinking outside the box on how to spread their name. This will give them immense exposure and tons of support and use from the LGBT community.
This was what i thought before the article, and what i think afterwards as well. Seems good for marketing.
I don't think this is any of Google's business, not a big fan of this initiative regardless of the cause supported, I'm just not comfortable with this kind of lobbying.
On July 08 2012 21:42 Cutlery wrote: Scientifically it is not a pathology. The fact is we don't know exactly what causes it, while we do know what causes pathologies. Most likely it is the same kind of "pathology" as simply being left-handed is, or having a different skin colour. (genetically, or hormon"ically" which in turn is based on genetics.)
Bio-science ethics pretty much goes against "curing" certain genes that are not defective, just because some people may not like them e.g being left handed. Should we "cure" people from this attribute? My grandmother was a leftie, and was forced to write with her right hand. She had to endure ridicule from her teachers, and long hours of detention; having to rewrite papers that didn't look "pretty" enough, simply because she had to write with her right hand, which was hard for her. Society tried to cure her of her lefthandedness. They saw it as a pathology. Nowhere was there any evidence that it, infact, was a pathology. And now we know it is based on genetics. If genetic attributes are pathologies in general, then we're all full of them. For now we distinguish between genetical "defects" that need treatment and special care, and recognize them as such; while other genetic attributes (like being left-handed) are merely a curiosity, and not a defect, or a pathology (abnormal condition, according to you).
Left-handedness has to do with opposite side brain dominance. It's not an unnatural dysfunction which is characteristic of pathologies. More irrelevant points.
This is a great thing I think. Companies seems to have the biggest influences in politics in America, so this will be a good opportunity for gay people to get equal rights.
On July 08 2012 21:41 Legate wrote: What about polygamy or Human–animal marriage? Wouldn't it be discriminating to exclude them ? I guess its just not as popular, yet...
Where do you draw the line?
Ever heard of mutual-consent?
So it would be ok if one marries lets say, 2 men and 3 woman if they all agree with it?
Yes, as long as all parties are deemed capable (old enough etc..) to make that decision.
On July 08 2012 21:37 munchmunch wrote: 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.
Well, then, let's just get rid of all borders and country name. And let's supplement that with a skin-toning innovation that will change the skin colour of all humans to one single colour. C'mon man!... it's not discrimination to call someone Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Black, Gay, Straight... It's discrimination if you take specific rights away from them that make them worse off. By giving gays the same rights and calling it something else, I really don't think you're doing the world any harm at all.
What exactly is the point of calling it something different? Believe it or not, Homosexuals are just as sentimental about the word marriage as heterosexuals are. The only point of changing the name is to insult homosexual marriages. Insulting people is not what the law is for.
It doesn't matter though, because at the moment they don't get nearly the same rights.
On July 08 2012 21:41 Legate wrote: What about polygamy or Human–animal marriage? Wouldn't it be discriminating to exclude them ? I guess its just not as popular, yet...
Where do you draw the line?
Ever heard of mutual-consent?
So it would be ok if one marries lets say, 2 men and 3 woman if they all agree with it?
Sure, why not? Are you going to stop them?
So what if you inflate those numbers to say 200 men and 300 women, or even higher than that? Is there a number where it stops?
On July 08 2012 21:37 munchmunch wrote: 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.
Well, then, let's just get rid of all borders and country name. And let's supplement that with a skin-toning innovation that will change the skin colour of all humans to one single colour. C'mon man!... it's not discrimination to call someone Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Black, Gay, Straight... It's discrimination if you take specific rights away from them that make them worse off. By giving gays the same rights and calling it something else, I really don't think you're doing the world any harm at all.
What exactly is the point of calling it something different? Believe it or not, Homosexuals are just as sentimental about the word marriage as heterosexuals are. The only point of changing the name is to insult homosexual marriages. Insulting people is not what the law is for.
It doesn't matter though, because at the moment they don't get nearly the same rights.
On July 08 2012 21:41 Legate wrote: What about polygamy or Human–animal marriage? Wouldn't it be discriminating to exclude them ? I guess its just not as popular, yet...
Where do you draw the line?
Ever heard of mutual-consent?
So it would be ok if one marries lets say, 2 men and 3 woman if they all agree with it?
Sure, why not? Are you going to stop them?
Not me , but the law, at least in most western countrys. But i guess this will change too. Do you think it would be ok to marrie a bunch of underage girls if i could convince them?
On July 08 2012 18:42 hypercube wrote: It's a little sad that the most effective way to fight for human right is through multinational corporations. I don't like what that says about the state of democracy in the World.
Anti capitalist to the bitter end eh? What exactly has google done for you to resent them so much?
Googles done more for humanity than democracy ever has IMHO. Democracy is thousands of years old. The rise in humanitys living standards coincided with advances in technology, not democracy.
On July 08 2012 21:42 Cutlery wrote: Scientifically it is not a pathology. The fact is we don't know exactly what causes it, while we do know what causes pathologies. Most likely it is the same kind of "pathology" as simply being left-handed is, or having a different skin colour. (genetically, or hormon"ically" which in turn is based on genetics.)
Bio-science ethics pretty much goes against "curing" certain genes that are not defective, just because some people may not like them e.g being left handed. Should we "cure" people from this attribute? My grandmother was a leftie, and was forced to write with her right hand. She had to endure ridicule from her teachers, and long hours of detention; having to rewrite papers that didn't look "pretty" enough, simply because she had to write with her right hand, which was hard for her. Society tried to cure her of her lefthandedness. They saw it as a pathology. Nowhere was there any evidence that it, infact, was a pathology. And now we know it is based on genetics. If genetic attributes are pathologies in general, then we're all full of them. For now we distinguish between genetical "defects" that need treatment and special care, and recognize them as such; while other genetic attributes (like being left-handed) are merely a curiosity, and not a defect, or a pathology (abnormal condition, according to you).
Left-handedness has to do with opposite side brain dominance. It's not an unnatural dysfunction which is characteristic of pathologies. More irrelevant points.
You have not explained why homosexuality is a pathology. All I got from you was that certain abnormal traits (or whatever) were explained by pathologies. This does not apply to homosexuality without further reasoning. Pathology is merely another irrelevant point, atleast as you presented it......
On July 08 2012 21:41 Legate wrote: What about polygamy or Human–animal marriage? Wouldn't it be discriminating to exclude them ? I guess its just not as popular, yet...
On July 08 2012 21:49 munchmunch wrote: Uh, the gay marriage debate is about discrimination by a government as related to the people living within the jurisdiction of said government. No need to get carried away...
It's not discrimination to call something what it is. Discrimination is when you act upon a belief of yours in a way that causes harm to others. By calling a gay marriage, a "gay marriage", you're not doing that. You're just identifying something by its inherent characteristics without any intention of causing harm to anyone.
Some of the responses in this thread are hilarious.
No matter how many gay people I meet, or how many gay people there are in this world. I'll always be straight. There being gay people is not going to ruin anything in the world, others mentioned children needing to be adopted. Well I'm sorry to say this but I've meet more nice gay people than nice christians in my life by probably a for every 10 nice gay people I met I met one equally nice christian.
I USED to be a homophobe when I was like 12-13 and uneducated and very stupid about the whole process, now that I'm twice as old I understand let people who care about each other care about each other. And hell if you're a straight guy think about it, gay guys days guys, that means more women for you. And the lesbians weren't going to date you in the first place anyway, and it doesn't hurt to have more friends in life than enemies. Damn zerg.
On July 08 2012 21:37 munchmunch wrote: 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.
Well, then, let's just get rid of all borders and country name. And let's supplement that with a skin-toning innovation that will change the skin colour of all humans to one single colour. C'mon man!... it's not discrimination to call someone Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Black, Gay, Straight... It's discrimination if you take specific rights away from them that make them worse off. By giving gays the same rights and calling it something else, I really don't think you're doing the world any harm at all.
What exactly is the point of calling it something different? Believe it or not, Homosexuals are just as sentimental about the word marriage as heterosexuals are. The only point of changing the name is to insult homosexual marriages. Insulting people is not what the law is for.
It doesn't matter though, because at the moment they don't get nearly the same rights.
On July 08 2012 21:47 Legate wrote:
On July 08 2012 21:43 peacenl wrote:
On July 08 2012 21:41 Legate wrote: What about polygamy or Human–animal marriage? Wouldn't it be discriminating to exclude them ? I guess its just not as popular, yet...
Where do you draw the line?
Ever heard of mutual-consent?
So it would be ok if one marries lets say, 2 men and 3 woman if they all agree with it?
Sure, why not? Are you going to stop them?
So what if you inflate those numbers to say 200 men and 300 women, or even higher than that? Is there a number where it stops?
I would let the whole world marry itself if every person on this planet was so inclined to participate in such a relationship. Could you please start using some logic? And by logic, I mean objective logic. Not this slippery slope bull shit which seems to be all you know how to understand.
On July 08 2012 21:37 munchmunch wrote: 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.
Well, then, let's just get rid of all borders and country name. And let's supplement that with a skin-toning innovation that will change the skin colour of all humans to one single colour. C'mon man!... it's not discrimination to call someone Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Black, Gay, Straight... It's discrimination if you take specific rights away from them that make them worse off. By giving gays the same rights and calling it something else, I really don't think you're doing the world any harm at all.
What exactly is the point of calling it something different? Believe it or not, Homosexuals are just as sentimental about the word marriage as heterosexuals are. The only point of changing the name is to insult homosexual marriages. Insulting people is not what the law is for.
It doesn't matter though, because at the moment they don't get nearly the same rights.
On July 08 2012 21:47 Legate wrote:
On July 08 2012 21:43 peacenl wrote:
On July 08 2012 21:41 Legate wrote: What about polygamy or Human–animal marriage? Wouldn't it be discriminating to exclude them ? I guess its just not as popular, yet...
Where do you draw the line?
Ever heard of mutual-consent?
So it would be ok if one marries lets say, 2 men and 3 woman if they all agree with it?
Sure, why not? Are you going to stop them?
Not me , but the law, at least in most western countrys. But i guess this will change too. Do you think it would be ok to marrie a bunch of underage girls if i could convince them?
...? Consent is an actual concept, you know. If they are underage then they do not have the ability to consent.
Although I fail to see how homosexuality is related to polygamy or pedophilia. Homosexuality is simply taking the sexism out of marriage. I don't think whether or not I have a penis should affect my civil rights.
Changing the numbers or age are completely unrelated issues, and have completely different arguments for and against them. It's not like polygamy is wrong because "marriage is between one man and one woman" because historically and biblically there are several cases of "one man and many women." If anything, allowing heterosexuals to get married is a slippery slope to incest and polygamy. You've got it backwards man. We should ban heterosexual marriage.
On July 08 2012 21:37 munchmunch wrote: 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.
Well, then, let's just get rid of all borders and country name. And let's supplement that with a skin-toning innovation that will change the skin colour of all humans to one single colour. C'mon man!... it's not discrimination to call someone Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Black, Gay, Straight... It's discrimination if you take specific rights away from them that make them worse off. By giving gays the same rights and calling it something else, I really don't think you're doing the world any harm at all.
What exactly is the point of calling it something different? Believe it or not, Homosexuals are just as sentimental about the word marriage as heterosexuals are. The only point of changing the name is to insult homosexual marriages. Insulting people is not what the law is for.
It doesn't matter though, because at the moment they don't get nearly the same rights.
On July 08 2012 21:47 Legate wrote:
On July 08 2012 21:43 peacenl wrote:
On July 08 2012 21:41 Legate wrote: What about polygamy or Human–animal marriage? Wouldn't it be discriminating to exclude them ? I guess its just not as popular, yet...
Where do you draw the line?
Ever heard of mutual-consent?
So it would be ok if one marries lets say, 2 men and 3 woman if they all agree with it?
Sure, why not? Are you going to stop them?
Not me , but the law, at least in most western countrys. But i guess this will change too. Do you think it would be ok to marrie a bunch of underage girls if i could convince them?
Wasn't the whole point for your bringing it up is to show that, if we agreed to allow gay marriage then anything would go. It's just a failed attempt at proving something. The simple fact is that some people would like to impose limitations on other people's lives, while they are not affected by them, this false ideology is only brought on by fear.
On July 08 2012 21:42 Cutlery wrote: Scientifically it is not a pathology. The fact is we don't know exactly what causes it, while we do know what causes pathologies. Most likely it is the same kind of "pathology" as simply being left-handed is, or having a different skin colour. (genetically, or hormon"ically" which in turn is based on genetics.)
Bio-science ethics pretty much goes against "curing" certain genes that are not defective, just because some people may not like them e.g being left handed. Should we "cure" people from this attribute? My grandmother was a leftie, and was forced to write with her right hand. She had to endure ridicule from her teachers, and long hours of detention; having to rewrite papers that didn't look "pretty" enough, simply because she had to write with her right hand, which was hard for her. Society tried to cure her of her lefthandedness. They saw it as a pathology. Nowhere was there any evidence that it, infact, was a pathology. And now we know it is based on genetics. If genetic attributes are pathologies in general, then we're all full of them. For now we distinguish between genetical "defects" that need treatment and special care, and recognize them as such; while other genetic attributes (like being left-handed) are merely a curiosity, and not a defect, or a pathology (abnormal condition, according to you).
Left-handedness has to do with opposite side brain dominance. It's not an unnatural dysfunction which is characteristic of pathologies. More irrelevant points.
You have not explained why homosexuality is a pathology. All I got from you was that certain abnormal traits (or whatever) were explained by pathologies. This does not apply to homosexuality without further reasoning. Pathology is merely another irrelevant point, atleast as you presented it......
Pathology: (Medicine) the branch of medicine concerned with the cause, origin, and nature of disease, including the changes occurring as a result of disease.
Or
The scientific study of the nature of disease and its causes, processes, development, and consequences. Also called pathobiology.
You have to link homosexuality to a disease in order to call it a pathology. And then, if we really care anymore, we can start talking about who is making irrelevant arguments.
Or
The first word patho means feeling or suffering and logos means study.
What study concluded with homosexuality is suffering?
On July 08 2012 21:41 Legate wrote: What about polygamy or Human–animal marriage? Wouldn't it be discriminating to exclude them ? I guess its just not as popular, yet...
Where do you draw the line?
You draw the line where Its start to become unhealthy or just fucking idiocy. animal-human marriage doesn't make any sense since animals cannot own property or money, a reason for marriage is the benefits you get as a couple regarding money tax and so forth, none of that applies to animals. Second it would be nice if your other half was intelligent enough to actually understand what he or she was getting themselves into, Animals cannot think in those terms, thus you would invoke marriage without them understanding. In order to make a marriage happen both parties must have their consent since it's a legal binding contract, and animals cannot make contracts.
EDIT: To the people in this thread that dislikes gay people and the arguments you have presented... like the one above is mind boggling O_o How the hell do you people even function in society?
On July 08 2012 21:37 munchmunch wrote: 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.
Well, then, let's just get rid of all borders and country name. And let's supplement that with a skin-toning innovation that will change the skin colour of all humans to one single colour. C'mon man!... it's not discrimination to call someone Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Black, Gay, Straight... It's discrimination if you take specific rights away from them that make them worse off. By giving gays the same rights and calling it something else, I really don't think you're doing the world any harm at all.
What exactly is the point of calling it something different? Believe it or not, Homosexuals are just as sentimental about the word marriage as heterosexuals are. The only point of changing the name is to insult homosexual marriages. Insulting people is not what the law is for.
It doesn't matter though, because at the moment they don't get nearly the same rights.
On July 08 2012 21:47 Legate wrote:
On July 08 2012 21:43 peacenl wrote:
On July 08 2012 21:41 Legate wrote: What about polygamy or Human–animal marriage? Wouldn't it be discriminating to exclude them ? I guess its just not as popular, yet...
Where do you draw the line?
Ever heard of mutual-consent?
So it would be ok if one marries lets say, 2 men and 3 woman if they all agree with it?
Sure, why not? Are you going to stop them?
Not me , but the law, at least in most western countrys. But i guess this will change too. Do you think it would be ok to marrie a bunch of underage girls if i could convince them?
Probably not, cause of that consent thing again. As our society defines it at the moment, children are not able to consent to sexual relationships. This could change, cause ultimately consent means whatever society defines it to mean. But I don't think it will, because even as we've become more accepting of homosexual relationships, we've become much more opposed to pedophilia and hebephilia.
On July 08 2012 21:55 Cutlery wrote: You have not explained why homosexuality is a pathology. All I got from you was that certain abnormal traits (or whatever) were explained by pathologies. This does not apply to homosexuality without further reasoning. Pathology is merely another irrelevant point, atleast as you presented it......
Homosexuality is an abnormal condition that causes a human being to think inaccurately about the genders amongst whom sexual activities make sense (refer to the plug-and-outlet image if you need clarification on the "makes sense" part). Pretty simple stuff though... not sure where you're having trouble.
On July 08 2012 21:58 Cutlery wrote: Pathology: (Medicine) the branch of medicine concerned with the cause, origin, and nature of disease, including the changes occurring as a result of disease.
Or
The scientific study of the nature of disease and its causes, processes, development, and consequences. Also called pathobiology.
You have to link homosexuality to a disease in order to call it a pathology. And then, if we really care anymore, we can start talking about who is making irrelevant arguments.
Or
The first word patho means feeling or suffering and logos means study.
What study concluded with homosexuality is suffering?
Root words are not always indicative of the meaning of the word that they make up. So you're being too literal when you break a word down into parts like that. Nevertheless, one could perhaps interpret homosexuality as suffering from irrational thinking if suffering is so essential to your definition.
And no, I don't care enough to go into it. But you seem quite interested, so you should definitely read the works of doctors, philosophers and scientists who are actively involved in the discussion. Have fun!
On July 08 2012 21:37 munchmunch wrote: 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.
Well, then, let's just get rid of all borders and country name. And let's supplement that with a skin-toning innovation that will change the skin colour of all humans to one single colour. C'mon man!... it's not discrimination to call someone Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Black, Gay, Straight... It's discrimination if you take specific rights away from them that make them worse off. By giving gays the same rights and calling it something else, I really don't think you're doing the world any harm at all.
What exactly is the point of calling it something different? Believe it or not, Homosexuals are just as sentimental about the word marriage as heterosexuals are. The only point of changing the name is to insult homosexual marriages. Insulting people is not what the law is for.
It doesn't matter though, because at the moment they don't get nearly the same rights.
On July 08 2012 21:47 Legate wrote:
On July 08 2012 21:43 peacenl wrote:
On July 08 2012 21:41 Legate wrote: What about polygamy or Human–animal marriage? Wouldn't it be discriminating to exclude them ? I guess its just not as popular, yet...
Where do you draw the line?
Ever heard of mutual-consent?
So it would be ok if one marries lets say, 2 men and 3 woman if they all agree with it?
Sure, why not? Are you going to stop them?
So what if you inflate those numbers to say 200 men and 300 women, or even higher than that? Is there a number where it stops?
I would let the whole world marry itself if every person on this planet was so inclined to participate in such a relationship. Could you please start using some logic? And by logic, I mean objective logic. Not this slippery slope bull shit which seems to be all you know how to understand.
I don't think you understand the point I am making.... Do have any idea what marriage laws would look like with so many people taking part in them?
On July 08 2012 21:37 munchmunch wrote: 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.
Well, then, let's just get rid of all borders and country name. And let's supplement that with a skin-toning innovation that will change the skin colour of all humans to one single colour. C'mon man!... it's not discrimination to call someone Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Black, Gay, Straight... It's discrimination if you take specific rights away from them that make them worse off. By giving gays the same rights and calling it something else, I really don't think you're doing the world any harm at all.
What exactly is the point of calling it something different? Believe it or not, Homosexuals are just as sentimental about the word marriage as heterosexuals are. The only point of changing the name is to insult homosexual marriages. Insulting people is not what the law is for.
It doesn't matter though, because at the moment they don't get nearly the same rights.
On July 08 2012 21:47 Legate wrote:
On July 08 2012 21:43 peacenl wrote:
On July 08 2012 21:41 Legate wrote: What about polygamy or Human–animal marriage? Wouldn't it be discriminating to exclude them ? I guess its just not as popular, yet...
Where do you draw the line?
Ever heard of mutual-consent?
So it would be ok if one marries lets say, 2 men and 3 woman if they all agree with it?
Sure, why not? Are you going to stop them?
Not me , but the law, at least in most western countrys. But i guess this will change too. Do you think it would be ok to marrie a bunch of underage girls if i could convince them?
Probably not, cause of that consent thing again. As our society defines it at the moment, children are not able to consent to sexual relationships. This could change, cause ultimately consent means whatever society defines it to mean. But I don't think it will, because even as we've become more accepting of homosexual relationships, we've become much more opposed to pedophilia and hebephilia.
Actually the legal age for sexual consent is changing, in numerous countries the age for legalizing sexual relationships has already been brought up by politicians.
I didn't think it would be possible for me to love google even more, but they proved me wrong once again. I've never seen a better mentality for a company, no wonder why they are growing so much, they're "human".
On July 08 2012 21:39 DoubleReed wrote: I think I remember that Google was a big push to get same-sex marriage legalized in Washington State. Gay people want to live in states where they can get married, and many companies were frustrated that employees had to make the choice between staying at their job and getting married.
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
Once again, homosexuals can adopt children. This argument holds no water and is incredibly offensive to married people everywhere. Marriage is more than whether your bits dangle or not and it is more than making babies.
The law does not treat women who have had hysterectomies differently than women who haven't had hysterectomies. The law is not suppose to treat women differently from men or homosexuals differently from heterosexuals. That is not what the law is for. So stop it.
Yes, it IS more than making babies but my point is that it exists because of procreation to complement it in the social and other aspects of life. It looks like you have not watched the video. So I will repeat: between man and woman, it is IN PRINCIPLE possible to have babies, IN PRINCIPLE means: relating to the definition. So women with hysterectomies or infertile couples can IN PRINCIPLE have babies with other man, the fact that some particular circumstances does not allow man and woman to have babies does not make it the same case as man+man and woman+woman because between man and man making babies is IN PRINCIPLE impossible.
The law is not suppose to treat women differently from men or homosexuals differently from heterosexuals. That is not what the law is for. So stop it.
The law does not treat homosexuals differently, all men and all women have the right to be married. The thing is that homosexuals try to expand their rights not trying to equalize them, because they in fact ARE equal even if you can marry just between male and female. In short: the fact that you can marry someone of the opposing sex does treat EVERYONE the same.
On July 08 2012 21:55 Cutlery wrote: You have not explained why homosexuality is a pathology. All I got from you was that certain abnormal traits (or whatever) were explained by pathologies. This does not apply to homosexuality without further reasoning. Pathology is merely another irrelevant point, atleast as you presented it......
Homosexuality is an abnormal condition that causes a human being to think inaccurately about the genders amongst whom sexual activities make sense (refer to the plug-and-outlet image if you need clarification on the "makes sense" part). Pretty simple stuff though... not sure where you're having trouble.
I'm really confused that people actually think human sexuality is as simple as plumbing. Grow up.
On July 08 2012 21:55 Cutlery wrote: You have not explained why homosexuality is a pathology. All I got from you was that certain abnormal traits (or whatever) were explained by pathologies. This does not apply to homosexuality without further reasoning. Pathology is merely another irrelevant point, atleast as you presented it......
Homosexuality is an abnormal condition that causes a human being to think inaccurately about the genders amongst whom sexual activities make sense (refer to the plug-and-outlet image if you need clarification on the "makes sense" part). Pretty simple stuff though... not sure where you're having trouble.
Its a sex drive, it has nothing to do with thought or thinking, its instinct. Sexual activities is about sensation and emotions, there is no Sense or logic involved whatsoever.
On July 08 2012 21:55 Cutlery wrote: You have not explained why homosexuality is a pathology. All I got from you was that certain abnormal traits (or whatever) were explained by pathologies. This does not apply to homosexuality without further reasoning. Pathology is merely another irrelevant point, atleast as you presented it......
Homosexuality is an abnormal condition that causes a human being to think inaccurately about the genders amongst whom sexual activities make sense (refer to the plug-and-outlet image if you need clarification on the "makes sense" part). Pretty simple stuff though... not sure where you're having trouble.
Yeah that's what you think, but that doesn't mean that's how it actually is.
On July 08 2012 21:37 munchmunch wrote: 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.
Well, then, let's just get rid of all borders and country name. And let's supplement that with a skin-toning innovation that will change the skin colour of all humans to one single colour. C'mon man!... it's not discrimination to call someone Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Black, Gay, Straight... It's discrimination if you take specific rights away from them that make them worse off. By giving gays the same rights and calling it something else, I really don't think you're doing the world any harm at all.
What exactly is the point of calling it something different? Believe it or not, Homosexuals are just as sentimental about the word marriage as heterosexuals are. The only point of changing the name is to insult homosexual marriages. Insulting people is not what the law is for.
It doesn't matter though, because at the moment they don't get nearly the same rights.
On July 08 2012 21:47 Legate wrote:
On July 08 2012 21:43 peacenl wrote:
On July 08 2012 21:41 Legate wrote: What about polygamy or Human–animal marriage? Wouldn't it be discriminating to exclude them ? I guess its just not as popular, yet...
Where do you draw the line?
Ever heard of mutual-consent?
So it would be ok if one marries lets say, 2 men and 3 woman if they all agree with it?
Sure, why not? Are you going to stop them?
So what if you inflate those numbers to say 200 men and 300 women, or even higher than that? Is there a number where it stops?
I would let the whole world marry itself if every person on this planet was so inclined to participate in such a relationship. Could you please start using some logic? And by logic, I mean objective logic. Not this slippery slope bull shit which seems to be all you know how to understand.
I don't think you understand the point I am making.... Do have any idea what marriage laws would look like with so many people taking part in them?
The slippery slope argument is a terrible one, you can keep fantasizing about all the horrible scenarios that would occur if you would do this, but that doesn't mean any of them would actually happen. You can apply the slippery slope argument to nearly anything, and guess what, if we DID do that, no one would actually ever do something because oh lord look at all the horrible things that COULD happen.
We allows gays to marry and suddenly we get groups of HUNDREDS of people that want to marry each other..... hmm no.
On July 08 2012 21:49 munchmunch wrote: Uh, the gay marriage debate is about discrimination by a government as related to the people living within the jurisdiction of said government. No need to get carried away...
It's not discrimination to call something what it is. Discrimination is when you act upon a belief of yours in a way that causes harm to others. By calling a gay marriage, a "gay marriage", you're not doing that. You're just identifying something by its inherent characteristics without any intention of causing harm to anyone.
Whether you or I calling "gay marriage" by that term harms anyone depends on context. It could be purely descriptive, loving and supportive, or hateful, depending on what you are saying along with it. But we are not talking about what you or I are allowed to say. No matter what is decided on the gay marriage debate, you will still be allowed to use the term "gay marriage", even if you are using it as part of a long gay-bashing rant. That's free speech. What we're debating is whether or not the government should use the term "gay marriage" as part of its law. You can certainly make a case that having the government single out a group of people for special treatment, with no rational basis, is harmful. And even if it's not harmful, it's a legal principle in the Western world that laws should always have a rational basis, i.e. if it's legally equivalent to marriage, you shouldn't call it something else "just because".
On July 08 2012 21:39 DoubleReed wrote: I think I remember that Google was a big push to get same-sex marriage legalized in Washington State. Gay people want to live in states where they can get married, and many companies were frustrated that employees had to make the choice between staying at their job and getting married.
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
Once again, homosexuals can adopt children. This argument holds no water and is incredibly offensive to married people everywhere. Marriage is more than whether your bits dangle or not and it is more than making babies.
The law does not treat women who have had hysterectomies differently than women who haven't had hysterectomies. The law is not suppose to treat women differently from men or homosexuals differently from heterosexuals. That is not what the law is for. So stop it.
Yes, it IS more than making babies but my point is that it exists because of procreation to complement it in the social and other aspects of life. It looks like you have not watched the video. So I will repeat: between man and woman, it is IN PRINCIPLE possible to have babies, IN PRINCIPLE means: relating to the definition. So women with hysterectomies or infertile couples can IN PRINCIPLE have babies with other man, the fact that some particular circumstances does not allow man and woman to have babies does not make it the same case as man+man and woman+woman because between man and man making babies is IN PRINCIPLE impossible.
The law is not suppose to treat women differently from men or homosexuals differently from heterosexuals. That is not what the law is for. So stop it.
The law does not treat homosexuals differently, all men and all women have the right to be married. The thing is that homosexuals try to expand their rights not trying to equalize them, because they in fact ARE equal even if you can marry just between male and female. In short: the fact that you can marry someone of the opposing sex does treat EVERYONE the same.
You keep saying "IN PRINCIPLE" which is hilarious. Because no, a woman with a hysterecotomy cannot IN PRINCIPLE have babies. She lacks the necessary equipment to make babies. She's just as likely to give birth as a man. It is incidental that homosexuals cannot have sex and produce children in this specific way, due to them having the same genitalia.
If you're going to take a looser definition of "In Principle," then once again, heterosexuals can adopt, and so can homosexuals. Explain to me what the difference is between a heterosexual couple adopting a child and a homosexual couple adopting a child. You (and the idiot in the video) are trying to use "in principle" as a way to make your argument more ambiguous, so you can use a looser definition when you want to, and then a tighter definition when you don't want to.
The law treats men and women differently. They are only allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex. That means you have different rights. If I want to marry a man, then whether or not I have the right to do so is completely based around my genitals.
Well, I certainly didn't expect such a strong move from Google. Very awesome.
Also with regards to the discussion in this thread, arguing slippery slope arguments with people is pointless. If they're using them they've clearly not thought about the issues and are giving obviously absurd opinions that even 1 minute of research would debunk.
Yeah, I know it's a good cause and all, but I don't like the idea of Google using the fact that hundreds of millions of people use it everyday to spread political views. It's popular because it's a good search engine, and bringing politics into this to exploit their user base seems wrong to me, no matter what the cause.
This thread makes me laugh and cry at the same time.
In any case I do support Google's move, hopefully something tangible comes of it.
It is scary to see how many people don't understand the social, cultural, and economic tangents and concepts associated with homosexuality and gay marriage, and how critical it is to comprehend that beliefs of homosexuality and right and wrong are entirely socially constructed. There is no complete rational argument for prohibiting gay marriage ''-__-
On July 08 2012 21:55 Cutlery wrote: You have not explained why homosexuality is a pathology. All I got from you was that certain abnormal traits (or whatever) were explained by pathologies. This does not apply to homosexuality without further reasoning. Pathology is merely another irrelevant point, atleast as you presented it......
Homosexuality is an abnormal condition that causes a human being to think inaccurately about the genders amongst whom sexual activities make sense (refer to the plug-and-outlet image if you need clarification on the "makes sense" part). Pretty simple stuff though... not sure where you're having trouble.
Yeah that's what you think, but that doesn't mean that's how it actually is.
On July 08 2012 21:37 munchmunch wrote: 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.
Well, then, let's just get rid of all borders and country name. And let's supplement that with a skin-toning innovation that will change the skin colour of all humans to one single colour. C'mon man!... it's not discrimination to call someone Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Black, Gay, Straight... It's discrimination if you take specific rights away from them that make them worse off. By giving gays the same rights and calling it something else, I really don't think you're doing the world any harm at all.
What exactly is the point of calling it something different? Believe it or not, Homosexuals are just as sentimental about the word marriage as heterosexuals are. The only point of changing the name is to insult homosexual marriages. Insulting people is not what the law is for.
It doesn't matter though, because at the moment they don't get nearly the same rights.
On July 08 2012 21:47 Legate wrote:
On July 08 2012 21:43 peacenl wrote:
On July 08 2012 21:41 Legate wrote: What about polygamy or Human–animal marriage? Wouldn't it be discriminating to exclude them ? I guess its just not as popular, yet...
Where do you draw the line?
Ever heard of mutual-consent?
So it would be ok if one marries lets say, 2 men and 3 woman if they all agree with it?
Sure, why not? Are you going to stop them?
So what if you inflate those numbers to say 200 men and 300 women, or even higher than that? Is there a number where it stops?
I would let the whole world marry itself if every person on this planet was so inclined to participate in such a relationship. Could you please start using some logic? And by logic, I mean objective logic. Not this slippery slope bull shit which seems to be all you know how to understand.
I don't think you understand the point I am making.... Do have any idea what marriage laws would look like with so many people taking part in them?
The slippery slope argument is a terrible one, you can keep fantasizing about all the horrible scenarios that would occur if you would do this, but that doesn't mean any of them would actually happen. You can apply the slippery slope argument to nearly anything, and guess what, if we DID do that, no one would actually ever do something because oh lord look at all the horrible things that COULD happen.
We allows gays to marry and suddenly we get groups of HUNDREDS of people that want to marry each other..... hmm no.
I really don't understand why people use slippery slope arguments. Are you really that stupid? Don't leave your house guys! Someone may break in and take all your stuff and eat your food! If you stay home a bomb will explode and kill you inside of it! Or a flood may drown you!
The amount of slippery slope arguments in this thread is fucking hilarious.
Anyway, OT: It's a nice initiative from Google. Let's see if it actually does anything though.
If anything Facebook should come out and help Google so maybe we can see all the fundie Christians delete their facebooks so i don't have to see Jesus posts all damn day.
On July 08 2012 21:55 Cutlery wrote: You have not explained why homosexuality is a pathology. All I got from you was that certain abnormal traits (or whatever) were explained by pathologies. This does not apply to homosexuality without further reasoning. Pathology is merely another irrelevant point, atleast as you presented it......
Homosexuality is an abnormal condition that causes a human being to think inaccurately about the genders amongst whom sexual activities make sense (refer to the plug-and-outlet image if you need clarification on the "makes sense" part). Pretty simple stuff though... not sure where you're having trouble.
On July 08 2012 21:58 Cutlery wrote: Pathology: (Medicine) the branch of medicine concerned with the cause, origin, and nature of disease, including the changes occurring as a result of disease.
Or
The scientific study of the nature of disease and its causes, processes, development, and consequences. Also called pathobiology.
You have to link homosexuality to a disease in order to call it a pathology. And then, if we really care anymore, we can start talking about who is making irrelevant arguments.
Or
The first word patho means feeling or suffering and logos means study.
What study concluded with homosexuality is suffering?
Root words are not always indicative of the meaning of the word that they make up. So you're being too literal when you break a word down into parts like that. Nevertheless, one could perhaps interpret homosexuality as suffering from irrational thinking if suffering is so essential to your definition.
And no, I don't care enough to go into it. But you seem quite interested, so you should definitely read the works of doctors, philosophers and scientists who are actively involved in the discussion. Have fun!
Making up your own definitions is usually not preferable in a discussion. Got nothing to say other than You're wrong. Plain simple. Have a nice day.
Ok, one mor thing for curiosity. Is your sexuality mostly based on thinking? Or would "homosexuality suffering from irrational emotions" be more accurate? And then; what are irrational emotions? Or is your sexuality really only about thinking? (Above you attribute sexuality mainly to the act of thought.)
On July 08 2012 22:07 munchmunch wrote: Whether you or I calling "gay marriage" by that term harms anyone depends on context. It could be purely descriptive, loving and supportive, or hateful, depending on what you are saying along with it. But we are not talking about what you or I are allowed to say. No matter what is decided on the gay marriage debate, you will still be allowed to use the term "gay marriage", even if you are using it as part of a long gay-bashing rant. That's free speech. What we're debating is whether or not the government should use the term "gay marriage" as part of its law. You can certainly make a case that having the government single out a group of people for special treatment, with no rational basis, is harmful. And even if it's not harmful, it's a legal principle in the Western world that laws should always have a rational basis, i.e. if it's legally equivalent to marriage, you shouldn't call it something else "just because".
Women and men are legally equivalent. Yet we don't refer to a woman as a man (or the other way around) in our legal system? Thus, even if there is a legal equivalence between the two unions there is still a substantial enough difference between the two that it justifies calling it something else. In fact, it's probably advantageous to do so for the purposes of clarity and transparency. Gay people refer to their spouses as their "partner", not their "wife" or "husband". It clarifies that they are gay and helps people not assume that they are not gay. So to be honest, it's actually more advantageous than it is discriminatory. And your point about legal equivalence is not that important either, when you consider what I mentioned above.
On July 08 2012 22:11 Munk-E wrote: Yeah, I know it's a good cause and all, but I don't like the idea of Google using the fact that hundreds of millions of people use it everyday to spread political views. It's popular because it's a good search engine, and bringing politics into this to exploit their user base seems wrong to me, no matter what the cause.
Google has always been a huge supporter of gay rights, and campaigned both in California and Washington state for it.
You have to understand that they are a company, and many of their employees are homosexual. These employees want to get married, but they also want to stay with Google. Google got more involved in it because they were frustrated with their employees having to make such a ridiculous decision.
On July 08 2012 21:55 Cutlery wrote: You have not explained why homosexuality is a pathology. All I got from you was that certain abnormal traits (or whatever) were explained by pathologies. This does not apply to homosexuality without further reasoning. Pathology is merely another irrelevant point, atleast as you presented it......
Homosexuality is an abnormal condition that causes a human being to think inaccurately about the genders amongst whom sexual activities make sense (refer to the plug-and-outlet image if you need clarification on the "makes sense" part). Pretty simple stuff though... not sure where you're having trouble.
On July 08 2012 21:58 Cutlery wrote: Pathology: (Medicine) the branch of medicine concerned with the cause, origin, and nature of disease, including the changes occurring as a result of disease.
Or
The scientific study of the nature of disease and its causes, processes, development, and consequences. Also called pathobiology.
You have to link homosexuality to a disease in order to call it a pathology. And then, if we really care anymore, we can start talking about who is making irrelevant arguments.
Or
The first word patho means feeling or suffering and logos means study.
What study concluded with homosexuality is suffering?
Root words are not always indicative of the meaning of the word that they make up. So you're being too literal when you break a word down into parts like that. Nevertheless, one could perhaps interpret homosexuality as suffering from irrational thinking if suffering is so essential to your definition.
And no, I don't care enough to go into it. But you seem quite interested, so you should definitely read the works of doctors, philosophers and scientists who are actively involved in the discussion. Have fun!
Got nothing to say other than You're wrong. Plain simple. Have a nice day.
Much like a small spiders are disgusting but not at all dangerous, yet many people fear it because if something looks disgusting we've learned to fear it because it must carry diseases or pack deadly bites (evolutionary). Eventually in the same way gay marriage creates a lot of disgust around (haters want us to believe that homosexuals are all ridden with genital diseases and try to hit on you all the time), some people start fearing it after a while (these are the people who oppose usually), yet they might have only had a few encounters with homosexual persons (polarization). Which is why for the sake of aliens, they should never show up on this planet, because we are not ready yet to start looking beyond our own inner fears.
On July 08 2012 20:07 DonKey_ wrote: Hm I realy don't have any problem with gay marriage as long it is labeled "gay marriage" and not "marriage". It would only serve to confuse the situation if two separate instances of marriage (Hetero and Homo) were refered to as the same thing when a fundamental difference exists in them.
Of course all legal rights and privelages would be the same in each, I would just hope a distinction would be made between the two.
Marriage between a black man and a white woman is called marriage. Marriage between an older man and a younger woman is called marriage. If it is self evident to people that discrimination based upon age and race are unnecessary then why the sticking point over orientation. No two people are the same and therefore no two marriages will ever be the same. Deciding you need to describe these marriages in detail, but not those, is absurd.
That's a good point you raise actualy, I think if wasn't a logistics problem it would be a good idea to go back and define all marriages more clearly.
How does it hurt anyone when all the same rules apply to all different instances of marriage, but we actualy describe them as what they are?
It gives the unnessecary implication that some marriages are better than others. Its the same reason the "seperate but equal" ruling was overtuned in the supreme court. They said it does not have to be unfair it merely has to be percieved as such for it to be discrimination.
See thats the thing, I don't think that the kind of discrimination that existed in the 1900s for African Americans is any where near the same as the kind of discrimination that exists for Gay marriage currently.
If you are gay you are not going to be forced out of a restraunt or forced to use different restrooms. Our society today with innovations such as the Internet and mass media media will not allow for such discrimination to exist. In fact look at the groups who discriminate, (westboro) they are made out as pariahs.
More information on legal classifications will only help matters in the long run.
Edit: I can't understand why pertinent information would be censored for a presumed sense that it will make marriage of any type more legitimate. If our laws say it is a marriage then it is a marriage.
Yes you can just legally be fired from your job in a fairly large majority of US states JUST for being gay(I dont know international law), not to mention all the benefits both tax and legal that one is denied not having the right to get married.
On July 08 2012 21:37 munchmunch wrote: 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.
Well, then, let's just get rid of all borders and country name. And let's supplement that with a skin-toning innovation that will change the skin colour of all humans to one single colour. C'mon man!... it's not discrimination to call someone Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Black, Gay, Straight... It's discrimination if you take specific rights away from them that make them worse off. By giving gays the same rights and calling it something else, I really don't think you're doing the world any harm at all.
What exactly is the point of calling it something different? Believe it or not, Homosexuals are just as sentimental about the word marriage as heterosexuals are. The only point of changing the name is to insult homosexual marriages. Insulting people is not what the law is for.
It doesn't matter though, because at the moment they don't get nearly the same rights.
On July 08 2012 21:47 Legate wrote:
On July 08 2012 21:43 peacenl wrote:
On July 08 2012 21:41 Legate wrote: What about polygamy or Human–animal marriage? Wouldn't it be discriminating to exclude them ? I guess its just not as popular, yet...
Where do you draw the line?
Ever heard of mutual-consent?
So it would be ok if one marries lets say, 2 men and 3 woman if they all agree with it?
Sure, why not? Are you going to stop them?
So what if you inflate those numbers to say 200 men and 300 women, or even higher than that? Is there a number where it stops?
I would let the whole world marry itself if every person on this planet was so inclined to participate in such a relationship. Could you please start using some logic? And by logic, I mean objective logic. Not this slippery slope bull shit which seems to be all you know how to understand.
I don't think you understand the point I am making.... Do have any idea what marriage laws would look like with so many people taking part in them?
Just because you can pose a hypothetical question does not mean it has any practical sense. There are responsibilities and obligations that go into getting married- not just extra legal and financial benefits.
Do you really think 200 men and 300 women are all going to get married in a huge 500-some marriage? Do you actually think that will happen?
But guess what? If they're all consenting adults, and can financially and morally provide for every person involved in that family (e.g. kids), then who cares? It's an unrealistic hypothetical situation, but a polygamous marriage should be fine as long as everyone involved is okay with it. And if you don't want to get involved, don't have a polygamous marriage. Same with a gay couple or a straight couple. Don't like gay marriage? Don't get one. Move on.
But we should draw the line at adult consent. None of this marrying animals or rocks or children nonsense; that's a slippery slope argument that I've heard way too frequently from idiots like Glenn Beck.
It's really cool of google to do this. I really like google, actually. They seem to always do the right thing. Even if their motives can be a bit selfish in the end, it's still far better than being selfish and doing the wrong thing. Many points to google once again.
Hilarious how some people compare gay people to animals, lovely. This thread should probably be a bit better moderated, you get fired from jobs for that kind of stuff over here.
I really don't see how anyone can be against this. It's been far too long that same sex couples can't get the same rights as straight couples can.
If you have the time, this video explains why it needs to be legalized.
Edit: Also that Wanda Sykes video DarkPlasmaBall posted, just wanted to pull what I think is a really important quote there. "I don't understand people all up in arms over shit that don't affect them."
On July 08 2012 22:07 munchmunch wrote: Whether you or I calling "gay marriage" by that term harms anyone depends on context. It could be purely descriptive, loving and supportive, or hateful, depending on what you are saying along with it. But we are not talking about what you or I are allowed to say. No matter what is decided on the gay marriage debate, you will still be allowed to use the term "gay marriage", even if you are using it as part of a long gay-bashing rant. That's free speech. What we're debating is whether or not the government should use the term "gay marriage" as part of its law. You can certainly make a case that having the government single out a group of people for special treatment, with no rational basis, is harmful. And even if it's not harmful, it's a legal principle in the Western world that laws should always have a rational basis, i.e. if it's legally equivalent to marriage, you shouldn't call it something else "just because".
Women and men are legally equivalent. Yet we don't refer to a woman as a man (or the other way around) in our legal system? Thus, even if there is a legal equivalence between the two unions there is still a substantial enough difference between the two that it justifies calling it something else. In fact, it's probably advantageous to do so for the purposes of clarity and transparency. Gay people refer to their spouses as their "partner", not their "wife" or "husband". It clarifies that they are gay and helps people not assume that they are not gay. So to be honest, it's actually more advantageous than it is discriminatory. And your point about legal equivalence is not that important either, when you consider what I mentioned above.
Once again, the gay marriage debate is not about what gay people should call their spouses (although for the record, many gay people do use the terms "husband" or "wife"). The debate is (partially) about what language governments should use for their laws. And since that is what we are arguing about, the point about legal equivalence is key. So for example, it could be discriminatory if the government referred to men and women in a law that had no need for such a distinction. For example, I think it would be discriminatory if we had a special crime called "reckless driving while female", even if the crime was equivalent to the ordinary type of reckless driving. It's not discriminatory to make distinctions between men and women if there is a rational basis to do so. For example, it's perfectly fine to have a health insurance law where men are covered for visits to a urologist, and women are covered for visits to a gynecologist, but not vice-versa.
And I might also point out that this is not my idea; I learned about this by reading about court decisions concerning gay marriage. This is one of the legal principles that is being used by judges (in the US, at least) to decide what types of laws are allowable concerning gay marriage / civil unions / etc.
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.
On July 08 2012 21:39 DoubleReed wrote: I think I remember that Google was a big push to get same-sex marriage legalized in Washington State. Gay people want to live in states where they can get married, and many companies were frustrated that employees had to make the choice between staying at their job and getting married.
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
Once again, homosexuals can adopt children. This argument holds no water and is incredibly offensive to married people everywhere. Marriage is more than whether your bits dangle or not and it is more than making babies.
The law does not treat women who have had hysterectomies differently than women who haven't had hysterectomies. The law is not suppose to treat women differently from men or homosexuals differently from heterosexuals. That is not what the law is for. So stop it.
Yes, it IS more than making babies but my point is that it exists because of procreation to complement it in the social and other aspects of life. It looks like you have not watched the video. So I will repeat: between man and woman, it is IN PRINCIPLE possible to have babies, IN PRINCIPLE means: relating to the definition. So women with hysterectomies or infertile couples can IN PRINCIPLE have babies with other man, the fact that some particular circumstances does not allow man and woman to have babies does not make it the same case as man+man and woman+woman because between man and man making babies is IN PRINCIPLE impossible.
The law is not suppose to treat women differently from men or homosexuals differently from heterosexuals. That is not what the law is for. So stop it.
The law does not treat homosexuals differently, all men and all women have the right to be married. The thing is that homosexuals try to expand their rights not trying to equalize them, because they in fact ARE equal even if you can marry just between male and female. In short: the fact that you can marry someone of the opposing sex does treat EVERYONE the same.
You keep saying "IN PRINCIPLE" which is hilarious. Because no, a woman with a hysterecotomy cannot IN PRINCIPLE have babies. She lacks the necessary equipment to make babies. She's just as likely to give birth as a man. It is incidental that homosexuals cannot have sex and produce children in this specific way, due to them having the same genitalia.
If you're going to take a looser definition of "In Principle," then once again, heterosexuals can adopt, and so can homosexuals. Explain to me what the difference is between a heterosexual couple adopting a child and a homosexual couple adopting a child. You (and the idiot in the video) are trying to use "in principle" as a way to make your argument more ambiguous, so you can use a looser definition when you want to, and then a tighter definition when you don't want to.
The law treats men and women differently. They are only allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex. That means you have different rights. If I want to marry a man, then whether or not I have the right to do so is completely based around my genitals.
Because no, a woman with a hysterecotomy cannot IN PRINCIPLE have babies.
Yes, that is true. But in marriage you look at two individuals, you look at man and woman, you DO NOT look at every possible circumstance and condition, you just look at the definition of man and woman, not woman with hysterectomy or ANY other condition. So again, between man and woman it is in principle (ok, i will type it in lower case, i dont want to irritate you ) possible. I use "in principle" just as tight as possible to make the discussion reasonable, and in this case I use it always the same not looser or tighter. Laws cannot solve every possible circumstance, thats why they function by means of principles and definitions.
The law treats men and women differently. They are only allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex.
Really? Please read it again. Think about it - statement: "You are allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex." ...does that treat ANYONE differently???
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,
So.. Instead of voting for a quicker resolution to the issues of unequal human rights, so that we could move on to other issues; you'd stall it even further? I find the rest of your post as a reason to quickly resolve this issue, not the other way around.
"Let them have it.." human rights don't really matter, right?^^
On July 08 2012 22:30 ahappystar wrote: why aren't you spending more time on the economic problems of your country.
The law treats men and women differently. They are only allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex.
Really? Please read it again. Think about it - statement: "You are allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex." ...does that treat ANYONE differently???
Everyone with blonde hairs will receive a free icecream. Would you think you're being treated like everyone else if you're a ginger ?
Why would you not be allowed to receive this succulent icecream just because your hairs looks different ?
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.
We're sorry you're upset. We abjectly apologize. We didn't realize that talking about something which deeply affects our friends and people we love was annoying you and other "normal" people so much. We'll stop now.
On July 08 2012 22:23 Firesilver wrote: I really don't see how anyone can be against this. It's been far too long that same sex couples can't get the same rights as straight couples can.
I think it's a compilation of three things:
1. Religious beliefs (e.g. Leviticus 18:22- although there are plenty of other absurd things in Leviticus and other Biblical books that are completely ignored nowadays)
2. The fact that homosexuals have been a nearly-voiceless minority and therefore there isn't a rush to give them civil rights or see them as equals (see: women, blacks, atheists, etc.)
3. The "ick" factor that the majority of (straight) people get when they see intimacy that they can't relate to (which is rather ironic, since homosexuals need to put up with straight sex and public displays of affection in the media, television, and movies all the time).
Regardless, these are things we need to get over eventually, we will get over eventually, and years from now we'll look back and shake our heads at how bigoted our society was, even after we bragged about formally ending slavery and giving extra rights to some people. I'm very proud of Google.
On July 08 2012 22:11 Munk-E wrote: Yeah, I know it's a good cause and all, but I don't like the idea of Google using the fact that hundreds of millions of people use it everyday to spread political views. It's popular because it's a good search engine, and bringing politics into this to exploit their user base seems wrong to me, no matter what the cause.
It can be viewed as political, but frankly it's bigger than that. Supporting human rights is not only political.
On July 08 2012 22:11 Munk-E wrote: Yeah, I know it's a good cause and all, but I don't like the idea of Google using the fact that hundreds of millions of people use it everyday to spread political views. It's popular because it's a good search engine, and bringing politics into this to exploit their user base seems wrong to me, no matter what the cause.
It can be viewed as political, but frankly it's bigger than that. Supporting human rights is not only political.
On July 08 2012 22:11 Munk-E wrote: Yeah, I know it's a good cause and all, but I don't like the idea of Google using the fact that hundreds of millions of people use it everyday to spread political views. It's popular because it's a good search engine, and bringing politics into this to exploit their user base seems wrong to me, no matter what the cause.
It can be viewed as political, but frankly it's bigger than that. Supporting human rights is not only political.
Good on them, I say.
Since when is gay marriage a human right ?
Since the law discriminated against relationship statuses based upon the people involved in them. Thus there are rights for humans tied to the status of marriage. It's not an inherent UN "human right" like food and water and what not.. (which have issues on their own, but that's different). This is more comparable to the stripping of rights from jews in europe many decades ago, or the stripping of rights of blacks in south africa and the US.
Things have progressed for sure, atleast "here". But in many countries you still get killed and deserve death by law if you are homosexual. And then it suddenly becomes a "UN human right" as no one deserves death like that.
On July 08 2012 21:39 DoubleReed wrote: I think I remember that Google was a big push to get same-sex marriage legalized in Washington State. Gay people want to live in states where they can get married, and many companies were frustrated that employees had to make the choice between staying at their job and getting married.
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
Once again, homosexuals can adopt children. This argument holds no water and is incredibly offensive to married people everywhere. Marriage is more than whether your bits dangle or not and it is more than making babies.
The law does not treat women who have had hysterectomies differently than women who haven't had hysterectomies. The law is not suppose to treat women differently from men or homosexuals differently from heterosexuals. That is not what the law is for. So stop it.
Yes, it IS more than making babies but my point is that it exists because of procreation to complement it in the social and other aspects of life. It looks like you have not watched the video. So I will repeat: between man and woman, it is IN PRINCIPLE possible to have babies, IN PRINCIPLE means: relating to the definition. So women with hysterectomies or infertile couples can IN PRINCIPLE have babies with other man, the fact that some particular circumstances does not allow man and woman to have babies does not make it the same case as man+man and woman+woman because between man and man making babies is IN PRINCIPLE impossible.
The law is not suppose to treat women differently from men or homosexuals differently from heterosexuals. That is not what the law is for. So stop it.
The law does not treat homosexuals differently, all men and all women have the right to be married. The thing is that homosexuals try to expand their rights not trying to equalize them, because they in fact ARE equal even if you can marry just between male and female. In short: the fact that you can marry someone of the opposing sex does treat EVERYONE the same.
You keep saying "IN PRINCIPLE" which is hilarious. Because no, a woman with a hysterecotomy cannot IN PRINCIPLE have babies. She lacks the necessary equipment to make babies. She's just as likely to give birth as a man. It is incidental that homosexuals cannot have sex and produce children in this specific way, due to them having the same genitalia.
If you're going to take a looser definition of "In Principle," then once again, heterosexuals can adopt, and so can homosexuals. Explain to me what the difference is between a heterosexual couple adopting a child and a homosexual couple adopting a child. You (and the idiot in the video) are trying to use "in principle" as a way to make your argument more ambiguous, so you can use a looser definition when you want to, and then a tighter definition when you don't want to.
The law treats men and women differently. They are only allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex. That means you have different rights. If I want to marry a man, then whether or not I have the right to do so is completely based around my genitals.
Because no, a woman with a hysterecotomy cannot IN PRINCIPLE have babies.
Yes, that is true. But in marriage you look at two individuals, you look at man and woman, you DO NOT look at every possible circumstance and condition, you just look at the definition of man and woman, not woman with hysterectomy or ANY other condition. So again, between man and woman it is in principle (ok, i will type it in lower case, i dont want to irritate you ) possible. I use "in principle" just as tight as possible to make the discussion reasonable, and in this case I use it always the same not looser or tighter. Laws cannot solve every possible circumstance, thats why they function by means of principles and definitions.
The law treats men and women differently. They are only allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex.
Really? Please read it again. Think about it - statement: "You are allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex." ...does that treat ANYONE differently???
Ah, so you're just a sexist. I don't know any other way to say it. I do not think the law should treat people differently because of their genitals. Why are you claiming that we do not look at every possible circumstance and condition? It would be rather easy to ban women from marrying over age 50, where it's extremely unlikely that they can bear children (and if they can it's incredibly dangerous), or banning women from marrying if they get a hysterectomy. Why couldn't we do that, if we are saying that marriage is about babies? Come on, these people are destroying the institution of marriage.
"You are allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex" is quite similar to "you are allowed to marry a person of the same race" in terms of equality. Yes, actually, it does treat people differently. I have no idea what magical world you live in where that doesn't treat people differently. Maybe you don't consider women to be people? I'm not sure what mental gymnastics you're performing here.
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.
Hello list of terrible arguments, seriously if you don't see what's wrong with this train of thought, I don't even know what to say anymore.
On July 08 2012 22:11 Munk-E wrote: Yeah, I know it's a good cause and all, but I don't like the idea of Google using the fact that hundreds of millions of people use it everyday to spread political views. It's popular because it's a good search engine, and bringing politics into this to exploit their user base seems wrong to me, no matter what the cause.
It can be viewed as political, but frankly it's bigger than that. Supporting human rights is not only political.
Good on them, I say.
Since when is gay marriage a human right ?
Since the law discriminated against relationship statuses based upon the people involved in them. Thus there are rights for humans tied to the status of marriage. It's not an inherent UN "human right" like food and what not..
At least "The European Court of Human Rights" does not agree with you.
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.
I'm not sure if you realize this, but giving homosexuals equal rights is a civil rights issue. There's a reason to be loud about this.
We're not smugly and omnisciently talking about how chocolate chip cookies are better than oatmeal raisin. We're talking about a topic that affects people's lives on a daily basis (gay people; marriage; the right to love one another and receive the same benefits and responsibilities as everyone else).
Some people care about social issues. Other people care about economic issues. Whatever you care about, make sure you're well-informed and well-educated on the topic, pick a side, and get loud about it. But don't roll your eyes at people who are passionate about believing in human rights.
On July 08 2012 22:11 Munk-E wrote: Yeah, I know it's a good cause and all, but I don't like the idea of Google using the fact that hundreds of millions of people use it everyday to spread political views. It's popular because it's a good search engine, and bringing politics into this to exploit their user base seems wrong to me, no matter what the cause.
It can be viewed as political, but frankly it's bigger than that. Supporting human rights is not only political.
Good on them, I say.
Since when is gay marriage a human right ?
Since the law discriminated against relationship statuses based upon the people involved in them. Thus there are rights for humans tied to the status of marriage. It's not an inherent UN "human right" like food and what not..
At least "The European Court of Human Rights" does not agree with you.
So that specific one sets the tone for every piece of paper on Human Rights, or is it only one of them, which was thrown together by fallible humans like ourselves?
Does "The European Court of Human Rights" talk about equality at all? Why would homosexuals be treated as inferiors? Why would they have less rights?
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.
I'm not sure if you realize this, but giving homosexuals equal rights is a civil rights issue. There's a reason to be loud about this.
We're not smugly and omnisciently talking about how chocolate chip cookies are better than oatmeal raisin. We're talking about a topic that affects people's lives on a daily basis (gay people; marriage; the right to love one another and receive the same benefits and responsibilities as everyone else).
Some people care about social issues. Other people care about economic issues. Whatever you care about, make sure you're well-informed and well-educated on the topic, pick a side, and get loud about it. But don't roll your eyes at people who are passionate about believing in human rights.
The kind of view that Kokobongo perpetuates is exactly what made the West "great".
On July 08 2012 22:11 Munk-E wrote: Yeah, I know it's a good cause and all, but I don't like the idea of Google using the fact that hundreds of millions of people use it everyday to spread political views. It's popular because it's a good search engine, and bringing politics into this to exploit their user base seems wrong to me, no matter what the cause.
It can be viewed as political, but frankly it's bigger than that. Supporting human rights is not only political.
Good on them, I say.
Since when is gay marriage a human right ?
Since the law discriminated against relationship statuses based upon the people involved in them. Thus there are rights for humans tied to the status of marriage. It's not an inherent UN "human right" like food and what not..
At least "The European Court of Human Rights" does not agree with you.
Are you seriously trying to use the 'slippery slope' argument to oppose gay marriage? Or "they'll get made fun of by kids in school'? I ask because they are both poorly constructed and don't really make sense.
The law treats men and women differently. They are only allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex.
Really? Please read it again. Think about it - statement: "You are allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex." ...does that treat ANYONE differently???
I'd have to say yes. Based on what we know today, it does treat some people differently. To some, marrying a woman is not fathomable, so that "statement" tells them they can only get married to someone they don't want to marry. In a way it is a non-functional statement to them. A "dysfunctional" "law" even.
So if marriage should be based, atleast in part, on love, then your statement treats people differently. If marriage had nothing to do with love or personal feelings, I would have agreed with you.
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
My method was logic. The sentence "Procreation cannot be understood apart from marriage" is illogical.
Contra-"example": People get pregnant outside of marriage.
So you agree that marriage is about more thawn procreation. Then you cannot claim that marriage can not be understood apart from procreation, can you?
Or, look at it historically.
"First" there were arranged marriages, one way or another.
For instance, marrying for money and political standing was very common. The reason for such marriages is/was to create certain financial or political "bonds" (or whatever you want to call them). For instance between royal families, or families with good standing. For a rich daughter to run off with the stable-boy was a travesty.
Currently we marry for love, more or less. There are other reasons, but we atleast like to think that we marry for love. I don't see procreation as a defining attribute for marrige. It is merely one attribute among many. As has been mentioned; women above 50 can get married while in reality being unable to conceive for the rest of their lives. Infertile (sterile) men and women can get married, without being able to procreate, ever. And so on.
Therefore I'll claim that my "method" is logic, and it works. Using logic illogically does not prove a point.
Your contra example does not refute my argument.
Marriage is about more than procreation, but the institution of marriage exists because of it, thats what i was trying to say, so when you say that people marry because of love, politics and whatever, yes that is true, your reason to marry someone can be whatever, but I believe the institution of marriage exists because of procreation so if you allow couples that in principle cannot procreate you just destroy the meaning of marriage.
If you start to loosen the conditions, you can (and notice I do not say that necessarily will) end up having marriage absolutely different meaning and I think thats bad.
On July 08 2012 22:11 Munk-E wrote: Yeah, I know it's a good cause and all, but I don't like the idea of Google using the fact that hundreds of millions of people use it everyday to spread political views. It's popular because it's a good search engine, and bringing politics into this to exploit their user base seems wrong to me, no matter what the cause.
It can be viewed as political, but frankly it's bigger than that. Supporting human rights is not only political.
Good on them, I say.
Since when is gay marriage a human right ?
Since the law discriminated against relationship statuses based upon the people involved in them. Thus there are rights for humans tied to the status of marriage. It's not an inherent UN "human right" like food and what not..
At least "The European Court of Human Rights" does not agree with you.
Are you seriously trying to use the 'slippery slope' argument to oppose gay marriage? Or "they'll get made fun of by kids in school'? I ask because they are both poorly constructed and don't really make sense.
So.. Instead of voting for a quicker resolution to the issues of unequal human rights, so that we could move on to other issues; you'd stall it even further? I find the rest of your post as a reason to quickly resolve this issue, not the other way around.
"Let them have it.." human rights don't really matter, right?^^
This is such a non-issue, how do I explain this... A little girl asks me for a lollypop. Instead of think about how much money this lollypop costs or if it is bad for her I say 'fuck it, here's your lollypop' because it's just a lollypop, no need to make an issue about a lollypop.
On July 08 2012 22:30 ahappystar wrote: why aren't you spending more time on the economic problems of your country.
I am, but then again no need to shove the problems of my country down everybody's throats and make stupid threads on teamliquid now is there?^^
We're sorry you're upset. We abjectly apologize. We didn't realize that talking about something which deeply affects our friends and people we love was annoying you and other "normal" people so much. We'll stop now.
Ohhh I see what you did there, you think when I was talking about self-centered know-it-alls quasi-intelectuals I was talking about you? Well thank you for saying you will stop, even if it was a bit sarcastic, thats the first step ^^
On July 08 2012 22:11 Munk-E wrote: Yeah, I know it's a good cause and all, but I don't like the idea of Google using the fact that hundreds of millions of people use it everyday to spread political views. It's popular because it's a good search engine, and bringing politics into this to exploit their user base seems wrong to me, no matter what the cause.
It can be viewed as political, but frankly it's bigger than that. Supporting human rights is not only political.
Good on them, I say.
Since when is gay marriage a human right ?
Since the law discriminated against relationship statuses based upon the people involved in them. Thus there are rights for humans tied to the status of marriage. It's not an inherent UN "human right" like food and what not..
At least "The European Court of Human Rights" does not agree with you.
Are you seriously trying to use the 'slippery slope' argument to oppose gay marriage? Or "they'll get made fun of by kids in school'? I ask because they are both poorly constructed and don't really make sense.
But are they false?
The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy, so yes, by definition it is false.
On July 08 2012 21:39 DoubleReed wrote: I think I remember that Google was a big push to get same-sex marriage legalized in Washington State. Gay people want to live in states where they can get married, and many companies were frustrated that employees had to make the choice between staying at their job and getting married.
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
Once again, homosexuals can adopt children. This argument holds no water and is incredibly offensive to married people everywhere. Marriage is more than whether your bits dangle or not and it is more than making babies.
The law does not treat women who have had hysterectomies differently than women who haven't had hysterectomies. The law is not suppose to treat women differently from men or homosexuals differently from heterosexuals. That is not what the law is for. So stop it.
Yes, it IS more than making babies but my point is that it exists because of procreation to complement it in the social and other aspects of life. It looks like you have not watched the video. So I will repeat: between man and woman, it is IN PRINCIPLE possible to have babies, IN PRINCIPLE means: relating to the definition. So women with hysterectomies or infertile couples can IN PRINCIPLE have babies with other man, the fact that some particular circumstances does not allow man and woman to have babies does not make it the same case as man+man and woman+woman because between man and man making babies is IN PRINCIPLE impossible.
The law is not suppose to treat women differently from men or homosexuals differently from heterosexuals. That is not what the law is for. So stop it.
The law does not treat homosexuals differently, all men and all women have the right to be married. The thing is that homosexuals try to expand their rights not trying to equalize them, because they in fact ARE equal even if you can marry just between male and female. In short: the fact that you can marry someone of the opposing sex does treat EVERYONE the same.
You keep saying "IN PRINCIPLE" which is hilarious. Because no, a woman with a hysterecotomy cannot IN PRINCIPLE have babies. She lacks the necessary equipment to make babies. She's just as likely to give birth as a man. It is incidental that homosexuals cannot have sex and produce children in this specific way, due to them having the same genitalia.
If you're going to take a looser definition of "In Principle," then once again, heterosexuals can adopt, and so can homosexuals. Explain to me what the difference is between a heterosexual couple adopting a child and a homosexual couple adopting a child. You (and the idiot in the video) are trying to use "in principle" as a way to make your argument more ambiguous, so you can use a looser definition when you want to, and then a tighter definition when you don't want to.
The law treats men and women differently. They are only allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex. That means you have different rights. If I want to marry a man, then whether or not I have the right to do so is completely based around my genitals.
Because no, a woman with a hysterecotomy cannot IN PRINCIPLE have babies.
Yes, that is true. But in marriage you look at two individuals, you look at man and woman, you DO NOT look at every possible circumstance and condition, you just look at the definition of man and woman, not woman with hysterectomy or ANY other condition. So again, between man and woman it is in principle (ok, i will type it in lower case, i dont want to irritate you ) possible. I use "in principle" just as tight as possible to make the discussion reasonable, and in this case I use it always the same not looser or tighter. Laws cannot solve every possible circumstance, thats why they function by means of principles and definitions.
The law treats men and women differently. They are only allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex.
Really? Please read it again. Think about it - statement: "You are allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex." ...does that treat ANYONE differently???
Ah, so you're just a sexist. I don't know any other way to say it. I do not think the law should treat people differently because of their genitals. Why are you claiming that we do not look at every possible circumstance and condition? It would be rather easy to ban women from marrying over age 50, where it's extremely unlikely that they can bear children (and if they can it's incredibly dangerous), or banning women from marrying if they get a hysterectomy. Why couldn't we do that, if we are saying that marriage is about babies? Come on, these people are destroying the institution of marriage.
"You are allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex" is quite similar to "you are allowed to marry a person of the same race" in terms of equality. Yes, actually, it does treat people differently. I have no idea what magical world you live in where that doesn't treat people differently. Maybe you don't consider women to be people? I'm not sure what mental gymnastics you're performing here.
Please stop putting words in my mouth, it is quite irritating. I am not a sexist and I consider women people. I also think that the law should not treat people differently because of their genitals, did I ever say that the law should??? You interchange two things: Reason for marriage for some particular couple and the reason for marriage to exist as an institution.
Your "opposite sex" and "same race" thing is something completely different, comparing race with marriage and sex seems crazy to me. I dont say people actually ARE treated equaly, and the law cannot possibly assure it, but the law should treat them equally and it does. "Everybody can marry someone of the opposite sex" please point directly how someone is treated differently by that.
On July 08 2012 22:11 Munk-E wrote: Yeah, I know it's a good cause and all, but I don't like the idea of Google using the fact that hundreds of millions of people use it everyday to spread political views. It's popular because it's a good search engine, and bringing politics into this to exploit their user base seems wrong to me, no matter what the cause.
It can be viewed as political, but frankly it's bigger than that. Supporting human rights is not only political.
Good on them, I say.
Since when is gay marriage a human right ?
Since the law discriminated against relationship statuses based upon the people involved in them. Thus there are rights for humans tied to the status of marriage. It's not an inherent UN "human right" like food and what not..
At least "The European Court of Human Rights" does not agree with you.
Elaborate. Because what you just said is not black and white. If you say what I *think* you're saying, it is that civil partnerships have, in some EU countries, taken over as "gay marriage", and comes with its own problems regarding adoption; because the adoption laws are (for now) kept separate for whatever reason. And that civil partnerships are therefor not fully equated with marriage because of certain laws (in some countries). All your sentence implies is that, by law, gays can't get married; only partake in civil union: Therefore gay marriage is not a right in that country; only the civil union.
I also think we're misunderstanding eachother on "human rights" and "civil rights"; I'm not too used to law sp34k.
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.
I'm not sure if you realize this, but giving homosexuals equal rights is a civil rights issue. There's a reason to be loud about this.
We're not smugly and omnisciently talking about how chocolate chip cookies are better than oatmeal raisin. We're talking about a topic that affects people's lives on a daily basis (gay people; marriage; the right to love one another and receive the same benefits and responsibilities as everyone else).
Some people care about social issues. Other people care about economic issues. Whatever you care about, make sure you're well-informed and well-educated on the topic, pick a side, and get loud about it. But don't roll your eyes at people who are passionate about believing in human rights.
I understand where you are coming from at the end of the day both sides are talking to brick walls, isn't there another way to go about this instead of the same threads over and over again? Wouldn't it be a bit more productive?
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.
I'm not sure if you realize this, but giving homosexuals equal rights is a civil rights issue. There's a reason to be loud about this.
We're not smugly and omnisciently talking about how chocolate chip cookies are better than oatmeal raisin. We're talking about a topic that affects people's lives on a daily basis (gay people; marriage; the right to love one another and receive the same benefits and responsibilities as everyone else).
Some people care about social issues. Other people care about economic issues. Whatever you care about, make sure you're well-informed and well-educated on the topic, pick a side, and get loud about it. But don't roll your eyes at people who are passionate about believing in human rights.
I understand where you are coming from at the end of the day both sides are talking to brick walls, isn't there another way to go about this instead of the same threads over and over again? Wouldn't it be a bit more productive?
Yes. The reason this type of discussion surfaces over and over again, is because some seem to think that being gay is a disease (or similar) and therefore spark discussions that go way above and beyond any sensibility. Welcome to TL (and the internet...-.-)
"The european court of human rights says that gay marriage is not a human right" Is neither a slippery slope argument nor an opinion. Its a fact.
If you dont agree with them, or if you think they dont know anything about human rights(which would be pretty odd despite their name) then blame them not me.
On July 08 2012 22:11 Munk-E wrote: Yeah, I know it's a good cause and all, but I don't like the idea of Google using the fact that hundreds of millions of people use it everyday to spread political views. It's popular because it's a good search engine, and bringing politics into this to exploit their user base seems wrong to me, no matter what the cause.
It can be viewed as political, but frankly it's bigger than that. Supporting human rights is not only political.
Good on them, I say.
Since when is gay marriage a human right ?
Since the law discriminated against relationship statuses based upon the people involved in them. Thus there are rights for humans tied to the status of marriage. It's not an inherent UN "human right" like food and what not..
At least "The European Court of Human Rights" does not agree with you.
Are you seriously trying to use the 'slippery slope' argument to oppose gay marriage? Or "they'll get made fun of by kids in school'? I ask because they are both poorly constructed and don't really make sense.
But are they false?
All your sentence implies is that, by law, gays can't get married; only partake in civil union: Therefore gay marriage is not a right in that country; only the civil union. This is where the terms "human rights" and "civil rights" may cause confusion. This is what the court ruled.
On July 08 2012 23:01 Legate wrote: "The european court of human rights says that gay marriage is not a human right" Is neither a slippery slope argument nor an opinion. Its a fact.
If you dont agree with them, or if you think they dont know anything about human rights(which would be pretty odd despite their name) then blame them not me.
Until law is changed so that gay marriage is legal (and not civil unions with certain restrictions to adoption and what not), gay marriage will not be a "human/civil right". Once law is changed, subsequent rulings must follow the new law. This is the job of the court... Nothing more.
On July 08 2012 23:01 Legate wrote: "The european court of human rights says that gay marriage is not a human right" Is neither a slippery slope argument nor an opinion. Its a fact.
And why would that in any way change anything? Does something suddenly become the truth after an European Court ruling? Because I think they fucked up.
On July 08 2012 23:01 Legate wrote: If you dont agree with them, or if you think they dont know anything about human rights(which would be pretty odd despite their name) then blame them not me.
Do you often say that an organization must be right because of their name?
So.. Instead of voting for a quicker resolution to the issues of unequal human rights, so that we could move on to other issues; you'd stall it even further? I find the rest of your post as a reason to quickly resolve this issue, not the other way around.
"Let them have it.." human rights don't really matter, right?^^
This is such a non-issue, how do I explain this... A little girl asks me for a lollypop. Instead of think about how much money this lollypop costs or if it is bad for her I say 'fuck it, here's your lollypop' because it's just a lollypop, no need to make an issue about a lollypop.
We're sorry you're upset. We abjectly apologize. We didn't realize that talking about something which deeply affects our friends and people we love was annoying you and other "normal" people so much. We'll stop now.
Ohhh I see what you did there, you think when I was talking about self-centered know-it-alls quasi-intelectuals I was talking about you? Well thank you for saying you will stop, even if it was a bit sarcastic, thats the first step ^^
The fact that you continue to think that this discussion is all about you and your emotions, honestly says all we need to know about you.
On July 08 2012 18:42 hypercube wrote: It's a little sad that the most effective way to fight for human right is through multinational corporations. I don't like what that says about the state of democracy in the World.
Private enterprises create more wealth and general wellbeing than governments, its a step in a right direction when they start protecting our rights aswell :p (instead of fighting against them, which they do a lot too). Plus, who do you think is most trustable, the boards of google or microsoft or the US parliament? (not to mention stuff like the greek parlament :p) The notion that people in the government work in the interest of common wealth is false. Goverments are a bunch of people working on their self interest (like private enterprises), but forced by rules to produce outcomes that satisfy well being of people. That doesn't usually work though, they are always looking for loops and ways to change rules.
On July 08 2012 23:01 Legate wrote: "The european court of human rights says that gay marriage is not a human right" Is neither a slippery slope argument nor an opinion. Its a fact.
If you dont agree with them, or if you think they dont know anything about human rights(which would be pretty odd despite their name) then blame them not me.
Civil right, not a human right. It's more similar to voting. It has to do with people's relationship to their government, rather than themselves as individuals, like Life, Liberty, and Property.
So yes, marriage is a civil right. It makes it a civil rights issue.
I am, but then again no need to shove the problems of my country down everybody's throats and make stupid threads on teamliquid now is there?^^
Great, I am too. Just like me, you can't imply that because there's one issue, there can't be any other issue on my mind. That was my point. As for economics getting TL attention or not; they do. Alot. Maybe not Serbian economics... But I wouldn't mind reading about some serbian economical issues every now and then.
On July 08 2012 23:01 Legate wrote: "The european court of human rights says that gay marriage is not a human right" Is neither a slippery slope argument nor an opinion. Its a fact.
If you dont agree with them, or if you think they dont know anything about human rights(which would be pretty odd despite their name) then blame them not me.
Civil right, not a human right. It's more similar to voting. It has to do with people's relationship to their government, rather than themselves as individuals, like Life, Liberty, and Property.
So yes, marriage is a civil right. It makes it a civil rights issue.
On July 08 2012 23:01 Legate wrote: "The european court of human rights says that gay marriage is not a human right" Is neither a slippery slope argument nor an opinion. Its a fact.
If you dont agree with them, or if you think they dont know anything about human rights(which would be pretty odd despite their name) then blame them not me.
European churches and their official members can reject to perform gay marriages (this is what your statement encompasses, you are talking about human rights in the context of civil rights), meaning that it's voluntary, this is also a form of libertarianism. However, that being said, it's not that hard to find a willing member of church to wed same sex people. And of course then there are always those that don't care about the church and just wed for the law, and this is allowed in many European countries.
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.
I'm not sure if you realize this, but giving homosexuals equal rights is a civil rights issue. There's a reason to be loud about this.
We're not smugly and omnisciently talking about how chocolate chip cookies are better than oatmeal raisin. We're talking about a topic that affects people's lives on a daily basis (gay people; marriage; the right to love one another and receive the same benefits and responsibilities as everyone else).
Some people care about social issues. Other people care about economic issues. Whatever you care about, make sure you're well-informed and well-educated on the topic, pick a side, and get loud about it. But don't roll your eyes at people who are passionate about believing in human rights.
I understand where you are coming from at the end of the day both sides are talking to brick walls, isn't there another way to go about this instead of the same threads over and over again? Wouldn't it be a bit more productive?
Well, not everyone can do what Google is doing Some of us can give money; most of us can at least bring up the topic of importance.
I`m opposed to gay marriage, because the main purpose of the marriage is to create a stable atmoshpere and conditions to raise children. I dont believe that a child can grow up normally when both of his parents are of the same gender.
On July 08 2012 23:01 Legate wrote: "The european court of human rights says that gay marriage is not a human right" Is neither a slippery slope argument nor an opinion. Its a fact.
If you dont agree with them, or if you think they dont know anything about human rights(which would be pretty odd despite their name) then blame them not me.
Civil right, not a human right. It's more similar to voting. It has to do with people's relationship to their government, rather than themselves as individuals, like Life, Liberty, and Property.
So yes, marriage is a civil right. It makes it a civil rights issue.
They can't be wrong because they're the Canadian human rights commission. =)
"Parliament, when it adopted the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Charter, recognized that Canadians believe that all people are entitled to equal treatment under the law."
Then they chose to give the church power over marriage (which is separate from law?), while adopting civil rights for the state, which is accessible for all? So gays have equal civil rights in canada then?
On July 08 2012 23:05 Djzapz wrote: Do you often say that an organization must be right because of their name?
Your'e right, maybe they are just a troll organisation.
Btw, where did i say they must be right?
You didn't, but you strongly implied that their name gave them credibility in that rejecting their ruling on homosexuality was essentially foolish (I paraphrase).
I'm not saying that they're a "troll organisation" and I can't understand how you'd get to the conclusion about what I said. But it's one organisation on human rights, and there ARE other organisations on human rights that have different rulings on this issue. As I pointed out, the Canadian Human Rights Commission has ruled what's essentially the opposite of what the ECHR came up with.
So what's that BS about "trolling", be serious. We're not children here presumably.
On July 08 2012 23:14 mdb wrote: I`m opposed to gay marriage, because the main purpose of the marriage is to create a stable atmoshpere and conditions to raise children. I dont believe that a child can grow up normally when both of his parents are of the same gender.
So you just decided to ignore the fact that normal marriages don't hold 8 years on average nowadays, to provide a stable environment for their children? I would rather have two fathers or mothers, than to live with one parent, but that might be me.
On July 08 2012 23:14 mdb wrote: I`m opposed to gay marriage, because the main purpose of the marriage is to create a stable atmoshpere and conditions to raise children. I dont believe that a child can grow up normally when both of his parents are of the same gender.
You can believe what you like but the evidence in this case disagrees with you. What you believe is wrong.
The law treats men and women differently. They are only allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex.
Really? Please read it again. Think about it - statement: "You are allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex." ...does that treat ANYONE differently???
Everyone with blonde hairs will receive a free icecream. Would you think you're being treated like everyone else if you're a ginger ?
Why would you not be allowed to receive this succulent icecream just because your hairs looks different ?
Sorry but in my case EVERYONE is allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex, but in your case JUST BLONDE hairs will recieve an icecream. This is just failed attempt to make an analogy and in fact you made the exact opposite analogy :-D
On July 08 2012 23:14 mdb wrote: I`m opposed to gay marriage, because the main purpose of the marriage is to create a stable atmoshpere and conditions to raise children. I dont believe that a child can grow up normally when both of his parents are of the same gender.
So gay couples can't marry just because you believe that is it's main purpose?
On July 08 2012 23:14 mdb wrote: I`m opposed to gay marriage, because the main purpose of the marriage is to create a stable atmoshpere and conditions to raise children. I dont believe that a child can grow up normally when both of his parents are of the same gender.
You can believe what you like but the evidence in this case disagrees with you. What you believe is wrong.
Can you linke me please to some source on this. I doubt that there is enough samples to make reliable statistics or "evidence" as you call it.
On July 08 2012 23:05 Djzapz wrote: Do you often say that an organization must be right because of their name?
Your'e right, maybe they are just a troll organisation.
Btw, where did i say they must be right?
You didn't, but you strongly implied that their name gave them credibility in that rejecting their ruling on homosexuality was essentially foolish (I paraphrase).
I'm not saying that they're a "troll organisation" and I can't understand how you'd get to the conclusion about what I said. But it's one organisation on human rights, and there ARE other organisations on human rights that have different rulings on this issue. As I pointed out, the Canadian Human Rights Commission has ruled what's essentially the opposite of what the ECHR came up with.
Yes there are diffrent views by diffrent organisations(btw i couldnt find what you said about the canadian one, maybe you have a link?), but at least i brought one in instead of just blatantly claim something like "gay marriage is a human right!".
So what's that BS about "trolling", be serious. We're not children here presumably.
Well
On July 08 2012 23:05 Djzapz wrote: you often say that an organization must be right because of their name?
On July 08 2012 23:14 mdb wrote: I`m opposed to gay marriage, because the main purpose of the marriage is to create a stable atmoshpere and conditions to raise children. I dont believe that a child can grow up normally when both of his parents are of the same gender.
You are wrong. Everything we know goes against what you just said.
The law treats men and women differently. They are only allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex.
Really? Please read it again. Think about it - statement: "You are allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex." ...does that treat ANYONE differently???
Everyone with blonde hairs will receive a free icecream. Would you think you're being treated like everyone else if you're a ginger ?
Why would you not be allowed to receive this succulent icecream just because your hairs looks different ?
Sorry but in my case EVERYONE is allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex, but in your case JUST BLONDE hairs will recieve an icecream. This is just failed attempt to make an analogy and in fact you made the exact opposite analogy :-D
The whole point is that by forcing everyone to be only allowed to marry people of the other sex, you discriminate against people who are not interested in doing that. You can pretend all you want that they have the same right, but the reality of it is you're forcing one way onto people.
To pretend like that's anything resembling equality is a cheap argument.
On July 08 2012 23:05 Djzapz wrote: Do you often say that an organization must be right because of their name?
Your'e right, maybe they are just a troll organisation.
Btw, where did i say they must be right?
You didn't, but you strongly implied that their name gave them credibility in that rejecting their ruling on homosexuality was essentially foolish (I paraphrase).
I'm not saying that they're a "troll organisation" and I can't understand how you'd get to the conclusion about what I said. But it's one organisation on human rights, and there ARE other organisations on human rights that have different rulings on this issue. As I pointed out, the Canadian Human Rights Commission has ruled what's essentially the opposite of what the ECHR came up with.
So what's that BS about "trolling", be serious. We're not children here presumably.
Yes there are diffrent views by diffrent organisations(btw i couldnt find what you said about the canadian one, maybe you have a link?), but at least i brought one in instead of just blatantly claim something like "gay marriage is a human right!".
You didn't provide a link (not that I need one). I provided a link which you forced me to post again, and you accused me of "blatantly claiming something". Come on. Anyway, essentially they rules that gay marriage is a human right based on the equality provisions of the charter of rights.
The law treats men and women differently. They are only allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex.
Really? Please read it again. Think about it - statement: "You are allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex." ...does that treat ANYONE differently???
I'd have to say yes. Based on what we know today, it does treat some people differently. To some, marrying a woman is not fathomable, so that "statement" tells them they can only get married to someone they don't want to marry. In a way it is a non-functional statement to them. A "dysfunctional" "law" even.
So if marriage should be based, atleast in part, on love, then your statement treats people differently. If marriage had nothing to do with love or personal feelings, I would have agreed with you.
Of course it treats people differently, because the statement isn't even relevant to people who aren't attracted to those of the opposite sex. It's like giving everyone permission to wear bikinis... what guys are going to actually implement that rule? Maybe a few, once in a while, but the main purpose is clearly served for women, in the same way that allowing only opposite sex marriages is truly served for heterosexuals. The point is the application and practicality of the law.
As an educator, you learn to treat kids "fairly", and that doesn't necessarily mean treating everyone "equally". Different people have different needs. It's important to understand what each kid (or each person, in general) requires, and to make sure each person is being assisted in the way that is fair for them. That includes accounting for handicaps, cultural needs, sexual orientation, and anything else about a person's identity.
The law treats men and women differently. They are only allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex.
Really? Please read it again. Think about it - statement: "You are allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex." ...does that treat ANYONE differently???
Everyone with blonde hairs will receive a free icecream. Would you think you're being treated like everyone else if you're a ginger ?
Why would you not be allowed to receive this succulent icecream just because your hairs looks different ?
Sorry but in my case EVERYONE is allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex, but in your case JUST BLONDE hairs will recieve an icecream. This is just failed attempt to make an analogy and in fact you made the exact opposite analogy :-D
Allright sorry, let me rephrase that, "Everyone will be able to eat a free icecream with milk". You're allergic to milk but you love icecream without milk. Would you think you're being treated like everyone else ?
Why would you not be allowed to eat a succulent icecream just because you're allergic to milk ?
On July 08 2012 23:14 mdb wrote: I`m opposed to gay marriage, because the main purpose of the marriage is to create a stable atmoshpere and conditions to raise children. I dont believe that a child can grow up normally when both of his parents are of the same gender.
You can believe what you like but the evidence in this case disagrees with you. What you believe is wrong.
Can you linke me please to some source on this. I doubt that there is enough samples to make reliable statistics or "evidence" as you call it.
All he needs evidence of, is that one single kid has grown up normally with 2 same sex parents and he would have proved you wrong.
Even more, there are studies which could not find discrepancies in the parential skills of such parents. The number one "issue" is that many feel kids should have one female and one male rolemodel (which happens rarely enough in even "normal" families"), failing to realize that a child is raised by the entire "village" so to say.
On July 08 2012 23:05 Djzapz wrote: Do you often say that an organization must be right because of their name?
Your'e right, maybe they are just a troll organisation.
Btw, where did i say they must be right?
You didn't, but you strongly implied that their name gave them credibility in that rejecting their ruling on homosexuality was essentially foolish (I paraphrase).
I'm not saying that they're a "troll organisation" and I can't understand how you'd get to the conclusion about what I said. But it's one organisation on human rights, and there ARE other organisations on human rights that have different rulings on this issue. As I pointed out, the Canadian Human Rights Commission has ruled what's essentially the opposite of what the ECHR came up with.
So what's that BS about "trolling", be serious. We're not children here presumably.
Yes there are diffrent views by diffrent organisations(btw i couldnt find what you said about the canadian one, maybe you have a link?), but at least i brought one in instead of just blatantly claim something like "gay marriage is a human right!".
You didn't provide a link (not that I need one). I provided a link which you forced me to post again, and you accused me of "blatantly claiming something". Come on. Anyway, essentially they rules that gay marriage is a human right based on the equality provisions of the charter of rights.
The one i found was first on google when searching for human right and gay marriage, thats why i used it. I couldn't find yours, thats why i asked.
You didn't say it directly, you said "It can be viewed as political, but frankly it's bigger than that. Supporting human rights is not only political" with that you are assuming that gay marriage is a human right.
On July 08 2012 23:05 Djzapz wrote: Do you often say that an organization must be right because of their name?
Your'e right, maybe they are just a troll organisation.
Btw, where did i say they must be right?
You didn't, but you strongly implied that their name gave them credibility in that rejecting their ruling on homosexuality was essentially foolish (I paraphrase).
I'm not saying that they're a "troll organisation" and I can't understand how you'd get to the conclusion about what I said. But it's one organisation on human rights, and there ARE other organisations on human rights that have different rulings on this issue. As I pointed out, the Canadian Human Rights Commission has ruled what's essentially the opposite of what the ECHR came up with.
So what's that BS about "trolling", be serious. We're not children here presumably.
Yes there are diffrent views by diffrent organisations(btw i couldnt find what you said about the canadian one, maybe you have a link?), but at least i brought one in instead of just blatantly claim something like "gay marriage is a human right!".
You didn't provide a link (not that I need one). I provided a link which you forced me to post again, and you accused me of "blatantly claiming something". Come on. Anyway, essentially they rules that gay marriage is a human right based on the equality provisions of the charter of rights.
The one i found was first on google when searching for human right and gay marriage, thats why i used it. I couldn't find yours, thats why i asked.
I actually read that article, and it says something completely different from what you are instagating.. :p
On July 08 2012 23:05 Djzapz wrote: Do you often say that an organization must be right because of their name?
Your'e right, maybe they are just a troll organisation.
Btw, where did i say they must be right?
You didn't, but you strongly implied that their name gave them credibility in that rejecting their ruling on homosexuality was essentially foolish (I paraphrase).
I'm not saying that they're a "troll organisation" and I can't understand how you'd get to the conclusion about what I said. But it's one organisation on human rights, and there ARE other organisations on human rights that have different rulings on this issue. As I pointed out, the Canadian Human Rights Commission has ruled what's essentially the opposite of what the ECHR came up with.
So what's that BS about "trolling", be serious. We're not children here presumably.
Yes there are diffrent views by diffrent organisations(btw i couldnt find what you said about the canadian one, maybe you have a link?), but at least i brought one in instead of just blatantly claim something like "gay marriage is a human right!".
You didn't provide a link (not that I need one). I provided a link which you forced me to post again, and you accused me of "blatantly claiming something". Come on. Anyway, essentially they rules that gay marriage is a human right based on the equality provisions of the charter of rights.
The one i found was first on google when searching for human right and gay marriage, thats why i used it. I couldn't find yours, thats why i asked.
I actually read that article, and it says something completely different from what you are instagating.. :p
On July 08 2012 23:05 Djzapz wrote: Do you often say that an organization must be right because of their name?
Your'e right, maybe they are just a troll organisation.
Btw, where did i say they must be right?
You didn't, but you strongly implied that their name gave them credibility in that rejecting their ruling on homosexuality was essentially foolish (I paraphrase).
I'm not saying that they're a "troll organisation" and I can't understand how you'd get to the conclusion about what I said. But it's one organisation on human rights, and there ARE other organisations on human rights that have different rulings on this issue. As I pointed out, the Canadian Human Rights Commission has ruled what's essentially the opposite of what the ECHR came up with.
So what's that BS about "trolling", be serious. We're not children here presumably.
Yes there are diffrent views by diffrent organisations(btw i couldnt find what you said about the canadian one, maybe you have a link?), but at least i brought one in instead of just blatantly claim something like "gay marriage is a human right!".
You didn't provide a link (not that I need one). I provided a link which you forced me to post again, and you accused me of "blatantly claiming something". Come on. Anyway, essentially they rules that gay marriage is a human right based on the equality provisions of the charter of rights.
The one i found was first on google when searching for human right and gay marriage, thats why i used it. I couldn't find yours, thats why i asked.
I actually read that article, and it says something completely different from what you are instagating.. :p
Which article exactly?
That pops out when you google "it", that had the title saying something like european court rules gay marriage is not a human right. I already explained..
The law treats men and women differently. They are only allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex.
Really? Please read it again. Think about it - statement: "You are allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex." ...does that treat ANYONE differently???
I'd have to say yes. Based on what we know today, it does treat some people differently. To some, marrying a woman is not fathomable, so that "statement" tells them they can only get married to someone they don't want to marry. In a way it is a non-functional statement to them. A "dysfunctional" "law" even.
So if marriage should be based, atleast in part, on love, then your statement treats people differently. If marriage had nothing to do with love or personal feelings, I would have agreed with you.
For the first paragraph: Yes, I agree that in practice, people are treated differently. But I think the law itself does not treat them differently. The fact that things are different in practice and theory is inevitable. If the statement says that they can marry someone they dont want to, doesnt mean that the statement should allow them what they want, we cannot give rights and make laws just based on what people want and do not want.
Second paragraph: Not marrying each other does not prevent you from loving each other. Yes,I agree marriage should be based also on love. But even if, I think that ultimately my statement does not treat people differently.
On July 08 2012 23:14 mdb wrote: I`m opposed to gay marriage, because the main purpose of the marriage is to create a stable atmoshpere and conditions to raise children. I dont believe that a child can grow up normally when both of his parents are of the same gender.
Are you against heterosexual couples marrying when both are completely against having children and do not wish to?
If not, how is this scenario any different, when that is your only justification for why homosexuals should not marry?
The law treats men and women differently. They are only allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex.
Really? Please read it again. Think about it - statement: "You are allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex." ...does that treat ANYONE differently???
I'd have to say yes. Based on what we know today, it does treat some people differently. To some, marrying a woman is not fathomable, so that "statement" tells them they can only get married to someone they don't want to marry. In a way it is a non-functional statement to them. A "dysfunctional" "law" even.
So if marriage should be based, atleast in part, on love, then your statement treats people differently. If marriage had nothing to do with love or personal feelings, I would have agreed with you.
For the first paragraph: Yes, I agree that in practice, people are treated differently. But I think the law itself does not treat them differently. The fact that things are different in practice and theory is inevitable. If the statement says that they can marry someone they dont want to, doesnt mean that the statement should allow them what they want, we cannot give rights and make laws just based on what people want and do not want.
Yes we can. Women wanted the right to vote, so they were given the right to vote. Which is significant since they could not vote themselves to get this right to vote.
Gays wanted financial and legal security in a relationship (equal to straight couples), so they were granted. (in norway). And the sky hasn't come down yet.
What do you think is the main motivation for laws anyway
People wanted the right to own property; so such laws were created, that grant different kinds of ownerships. The opposite would be China during their revolution; the state owned everything, even the home you lived in and the farmland you worked on.
The law treats men and women differently. They are only allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex.
Really? Please read it again. Think about it - statement: "You are allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex." ...does that treat ANYONE differently???
I'd have to say yes. Based on what we know today, it does treat some people differently. To some, marrying a woman is not fathomable, so that "statement" tells them they can only get married to someone they don't want to marry. In a way it is a non-functional statement to them. A "dysfunctional" "law" even.
So if marriage should be based, atleast in part, on love, then your statement treats people differently. If marriage had nothing to do with love or personal feelings, I would have agreed with you.
For the first paragraph: Yes, I agree that in practice, people are treated differently. But I think the law itself does not treat them differently. The fact that things are different in practice and theory is inevitable. If the statement says that they can marry someone they dont want to, doesnt mean that the statement should allow them what they want, we cannot give rights and make laws just based on what people want and do not want.
Yes we can. Women wanted the right to vote, so they were given the right to vote. Which is significant since they could not vote themselves to get this right to vote.
Gays wanted financial and legal security in a relationship (equal to straight couples), so they were granted. (in norway). And the sky hasn't come down yet.
What do you think is the main motivation for laws anyway
People want the right to own property; so such laws are created, that grant different kinds of ownerships. The opposite would be China during their revolution; the state owned everything, even the home you lived in and the farmland you worked on.
Do it all I say. Some people are resistant to positive change.
The law treats men and women differently. They are only allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex.
Really? Please read it again. Think about it - statement: "You are allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex." ...does that treat ANYONE differently???
I'd have to say yes. Based on what we know today, it does treat some people differently. To some, marrying a woman is not fathomable, so that "statement" tells them they can only get married to someone they don't want to marry. In a way it is a non-functional statement to them. A "dysfunctional" "law" even.
So if marriage should be based, atleast in part, on love, then your statement treats people differently. If marriage had nothing to do with love or personal feelings, I would have agreed with you.
For the first paragraph: Yes, I agree that in practice, people are treated differently. But I think the law itself does not treat them differently. The fact that things are different in practice and theory is inevitable. If the statement says that they can marry someone they dont want to, doesnt mean that the statement should allow them what they want, we cannot give rights and make laws just based on what people want and do not want.
Yes we can. Women wanted the right to vote, so they were given the right to vote. Which is significant since they could not vote themselves to get this right to vote.
Gays wanted financial and legal security in a relationship (equal to straight couples), so they were granted. (in norway). And the sky hasn't come down yet.
What do you think is the main motivation for laws anyway
People want the right to own property; so such laws are created, that grant different kinds of ownerships. The opposite would be China during their revolution; the state owned everything, even the home you lived in and the farmland you worked on.
Do it all I say. Some people are resistant to positive change.
And by positive you mean "equal civil rights" just so people don't pick you apart based on semantics
The law treats men and women differently. They are only allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex.
Really? Please read it again. Think about it - statement: "You are allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex." ...does that treat ANYONE differently???
Everyone with blonde hairs will receive a free icecream. Would you think you're being treated like everyone else if you're a ginger ?
Why would you not be allowed to receive this succulent icecream just because your hairs looks different ?
Sorry but in my case EVERYONE is allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex, but in your case JUST BLONDE hairs will recieve an icecream. This is just failed attempt to make an analogy and in fact you made the exact opposite analogy :-D
The whole point is that by forcing everyone to be only allowed to marry people of the other sex, you discriminate against people who are not interested in doing that. You can pretend all you want that they have the same right, but the reality of it is you're forcing one way onto people.
To pretend like that's anything resembling equality is a cheap argument.
I just do not see the discrimination in allowing everyone to marry the opposite sex.
On July 08 2012 23:05 Djzapz wrote: Do you often say that an organization must be right because of their name?
Your'e right, maybe they are just a troll organisation.
Btw, where did i say they must be right?
You didn't, but you strongly implied that their name gave them credibility in that rejecting their ruling on homosexuality was essentially foolish (I paraphrase).
I'm not saying that they're a "troll organisation" and I can't understand how you'd get to the conclusion about what I said. But it's one organisation on human rights, and there ARE other organisations on human rights that have different rulings on this issue. As I pointed out, the Canadian Human Rights Commission has ruled what's essentially the opposite of what the ECHR came up with.
So what's that BS about "trolling", be serious. We're not children here presumably.
Yes there are diffrent views by diffrent organisations(btw i couldnt find what you said about the canadian one, maybe you have a link?), but at least i brought one in instead of just blatantly claim something like "gay marriage is a human right!".
You didn't provide a link (not that I need one). I provided a link which you forced me to post again, and you accused me of "blatantly claiming something". Come on. Anyway, essentially they rules that gay marriage is a human right based on the equality provisions of the charter of rights.
The one i found was first on google when searching for human right and gay marriage, thats why i used it. I couldn't find yours, thats why i asked.
I actually read that article, and it says something completely different from what you are instagating.. :p
Doesn't change the decision that "Same-sex marriages are not a human right"
The law treats men and women differently. They are only allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex.
Really? Please read it again. Think about it - statement: "You are allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex." ...does that treat ANYONE differently???
Everyone with blonde hairs will receive a free icecream. Would you think you're being treated like everyone else if you're a ginger ?
Why would you not be allowed to receive this succulent icecream just because your hairs looks different ?
Sorry but in my case EVERYONE is allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex, but in your case JUST BLONDE hairs will recieve an icecream. This is just failed attempt to make an analogy and in fact you made the exact opposite analogy :-D
The whole point is that by forcing everyone to be only allowed to marry people of the other sex, you discriminate against people who are not interested in doing that. You can pretend all you want that they have the same right, but the reality of it is you're forcing one way onto people.
To pretend like that's anything resembling equality is a cheap argument.
I just do not see the discrimination in allowing everyone to marry the opposite sex.
The status of marriage is accompanied by special civil rights. These civil rights are then kept from a portion of the population because the law does not apply to them the way it is written. That is discrimination based on sexual orientation.
The law treats men and women differently. They are only allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex.
Really? Please read it again. Think about it - statement: "You are allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex." ...does that treat ANYONE differently???
I'd have to say yes. Based on what we know today, it does treat some people differently. To some, marrying a woman is not fathomable, so that "statement" tells them they can only get married to someone they don't want to marry. In a way it is a non-functional statement to them. A "dysfunctional" "law" even.
So if marriage should be based, atleast in part, on love, then your statement treats people differently. If marriage had nothing to do with love or personal feelings, I would have agreed with you.
For the first paragraph: Yes, I agree that in practice, people are treated differently. But I think the law itself does not treat them differently. The fact that things are different in practice and theory is inevitable. If the statement says that they can marry someone they dont want to, doesnt mean that the statement should allow them what they want, we cannot give rights and make laws just based on what people want and do not want.
Yes we can. Women wanted the right to vote, so they were given the right to vote. Which is significant since they could not vote themselves to get this right to vote.
Gays wanted financial and legal security in a relationship (equal to straight couples), so they were granted. (in norway). And the sky hasn't come down yet.
What do you think is the main motivation for laws anyway
People want the right to own property; so such laws are created, that grant different kinds of ownerships. The opposite would be China during their revolution; the state owned everything, even the home you lived in and the farmland you worked on.
Do it all I say. Some people are resistant to positive change.
And by positive you mean "equal civil rights" just so people don't pick you apart based on semantics
People can dick around in the semantics if they're out of arguments, it amuses me. Equality is a human rights, and by extension so is gay marriage. At least as far as I'm concerned. I'd argue that the CHRC came to the same conclusion.
On July 08 2012 23:05 Djzapz wrote: Do you often say that an organization must be right because of their name?
Your'e right, maybe they are just a troll organisation.
Btw, where did i say they must be right?
You didn't, but you strongly implied that their name gave them credibility in that rejecting their ruling on homosexuality was essentially foolish (I paraphrase).
I'm not saying that they're a "troll organisation" and I can't understand how you'd get to the conclusion about what I said. But it's one organisation on human rights, and there ARE other organisations on human rights that have different rulings on this issue. As I pointed out, the Canadian Human Rights Commission has ruled what's essentially the opposite of what the ECHR came up with.
So what's that BS about "trolling", be serious. We're not children here presumably.
Yes there are diffrent views by diffrent organisations(btw i couldnt find what you said about the canadian one, maybe you have a link?), but at least i brought one in instead of just blatantly claim something like "gay marriage is a human right!".
You didn't provide a link (not that I need one). I provided a link which you forced me to post again, and you accused me of "blatantly claiming something". Come on. Anyway, essentially they rules that gay marriage is a human right based on the equality provisions of the charter of rights.
The one i found was first on google when searching for human right and gay marriage, thats why i used it. I couldn't find yours, thats why i asked.
I actually read that article, and it says something completely different from what you are instagating.. :p
Doesn't change the decision that "Same-sex marriages are not a human right"
The decision you speak of was the court upholding french law, in that french law distinguishes between "civil unions" and "marriage"; and gays cannot partake in marriage, only civil unions. Therefore the court ruled that any legal benefits that come from "marriage" but not from "civil union" are not granted to gays: Gay marriage is not a right in france" is what they ruled. I can quote myself to explain better. For instance, in Norway, gay marriage is a human/civil right. The court only works within the law; it doesn't work to change law. The courts decision was therefore entirely based upon the current law that is in place, regardless of how they feel towards it.
Here:
All your sentence implies is that, by law, gays can't get married; only partake in civil union: Therefore gay marriage is not a right in that country; only the civil union. This is where the terms "human rights" and "civil rights" may cause confusion. This is what the court ruled.
Until law is changed so that gay marriage is legal (and not Just civil unions with certain restrictions to adoption and what not), gay marriage will not be a "human/civil right". Once law is changed, subsequent rulings must follow the new law (and gay marriage will be a human right like it is in norway). This is the job of the court... Nothing more.
Pisky imagine you are a heterosexual with no interest romantically or sexually whatsoever in the same sex. Then imagine your placed in a society that says ONLY people of the same sex are allowed to marry, but everyone! can do so.
The law treats men and women differently. They are only allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex.
Really? Please read it again. Think about it - statement: "You are allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex." ...does that treat ANYONE differently???
I'd have to say yes. Based on what we know today, it does treat some people differently. To some, marrying a woman is not fathomable, so that "statement" tells them they can only get married to someone they don't want to marry. In a way it is a non-functional statement to them. A "dysfunctional" "law" even.
So if marriage should be based, atleast in part, on love, then your statement treats people differently. If marriage had nothing to do with love or personal feelings, I would have agreed with you.
For the first paragraph: Yes, I agree that in practice, people are treated differently. But I think the law itself does not treat them differently. The fact that things are different in practice and theory is inevitable. If the statement says that they can marry someone they dont want to, doesnt mean that the statement should allow them what they want, we cannot give rights and make laws just based on what people want and do not want.
Yes we can. Women wanted the right to vote, so they were given the right to vote. Which is significant since they could not vote themselves to get this right to vote.
Gays wanted financial and legal security in a relationship (equal to straight couples), so they were granted. (in norway). And the sky hasn't come down yet.
What do you think is the main motivation for laws anyway
People wanted the right to own property; so such laws were created, that grant different kinds of ownerships. The opposite would be China during their revolution; the state owned everything, even the home you lived in and the farmland you worked on.
I wrote "we cannot give rights and make laws just based on what people want and do not want" see the "just based" ? If everybody wanted to have the right to have one free steak a day, would it pass? Of course not, because it is just based on what we want and it is also not doable. But I think that those things you mentioned are not just based on what they wanted but it was also based on logical reasoning. If homosexuals wanted what you said " financial and legal security in a relationship (equal to straight couples)" I think that this might be OK. But they have to name it differently from "Marriage" and draw a strong line between it.
So much ignorance in this thread. This is like taking a time machine back to the 1950s and racism is not only everywhere, but widely accepted as a logical way to view the world.
Don't like AT ALL that Google is taking a stance on things outside their domain. Whether you're pro or against doesn't matter, you're a software developer. Next thing you know, they'll also have a favorite politician.
Then: If we take away the religious stuff, marriage was a pact between men and women. We should differentiate marriages between royal and simple people. Between royal people it was obviously for keeping the wealth in the family. Between simple people, ie: peasants, simple workers it was different. Women didn't have nearly any social status back then, thus they didn't have much assets either. The simple biological fact is that most women would go for the upper few percent male if it would be possible for them. That obviously wouldn't work because no man would want to raise other man's kids and simple men wouldn't be able to reproduce. Marriage was a pact between a man and a woman, to ensure that most men would get to reproduce even it he's a peasant but with this, providing a background for the woman (who had no assets) to raise their child. Love basically had nothing to do with the whole thing, because often the parents decided the whole thing. Was it good? I don't know, but we are here today, and it's safe to say that even people from the lowest classes were able to reproduce.
Now: Since it's easy to divorce nowadays and women are pretty much equal to men so they can provide necessary assets to live alone, marriage as in it's old form, pretty much lost it's meaning. Now it's all about love, which we all know diminish sooner or later so there are tons of divorces. Marriage nowadays are either for getting taxation privileges or people just want to declare their (temporary) love for each other to the whole world.
So yeah, I support this thing, but it has no meaning besides the benefits.
The law treats men and women differently. They are only allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex.
Really? Please read it again. Think about it - statement: "You are allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex." ...does that treat ANYONE differently???
I'd have to say yes. Based on what we know today, it does treat some people differently. To some, marrying a woman is not fathomable, so that "statement" tells them they can only get married to someone they don't want to marry. In a way it is a non-functional statement to them. A "dysfunctional" "law" even.
So if marriage should be based, atleast in part, on love, then your statement treats people differently. If marriage had nothing to do with love or personal feelings, I would have agreed with you.
For the first paragraph: Yes, I agree that in practice, people are treated differently. But I think the law itself does not treat them differently. The fact that things are different in practice and theory is inevitable. If the statement says that they can marry someone they dont want to, doesnt mean that the statement should allow them what they want, we cannot give rights and make laws just based on what people want and do not want.
Yes we can. Women wanted the right to vote, so they were given the right to vote. Which is significant since they could not vote themselves to get this right to vote.
Gays wanted financial and legal security in a relationship (equal to straight couples), so they were granted. (in norway). And the sky hasn't come down yet.
What do you think is the main motivation for laws anyway
People wanted the right to own property; so such laws were created, that grant different kinds of ownerships. The opposite would be China during their revolution; the state owned everything, even the home you lived in and the farmland you worked on.
I wrote "we cannot give rights and make laws just based on what people want and do not want" see the "just based" ? If everybody wanted to have the right to have one free steak a day, would it pass? Of course not, because it is just based on what we want and it is also not doable. But I think that those things you mentioned are not just based on what they wanted but it was also based on logical reasoning. If homosexuals wanted what you said " financial and legal security in a relationship (equal to straight couples)" I think that this might be OK. But they have to name it differently from "Marriage" and draw a strong line between it.
No they don't have to draw a line between straight and gay marriage. In Norway they didn't. The only reason they might draw a line between gay and straight marriage, is because some people (like you) will want it. Therefore they'd be making laws based on what people want and don't want (AND they won't be making logical sense, for instance, we'd have to call it gay marriage and straight mawrraige; NOT gay marriage and marriage. Also, we don't say black marraige, etc etc). Therefore, in my eyes, you go against your own argument.
You must realize that, when "suggesting" these laws (such as you do) and their restrictions; you are basing it upon what YOU want and don't want. And to me, "my way" makes much more logical sense, and is much more reasonable. For instance, I would not go around calling your marriage a "straight financially struggling marriage about to be ended" just because that would better describe you. Similarly I would not need to distinguish between straight and gay marriage; in my eyes there is marriage between two people, and to add any "mandatory" prefix is simply hilariously stupid.
On July 08 2012 23:57 zeru wrote: I honestly didnt expect anyone on TL to be against something like legalization of gay marriage. I'm pretty shocked. Are we 300 years in the past where ignorance dictates over logic and reason?
It's just one of those things. In a few decades we'll look back on this the same way we look back on slavery, women voting rights, racism, etc.
On July 08 2012 23:55 Sinensis wrote: So much ignorance in this thread. This is like taking a time machine back to the 1950s and racism is not only everywhere, but widely accepted as a logical way to view the world.
On July 08 2012 23:57 zeru wrote: I honestly didnt expect anyone on TL to be against something like legalization of gay marriage. I'm pretty shocked. Are we 300 years in the past where ignorance dictates over logic and reason?
It's just one of those things. In a few decades we'll look back on this the same way we look back on slavery, women voting rights, racism, etc.
lol why would you have to bring racims and slavery here?
On July 08 2012 23:53 XeliN wrote: Pisky imagine you are a heterosexual with no interest romantically or sexually whatsoever in the same sex. Then imagine your placed in a society that says ONLY people of the same sex are allowed to marry, but everyone! can do so.
Would you feel discriminated against?
No I would not. It is my bad luck. I could also marry someone of the opposite sex just as everybody else, but I would not probably do it because she/he would not attract me.
On July 08 2012 23:55 Sinensis wrote: So much ignorance in this thread. This is like taking a time machine back to the 1950s and racism is not only everywhere, but widely accepted as a logical way to view the world.
How did we get on the race topic now?
Racial discrimination is just another way of discrimination, what has always been the topic.
On July 08 2012 23:53 XeliN wrote: Pisky imagine you are a heterosexual with no interest romantically or sexually whatsoever in the same sex. Then imagine your placed in a society that says ONLY people of the same sex are allowed to marry, but everyone! can do so.
Would you feel discriminated against?
No I would not. It is my bad luck. I could also marry someone of the opposite sex just as everybody else, but I would not probably do it because she/he would not attract me.
Well, if you don't care about your civil rights then that's your choice. Others do, and I for one respect that.
On July 08 2012 23:55 Sinensis wrote: So much ignorance in this thread. This is like taking a time machine back to the 1950s and racism is not only everywhere, but widely accepted as a logical way to view the world.
How did we get on the race topic now?
Racial discrimination is just another way of discrimination, what has always been the topic.
On July 08 2012 23:14 mdb wrote: I`m opposed to gay marriage, because the main purpose of the marriage is to create a stable atmoshpere and conditions to raise children. I dont believe that a child can grow up normally when both of his parents are of the same gender.
What does it mean to grow up 'normally'? I don't think there's really a such thing.
On July 08 2012 23:55 Sinensis wrote: So much ignorance in this thread. This is like taking a time machine back to the 1950s and racism is not only everywhere, but widely accepted as a logical way to view the world.
How did we get on the race topic now?
Racial discrimination is just another way of discrimination, what has always been the topic.
A bit far fetched imo.
Well, when you consider that literally all the same arguements were used for inter racial marriage in recent history too, it's really not that far fetched. Though I should add I'm not accusing people who are for treating gays as second class citizens of also being racist.
On July 08 2012 23:55 Sinensis wrote: So much ignorance in this thread. This is like taking a time machine back to the 1950s and racism is not only everywhere, but widely accepted as a logical way to view the world.
How did we get on the race topic now?
Racial discrimination is just another way of discrimination, what has always been the topic.
A bit far fetched imo.
Nope. It really isn't. In other parts of the world it is much worse, and the similarities (to the dark parts of history) much more easy to see. It is discrimination (by the current law) to entitle a group of people to less civil rights than another.
The law treats men and women differently. They are only allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex.
Really? Please read it again. Think about it - statement: "You are allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex." ...does that treat ANYONE differently???
I'd have to say yes. Based on what we know today, it does treat some people differently. To some, marrying a woman is not fathomable, so that "statement" tells them they can only get married to someone they don't want to marry. In a way it is a non-functional statement to them. A "dysfunctional" "law" even.
So if marriage should be based, atleast in part, on love, then your statement treats people differently. If marriage had nothing to do with love or personal feelings, I would have agreed with you.
For the first paragraph: Yes, I agree that in practice, people are treated differently. But I think the law itself does not treat them differently. The fact that things are different in practice and theory is inevitable. If the statement says that they can marry someone they dont want to, doesnt mean that the statement should allow them what they want, we cannot give rights and make laws just based on what people want and do not want.
Yes we can. Women wanted the right to vote, so they were given the right to vote. Which is significant since they could not vote themselves to get this right to vote.
Gays wanted financial and legal security in a relationship (equal to straight couples), so they were granted. (in norway). And the sky hasn't come down yet.
What do you think is the main motivation for laws anyway
People wanted the right to own property; so such laws were created, that grant different kinds of ownerships. The opposite would be China during their revolution; the state owned everything, even the home you lived in and the farmland you worked on.
I wrote "we cannot give rights and make laws just based on what people want and do not want" see the "just based" ? If everybody wanted to have the right to have one free steak a day, would it pass? Of course not, because it is just based on what we want and it is also not doable. But I think that those things you mentioned are not just based on what they wanted but it was also based on logical reasoning. If homosexuals wanted what you said " financial and legal security in a relationship (equal to straight couples)" I think that this might be OK. But they have to name it differently from "Marriage" and draw a strong line between it.
No they don't have to draw a line between straight and gay marriage. In Norway they didn't. The only reason they might draw a line between gay and straight marriage, is because some people (like you) will want it. Therefore they'd be making laws based on what people want and don't want (AND they won't be making logical sense, for instance, we'd have to call it gay marriage and straight mawrraige; NOT gay marriage and marriage. Also, we don't say black marraige, etc etc). Therefore, in my eyes, you go against your own argument.
You must realize that, when "suggesting" these laws (such as you do) and their restrictions; you are basing it upon what YOU want and don't want. And to me, "my way" makes much more logical sense, and is much more reasonable. For instance, I would not go around calling your marriage a "straight financially struggling marriage about to be ended" just because that would better describe you. Similarly I would not need to distinguish between straight and gay marriage; in my eyes there is marriage between two people, and to add any "mandatory" prefix is simply hilariously stupid.
I admit that putting it in the way of wanting/not wanting is unfortunate and inconsistent. But in the end, I still see difference between same and different sex, and again, the fundamental difference (and in my opinion the thing why marriage exists in the first place) is being able/not being able to make babies (and again of course: in principle)
On July 08 2012 23:53 XeliN wrote: Pisky imagine you are a heterosexual with no interest romantically or sexually whatsoever in the same sex. Then imagine your placed in a society that says ONLY people of the same sex are allowed to marry, but everyone! can do so.
Would you feel discriminated against?
No I would not. It is my bad luck. I could also marry someone of the opposite sex just as everybody else, but I would not probably do it because she/he would not attract me.
Well, if you don't care about your civil rights then that's your choice. Others do, and I for one respect that.
Pretty much this, if you are perfectly willing to allow yourself to be discriminated against and view it as simply bad luck fine.
I for one don't and am glad that throughout history there have been many others who are not prepared to do so either.
The law treats men and women differently. They are only allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex.
Really? Please read it again. Think about it - statement: "You are allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex." ...does that treat ANYONE differently???
Everyone with blonde hairs will receive a free icecream. Would you think you're being treated like everyone else if you're a ginger ?
Why would you not be allowed to receive this succulent icecream just because your hairs looks different ?
Sorry but in my case EVERYONE is allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex, but in your case JUST BLONDE hairs will recieve an icecream. This is just failed attempt to make an analogy and in fact you made the exact opposite analogy :-D
The whole point is that by forcing everyone to be only allowed to marry people of the other sex, you discriminate against people who are not interested in doing that. You can pretend all you want that they have the same right, but the reality of it is you're forcing one way onto people.
To pretend like that's anything resembling equality is a cheap argument.
I just do not see the discrimination in allowing everyone to marry the opposite sex.
You're thinking of it the opposite way. The state doesn't "allow" people to marry. It's not like heterosexual marriage is allowed. No, it's the reverse. Polygamy is outlawed. Pedophilia is outlawed. Homosexual marriage is outlawed. And for homosexuality, there's no reason for the outlaw. It's just bullshit tradition.
So please describe to me why it's discrimination to ban races from marrying each other.
The law treats men and women differently. They are only allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex.
Really? Please read it again. Think about it - statement: "You are allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex." ...does that treat ANYONE differently???
I'd have to say yes. Based on what we know today, it does treat some people differently. To some, marrying a woman is not fathomable, so that "statement" tells them they can only get married to someone they don't want to marry. In a way it is a non-functional statement to them. A "dysfunctional" "law" even.
So if marriage should be based, atleast in part, on love, then your statement treats people differently. If marriage had nothing to do with love or personal feelings, I would have agreed with you.
For the first paragraph: Yes, I agree that in practice, people are treated differently. But I think the law itself does not treat them differently. The fact that things are different in practice and theory is inevitable. If the statement says that they can marry someone they dont want to, doesnt mean that the statement should allow them what they want, we cannot give rights and make laws just based on what people want and do not want.
Yes we can. Women wanted the right to vote, so they were given the right to vote. Which is significant since they could not vote themselves to get this right to vote.
Gays wanted financial and legal security in a relationship (equal to straight couples), so they were granted. (in norway). And the sky hasn't come down yet.
What do you think is the main motivation for laws anyway
People wanted the right to own property; so such laws were created, that grant different kinds of ownerships. The opposite would be China during their revolution; the state owned everything, even the home you lived in and the farmland you worked on.
I wrote "we cannot give rights and make laws just based on what people want and do not want" see the "just based" ? If everybody wanted to have the right to have one free steak a day, would it pass? Of course not, because it is just based on what we want and it is also not doable. But I think that those things you mentioned are not just based on what they wanted but it was also based on logical reasoning. If homosexuals wanted what you said " financial and legal security in a relationship (equal to straight couples)" I think that this might be OK. But they have to name it differently from "Marriage" and draw a strong line between it.
No they don't have to draw a line between straight and gay marriage. In Norway they didn't. The only reason they might draw a line between gay and straight marriage, is because some people (like you) will want it. Therefore they'd be making laws based on what people want and don't want (AND they won't be making logical sense, for instance, we'd have to call it gay marriage and straight mawrraige; NOT gay marriage and marriage. Also, we don't say black marraige, etc etc). Therefore, in my eyes, you go against your own argument.
You must realize that, when "suggesting" these laws (such as you do) and their restrictions; you are basing it upon what YOU want and don't want. And to me, "my way" makes much more logical sense, and is much more reasonable. For instance, I would not go around calling your marriage a "straight financially struggling marriage about to be ended" just because that would better describe you. Similarly I would not need to distinguish between straight and gay marriage; in my eyes there is marriage between two people, and to add any "mandatory" prefix is simply hilariously stupid.
I admit that putting it in the way of wanting/not wanting is unfortunate and inconsistent. But in the end, I still see difference between same and different sex, and again, the fundamental difference (and in my opinion the thing why marriage exists in the first place) is being able/not being able to make babies (and again of course: in principle)
And in principle, homosexual couples can adopt. Which is a perfectly valid way to have children nowadays for both heterosexual and homosexual couples.
And also, that's a psychopathic way to view marriage. As if there is zero relationship between human beings.
The law treats men and women differently. They are only allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex.
Really? Please read it again. Think about it - statement: "You are allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex." ...does that treat ANYONE differently???
I'd have to say yes. Based on what we know today, it does treat some people differently. To some, marrying a woman is not fathomable, so that "statement" tells them they can only get married to someone they don't want to marry. In a way it is a non-functional statement to them. A "dysfunctional" "law" even.
So if marriage should be based, atleast in part, on love, then your statement treats people differently. If marriage had nothing to do with love or personal feelings, I would have agreed with you.
For the first paragraph: Yes, I agree that in practice, people are treated differently. But I think the law itself does not treat them differently. The fact that things are different in practice and theory is inevitable. If the statement says that they can marry someone they dont want to, doesnt mean that the statement should allow them what they want, we cannot give rights and make laws just based on what people want and do not want.
Yes we can. Women wanted the right to vote, so they were given the right to vote. Which is significant since they could not vote themselves to get this right to vote.
Gays wanted financial and legal security in a relationship (equal to straight couples), so they were granted. (in norway). And the sky hasn't come down yet.
What do you think is the main motivation for laws anyway
People wanted the right to own property; so such laws were created, that grant different kinds of ownerships. The opposite would be China during their revolution; the state owned everything, even the home you lived in and the farmland you worked on.
I wrote "we cannot give rights and make laws just based on what people want and do not want" see the "just based" ? If everybody wanted to have the right to have one free steak a day, would it pass? Of course not, because it is just based on what we want and it is also not doable. But I think that those things you mentioned are not just based on what they wanted but it was also based on logical reasoning. If homosexuals wanted what you said " financial and legal security in a relationship (equal to straight couples)" I think that this might be OK. But they have to name it differently from "Marriage" and draw a strong line between it.
No they don't have to draw a line between straight and gay marriage. In Norway they didn't. The only reason they might draw a line between gay and straight marriage, is because some people (like you) will want it. Therefore they'd be making laws based on what people want and don't want (AND they won't be making logical sense, for instance, we'd have to call it gay marriage and straight mawrraige; NOT gay marriage and marriage. Also, we don't say black marraige, etc etc). Therefore, in my eyes, you go against your own argument.
You must realize that, when "suggesting" these laws (such as you do) and their restrictions; you are basing it upon what YOU want and don't want. And to me, "my way" makes much more logical sense, and is much more reasonable. For instance, I would not go around calling your marriage a "straight financially struggling marriage about to be ended" just because that would better describe you. Similarly I would not need to distinguish between straight and gay marriage; in my eyes there is marriage between two people, and to add any "mandatory" prefix is simply hilariously stupid.
I admit that putting it in the way of wanting/not wanting is unfortunate and inconsistent. But in the end, I still see difference between same and different sex, and again, the fundamental difference (and in my opinion the thing why marriage exists in the first place) is being able/not being able to make babies (and again of course: in principle)
If you look at the evolution of marriage, you will see it has little to do with the possibility of making babies. Everything from financial and social standing, to arranged marriage to love. My mom for instance can still get remarried to any man she wants, even tho' she's much too old to have babies, and she always had that posibility, to remarry in her "matron days".
I must admit, I don't put much "prestige" in the word marriage. It is more a classification of a relationship: Everyone and themselves included know that they are an item. And there are legal benefits that follow. The recognition of a loving relationship AND the benefits that go with, should be accessible for everyone (or no one. I mean, we don't NEED "benefits" for married partners; but if we do have them, they should be included for ALL partners in such a relationship).
The law treats men and women differently. They are only allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex.
Really? Please read it again. Think about it - statement: "You are allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex." ...does that treat ANYONE differently???
I'd have to say yes. Based on what we know today, it does treat some people differently. To some, marrying a woman is not fathomable, so that "statement" tells them they can only get married to someone they don't want to marry. In a way it is a non-functional statement to them. A "dysfunctional" "law" even.
So if marriage should be based, atleast in part, on love, then your statement treats people differently. If marriage had nothing to do with love or personal feelings, I would have agreed with you.
For the first paragraph: Yes, I agree that in practice, people are treated differently. But I think the law itself does not treat them differently. The fact that things are different in practice and theory is inevitable. If the statement says that they can marry someone they dont want to, doesnt mean that the statement should allow them what they want, we cannot give rights and make laws just based on what people want and do not want.
Yes we can. Women wanted the right to vote, so they were given the right to vote. Which is significant since they could not vote themselves to get this right to vote.
Gays wanted financial and legal security in a relationship (equal to straight couples), so they were granted. (in norway). And the sky hasn't come down yet.
What do you think is the main motivation for laws anyway
People wanted the right to own property; so such laws were created, that grant different kinds of ownerships. The opposite would be China during their revolution; the state owned everything, even the home you lived in and the farmland you worked on.
I wrote "we cannot give rights and make laws just based on what people want and do not want" see the "just based" ? If everybody wanted to have the right to have one free steak a day, would it pass? Of course not, because it is just based on what we want and it is also not doable. But I think that those things you mentioned are not just based on what they wanted but it was also based on logical reasoning. If homosexuals wanted what you said " financial and legal security in a relationship (equal to straight couples)" I think that this might be OK. But they have to name it differently from "Marriage" and draw a strong line between it.
No they don't have to draw a line between straight and gay marriage. In Norway they didn't. The only reason they might draw a line between gay and straight marriage, is because some people (like you) will want it. Therefore they'd be making laws based on what people want and don't want (AND they won't be making logical sense, for instance, we'd have to call it gay marriage and straight mawrraige; NOT gay marriage and marriage. Also, we don't say black marraige, etc etc). Therefore, in my eyes, you go against your own argument.
You must realize that, when "suggesting" these laws (such as you do) and their restrictions; you are basing it upon what YOU want and don't want. And to me, "my way" makes much more logical sense, and is much more reasonable. For instance, I would not go around calling your marriage a "straight financially struggling marriage about to be ended" just because that would better describe you. Similarly I would not need to distinguish between straight and gay marriage; in my eyes there is marriage between two people, and to add any "mandatory" prefix is simply hilariously stupid.
I admit that putting it in the way of wanting/not wanting is unfortunate and inconsistent. But in the end, I still see difference between same and different sex, and again, the fundamental difference (and in my opinion the thing why marriage exists in the first place) is being able/not being able to make babies (and again of course: in principle)
Marriage is not about procreation, it's about love and making your relationship 'official' in order to receive legal benefits. Hell, I've heard about gay couples who couldn't get married, one of them got a terminal illness and the partner was not legally allowed to make decisions. I'm sure that's just one of the many cases where not being married works against a couple in dire situations.
On July 08 2012 23:55 Sinensis wrote: So much ignorance in this thread. This is like taking a time machine back to the 1950s and racism is not only everywhere, but widely accepted as a logical way to view the world.
How did we get on the race topic now?
Racial discrimination is just another way of discrimination, what has always been the topic.
A bit far fetched imo.
Nope. It really isn't. In other parts of the world it is much worse, and the similarities (to the dark parts of history) much more easy to see. It is discrimination (by the current law) to entitle a group of people to less civil rights than another.
But its something diffrent to get discriminated for having certain genes, than for example wearing funny cloth or what ever. You basically say its the same because its both discrimination. I think its a dagerous relativization.
On July 08 2012 23:53 XeliN wrote: Pisky imagine you are a heterosexual with no interest romantically or sexually whatsoever in the same sex. Then imagine your placed in a society that says ONLY people of the same sex are allowed to marry, but everyone! can do so.
Would you feel discriminated against?
No I would not. It is my bad luck. I could also marry someone of the opposite sex just as everybody else, but I would not probably do it because she/he would not attract me.
Well, if you don't care about your civil rights then that's your choice. Others do, and I for one respect that.
Imagine you have no interest romantically or sexually whatsoever in the same and opposite sex. Then imagine you are place in a society that says ONLY people of the same sex or the opposite are allowed to marry, but everyone can do so. But that hippo looks really sexy and you really like him because you were raised along with him and you love him and all..so you want to marry him. How that is NOT discriminating in your eyes?
On July 08 2012 23:55 Sinensis wrote: So much ignorance in this thread. This is like taking a time machine back to the 1950s and racism is not only everywhere, but widely accepted as a logical way to view the world.
How did we get on the race topic now?
Racial discrimination is just another way of discrimination, what has always been the topic.
A bit far fetched imo.
Nope. It really isn't. In other parts of the world it is much worse, and the similarities (to the dark parts of history) much more easy to see. It is discrimination (by the current law) to entitle a group of people to less civil rights than another.
But its something diffrent to get discriminated for having certain genes, than for example wearing funny cloth or what ever. You basically say its the same because its both discrimination. I think its a dagerous relativization.
I think it isn't. Homosexuality is not the same as choosing what to wear. It's not like "you chose to be gay so therefore you also chose not to be able to get married". It's "you were born gay, so now society has decided you can't get married". Just like "You were born black so now society has decided you can't get married".
We don't know for certain, but there have been studies finding patterns within the brain that cause people to be attracted to the same sex; and there's alot of speculation that it is genetically determined.
On July 08 2012 23:53 XeliN wrote: Pisky imagine you are a heterosexual with no interest romantically or sexually whatsoever in the same sex. Then imagine your placed in a society that says ONLY people of the same sex are allowed to marry, but everyone! can do so.
Would you feel discriminated against?
No I would not. It is my bad luck. I could also marry someone of the opposite sex just as everybody else, but I would not probably do it because she/he would not attract me.
Well, if you don't care about your civil rights then that's your choice. Others do, and I for one respect that.
Imagine you have no interest romantically or sexually whatsoever in the same and opposite sex. Then imagine you are place in a society that says ONLY people of the same sex or the opposite are allowed to marry, but everyone can do so. But that hippo looks really sexy and you really like him because you were raised along with him and you love him and all..so you want to marry him. How that is NOT discriminating in your eyes?
Because a hippo can't consent. I mean seriously do you even think before you post anything at all?
On July 08 2012 23:55 Sinensis wrote: So much ignorance in this thread. This is like taking a time machine back to the 1950s and racism is not only everywhere, but widely accepted as a logical way to view the world.
Looking at it like that, we might be the last generation to experience this bigot foolishness. From a historical tourism perspective we should perhaps appreciate that, while we're changing for the better.
On July 08 2012 23:53 XeliN wrote: Pisky imagine you are a heterosexual with no interest romantically or sexually whatsoever in the same sex. Then imagine your placed in a society that says ONLY people of the same sex are allowed to marry, but everyone! can do so.
Would you feel discriminated against?
No I would not. It is my bad luck. I could also marry someone of the opposite sex just as everybody else, but I would not probably do it because she/he would not attract me.
Well, if you don't care about your civil rights then that's your choice. Others do, and I for one respect that.
Imagine you have no interest romantically or sexually whatsoever in the same and opposite sex. Then imagine you are place in a society that says ONLY people of the same sex or the opposite are allowed to marry, but everyone can do so. But that hippo looks really sexy and you really like him because you were raised along with him and you love him and all..so you want to marry him. How that is NOT discriminating in your eyes?
Oh dear, the bestiality argument. Marriage is between two consenting human adults. Animals cannot consent and are therefore not eligible for marriage.
On July 08 2012 23:53 XeliN wrote: Pisky imagine you are a heterosexual with no interest romantically or sexually whatsoever in the same sex. Then imagine your placed in a society that says ONLY people of the same sex are allowed to marry, but everyone! can do so.
Would you feel discriminated against?
No I would not. It is my bad luck. I could also marry someone of the opposite sex just as everybody else, but I would not probably do it because she/he would not attract me.
Well, if you don't care about your civil rights then that's your choice. Others do, and I for one respect that.
Imagine you have no interest romantically or sexually whatsoever in the same and opposite sex. Then imagine you are place in a society that says ONLY people of the same sex or the opposite are allowed to marry, but everyone can do so. But that hippo looks really sexy and you really like him because you were raised along with him and you love him and all..so you want to marry him. How that is NOT discriminating in your eyes?
Propose to the hippo, I'll be awaiting its answer. If it accepts, and defends its case well, and argues well for its civil rights as a hippo, I will personally marry you and the hippo.
Other than that, I will not have you equate human being with animals in the eyes of the law. Proposing humans should get the same civil rights as animals is completely backwards and offensive.
On July 08 2012 23:55 Sinensis wrote: So much ignorance in this thread. This is like taking a time machine back to the 1950s and racism is not only everywhere, but widely accepted as a logical way to view the world.
Looking at it like that, we might be the last generation to experience this bigot foolishness. From a historical tourism perspective we should perhaps appreciate that, while we're changing for the better.
Once same-sex marriage is universally accepted people will find something else to get worked up over for no reason. I don't see an end to bigotry any time soon.
On July 08 2012 23:55 Sinensis wrote: So much ignorance in this thread. This is like taking a time machine back to the 1950s and racism is not only everywhere, but widely accepted as a logical way to view the world.
How did we get on the race topic now?
Racial discrimination is just another way of discrimination, what has always been the topic.
A bit far fetched imo.
Nope. It really isn't. In other parts of the world it is much worse, and the similarities (to the dark parts of history) much more easy to see. It is discrimination (by the current law) to entitle a group of people to less civil rights than another.
But its something diffrent to get discriminated for having certain genes, than for example wearing funny cloth or what ever. You basically say its the same because its both discrimination. I think its a dagerous relativization.
the same sex; and there's alot of speculation that it is genetically determined.
Well that sentence on a diffrent topic and shit would hit the fan ...
World is full of children and people already. Denying same-sex marriage because they can't have biological children when there are so many orphans out there is bullshit.
On July 08 2012 18:49 Noam wrote: In most countries Marriage is an institution that allows two people to get certain benefits from the state. Mostly tax and housing benefits. Any country that doesn't allow two people to get these benefits because they are of the same gender is committing gender discrimination against its citizens.
Marriage should not be tied to religion in any country in the world and this should be the ONLY focus of this campaign.
If some people want to celebrate the first day of their marriage in a religious environment, it should be their right based on religious freedom laws.
Frankly, if you want to have a secular state, then benefits should not be tied to anything that is called "marriage." I'm all for having the government give out civil unions to whatever couples want one, but marriage is religious in nature. Saying that marriage should not be tied to religion is just a ridiculous statement, instead marriage should not be tied to the state at all.
On July 08 2012 18:49 Noam wrote: In most countries Marriage is an institution that allows two people to get certain benefits from the state. Mostly tax and housing benefits. Any country that doesn't allow two people to get these benefits because they are of the same gender is committing gender discrimination against its citizens.
Marriage should not be tied to religion in any country in the world and this should be the ONLY focus of this campaign.
If some people want to celebrate the first day of their marriage in a religious environment, it should be their right based on religious freedom laws.
Frankly, if you want to have a secular state, then benefits should not be tied to anything that is called "marriage." I'm all for having the government give out civil unions to whatever couples want one, but marriage is religious in nature. Saying that marriage should not be tied to religion is just a ridiculous statement, instead marriage should not be tied to the state at all.
Religious people do not have the monopoly on the word marriage. You're only arguing semantics.
Hell, both Christian's and Muslims use the word marriage, why should both of them be allowed to use the word since it obviously means something different for both of them? I hope you can see why the word 'marriage' does not belong to any one group of people.
"and there's alot of speculation that it is genetically determined."
Well that sentence on a diffrent topic and shit would hit the fan ...
I hope it isn't genetically predetermined, cause then some people will try to enforce a cure upon it. Society isn't ready for bioscience to find the cause for homosexuality; it would be abused for evil.
But there is speculation in it. Why is it wrong to say?
Is this your way of arguing that it is a "choice"? At the age of 10-20, they made the choice to never ever touch a woman? ^^
On July 08 2012 23:53 XeliN wrote: Pisky imagine you are a heterosexual with no interest romantically or sexually whatsoever in the same sex. Then imagine your placed in a society that says ONLY people of the same sex are allowed to marry, but everyone! can do so.
Would you feel discriminated against?
No I would not. It is my bad luck. I could also marry someone of the opposite sex just as everybody else, but I would not probably do it because she/he would not attract me.
Well, if you don't care about your civil rights then that's your choice. Others do, and I for one respect that.
Imagine you have no interest romantically or sexually whatsoever in the same and opposite sex. Then imagine you are place in a society that says ONLY people of the same sex or the opposite are allowed to marry, but everyone can do so. But that hippo looks really sexy and you really like him because you were raised along with him and you love him and all..so you want to marry him. How that is NOT discriminating in your eyes?
Proposing humans should get the same civil rights as animals is completely backwards and offensive.
On July 08 2012 23:53 XeliN wrote: Pisky imagine you are a heterosexual with no interest romantically or sexually whatsoever in the same sex. Then imagine your placed in a society that says ONLY people of the same sex are allowed to marry, but everyone! can do so.
Would you feel discriminated against?
No I would not. It is my bad luck. I could also marry someone of the opposite sex just as everybody else, but I would not probably do it because she/he would not attract me.
Well, if you don't care about your civil rights then that's your choice. Others do, and I for one respect that.
Imagine you have no interest romantically or sexually whatsoever in the same and opposite sex. Then imagine you are place in a society that says ONLY people of the same sex or the opposite are allowed to marry, but everyone can do so. But that hippo looks really sexy and you really like him because you were raised along with him and you love him and all..so you want to marry him. How that is NOT discriminating in your eyes?
Proposing humans should get the same civil rights as animals is completely backwards and offensive.
Well that is blatant Speciesism !
^^ humanity above all else. But on a sidenote, I'd love to meet aliens, and I would not hold it against anyone if some humans wanted to marry an alien.
If forbidding gay marriage is discrimination agains gay people, is forbidding having more than one husband/wife discrimantion against people who would like to live a life with polygamous marriage?
The law treats men and women differently. They are only allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex.
Really? Please read it again. Think about it - statement: "You are allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex." ...does that treat ANYONE differently???
I'd have to say yes. Based on what we know today, it does treat some people differently. To some, marrying a woman is not fathomable, so that "statement" tells them they can only get married to someone they don't want to marry. In a way it is a non-functional statement to them. A "dysfunctional" "law" even.
So if marriage should be based, atleast in part, on love, then your statement treats people differently. If marriage had nothing to do with love or personal feelings, I would have agreed with you.
For the first paragraph: Yes, I agree that in practice, people are treated differently. But I think the law itself does not treat them differently. The fact that things are different in practice and theory is inevitable. If the statement says that they can marry someone they dont want to, doesnt mean that the statement should allow them what they want, we cannot give rights and make laws just based on what people want and do not want.
Yes we can. Women wanted the right to vote, so they were given the right to vote. Which is significant since they could not vote themselves to get this right to vote.
Gays wanted financial and legal security in a relationship (equal to straight couples), so they were granted. (in norway). And the sky hasn't come down yet.
What do you think is the main motivation for laws anyway
People wanted the right to own property; so such laws were created, that grant different kinds of ownerships. The opposite would be China during their revolution; the state owned everything, even the home you lived in and the farmland you worked on.
I wrote "we cannot give rights and make laws just based on what people want and do not want" see the "just based" ? If everybody wanted to have the right to have one free steak a day, would it pass? Of course not, because it is just based on what we want and it is also not doable. But I think that those things you mentioned are not just based on what they wanted but it was also based on logical reasoning. If homosexuals wanted what you said " financial and legal security in a relationship (equal to straight couples)" I think that this might be OK. But they have to name it differently from "Marriage" and draw a strong line between it.
No they don't have to draw a line between straight and gay marriage. In Norway they didn't. The only reason they might draw a line between gay and straight marriage, is because some people (like you) will want it. Therefore they'd be making laws based on what people want and don't want (AND they won't be making logical sense, for instance, we'd have to call it gay marriage and straight mawrraige; NOT gay marriage and marriage. Also, we don't say black marraige, etc etc). Therefore, in my eyes, you go against your own argument.
You must realize that, when "suggesting" these laws (such as you do) and their restrictions; you are basing it upon what YOU want and don't want. And to me, "my way" makes much more logical sense, and is much more reasonable. For instance, I would not go around calling your marriage a "straight financially struggling marriage about to be ended" just because that would better describe you. Similarly I would not need to distinguish between straight and gay marriage; in my eyes there is marriage between two people, and to add any "mandatory" prefix is simply hilariously stupid.
I admit that putting it in the way of wanting/not wanting is unfortunate and inconsistent. But in the end, I still see difference between same and different sex, and again, the fundamental difference (and in my opinion the thing why marriage exists in the first place) is being able/not being able to make babies (and again of course: in principle)
Marriage is not about procreation, it's about love and making your relationship 'official' in order to receive legal benefits. Hell, I've heard about gay couples who couldn't get married, one of them got a terminal illness and the partner was not legally allowed to make decisions. I'm sure that's just one of the many cases where not being married works against a couple in dire situations.
Please read my whole discussion, dont confuse two things: particular reason for marriage and reason for the marrige as an institution. I am not against granting gay couples the rights to make decisions if someone gets a terminal illness, it is completely reasonable I think. I am against calling it marriage. Because as I said in my previous posts, I believe that marriage is to complement procreation on the social and other levels. If you allow gay to "marry" you simply twist the meaning of marriage. If you want the same particular rights then I am not against making a different institution dealing with gay partners rights. It looks to me that our argument is just about how it should be named :D
"and there's alot of speculation that it is genetically determined."
Well that sentence on a diffrent topic and shit would hit the fan ...
I hope it isn't genetically predetermined, cause then some people will try to enforce a cure upon it. Society isn't ready for bioscience to find the cause for homosexuality; it would be abused for evil.
But there is speculation in it. Why is it wrong to say?
Is this your way of arguing that it is a "choice"? They chose to never touch a woman?
I don't say its wrong at all, its just that most people are very sensitive when it comes to correlation between genes and behaviour.
On July 09 2012 00:28 mdb wrote: If forbidding gay marriage is discrimination agains gay people, is forbidding having more than one husband/wife discrimantion against people who would like to live a life with polygamous marriage?
Yes, there is nothing wrong with polygamy if all involved parties consent.
On July 08 2012 23:53 XeliN wrote: Pisky imagine you are a heterosexual with no interest romantically or sexually whatsoever in the same sex. Then imagine your placed in a society that says ONLY people of the same sex are allowed to marry, but everyone! can do so.
Would you feel discriminated against?
No I would not. It is my bad luck. I could also marry someone of the opposite sex just as everybody else, but I would not probably do it because she/he would not attract me.
Well, if you don't care about your civil rights then that's your choice. Others do, and I for one respect that.
Imagine you have no interest romantically or sexually whatsoever in the same and opposite sex. Then imagine you are place in a society that says ONLY people of the same sex or the opposite are allowed to marry, but everyone can do so. But that hippo looks really sexy and you really like him because you were raised along with him and you love him and all..so you want to marry him. How that is NOT discriminating in your eyes?
Proposing humans should get the same civil rights as animals is completely backwards and offensive.
Well that is blatant Speciesism !
Yes. Yes it is. Come to think of it, it's almost as if non-humans don't have any legal standing whatsoever. So do you actually have a point or are you trolling?
The law treats men and women differently. They are only allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex.
Really? Please read it again. Think about it - statement: "You are allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex." ...does that treat ANYONE differently???
I'd have to say yes. Based on what we know today, it does treat some people differently. To some, marrying a woman is not fathomable, so that "statement" tells them they can only get married to someone they don't want to marry. In a way it is a non-functional statement to them. A "dysfunctional" "law" even.
So if marriage should be based, atleast in part, on love, then your statement treats people differently. If marriage had nothing to do with love or personal feelings, I would have agreed with you.
For the first paragraph: Yes, I agree that in practice, people are treated differently. But I think the law itself does not treat them differently. The fact that things are different in practice and theory is inevitable. If the statement says that they can marry someone they dont want to, doesnt mean that the statement should allow them what they want, we cannot give rights and make laws just based on what people want and do not want.
Yes we can. Women wanted the right to vote, so they were given the right to vote. Which is significant since they could not vote themselves to get this right to vote.
Gays wanted financial and legal security in a relationship (equal to straight couples), so they were granted. (in norway). And the sky hasn't come down yet.
What do you think is the main motivation for laws anyway
People wanted the right to own property; so such laws were created, that grant different kinds of ownerships. The opposite would be China during their revolution; the state owned everything, even the home you lived in and the farmland you worked on.
I wrote "we cannot give rights and make laws just based on what people want and do not want" see the "just based" ? If everybody wanted to have the right to have one free steak a day, would it pass? Of course not, because it is just based on what we want and it is also not doable. But I think that those things you mentioned are not just based on what they wanted but it was also based on logical reasoning. If homosexuals wanted what you said " financial and legal security in a relationship (equal to straight couples)" I think that this might be OK. But they have to name it differently from "Marriage" and draw a strong line between it.
No they don't have to draw a line between straight and gay marriage. In Norway they didn't. The only reason they might draw a line between gay and straight marriage, is because some people (like you) will want it. Therefore they'd be making laws based on what people want and don't want (AND they won't be making logical sense, for instance, we'd have to call it gay marriage and straight mawrraige; NOT gay marriage and marriage. Also, we don't say black marraige, etc etc). Therefore, in my eyes, you go against your own argument.
You must realize that, when "suggesting" these laws (such as you do) and their restrictions; you are basing it upon what YOU want and don't want. And to me, "my way" makes much more logical sense, and is much more reasonable. For instance, I would not go around calling your marriage a "straight financially struggling marriage about to be ended" just because that would better describe you. Similarly I would not need to distinguish between straight and gay marriage; in my eyes there is marriage between two people, and to add any "mandatory" prefix is simply hilariously stupid.
I admit that putting it in the way of wanting/not wanting is unfortunate and inconsistent. But in the end, I still see difference between same and different sex, and again, the fundamental difference (and in my opinion the thing why marriage exists in the first place) is being able/not being able to make babies (and again of course: in principle)
Marriage is not about procreation, it's about love and making your relationship 'official' in order to receive legal benefits. Hell, I've heard about gay couples who couldn't get married, one of them got a terminal illness and the partner was not legally allowed to make decisions. I'm sure that's just one of the many cases where not being married works against a couple in dire situations.
Please read my whole discussion, dont confuse two things: particular reason for marriage and reason for the marrige as an institution. I am not against granting gay couples the rights to make decisions if someone gets a terminal illness, it is completely reasonable I think. I am against calling it marriage. Because as I said in my previous posts, I believe that marriage is to complement procreation on the social and other levels. If you allow gay to "marry" you simply twist the meaning of marriage. If you want the same particular rights then I am not against making a different institution dealing with gay partners rights. It looks to me that our argument is just about how it should be named :D
Thorakh wrote: Religious people do not have the monopoly on the word marriage. You're only arguing semantics.
Hell, both Christian's and Muslims use the word marriage, why should both of them be allowed to use the word since it obviously means something different for both of them? I hope you can see why the word 'marriage' does not belong to any one group of people.
Marriage and the concept of bonding was around before any Christians even existed.
On July 08 2012 23:53 XeliN wrote: Pisky imagine you are a heterosexual with no interest romantically or sexually whatsoever in the same sex. Then imagine your placed in a society that says ONLY people of the same sex are allowed to marry, but everyone! can do so.
Would you feel discriminated against?
No I would not. It is my bad luck. I could also marry someone of the opposite sex just as everybody else, but I would not probably do it because she/he would not attract me.
Well, if you don't care about your civil rights then that's your choice. Others do, and I for one respect that.
Imagine you have no interest romantically or sexually whatsoever in the same and opposite sex. Then imagine you are place in a society that says ONLY people of the same sex or the opposite are allowed to marry, but everyone can do so. But that hippo looks really sexy and you really like him because you were raised along with him and you love him and all..so you want to marry him. How that is NOT discriminating in your eyes?
Proposing humans should get the same civil rights as animals is completely backwards and offensive.
Well that is blatant Speciesism !
Yes. Yes it is. Come to think of it, it's almost as if non-humans don't have any legal standing whatsoever. So do you actually have a point or are you trolling?
The law treats men and women differently. They are only allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex.
Really? Please read it again. Think about it - statement: "You are allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex." ...does that treat ANYONE differently???
I'd have to say yes. Based on what we know today, it does treat some people differently. To some, marrying a woman is not fathomable, so that "statement" tells them they can only get married to someone they don't want to marry. In a way it is a non-functional statement to them. A "dysfunctional" "law" even.
So if marriage should be based, atleast in part, on love, then your statement treats people differently. If marriage had nothing to do with love or personal feelings, I would have agreed with you.
For the first paragraph: Yes, I agree that in practice, people are treated differently. But I think the law itself does not treat them differently. The fact that things are different in practice and theory is inevitable. If the statement says that they can marry someone they dont want to, doesnt mean that the statement should allow them what they want, we cannot give rights and make laws just based on what people want and do not want.
Yes we can. Women wanted the right to vote, so they were given the right to vote. Which is significant since they could not vote themselves to get this right to vote.
Gays wanted financial and legal security in a relationship (equal to straight couples), so they were granted. (in norway). And the sky hasn't come down yet.
What do you think is the main motivation for laws anyway
People wanted the right to own property; so such laws were created, that grant different kinds of ownerships. The opposite would be China during their revolution; the state owned everything, even the home you lived in and the farmland you worked on.
I wrote "we cannot give rights and make laws just based on what people want and do not want" see the "just based" ? If everybody wanted to have the right to have one free steak a day, would it pass? Of course not, because it is just based on what we want and it is also not doable. But I think that those things you mentioned are not just based on what they wanted but it was also based on logical reasoning. If homosexuals wanted what you said " financial and legal security in a relationship (equal to straight couples)" I think that this might be OK. But they have to name it differently from "Marriage" and draw a strong line between it.
No they don't have to draw a line between straight and gay marriage. In Norway they didn't. The only reason they might draw a line between gay and straight marriage, is because some people (like you) will want it. Therefore they'd be making laws based on what people want and don't want (AND they won't be making logical sense, for instance, we'd have to call it gay marriage and straight mawrraige; NOT gay marriage and marriage. Also, we don't say black marraige, etc etc). Therefore, in my eyes, you go against your own argument.
You must realize that, when "suggesting" these laws (such as you do) and their restrictions; you are basing it upon what YOU want and don't want. And to me, "my way" makes much more logical sense, and is much more reasonable. For instance, I would not go around calling your marriage a "straight financially struggling marriage about to be ended" just because that would better describe you. Similarly I would not need to distinguish between straight and gay marriage; in my eyes there is marriage between two people, and to add any "mandatory" prefix is simply hilariously stupid.
I admit that putting it in the way of wanting/not wanting is unfortunate and inconsistent. But in the end, I still see difference between same and different sex, and again, the fundamental difference (and in my opinion the thing why marriage exists in the first place) is being able/not being able to make babies (and again of course: in principle)
Marriage is not about procreation, it's about love and making your relationship 'official' in order to receive legal benefits. Hell, I've heard about gay couples who couldn't get married, one of them got a terminal illness and the partner was not legally allowed to make decisions. I'm sure that's just one of the many cases where not being married works against a couple in dire situations.
Please read my whole discussion, dont confuse two things: particular reason for marriage and reason for the marrige as an institution. I am not against granting gay couples the rights to make decisions if someone gets a terminal illness, it is completely reasonable I think. I am against calling it marriage. Because as I said in my previous posts, I believe that marriage is to complement procreation on the social and other levels. If you allow gay to "marry" you simply twist the meaning of marriage. If you want the same particular rights then I am not against making a different institution dealing with gay partners rights. It looks to me that our argument is just about how it should be named :D
Again, what is the difference between homosexuals adopting a child and heterosexuals adopting a child? I can't see how any mechanism is different in any way, shape, or form, both legally and practically.
A semantic argument is disgusting and horrible. The entire point is just to feel superior and insult homosexual relationships. This is not what the law is for. The law is not a tool used for degrading the dignity of other people. In fact, you're insulting people's families, which I find incredibly shocking. Gay people are getting married, they have spouses. Get over it, and move on.
On July 08 2012 23:53 XeliN wrote: Pisky imagine you are a heterosexual with no interest romantically or sexually whatsoever in the same sex. Then imagine your placed in a society that says ONLY people of the same sex are allowed to marry, but everyone! can do so.
Would you feel discriminated against?
No I would not. It is my bad luck. I could also marry someone of the opposite sex just as everybody else, but I would not probably do it because she/he would not attract me.
Well, if you don't care about your civil rights then that's your choice. Others do, and I for one respect that.
Imagine you have no interest romantically or sexually whatsoever in the same and opposite sex. Then imagine you are place in a society that says ONLY people of the same sex or the opposite are allowed to marry, but everyone can do so. But that hippo looks really sexy and you really like him because you were raised along with him and you love him and all..so you want to marry him. How that is NOT discriminating in your eyes?
Proposing humans should get the same civil rights as animals is completely backwards and offensive.
Well that is blatant Speciesism !
Yes. Yes it is. Come to think of it, it's almost as if non-humans don't have any legal standing whatsoever. So do you actually have a point or are you trolling?
Do you have any point?
Uhh... that beastality has nothing to do with anything?
Well its official, Google's come out of the closet, and after those thousands upon thousands of searches involving big boobs I cant believe hes turned out this way, I think i might have to use Bing or Yahoo now.
On July 09 2012 00:28 mdb wrote: If forbidding gay marriage is discrimination agains gay people, is forbidding having more than one husband/wife discrimantion against people who would like to live a life with polygamous marriage?
Yes. Haven't you tried to make this point a few pages earlier?
On July 09 2012 00:28 mdb wrote: If forbidding gay marriage is discrimination agains gay people, is forbidding having more than one husband/wife discrimantion against people who would like to live a life with polygamous marriage?
Tricky one. Depends if polygamous people find they lose out on civil rights and are treated second class just because they are who they are. For now polygamy is (almost?) criminalized, isn't it?
It isn't unheard of that 3 adults live together and are effectively married (even if not on paper). And frankly, it's none of our business. Basically, if the owner of their home dies, where they have lived for 10 years, the property + house would go to the immediate family of the deceased (like his/her parents), and the 2 others who've lived and loved there for huge parts of their lives would get evicted.
But I do not want to get involved in a debate on wether polygamy is inherently wrong or not (harmless). Polygamy is real. Often it is used "criminally" or to subjugate (like marrying 30 women in religious sects); which is moraly shoddy to me. But there are healthy relationships that could be viewed as "polygamy" for sure, without being harmful at all. Maybe we can touch this issue at some later date. For now there hasn't been a great need to legaly recognize a partnership of 3 people.
Well, that might not be entirely true. If a child effectively has 3 parents, only 1 or 2 of which are biological; and something "happens", only the 2 parents that on paper are the guardians will be allowed into emergency rooms etc etc. So maybe, if agreed upon, a child could have 3 legal guardians instead of 2, for instance.
In a way there's nothing wrong to legally aknowledge that there's a household with three people who've commited their lives to eachother, and that this should be respected when it comes to legal benefits and redistribution of property. I don't see the need for church to give its concent to such practice. Maybe with a few regulations, so that extreme cases of subjugation through polygamy actually still are criminalized, and don't cause a paradox within the law.
Really? Please read it again. Think about it - statement: "You are allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex." ...does that treat ANYONE differently???
I'd have to say yes. Based on what we know today, it does treat some people differently. To some, marrying a woman is not fathomable, so that "statement" tells them they can only get married to someone they don't want to marry. In a way it is a non-functional statement to them. A "dysfunctional" "law" even.
So if marriage should be based, atleast in part, on love, then your statement treats people differently. If marriage had nothing to do with love or personal feelings, I would have agreed with you.
For the first paragraph: Yes, I agree that in practice, people are treated differently. But I think the law itself does not treat them differently. The fact that things are different in practice and theory is inevitable. If the statement says that they can marry someone they dont want to, doesnt mean that the statement should allow them what they want, we cannot give rights and make laws just based on what people want and do not want.
Yes we can. Women wanted the right to vote, so they were given the right to vote. Which is significant since they could not vote themselves to get this right to vote.
Gays wanted financial and legal security in a relationship (equal to straight couples), so they were granted. (in norway). And the sky hasn't come down yet.
What do you think is the main motivation for laws anyway
People wanted the right to own property; so such laws were created, that grant different kinds of ownerships. The opposite would be China during their revolution; the state owned everything, even the home you lived in and the farmland you worked on.
I wrote "we cannot give rights and make laws just based on what people want and do not want" see the "just based" ? If everybody wanted to have the right to have one free steak a day, would it pass? Of course not, because it is just based on what we want and it is also not doable. But I think that those things you mentioned are not just based on what they wanted but it was also based on logical reasoning. If homosexuals wanted what you said " financial and legal security in a relationship (equal to straight couples)" I think that this might be OK. But they have to name it differently from "Marriage" and draw a strong line between it.
No they don't have to draw a line between straight and gay marriage. In Norway they didn't. The only reason they might draw a line between gay and straight marriage, is because some people (like you) will want it. Therefore they'd be making laws based on what people want and don't want (AND they won't be making logical sense, for instance, we'd have to call it gay marriage and straight mawrraige; NOT gay marriage and marriage. Also, we don't say black marraige, etc etc). Therefore, in my eyes, you go against your own argument.
You must realize that, when "suggesting" these laws (such as you do) and their restrictions; you are basing it upon what YOU want and don't want. And to me, "my way" makes much more logical sense, and is much more reasonable. For instance, I would not go around calling your marriage a "straight financially struggling marriage about to be ended" just because that would better describe you. Similarly I would not need to distinguish between straight and gay marriage; in my eyes there is marriage between two people, and to add any "mandatory" prefix is simply hilariously stupid.
I admit that putting it in the way of wanting/not wanting is unfortunate and inconsistent. But in the end, I still see difference between same and different sex, and again, the fundamental difference (and in my opinion the thing why marriage exists in the first place) is being able/not being able to make babies (and again of course: in principle)
Marriage is not about procreation, it's about love and making your relationship 'official' in order to receive legal benefits. Hell, I've heard about gay couples who couldn't get married, one of them got a terminal illness and the partner was not legally allowed to make decisions. I'm sure that's just one of the many cases where not being married works against a couple in dire situations.
Please read my whole discussion, dont confuse two things: particular reason for marriage and reason for the marrige as an institution. I am not against granting gay couples the rights to make decisions if someone gets a terminal illness, it is completely reasonable I think. I am against calling it marriage. Because as I said in my previous posts, I believe that marriage is to complement procreation on the social and other levels. If you allow gay to "marry" you simply twist the meaning of marriage. If you want the same particular rights then I am not against making a different institution dealing with gay partners rights. It looks to me that our argument is just about how it should be named :D
Thorakh wrote: Religious people do not have the monopoly on the word marriage. You're only arguing semantics.
Hell, both Christian's and Muslims use the word marriage, why should both of them be allowed to use the word since it obviously means something different for both of them? I hope you can see why the word 'marriage' does not belong to any one group of people.
Marriage and the concept of bonding was around before any Christians even existed.
1) I am not religious.
2) Yes I am arguing semantics.
3) Then it comes down to what you believe marriage is (since it does not belong to anyone), so that does not prove you or me right or wrong. You just understand marriage differently than me, and it is ok, thats why we have different opinions.
I'd have to say yes. Based on what we know today, it does treat some people differently. To some, marrying a woman is not fathomable, so that "statement" tells them they can only get married to someone they don't want to marry. In a way it is a non-functional statement to them. A "dysfunctional" "law" even.
So if marriage should be based, atleast in part, on love, then your statement treats people differently. If marriage had nothing to do with love or personal feelings, I would have agreed with you.
For the first paragraph: Yes, I agree that in practice, people are treated differently. But I think the law itself does not treat them differently. The fact that things are different in practice and theory is inevitable. If the statement says that they can marry someone they dont want to, doesnt mean that the statement should allow them what they want, we cannot give rights and make laws just based on what people want and do not want.
Yes we can. Women wanted the right to vote, so they were given the right to vote. Which is significant since they could not vote themselves to get this right to vote.
Gays wanted financial and legal security in a relationship (equal to straight couples), so they were granted. (in norway). And the sky hasn't come down yet.
What do you think is the main motivation for laws anyway
People wanted the right to own property; so such laws were created, that grant different kinds of ownerships. The opposite would be China during their revolution; the state owned everything, even the home you lived in and the farmland you worked on.
I wrote "we cannot give rights and make laws just based on what people want and do not want" see the "just based" ? If everybody wanted to have the right to have one free steak a day, would it pass? Of course not, because it is just based on what we want and it is also not doable. But I think that those things you mentioned are not just based on what they wanted but it was also based on logical reasoning. If homosexuals wanted what you said " financial and legal security in a relationship (equal to straight couples)" I think that this might be OK. But they have to name it differently from "Marriage" and draw a strong line between it.
No they don't have to draw a line between straight and gay marriage. In Norway they didn't. The only reason they might draw a line between gay and straight marriage, is because some people (like you) will want it. Therefore they'd be making laws based on what people want and don't want (AND they won't be making logical sense, for instance, we'd have to call it gay marriage and straight mawrraige; NOT gay marriage and marriage. Also, we don't say black marraige, etc etc). Therefore, in my eyes, you go against your own argument.
You must realize that, when "suggesting" these laws (such as you do) and their restrictions; you are basing it upon what YOU want and don't want. And to me, "my way" makes much more logical sense, and is much more reasonable. For instance, I would not go around calling your marriage a "straight financially struggling marriage about to be ended" just because that would better describe you. Similarly I would not need to distinguish between straight and gay marriage; in my eyes there is marriage between two people, and to add any "mandatory" prefix is simply hilariously stupid.
I admit that putting it in the way of wanting/not wanting is unfortunate and inconsistent. But in the end, I still see difference between same and different sex, and again, the fundamental difference (and in my opinion the thing why marriage exists in the first place) is being able/not being able to make babies (and again of course: in principle)
Marriage is not about procreation, it's about love and making your relationship 'official' in order to receive legal benefits. Hell, I've heard about gay couples who couldn't get married, one of them got a terminal illness and the partner was not legally allowed to make decisions. I'm sure that's just one of the many cases where not being married works against a couple in dire situations.
Please read my whole discussion, dont confuse two things: particular reason for marriage and reason for the marrige as an institution. I am not against granting gay couples the rights to make decisions if someone gets a terminal illness, it is completely reasonable I think. I am against calling it marriage. Because as I said in my previous posts, I believe that marriage is to complement procreation on the social and other levels. If you allow gay to "marry" you simply twist the meaning of marriage. If you want the same particular rights then I am not against making a different institution dealing with gay partners rights. It looks to me that our argument is just about how it should be named :D
Thorakh wrote: Religious people do not have the monopoly on the word marriage. You're only arguing semantics.
Hell, both Christian's and Muslims use the word marriage, why should both of them be allowed to use the word since it obviously means something different for both of them? I hope you can see why the word 'marriage' does not belong to any one group of people.
Marriage and the concept of bonding was around before any Christians even existed.
1) I am not religious.
2) Yes I am arguing semantics.
3) Then it comes down to what you believe marriage is (since it does not belong to anyone), so that does not prove you or me right or wrong. You just understand marriage differently than me, and it is ok, thats why we have different opinions.
So I assume that means that if there was such a referendum, you would vote to legalize gay marriage, because you recognize that people have different opinions about marriage. Therefore it is not your duty to impose your views on others using the law.
For the first paragraph: Yes, I agree that in practice, people are treated differently. But I think the law itself does not treat them differently. The fact that things are different in practice and theory is inevitable. If the statement says that they can marry someone they dont want to, doesnt mean that the statement should allow them what they want, we cannot give rights and make laws just based on what people want and do not want.
Yes we can. Women wanted the right to vote, so they were given the right to vote. Which is significant since they could not vote themselves to get this right to vote.
Gays wanted financial and legal security in a relationship (equal to straight couples), so they were granted. (in norway). And the sky hasn't come down yet.
What do you think is the main motivation for laws anyway
People wanted the right to own property; so such laws were created, that grant different kinds of ownerships. The opposite would be China during their revolution; the state owned everything, even the home you lived in and the farmland you worked on.
I wrote "we cannot give rights and make laws just based on what people want and do not want" see the "just based" ? If everybody wanted to have the right to have one free steak a day, would it pass? Of course not, because it is just based on what we want and it is also not doable. But I think that those things you mentioned are not just based on what they wanted but it was also based on logical reasoning. If homosexuals wanted what you said " financial and legal security in a relationship (equal to straight couples)" I think that this might be OK. But they have to name it differently from "Marriage" and draw a strong line between it.
No they don't have to draw a line between straight and gay marriage. In Norway they didn't. The only reason they might draw a line between gay and straight marriage, is because some people (like you) will want it. Therefore they'd be making laws based on what people want and don't want (AND they won't be making logical sense, for instance, we'd have to call it gay marriage and straight mawrraige; NOT gay marriage and marriage. Also, we don't say black marraige, etc etc). Therefore, in my eyes, you go against your own argument.
You must realize that, when "suggesting" these laws (such as you do) and their restrictions; you are basing it upon what YOU want and don't want. And to me, "my way" makes much more logical sense, and is much more reasonable. For instance, I would not go around calling your marriage a "straight financially struggling marriage about to be ended" just because that would better describe you. Similarly I would not need to distinguish between straight and gay marriage; in my eyes there is marriage between two people, and to add any "mandatory" prefix is simply hilariously stupid.
I admit that putting it in the way of wanting/not wanting is unfortunate and inconsistent. But in the end, I still see difference between same and different sex, and again, the fundamental difference (and in my opinion the thing why marriage exists in the first place) is being able/not being able to make babies (and again of course: in principle)
Marriage is not about procreation, it's about love and making your relationship 'official' in order to receive legal benefits. Hell, I've heard about gay couples who couldn't get married, one of them got a terminal illness and the partner was not legally allowed to make decisions. I'm sure that's just one of the many cases where not being married works against a couple in dire situations.
Please read my whole discussion, dont confuse two things: particular reason for marriage and reason for the marrige as an institution. I am not against granting gay couples the rights to make decisions if someone gets a terminal illness, it is completely reasonable I think. I am against calling it marriage. Because as I said in my previous posts, I believe that marriage is to complement procreation on the social and other levels. If you allow gay to "marry" you simply twist the meaning of marriage. If you want the same particular rights then I am not against making a different institution dealing with gay partners rights. It looks to me that our argument is just about how it should be named :D
Thorakh wrote: Religious people do not have the monopoly on the word marriage. You're only arguing semantics.
Hell, both Christian's and Muslims use the word marriage, why should both of them be allowed to use the word since it obviously means something different for both of them? I hope you can see why the word 'marriage' does not belong to any one group of people.
Marriage and the concept of bonding was around before any Christians even existed.
1) I am not religious.
2) Yes I am arguing semantics.
3) Then it comes down to what you believe marriage is (since it does not belong to anyone), so that does not prove you or me right or wrong. You just understand marriage differently than me, and it is ok, thats why we have different opinions.
So I assume that means that if there was such a referendum, you would vote to legalize gay marriage, because you recognize that people have different opinions about marriage. Therefore it is not your duty to impose your views on others using the law.
I'd have to say yes. Based on what we know today, it does treat some people differently. To some, marrying a woman is not fathomable, so that "statement" tells them they can only get married to someone they don't want to marry. In a way it is a non-functional statement to them. A "dysfunctional" "law" even.
So if marriage should be based, atleast in part, on love, then your statement treats people differently. If marriage had nothing to do with love or personal feelings, I would have agreed with you.
For the first paragraph: Yes, I agree that in practice, people are treated differently. But I think the law itself does not treat them differently. The fact that things are different in practice and theory is inevitable. If the statement says that they can marry someone they dont want to, doesnt mean that the statement should allow them what they want, we cannot give rights and make laws just based on what people want and do not want.
Yes we can. Women wanted the right to vote, so they were given the right to vote. Which is significant since they could not vote themselves to get this right to vote.
Gays wanted financial and legal security in a relationship (equal to straight couples), so they were granted. (in norway). And the sky hasn't come down yet.
What do you think is the main motivation for laws anyway
People wanted the right to own property; so such laws were created, that grant different kinds of ownerships. The opposite would be China during their revolution; the state owned everything, even the home you lived in and the farmland you worked on.
I wrote "we cannot give rights and make laws just based on what people want and do not want" see the "just based" ? If everybody wanted to have the right to have one free steak a day, would it pass? Of course not, because it is just based on what we want and it is also not doable. But I think that those things you mentioned are not just based on what they wanted but it was also based on logical reasoning. If homosexuals wanted what you said " financial and legal security in a relationship (equal to straight couples)" I think that this might be OK. But they have to name it differently from "Marriage" and draw a strong line between it.
No they don't have to draw a line between straight and gay marriage. In Norway they didn't. The only reason they might draw a line between gay and straight marriage, is because some people (like you) will want it. Therefore they'd be making laws based on what people want and don't want (AND they won't be making logical sense, for instance, we'd have to call it gay marriage and straight mawrraige; NOT gay marriage and marriage. Also, we don't say black marraige, etc etc). Therefore, in my eyes, you go against your own argument.
You must realize that, when "suggesting" these laws (such as you do) and their restrictions; you are basing it upon what YOU want and don't want. And to me, "my way" makes much more logical sense, and is much more reasonable. For instance, I would not go around calling your marriage a "straight financially struggling marriage about to be ended" just because that would better describe you. Similarly I would not need to distinguish between straight and gay marriage; in my eyes there is marriage between two people, and to add any "mandatory" prefix is simply hilariously stupid.
I admit that putting it in the way of wanting/not wanting is unfortunate and inconsistent. But in the end, I still see difference between same and different sex, and again, the fundamental difference (and in my opinion the thing why marriage exists in the first place) is being able/not being able to make babies (and again of course: in principle)
Marriage is not about procreation, it's about love and making your relationship 'official' in order to receive legal benefits. Hell, I've heard about gay couples who couldn't get married, one of them got a terminal illness and the partner was not legally allowed to make decisions. I'm sure that's just one of the many cases where not being married works against a couple in dire situations.
Please read my whole discussion, dont confuse two things: particular reason for marriage and reason for the marrige as an institution. I am not against granting gay couples the rights to make decisions if someone gets a terminal illness, it is completely reasonable I think. I am against calling it marriage. Because as I said in my previous posts, I believe that marriage is to complement procreation on the social and other levels. If you allow gay to "marry" you simply twist the meaning of marriage. If you want the same particular rights then I am not against making a different institution dealing with gay partners rights. It looks to me that our argument is just about how it should be named :D
Thorakh wrote: Religious people do not have the monopoly on the word marriage. You're only arguing semantics.
Hell, both Christian's and Muslims use the word marriage, why should both of them be allowed to use the word since it obviously means something different for both of them? I hope you can see why the word 'marriage' does not belong to any one group of people.
Marriage and the concept of bonding was around before any Christians even existed.
1) I am not religious.
2) Yes I am arguing semantics.
3) Then it comes down to what you believe marriage is (since it does not belong to anyone), so that does not prove you or me right or wrong. You just understand marriage differently than me, and it is ok, thats why we have different opinions.
So, which one is it going to be? Christian or Islamic marriage? Which religion (or group of people) has the exclusive rights to the word 'marriage'?
No matter what definition of marriage you use, you're going to step on the toes of others. That's why discussing semantics is pointless. No one has a monopoly on the word marriage.
I'd have to say yes. Based on what we know today, it does treat some people differently. To some, marrying a woman is not fathomable, so that "statement" tells them they can only get married to someone they don't want to marry. In a way it is a non-functional statement to them. A "dysfunctional" "law" even.
So if marriage should be based, atleast in part, on love, then your statement treats people differently. If marriage had nothing to do with love or personal feelings, I would have agreed with you.
For the first paragraph: Yes, I agree that in practice, people are treated differently. But I think the law itself does not treat them differently. The fact that things are different in practice and theory is inevitable. If the statement says that they can marry someone they dont want to, doesnt mean that the statement should allow them what they want, we cannot give rights and make laws just based on what people want and do not want.
Yes we can. Women wanted the right to vote, so they were given the right to vote. Which is significant since they could not vote themselves to get this right to vote.
Gays wanted financial and legal security in a relationship (equal to straight couples), so they were granted. (in norway). And the sky hasn't come down yet.
What do you think is the main motivation for laws anyway
People wanted the right to own property; so such laws were created, that grant different kinds of ownerships. The opposite would be China during their revolution; the state owned everything, even the home you lived in and the farmland you worked on.
I wrote "we cannot give rights and make laws just based on what people want and do not want" see the "just based" ? If everybody wanted to have the right to have one free steak a day, would it pass? Of course not, because it is just based on what we want and it is also not doable. But I think that those things you mentioned are not just based on what they wanted but it was also based on logical reasoning. If homosexuals wanted what you said " financial and legal security in a relationship (equal to straight couples)" I think that this might be OK. But they have to name it differently from "Marriage" and draw a strong line between it.
No they don't have to draw a line between straight and gay marriage. In Norway they didn't. The only reason they might draw a line between gay and straight marriage, is because some people (like you) will want it. Therefore they'd be making laws based on what people want and don't want (AND they won't be making logical sense, for instance, we'd have to call it gay marriage and straight mawrraige; NOT gay marriage and marriage. Also, we don't say black marraige, etc etc). Therefore, in my eyes, you go against your own argument.
You must realize that, when "suggesting" these laws (such as you do) and their restrictions; you are basing it upon what YOU want and don't want. And to me, "my way" makes much more logical sense, and is much more reasonable. For instance, I would not go around calling your marriage a "straight financially struggling marriage about to be ended" just because that would better describe you. Similarly I would not need to distinguish between straight and gay marriage; in my eyes there is marriage between two people, and to add any "mandatory" prefix is simply hilariously stupid.
I admit that putting it in the way of wanting/not wanting is unfortunate and inconsistent. But in the end, I still see difference between same and different sex, and again, the fundamental difference (and in my opinion the thing why marriage exists in the first place) is being able/not being able to make babies (and again of course: in principle)
Marriage is not about procreation, it's about love and making your relationship 'official' in order to receive legal benefits. Hell, I've heard about gay couples who couldn't get married, one of them got a terminal illness and the partner was not legally allowed to make decisions. I'm sure that's just one of the many cases where not being married works against a couple in dire situations.
Please read my whole discussion, dont confuse two things: particular reason for marriage and reason for the marrige as an institution. I am not against granting gay couples the rights to make decisions if someone gets a terminal illness, it is completely reasonable I think. I am against calling it marriage. Because as I said in my previous posts, I believe that marriage is to complement procreation on the social and other levels. If you allow gay to "marry" you simply twist the meaning of marriage. If you want the same particular rights then I am not against making a different institution dealing with gay partners rights. It looks to me that our argument is just about how it should be named :D
Thorakh wrote: Religious people do not have the monopoly on the word marriage. You're only arguing semantics.
Hell, both Christian's and Muslims use the word marriage, why should both of them be allowed to use the word since it obviously means something different for both of them? I hope you can see why the word 'marriage' does not belong to any one group of people.
Marriage and the concept of bonding was around before any Christians even existed.
1) I am not religious.
2) Yes I am arguing semantics.
3) Then it comes down to what you believe marriage is (since it does not belong to anyone), so that does not prove you or me right or wrong. You just understand marriage differently than me, and it is ok, thats why we have different opinions.
In a way, I think (not that I'm married) that to me marriage is a commitment. A commitment that this is the person I want to share my life with. Baring a prenup, our lives are (atleast until divorced) intertwined and in many aspects our lives are as one. For good and for bad. This is why you grant marriage securities within the law. If one part were to pass away, the other would not suddenly be homeless.
Yes we can. Women wanted the right to vote, so they were given the right to vote. Which is significant since they could not vote themselves to get this right to vote.
Gays wanted financial and legal security in a relationship (equal to straight couples), so they were granted. (in norway). And the sky hasn't come down yet.
What do you think is the main motivation for laws anyway
People wanted the right to own property; so such laws were created, that grant different kinds of ownerships. The opposite would be China during their revolution; the state owned everything, even the home you lived in and the farmland you worked on.
I wrote "we cannot give rights and make laws just based on what people want and do not want" see the "just based" ? If everybody wanted to have the right to have one free steak a day, would it pass? Of course not, because it is just based on what we want and it is also not doable. But I think that those things you mentioned are not just based on what they wanted but it was also based on logical reasoning. If homosexuals wanted what you said " financial and legal security in a relationship (equal to straight couples)" I think that this might be OK. But they have to name it differently from "Marriage" and draw a strong line between it.
No they don't have to draw a line between straight and gay marriage. In Norway they didn't. The only reason they might draw a line between gay and straight marriage, is because some people (like you) will want it. Therefore they'd be making laws based on what people want and don't want (AND they won't be making logical sense, for instance, we'd have to call it gay marriage and straight mawrraige; NOT gay marriage and marriage. Also, we don't say black marraige, etc etc). Therefore, in my eyes, you go against your own argument.
You must realize that, when "suggesting" these laws (such as you do) and their restrictions; you are basing it upon what YOU want and don't want. And to me, "my way" makes much more logical sense, and is much more reasonable. For instance, I would not go around calling your marriage a "straight financially struggling marriage about to be ended" just because that would better describe you. Similarly I would not need to distinguish between straight and gay marriage; in my eyes there is marriage between two people, and to add any "mandatory" prefix is simply hilariously stupid.
I admit that putting it in the way of wanting/not wanting is unfortunate and inconsistent. But in the end, I still see difference between same and different sex, and again, the fundamental difference (and in my opinion the thing why marriage exists in the first place) is being able/not being able to make babies (and again of course: in principle)
Marriage is not about procreation, it's about love and making your relationship 'official' in order to receive legal benefits. Hell, I've heard about gay couples who couldn't get married, one of them got a terminal illness and the partner was not legally allowed to make decisions. I'm sure that's just one of the many cases where not being married works against a couple in dire situations.
Please read my whole discussion, dont confuse two things: particular reason for marriage and reason for the marrige as an institution. I am not against granting gay couples the rights to make decisions if someone gets a terminal illness, it is completely reasonable I think. I am against calling it marriage. Because as I said in my previous posts, I believe that marriage is to complement procreation on the social and other levels. If you allow gay to "marry" you simply twist the meaning of marriage. If you want the same particular rights then I am not against making a different institution dealing with gay partners rights. It looks to me that our argument is just about how it should be named :D
Thorakh wrote: Religious people do not have the monopoly on the word marriage. You're only arguing semantics.
Hell, both Christian's and Muslims use the word marriage, why should both of them be allowed to use the word since it obviously means something different for both of them? I hope you can see why the word 'marriage' does not belong to any one group of people.
Marriage and the concept of bonding was around before any Christians even existed.
1) I am not religious.
2) Yes I am arguing semantics.
3) Then it comes down to what you believe marriage is (since it does not belong to anyone), so that does not prove you or me right or wrong. You just understand marriage differently than me, and it is ok, thats why we have different opinions.
So I assume that means that if there was such a referendum, you would vote to legalize gay marriage, because you recognize that people have different opinions about marriage. Therefore it is not your duty to impose your views on others using the law.
You assume wrong.
Care to explain why you think you have the right to impose your marital views on others?
Really? Please read it again. Think about it - statement: "You are allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex." ...does that treat ANYONE differently???
I'd have to say yes. Based on what we know today, it does treat some people differently. To some, marrying a woman is not fathomable, so that "statement" tells them they can only get married to someone they don't want to marry. In a way it is a non-functional statement to them. A "dysfunctional" "law" even.
So if marriage should be based, atleast in part, on love, then your statement treats people differently. If marriage had nothing to do with love or personal feelings, I would have agreed with you.
For the first paragraph: Yes, I agree that in practice, people are treated differently. But I think the law itself does not treat them differently. The fact that things are different in practice and theory is inevitable. If the statement says that they can marry someone they dont want to, doesnt mean that the statement should allow them what they want, we cannot give rights and make laws just based on what people want and do not want.
Yes we can. Women wanted the right to vote, so they were given the right to vote. Which is significant since they could not vote themselves to get this right to vote.
Gays wanted financial and legal security in a relationship (equal to straight couples), so they were granted. (in norway). And the sky hasn't come down yet.
What do you think is the main motivation for laws anyway
People wanted the right to own property; so such laws were created, that grant different kinds of ownerships. The opposite would be China during their revolution; the state owned everything, even the home you lived in and the farmland you worked on.
I wrote "we cannot give rights and make laws just based on what people want and do not want" see the "just based" ? If everybody wanted to have the right to have one free steak a day, would it pass? Of course not, because it is just based on what we want and it is also not doable. But I think that those things you mentioned are not just based on what they wanted but it was also based on logical reasoning. If homosexuals wanted what you said " financial and legal security in a relationship (equal to straight couples)" I think that this might be OK. But they have to name it differently from "Marriage" and draw a strong line between it.
No they don't have to draw a line between straight and gay marriage. In Norway they didn't. The only reason they might draw a line between gay and straight marriage, is because some people (like you) will want it. Therefore they'd be making laws based on what people want and don't want (AND they won't be making logical sense, for instance, we'd have to call it gay marriage and straight mawrraige; NOT gay marriage and marriage. Also, we don't say black marraige, etc etc). Therefore, in my eyes, you go against your own argument.
You must realize that, when "suggesting" these laws (such as you do) and their restrictions; you are basing it upon what YOU want and don't want. And to me, "my way" makes much more logical sense, and is much more reasonable. For instance, I would not go around calling your marriage a "straight financially struggling marriage about to be ended" just because that would better describe you. Similarly I would not need to distinguish between straight and gay marriage; in my eyes there is marriage between two people, and to add any "mandatory" prefix is simply hilariously stupid.
I admit that putting it in the way of wanting/not wanting is unfortunate and inconsistent. But in the end, I still see difference between same and different sex, and again, the fundamental difference (and in my opinion the thing why marriage exists in the first place) is being able/not being able to make babies (and again of course: in principle)
Marriage is not about procreation, it's about love and making your relationship 'official' in order to receive legal benefits. Hell, I've heard about gay couples who couldn't get married, one of them got a terminal illness and the partner was not legally allowed to make decisions. I'm sure that's just one of the many cases where not being married works against a couple in dire situations.
Please read my whole discussion, dont confuse two things: particular reason for marriage and reason for the marrige as an institution. I am not against granting gay couples the rights to make decisions if someone gets a terminal illness, it is completely reasonable I think. I am against calling it marriage. Because as I said in my previous posts, I believe that marriage is to complement procreation on the social and other levels. If you allow gay to "marry" you simply twist the meaning of marriage. If you want the same particular rights then I am not against making a different institution dealing with gay partners rights. It looks to me that our argument is just about how it should be named :D
Again, what is the difference between homosexuals adopting a child and heterosexuals adopting a child? I can't see how any mechanism is different in any way, shape, or form, both legally and practically.
A semantic argument is disgusting and horrible. The entire point is just to feel superior and insult homosexual relationships. This is not what the law is for. The law is not a tool used for degrading the dignity of other people. In fact, you're insulting people's families, which I find incredibly shocking. Gay people are getting married, they have spouses. Get over it, and move on.
"A semantic argument is disgusting and horrible." reason please. "The entire point is just to feel superior and insult homosexual relationships." just..why?? "In fact, you're insulting people's families, which I find incredibly shocking."...please, do not just randomly state things. If you want me to really understand your argument, go through reasoning. How am I insulting families?? What ??
I wrote "we cannot give rights and make laws just based on what people want and do not want" see the "just based" ? If everybody wanted to have the right to have one free steak a day, would it pass? Of course not, because it is just based on what we want and it is also not doable. But I think that those things you mentioned are not just based on what they wanted but it was also based on logical reasoning. If homosexuals wanted what you said " financial and legal security in a relationship (equal to straight couples)" I think that this might be OK. But they have to name it differently from "Marriage" and draw a strong line between it.
No they don't have to draw a line between straight and gay marriage. In Norway they didn't. The only reason they might draw a line between gay and straight marriage, is because some people (like you) will want it. Therefore they'd be making laws based on what people want and don't want (AND they won't be making logical sense, for instance, we'd have to call it gay marriage and straight mawrraige; NOT gay marriage and marriage. Also, we don't say black marraige, etc etc). Therefore, in my eyes, you go against your own argument.
You must realize that, when "suggesting" these laws (such as you do) and their restrictions; you are basing it upon what YOU want and don't want. And to me, "my way" makes much more logical sense, and is much more reasonable. For instance, I would not go around calling your marriage a "straight financially struggling marriage about to be ended" just because that would better describe you. Similarly I would not need to distinguish between straight and gay marriage; in my eyes there is marriage between two people, and to add any "mandatory" prefix is simply hilariously stupid.
I admit that putting it in the way of wanting/not wanting is unfortunate and inconsistent. But in the end, I still see difference between same and different sex, and again, the fundamental difference (and in my opinion the thing why marriage exists in the first place) is being able/not being able to make babies (and again of course: in principle)
Marriage is not about procreation, it's about love and making your relationship 'official' in order to receive legal benefits. Hell, I've heard about gay couples who couldn't get married, one of them got a terminal illness and the partner was not legally allowed to make decisions. I'm sure that's just one of the many cases where not being married works against a couple in dire situations.
Please read my whole discussion, dont confuse two things: particular reason for marriage and reason for the marrige as an institution. I am not against granting gay couples the rights to make decisions if someone gets a terminal illness, it is completely reasonable I think. I am against calling it marriage. Because as I said in my previous posts, I believe that marriage is to complement procreation on the social and other levels. If you allow gay to "marry" you simply twist the meaning of marriage. If you want the same particular rights then I am not against making a different institution dealing with gay partners rights. It looks to me that our argument is just about how it should be named :D
Thorakh wrote: Religious people do not have the monopoly on the word marriage. You're only arguing semantics.
Hell, both Christian's and Muslims use the word marriage, why should both of them be allowed to use the word since it obviously means something different for both of them? I hope you can see why the word 'marriage' does not belong to any one group of people.
Marriage and the concept of bonding was around before any Christians even existed.
1) I am not religious.
2) Yes I am arguing semantics.
3) Then it comes down to what you believe marriage is (since it does not belong to anyone), so that does not prove you or me right or wrong. You just understand marriage differently than me, and it is ok, thats why we have different opinions.
So I assume that means that if there was such a referendum, you would vote to legalize gay marriage, because you recognize that people have different opinions about marriage. Therefore it is not your duty to impose your views on others using the law.
You assume wrong.
Care to explain why you think you have the right to impose your marital views on others?
He grew up believing in his inherent (potentially arbitrary) right to be entitled to the things some have to fight for. It is not uncommon. Imo he is sensible enough... Sometimes you have to perhaps experience before your eyes are opened. Sometimes certain views are so ingrained you'd go to your grave for them. Sometimes they are even worth it.
For the first paragraph: Yes, I agree that in practice, people are treated differently. But I think the law itself does not treat them differently. The fact that things are different in practice and theory is inevitable. If the statement says that they can marry someone they dont want to, doesnt mean that the statement should allow them what they want, we cannot give rights and make laws just based on what people want and do not want.
Yes we can. Women wanted the right to vote, so they were given the right to vote. Which is significant since they could not vote themselves to get this right to vote.
Gays wanted financial and legal security in a relationship (equal to straight couples), so they were granted. (in norway). And the sky hasn't come down yet.
What do you think is the main motivation for laws anyway
People wanted the right to own property; so such laws were created, that grant different kinds of ownerships. The opposite would be China during their revolution; the state owned everything, even the home you lived in and the farmland you worked on.
I wrote "we cannot give rights and make laws just based on what people want and do not want" see the "just based" ? If everybody wanted to have the right to have one free steak a day, would it pass? Of course not, because it is just based on what we want and it is also not doable. But I think that those things you mentioned are not just based on what they wanted but it was also based on logical reasoning. If homosexuals wanted what you said " financial and legal security in a relationship (equal to straight couples)" I think that this might be OK. But they have to name it differently from "Marriage" and draw a strong line between it.
No they don't have to draw a line between straight and gay marriage. In Norway they didn't. The only reason they might draw a line between gay and straight marriage, is because some people (like you) will want it. Therefore they'd be making laws based on what people want and don't want (AND they won't be making logical sense, for instance, we'd have to call it gay marriage and straight mawrraige; NOT gay marriage and marriage. Also, we don't say black marraige, etc etc). Therefore, in my eyes, you go against your own argument.
You must realize that, when "suggesting" these laws (such as you do) and their restrictions; you are basing it upon what YOU want and don't want. And to me, "my way" makes much more logical sense, and is much more reasonable. For instance, I would not go around calling your marriage a "straight financially struggling marriage about to be ended" just because that would better describe you. Similarly I would not need to distinguish between straight and gay marriage; in my eyes there is marriage between two people, and to add any "mandatory" prefix is simply hilariously stupid.
I admit that putting it in the way of wanting/not wanting is unfortunate and inconsistent. But in the end, I still see difference between same and different sex, and again, the fundamental difference (and in my opinion the thing why marriage exists in the first place) is being able/not being able to make babies (and again of course: in principle)
Marriage is not about procreation, it's about love and making your relationship 'official' in order to receive legal benefits. Hell, I've heard about gay couples who couldn't get married, one of them got a terminal illness and the partner was not legally allowed to make decisions. I'm sure that's just one of the many cases where not being married works against a couple in dire situations.
Please read my whole discussion, dont confuse two things: particular reason for marriage and reason for the marrige as an institution. I am not against granting gay couples the rights to make decisions if someone gets a terminal illness, it is completely reasonable I think. I am against calling it marriage. Because as I said in my previous posts, I believe that marriage is to complement procreation on the social and other levels. If you allow gay to "marry" you simply twist the meaning of marriage. If you want the same particular rights then I am not against making a different institution dealing with gay partners rights. It looks to me that our argument is just about how it should be named :D
Thorakh wrote: Religious people do not have the monopoly on the word marriage. You're only arguing semantics.
Hell, both Christian's and Muslims use the word marriage, why should both of them be allowed to use the word since it obviously means something different for both of them? I hope you can see why the word 'marriage' does not belong to any one group of people.
Marriage and the concept of bonding was around before any Christians even existed.
1) I am not religious.
2) Yes I am arguing semantics.
3) Then it comes down to what you believe marriage is (since it does not belong to anyone), so that does not prove you or me right or wrong. You just understand marriage differently than me, and it is ok, thats why we have different opinions.
In a way, I think (not that I'm married) that to me marriage is a commitment. A commitment that this is the person I want to share my life with. Baring a prenup, our lives are (atleast until divorced) intertwined and in many aspects our lives are as one. For good and for bad. This is why you grant marriage securities within the law. If one part were to pass away, the other would not suddenly be homeless.
I'd have to say yes. Based on what we know today, it does treat some people differently. To some, marrying a woman is not fathomable, so that "statement" tells them they can only get married to someone they don't want to marry. In a way it is a non-functional statement to them. A "dysfunctional" "law" even.
So if marriage should be based, atleast in part, on love, then your statement treats people differently. If marriage had nothing to do with love or personal feelings, I would have agreed with you.
For the first paragraph: Yes, I agree that in practice, people are treated differently. But I think the law itself does not treat them differently. The fact that things are different in practice and theory is inevitable. If the statement says that they can marry someone they dont want to, doesnt mean that the statement should allow them what they want, we cannot give rights and make laws just based on what people want and do not want.
Yes we can. Women wanted the right to vote, so they were given the right to vote. Which is significant since they could not vote themselves to get this right to vote.
Gays wanted financial and legal security in a relationship (equal to straight couples), so they were granted. (in norway). And the sky hasn't come down yet.
What do you think is the main motivation for laws anyway
People wanted the right to own property; so such laws were created, that grant different kinds of ownerships. The opposite would be China during their revolution; the state owned everything, even the home you lived in and the farmland you worked on.
I wrote "we cannot give rights and make laws just based on what people want and do not want" see the "just based" ? If everybody wanted to have the right to have one free steak a day, would it pass? Of course not, because it is just based on what we want and it is also not doable. But I think that those things you mentioned are not just based on what they wanted but it was also based on logical reasoning. If homosexuals wanted what you said " financial and legal security in a relationship (equal to straight couples)" I think that this might be OK. But they have to name it differently from "Marriage" and draw a strong line between it.
No they don't have to draw a line between straight and gay marriage. In Norway they didn't. The only reason they might draw a line between gay and straight marriage, is because some people (like you) will want it. Therefore they'd be making laws based on what people want and don't want (AND they won't be making logical sense, for instance, we'd have to call it gay marriage and straight mawrraige; NOT gay marriage and marriage. Also, we don't say black marraige, etc etc). Therefore, in my eyes, you go against your own argument.
You must realize that, when "suggesting" these laws (such as you do) and their restrictions; you are basing it upon what YOU want and don't want. And to me, "my way" makes much more logical sense, and is much more reasonable. For instance, I would not go around calling your marriage a "straight financially struggling marriage about to be ended" just because that would better describe you. Similarly I would not need to distinguish between straight and gay marriage; in my eyes there is marriage between two people, and to add any "mandatory" prefix is simply hilariously stupid.
I admit that putting it in the way of wanting/not wanting is unfortunate and inconsistent. But in the end, I still see difference between same and different sex, and again, the fundamental difference (and in my opinion the thing why marriage exists in the first place) is being able/not being able to make babies (and again of course: in principle)
Marriage is not about procreation, it's about love and making your relationship 'official' in order to receive legal benefits. Hell, I've heard about gay couples who couldn't get married, one of them got a terminal illness and the partner was not legally allowed to make decisions. I'm sure that's just one of the many cases where not being married works against a couple in dire situations.
Please read my whole discussion, dont confuse two things: particular reason for marriage and reason for the marrige as an institution. I am not against granting gay couples the rights to make decisions if someone gets a terminal illness, it is completely reasonable I think. I am against calling it marriage. Because as I said in my previous posts, I believe that marriage is to complement procreation on the social and other levels. If you allow gay to "marry" you simply twist the meaning of marriage. If you want the same particular rights then I am not against making a different institution dealing with gay partners rights. It looks to me that our argument is just about how it should be named :D
Again, what is the difference between homosexuals adopting a child and heterosexuals adopting a child? I can't see how any mechanism is different in any way, shape, or form, both legally and practically.
A semantic argument is disgusting and horrible. The entire point is just to feel superior and insult homosexual relationships. This is not what the law is for. The law is not a tool used for degrading the dignity of other people. In fact, you're insulting people's families, which I find incredibly shocking. Gay people are getting married, they have spouses. Get over it, and move on.
"A semantic argument is disgusting and horrible." reason please. "The entire point is just to feel superior and insult homosexual relationships." just..why?? "In fact, you're insulting people's families, which I find incredibly shocking."...please, do not just randomly state things. If you want me to really understand your argument, go through reasoning. How am I insulting families?? What ??
So let's say a lesbian couple with their 2 kids came up to you, and started talking to you. Now, if you were to explain to this lesbian couple why they weren't wives, but in fact domestic partners, I think you would offend them. This is even worse, because you are trying to institutionalize this into law. Yes, guess what, that's going to offend people, and for purely logical reasons. They are married, you dolt.
If everything about it is a marriage, all the same rights, all the same things, then explain to me what the point is of calling it anything but a marriage? Explain. The only reason I can see is because you want to be an asshole.
I'd have to say yes. Based on what we know today, it does treat some people differently. To some, marrying a woman is not fathomable, so that "statement" tells them they can only get married to someone they don't want to marry. In a way it is a non-functional statement to them. A "dysfunctional" "law" even.
So if marriage should be based, atleast in part, on love, then your statement treats people differently. If marriage had nothing to do with love or personal feelings, I would have agreed with you.
For the first paragraph: Yes, I agree that in practice, people are treated differently. But I think the law itself does not treat them differently. The fact that things are different in practice and theory is inevitable. If the statement says that they can marry someone they dont want to, doesnt mean that the statement should allow them what they want, we cannot give rights and make laws just based on what people want and do not want.
Yes we can. Women wanted the right to vote, so they were given the right to vote. Which is significant since they could not vote themselves to get this right to vote.
Gays wanted financial and legal security in a relationship (equal to straight couples), so they were granted. (in norway). And the sky hasn't come down yet.
What do you think is the main motivation for laws anyway
People wanted the right to own property; so such laws were created, that grant different kinds of ownerships. The opposite would be China during their revolution; the state owned everything, even the home you lived in and the farmland you worked on.
I wrote "we cannot give rights and make laws just based on what people want and do not want" see the "just based" ? If everybody wanted to have the right to have one free steak a day, would it pass? Of course not, because it is just based on what we want and it is also not doable. But I think that those things you mentioned are not just based on what they wanted but it was also based on logical reasoning. If homosexuals wanted what you said " financial and legal security in a relationship (equal to straight couples)" I think that this might be OK. But they have to name it differently from "Marriage" and draw a strong line between it.
No they don't have to draw a line between straight and gay marriage. In Norway they didn't. The only reason they might draw a line between gay and straight marriage, is because some people (like you) will want it. Therefore they'd be making laws based on what people want and don't want (AND they won't be making logical sense, for instance, we'd have to call it gay marriage and straight mawrraige; NOT gay marriage and marriage. Also, we don't say black marraige, etc etc). Therefore, in my eyes, you go against your own argument.
You must realize that, when "suggesting" these laws (such as you do) and their restrictions; you are basing it upon what YOU want and don't want. And to me, "my way" makes much more logical sense, and is much more reasonable. For instance, I would not go around calling your marriage a "straight financially struggling marriage about to be ended" just because that would better describe you. Similarly I would not need to distinguish between straight and gay marriage; in my eyes there is marriage between two people, and to add any "mandatory" prefix is simply hilariously stupid.
I admit that putting it in the way of wanting/not wanting is unfortunate and inconsistent. But in the end, I still see difference between same and different sex, and again, the fundamental difference (and in my opinion the thing why marriage exists in the first place) is being able/not being able to make babies (and again of course: in principle)
Marriage is not about procreation, it's about love and making your relationship 'official' in order to receive legal benefits. Hell, I've heard about gay couples who couldn't get married, one of them got a terminal illness and the partner was not legally allowed to make decisions. I'm sure that's just one of the many cases where not being married works against a couple in dire situations.
Please read my whole discussion, dont confuse two things: particular reason for marriage and reason for the marrige as an institution. I am not against granting gay couples the rights to make decisions if someone gets a terminal illness, it is completely reasonable I think. I am against calling it marriage. Because as I said in my previous posts, I believe that marriage is to complement procreation on the social and other levels. If you allow gay to "marry" you simply twist the meaning of marriage. If you want the same particular rights then I am not against making a different institution dealing with gay partners rights. It looks to me that our argument is just about how it should be named :D
Again, what is the difference between homosexuals adopting a child and heterosexuals adopting a child? I can't see how any mechanism is different in any way, shape, or form, both legally and practically.
A semantic argument is disgusting and horrible. The entire point is just to feel superior and insult homosexual relationships. This is not what the law is for. The law is not a tool used for degrading the dignity of other people. In fact, you're insulting people's families, which I find incredibly shocking. Gay people are getting married, they have spouses. Get over it, and move on.
"A semantic argument is disgusting and horrible." reason please. "The entire point is just to feel superior and insult homosexual relationships." just..why?? "In fact, you're insulting people's families, which I find incredibly shocking."...please, do not just randomly state things. If you want me to really understand your argument, go through reasoning. How am I insulting families?? What ??
You are justifying institutional prejudice on semantic grounds, when ample pragmatic evidence suggests that semantics be abandoned. Wordplay to justify prejudice.
Yes we can. Women wanted the right to vote, so they were given the right to vote. Which is significant since they could not vote themselves to get this right to vote.
Gays wanted financial and legal security in a relationship (equal to straight couples), so they were granted. (in norway). And the sky hasn't come down yet.
What do you think is the main motivation for laws anyway
People wanted the right to own property; so such laws were created, that grant different kinds of ownerships. The opposite would be China during their revolution; the state owned everything, even the home you lived in and the farmland you worked on.
I wrote "we cannot give rights and make laws just based on what people want and do not want" see the "just based" ? If everybody wanted to have the right to have one free steak a day, would it pass? Of course not, because it is just based on what we want and it is also not doable. But I think that those things you mentioned are not just based on what they wanted but it was also based on logical reasoning. If homosexuals wanted what you said " financial and legal security in a relationship (equal to straight couples)" I think that this might be OK. But they have to name it differently from "Marriage" and draw a strong line between it.
No they don't have to draw a line between straight and gay marriage. In Norway they didn't. The only reason they might draw a line between gay and straight marriage, is because some people (like you) will want it. Therefore they'd be making laws based on what people want and don't want (AND they won't be making logical sense, for instance, we'd have to call it gay marriage and straight mawrraige; NOT gay marriage and marriage. Also, we don't say black marraige, etc etc). Therefore, in my eyes, you go against your own argument.
You must realize that, when "suggesting" these laws (such as you do) and their restrictions; you are basing it upon what YOU want and don't want. And to me, "my way" makes much more logical sense, and is much more reasonable. For instance, I would not go around calling your marriage a "straight financially struggling marriage about to be ended" just because that would better describe you. Similarly I would not need to distinguish between straight and gay marriage; in my eyes there is marriage between two people, and to add any "mandatory" prefix is simply hilariously stupid.
I admit that putting it in the way of wanting/not wanting is unfortunate and inconsistent. But in the end, I still see difference between same and different sex, and again, the fundamental difference (and in my opinion the thing why marriage exists in the first place) is being able/not being able to make babies (and again of course: in principle)
Marriage is not about procreation, it's about love and making your relationship 'official' in order to receive legal benefits. Hell, I've heard about gay couples who couldn't get married, one of them got a terminal illness and the partner was not legally allowed to make decisions. I'm sure that's just one of the many cases where not being married works against a couple in dire situations.
Please read my whole discussion, dont confuse two things: particular reason for marriage and reason for the marrige as an institution. I am not against granting gay couples the rights to make decisions if someone gets a terminal illness, it is completely reasonable I think. I am against calling it marriage. Because as I said in my previous posts, I believe that marriage is to complement procreation on the social and other levels. If you allow gay to "marry" you simply twist the meaning of marriage. If you want the same particular rights then I am not against making a different institution dealing with gay partners rights. It looks to me that our argument is just about how it should be named :D
Thorakh wrote: Religious people do not have the monopoly on the word marriage. You're only arguing semantics.
Hell, both Christian's and Muslims use the word marriage, why should both of them be allowed to use the word since it obviously means something different for both of them? I hope you can see why the word 'marriage' does not belong to any one group of people.
Marriage and the concept of bonding was around before any Christians even existed.
1) I am not religious.
2) Yes I am arguing semantics.
3) Then it comes down to what you believe marriage is (since it does not belong to anyone), so that does not prove you or me right or wrong. You just understand marriage differently than me, and it is ok, thats why we have different opinions.
In a way, I think (not that I'm married) that to me marriage is a commitment. A commitment that this is the person I want to share my life with. Baring a prenup, our lives are (atleast until divorced) intertwined and in many aspects our lives are as one. For good and for bad. This is why you grant marriage securities within the law. If one part were to pass away, the other would not suddenly be homeless.
Seems legit to me.
What I omitted, but at the same time is quite logical, is that what I wrote depends not on the genders involved. A woman can decide upon this commitment with another woman, irregardless of wether the state grants them security in their relationship status or not. I just think the state should. And that they are ever as much "married" as anyone else is.
Regardless of what certain people try to tell them.
Like: "you're not properly married" is not something you yell after people, like you have a need to make sure they know their union and their comitment and their love somehow is less.
On July 08 2012 23:55 Sinensis wrote: So much ignorance in this thread. This is like taking a time machine back to the 1950s and racism is not only everywhere, but widely accepted as a logical way to view the world.
Looking at it like that, we might be the last generation to experience this bigot foolishness. From a historical tourism perspective we should perhaps appreciate that, while we're changing for the better.
Just because you surround yourself with liberalism and homosexuality it won't be generally accepted. Even in the West there are a lot of racist, homophobic people.
I wrote "we cannot give rights and make laws just based on what people want and do not want" see the "just based" ? If everybody wanted to have the right to have one free steak a day, would it pass? Of course not, because it is just based on what we want and it is also not doable. But I think that those things you mentioned are not just based on what they wanted but it was also based on logical reasoning. If homosexuals wanted what you said " financial and legal security in a relationship (equal to straight couples)" I think that this might be OK. But they have to name it differently from "Marriage" and draw a strong line between it.
No they don't have to draw a line between straight and gay marriage. In Norway they didn't. The only reason they might draw a line between gay and straight marriage, is because some people (like you) will want it. Therefore they'd be making laws based on what people want and don't want (AND they won't be making logical sense, for instance, we'd have to call it gay marriage and straight mawrraige; NOT gay marriage and marriage. Also, we don't say black marraige, etc etc). Therefore, in my eyes, you go against your own argument.
You must realize that, when "suggesting" these laws (such as you do) and their restrictions; you are basing it upon what YOU want and don't want. And to me, "my way" makes much more logical sense, and is much more reasonable. For instance, I would not go around calling your marriage a "straight financially struggling marriage about to be ended" just because that would better describe you. Similarly I would not need to distinguish between straight and gay marriage; in my eyes there is marriage between two people, and to add any "mandatory" prefix is simply hilariously stupid.
I admit that putting it in the way of wanting/not wanting is unfortunate and inconsistent. But in the end, I still see difference between same and different sex, and again, the fundamental difference (and in my opinion the thing why marriage exists in the first place) is being able/not being able to make babies (and again of course: in principle)
Marriage is not about procreation, it's about love and making your relationship 'official' in order to receive legal benefits. Hell, I've heard about gay couples who couldn't get married, one of them got a terminal illness and the partner was not legally allowed to make decisions. I'm sure that's just one of the many cases where not being married works against a couple in dire situations.
Please read my whole discussion, dont confuse two things: particular reason for marriage and reason for the marrige as an institution. I am not against granting gay couples the rights to make decisions if someone gets a terminal illness, it is completely reasonable I think. I am against calling it marriage. Because as I said in my previous posts, I believe that marriage is to complement procreation on the social and other levels. If you allow gay to "marry" you simply twist the meaning of marriage. If you want the same particular rights then I am not against making a different institution dealing with gay partners rights. It looks to me that our argument is just about how it should be named :D
Thorakh wrote: Religious people do not have the monopoly on the word marriage. You're only arguing semantics.
Hell, both Christian's and Muslims use the word marriage, why should both of them be allowed to use the word since it obviously means something different for both of them? I hope you can see why the word 'marriage' does not belong to any one group of people.
Marriage and the concept of bonding was around before any Christians even existed.
1) I am not religious.
2) Yes I am arguing semantics.
3) Then it comes down to what you believe marriage is (since it does not belong to anyone), so that does not prove you or me right or wrong. You just understand marriage differently than me, and it is ok, thats why we have different opinions.
So I assume that means that if there was such a referendum, you would vote to legalize gay marriage, because you recognize that people have different opinions about marriage. Therefore it is not your duty to impose your views on others using the law.
You assume wrong.
Care to explain why you think you have the right to impose your marital views on others?
Well, why do you think you have the right to impose your marital views on others? It is not just me, it is also you. We have different views on what marriage is and therefore we might support different legislation which forcing martial views on others.
On July 08 2012 23:55 Sinensis wrote: So much ignorance in this thread. This is like taking a time machine back to the 1950s and racism is not only everywhere, but widely accepted as a logical way to view the world.
Looking at it like that, we might be the last generation to experience this bigot foolishness. From a historical tourism perspective we should perhaps appreciate that, while we're changing for the better.
Just because you surround yourself with liberalism and homosexuality it won't be generally accepted. Even in the West there are a lot of racist, homophobic people.
While I am pretty cynical about homosexuals gaining their rights, the evidence is there showing that people are changing their views on homosexuality at an accelerating rate. So I would not be surprised if people continue to change their views as the issue continues to gain momentum like this.
No they don't have to draw a line between straight and gay marriage. In Norway they didn't. The only reason they might draw a line between gay and straight marriage, is because some people (like you) will want it. Therefore they'd be making laws based on what people want and don't want (AND they won't be making logical sense, for instance, we'd have to call it gay marriage and straight mawrraige; NOT gay marriage and marriage. Also, we don't say black marraige, etc etc). Therefore, in my eyes, you go against your own argument.
You must realize that, when "suggesting" these laws (such as you do) and their restrictions; you are basing it upon what YOU want and don't want. And to me, "my way" makes much more logical sense, and is much more reasonable. For instance, I would not go around calling your marriage a "straight financially struggling marriage about to be ended" just because that would better describe you. Similarly I would not need to distinguish between straight and gay marriage; in my eyes there is marriage between two people, and to add any "mandatory" prefix is simply hilariously stupid.
I admit that putting it in the way of wanting/not wanting is unfortunate and inconsistent. But in the end, I still see difference between same and different sex, and again, the fundamental difference (and in my opinion the thing why marriage exists in the first place) is being able/not being able to make babies (and again of course: in principle)
Marriage is not about procreation, it's about love and making your relationship 'official' in order to receive legal benefits. Hell, I've heard about gay couples who couldn't get married, one of them got a terminal illness and the partner was not legally allowed to make decisions. I'm sure that's just one of the many cases where not being married works against a couple in dire situations.
Please read my whole discussion, dont confuse two things: particular reason for marriage and reason for the marrige as an institution. I am not against granting gay couples the rights to make decisions if someone gets a terminal illness, it is completely reasonable I think. I am against calling it marriage. Because as I said in my previous posts, I believe that marriage is to complement procreation on the social and other levels. If you allow gay to "marry" you simply twist the meaning of marriage. If you want the same particular rights then I am not against making a different institution dealing with gay partners rights. It looks to me that our argument is just about how it should be named :D
Thorakh wrote: Religious people do not have the monopoly on the word marriage. You're only arguing semantics.
Hell, both Christian's and Muslims use the word marriage, why should both of them be allowed to use the word since it obviously means something different for both of them? I hope you can see why the word 'marriage' does not belong to any one group of people.
Marriage and the concept of bonding was around before any Christians even existed.
1) I am not religious.
2) Yes I am arguing semantics.
3) Then it comes down to what you believe marriage is (since it does not belong to anyone), so that does not prove you or me right or wrong. You just understand marriage differently than me, and it is ok, thats why we have different opinions.
So I assume that means that if there was such a referendum, you would vote to legalize gay marriage, because you recognize that people have different opinions about marriage. Therefore it is not your duty to impose your views on others using the law.
You assume wrong.
Care to explain why you think you have the right to impose your marital views on others?
Well, why do you think you have the right to impose your marital views on others? It is not just me, it is also you. We have different views on what marriage is and therefore we might support different legislation which forcing martial views on others.
I'm not forcing anyone to do anything or stopping anyone from doing anything. If you want to marry a woman, marry a woman. If you want to marry a man, marry a man. I am not imposing my beliefs on anyone. If I were to marry someone, guy or girl, how does that affect you?
You need to understand this whole 'freedom' thing. It means you can't use the law to tell people what they can and can't do simply due to personal viewpoints.
Being from Sweden I have a hard time understanding the big deal about same-sex marriage, then again we dont really give a fuck about religion over here.
But good on companies taking a stance I guess, I wonder if those bigots who said they would stop eating oreos now will stop using google products? Probably not, maybe they will be Googling "with Bing."
The bit that confuses marriage discussions is this: government-endorsed marriage isn't really a coherent right, for anyone. It's simpler and more natural for the government to step out of the 'marriage' or 'civil union' business entirely.
However, folks keep using that as an excuse to give arbitrary special privileges to male-female pairs. It isn't one. Stop.
I'm reminded of an article in a norwegian newspaper. A gay politician is marching in a parade; and later a tabloid asks him a few questions. Among what he says is that he saw the "man of his dreams" while marching; and so some 50 year old guy is critizising him for talking about his personal life when he is marching in a "political" parade; and that he should instead be 100% political. The reply the old man got was basically "sorry, don't care to answer. Looking for the man of my dreams". Which is quite the strong reply indeed. What he is saying is that the cause has come far enough that he is allowed to crack a few jokes, and can talk to tabloids in whatever manner he wants (not that he has power over which part of their interviews that are actually gonna get printed; and so he shouldn't even have a need to "defend" himself), and no one can critizise him for not being a "proper" activist, simply because that is belittling and he does not have to give these people a serious reply or the time of day. No one will side against him in any manner.
For the first paragraph: Yes, I agree that in practice, people are treated differently. But I think the law itself does not treat them differently. The fact that things are different in practice and theory is inevitable. If the statement says that they can marry someone they dont want to, doesnt mean that the statement should allow them what they want, we cannot give rights and make laws just based on what people want and do not want.
Yes we can. Women wanted the right to vote, so they were given the right to vote. Which is significant since they could not vote themselves to get this right to vote.
Gays wanted financial and legal security in a relationship (equal to straight couples), so they were granted. (in norway). And the sky hasn't come down yet.
What do you think is the main motivation for laws anyway
People wanted the right to own property; so such laws were created, that grant different kinds of ownerships. The opposite would be China during their revolution; the state owned everything, even the home you lived in and the farmland you worked on.
I wrote "we cannot give rights and make laws just based on what people want and do not want" see the "just based" ? If everybody wanted to have the right to have one free steak a day, would it pass? Of course not, because it is just based on what we want and it is also not doable. But I think that those things you mentioned are not just based on what they wanted but it was also based on logical reasoning. If homosexuals wanted what you said " financial and legal security in a relationship (equal to straight couples)" I think that this might be OK. But they have to name it differently from "Marriage" and draw a strong line between it.
No they don't have to draw a line between straight and gay marriage. In Norway they didn't. The only reason they might draw a line between gay and straight marriage, is because some people (like you) will want it. Therefore they'd be making laws based on what people want and don't want (AND they won't be making logical sense, for instance, we'd have to call it gay marriage and straight mawrraige; NOT gay marriage and marriage. Also, we don't say black marraige, etc etc). Therefore, in my eyes, you go against your own argument.
You must realize that, when "suggesting" these laws (such as you do) and their restrictions; you are basing it upon what YOU want and don't want. And to me, "my way" makes much more logical sense, and is much more reasonable. For instance, I would not go around calling your marriage a "straight financially struggling marriage about to be ended" just because that would better describe you. Similarly I would not need to distinguish between straight and gay marriage; in my eyes there is marriage between two people, and to add any "mandatory" prefix is simply hilariously stupid.
I admit that putting it in the way of wanting/not wanting is unfortunate and inconsistent. But in the end, I still see difference between same and different sex, and again, the fundamental difference (and in my opinion the thing why marriage exists in the first place) is being able/not being able to make babies (and again of course: in principle)
Marriage is not about procreation, it's about love and making your relationship 'official' in order to receive legal benefits. Hell, I've heard about gay couples who couldn't get married, one of them got a terminal illness and the partner was not legally allowed to make decisions. I'm sure that's just one of the many cases where not being married works against a couple in dire situations.
Please read my whole discussion, dont confuse two things: particular reason for marriage and reason for the marrige as an institution. I am not against granting gay couples the rights to make decisions if someone gets a terminal illness, it is completely reasonable I think. I am against calling it marriage. Because as I said in my previous posts, I believe that marriage is to complement procreation on the social and other levels. If you allow gay to "marry" you simply twist the meaning of marriage. If you want the same particular rights then I am not against making a different institution dealing with gay partners rights. It looks to me that our argument is just about how it should be named :D
Again, what is the difference between homosexuals adopting a child and heterosexuals adopting a child? I can't see how any mechanism is different in any way, shape, or form, both legally and practically.
A semantic argument is disgusting and horrible. The entire point is just to feel superior and insult homosexual relationships. This is not what the law is for. The law is not a tool used for degrading the dignity of other people. In fact, you're insulting people's families, which I find incredibly shocking. Gay people are getting married, they have spouses. Get over it, and move on.
"A semantic argument is disgusting and horrible." reason please. "The entire point is just to feel superior and insult homosexual relationships." just..why?? "In fact, you're insulting people's families, which I find incredibly shocking."...please, do not just randomly state things. If you want me to really understand your argument, go through reasoning. How am I insulting families?? What ??
So let's say a lesbian couple with their 2 kids came up to you, and started talking to you. Now, if you were to explain to this lesbian couple why they weren't wives, but in fact domestic partners, I think you would offend them. This is even worse, because you are trying to institutionalize this into law. Yes, guess what, that's going to offend people, and for purely logical reasons. They are married, you dolt.
If everything about it is a marriage, all the same rights, all the same things, then explain to me what the point is of calling it anything but a marriage? Explain. The only reason I can see is because you want to be an asshole.
"If everything about it is a marriage, all the same rights, all the same things" sorry, its NOT the same.
For the first paragraph, simply stating that someone would find something offensive does not prove me wrong. What are those purely logical reasons? It is something like: people call you James but you do not like it and you find it really really offensive.
Yes we can. Women wanted the right to vote, so they were given the right to vote. Which is significant since they could not vote themselves to get this right to vote.
Gays wanted financial and legal security in a relationship (equal to straight couples), so they were granted. (in norway). And the sky hasn't come down yet.
What do you think is the main motivation for laws anyway
People wanted the right to own property; so such laws were created, that grant different kinds of ownerships. The opposite would be China during their revolution; the state owned everything, even the home you lived in and the farmland you worked on.
I wrote "we cannot give rights and make laws just based on what people want and do not want" see the "just based" ? If everybody wanted to have the right to have one free steak a day, would it pass? Of course not, because it is just based on what we want and it is also not doable. But I think that those things you mentioned are not just based on what they wanted but it was also based on logical reasoning. If homosexuals wanted what you said " financial and legal security in a relationship (equal to straight couples)" I think that this might be OK. But they have to name it differently from "Marriage" and draw a strong line between it.
No they don't have to draw a line between straight and gay marriage. In Norway they didn't. The only reason they might draw a line between gay and straight marriage, is because some people (like you) will want it. Therefore they'd be making laws based on what people want and don't want (AND they won't be making logical sense, for instance, we'd have to call it gay marriage and straight mawrraige; NOT gay marriage and marriage. Also, we don't say black marraige, etc etc). Therefore, in my eyes, you go against your own argument.
You must realize that, when "suggesting" these laws (such as you do) and their restrictions; you are basing it upon what YOU want and don't want. And to me, "my way" makes much more logical sense, and is much more reasonable. For instance, I would not go around calling your marriage a "straight financially struggling marriage about to be ended" just because that would better describe you. Similarly I would not need to distinguish between straight and gay marriage; in my eyes there is marriage between two people, and to add any "mandatory" prefix is simply hilariously stupid.
I admit that putting it in the way of wanting/not wanting is unfortunate and inconsistent. But in the end, I still see difference between same and different sex, and again, the fundamental difference (and in my opinion the thing why marriage exists in the first place) is being able/not being able to make babies (and again of course: in principle)
Marriage is not about procreation, it's about love and making your relationship 'official' in order to receive legal benefits. Hell, I've heard about gay couples who couldn't get married, one of them got a terminal illness and the partner was not legally allowed to make decisions. I'm sure that's just one of the many cases where not being married works against a couple in dire situations.
Please read my whole discussion, dont confuse two things: particular reason for marriage and reason for the marrige as an institution. I am not against granting gay couples the rights to make decisions if someone gets a terminal illness, it is completely reasonable I think. I am against calling it marriage. Because as I said in my previous posts, I believe that marriage is to complement procreation on the social and other levels. If you allow gay to "marry" you simply twist the meaning of marriage. If you want the same particular rights then I am not against making a different institution dealing with gay partners rights. It looks to me that our argument is just about how it should be named :D
Again, what is the difference between homosexuals adopting a child and heterosexuals adopting a child? I can't see how any mechanism is different in any way, shape, or form, both legally and practically.
A semantic argument is disgusting and horrible. The entire point is just to feel superior and insult homosexual relationships. This is not what the law is for. The law is not a tool used for degrading the dignity of other people. In fact, you're insulting people's families, which I find incredibly shocking. Gay people are getting married, they have spouses. Get over it, and move on.
"A semantic argument is disgusting and horrible." reason please. "The entire point is just to feel superior and insult homosexual relationships." just..why?? "In fact, you're insulting people's families, which I find incredibly shocking."...please, do not just randomly state things. If you want me to really understand your argument, go through reasoning. How am I insulting families?? What ??
So let's say a lesbian couple with their 2 kids came up to you, and started talking to you. Now, if you were to explain to this lesbian couple why they weren't wives, but in fact domestic partners, I think you would offend them. This is even worse, because you are trying to institutionalize this into law. Yes, guess what, that's going to offend people, and for purely logical reasons. They are married, you dolt.
If everything about it is a marriage, all the same rights, all the same things, then explain to me what the point is of calling it anything but a marriage? Explain. The only reason I can see is because you want to be an asshole.
"If everything about it is a marriage, all the same rights, all the same things" sorry, its NOT the same.
For the first paragraph, simply stating that someone would find something offensive does not prove me wrong. What are those purely logical reasons? It is something like: people call you James but you do not like it and you find it really really offensive.
It is inhumane to say to a same-sex couple that their marriage means less than your own. If I heard someone say that I might punch them in the gut. Their commitment and life journey is no less, and you're only trying to make people feel bad, because you think you're being "correct", when infact you could have been atleast slightly empathic and 'humane'. Also you would be incorrect. Their lives, their love and their commitment are no less than yours, except for possibly in the areas where you infringe and try to take things away from Them. Otherwise their lives are the same, and you're not entitled to it in any way.
I wrote "we cannot give rights and make laws just based on what people want and do not want" see the "just based" ? If everybody wanted to have the right to have one free steak a day, would it pass? Of course not, because it is just based on what we want and it is also not doable. But I think that those things you mentioned are not just based on what they wanted but it was also based on logical reasoning. If homosexuals wanted what you said " financial and legal security in a relationship (equal to straight couples)" I think that this might be OK. But they have to name it differently from "Marriage" and draw a strong line between it.
No they don't have to draw a line between straight and gay marriage. In Norway they didn't. The only reason they might draw a line between gay and straight marriage, is because some people (like you) will want it. Therefore they'd be making laws based on what people want and don't want (AND they won't be making logical sense, for instance, we'd have to call it gay marriage and straight mawrraige; NOT gay marriage and marriage. Also, we don't say black marraige, etc etc). Therefore, in my eyes, you go against your own argument.
You must realize that, when "suggesting" these laws (such as you do) and their restrictions; you are basing it upon what YOU want and don't want. And to me, "my way" makes much more logical sense, and is much more reasonable. For instance, I would not go around calling your marriage a "straight financially struggling marriage about to be ended" just because that would better describe you. Similarly I would not need to distinguish between straight and gay marriage; in my eyes there is marriage between two people, and to add any "mandatory" prefix is simply hilariously stupid.
I admit that putting it in the way of wanting/not wanting is unfortunate and inconsistent. But in the end, I still see difference between same and different sex, and again, the fundamental difference (and in my opinion the thing why marriage exists in the first place) is being able/not being able to make babies (and again of course: in principle)
Marriage is not about procreation, it's about love and making your relationship 'official' in order to receive legal benefits. Hell, I've heard about gay couples who couldn't get married, one of them got a terminal illness and the partner was not legally allowed to make decisions. I'm sure that's just one of the many cases where not being married works against a couple in dire situations.
Please read my whole discussion, dont confuse two things: particular reason for marriage and reason for the marrige as an institution. I am not against granting gay couples the rights to make decisions if someone gets a terminal illness, it is completely reasonable I think. I am against calling it marriage. Because as I said in my previous posts, I believe that marriage is to complement procreation on the social and other levels. If you allow gay to "marry" you simply twist the meaning of marriage. If you want the same particular rights then I am not against making a different institution dealing with gay partners rights. It looks to me that our argument is just about how it should be named :D
Again, what is the difference between homosexuals adopting a child and heterosexuals adopting a child? I can't see how any mechanism is different in any way, shape, or form, both legally and practically.
A semantic argument is disgusting and horrible. The entire point is just to feel superior and insult homosexual relationships. This is not what the law is for. The law is not a tool used for degrading the dignity of other people. In fact, you're insulting people's families, which I find incredibly shocking. Gay people are getting married, they have spouses. Get over it, and move on.
"A semantic argument is disgusting and horrible." reason please. "The entire point is just to feel superior and insult homosexual relationships." just..why?? "In fact, you're insulting people's families, which I find incredibly shocking."...please, do not just randomly state things. If you want me to really understand your argument, go through reasoning. How am I insulting families?? What ??
So let's say a lesbian couple with their 2 kids came up to you, and started talking to you. Now, if you were to explain to this lesbian couple why they weren't wives, but in fact domestic partners, I think you would offend them. This is even worse, because you are trying to institutionalize this into law. Yes, guess what, that's going to offend people, and for purely logical reasons. They are married, you dolt.
If everything about it is a marriage, all the same rights, all the same things, then explain to me what the point is of calling it anything but a marriage? Explain. The only reason I can see is because you want to be an asshole.
"If everything about it is a marriage, all the same rights, all the same things" sorry, its NOT the same.
For the first paragraph, simply stating that someone would find something offensive does not prove me wrong. What are those purely logical reasons? It is something like: people call you James but you do not like it and you find it really really offensive.
It is inhumane to say to a same-sex couple that their marriage means less than your own. If I heard someone say that I might punch them in the gut. Their commitment and life journey is no less, and you're only trying to make people feel bad, because you think you're being "correct", when infact you could have been atleast slightly empathic and 'humane'. Also you would be incorrect. Their lives are no less than yours, except for possibly in the areas where you infringe and try to take things away from Them. Otherwise their lives are the same, and you're not entitled to it in any way.
Show me, where I wrote that their marriage means less?? I do not think it means less but I think, as I wrote, it is just not the same.
No they don't have to draw a line between straight and gay marriage. In Norway they didn't. The only reason they might draw a line between gay and straight marriage, is because some people (like you) will want it. Therefore they'd be making laws based on what people want and don't want (AND they won't be making logical sense, for instance, we'd have to call it gay marriage and straight mawrraige; NOT gay marriage and marriage. Also, we don't say black marraige, etc etc). Therefore, in my eyes, you go against your own argument.
You must realize that, when "suggesting" these laws (such as you do) and their restrictions; you are basing it upon what YOU want and don't want. And to me, "my way" makes much more logical sense, and is much more reasonable. For instance, I would not go around calling your marriage a "straight financially struggling marriage about to be ended" just because that would better describe you. Similarly I would not need to distinguish between straight and gay marriage; in my eyes there is marriage between two people, and to add any "mandatory" prefix is simply hilariously stupid.
I admit that putting it in the way of wanting/not wanting is unfortunate and inconsistent. But in the end, I still see difference between same and different sex, and again, the fundamental difference (and in my opinion the thing why marriage exists in the first place) is being able/not being able to make babies (and again of course: in principle)
Marriage is not about procreation, it's about love and making your relationship 'official' in order to receive legal benefits. Hell, I've heard about gay couples who couldn't get married, one of them got a terminal illness and the partner was not legally allowed to make decisions. I'm sure that's just one of the many cases where not being married works against a couple in dire situations.
Please read my whole discussion, dont confuse two things: particular reason for marriage and reason for the marrige as an institution. I am not against granting gay couples the rights to make decisions if someone gets a terminal illness, it is completely reasonable I think. I am against calling it marriage. Because as I said in my previous posts, I believe that marriage is to complement procreation on the social and other levels. If you allow gay to "marry" you simply twist the meaning of marriage. If you want the same particular rights then I am not against making a different institution dealing with gay partners rights. It looks to me that our argument is just about how it should be named :D
Again, what is the difference between homosexuals adopting a child and heterosexuals adopting a child? I can't see how any mechanism is different in any way, shape, or form, both legally and practically.
A semantic argument is disgusting and horrible. The entire point is just to feel superior and insult homosexual relationships. This is not what the law is for. The law is not a tool used for degrading the dignity of other people. In fact, you're insulting people's families, which I find incredibly shocking. Gay people are getting married, they have spouses. Get over it, and move on.
"A semantic argument is disgusting and horrible." reason please. "The entire point is just to feel superior and insult homosexual relationships." just..why?? "In fact, you're insulting people's families, which I find incredibly shocking."...please, do not just randomly state things. If you want me to really understand your argument, go through reasoning. How am I insulting families?? What ??
So let's say a lesbian couple with their 2 kids came up to you, and started talking to you. Now, if you were to explain to this lesbian couple why they weren't wives, but in fact domestic partners, I think you would offend them. This is even worse, because you are trying to institutionalize this into law. Yes, guess what, that's going to offend people, and for purely logical reasons. They are married, you dolt.
If everything about it is a marriage, all the same rights, all the same things, then explain to me what the point is of calling it anything but a marriage? Explain. The only reason I can see is because you want to be an asshole.
"If everything about it is a marriage, all the same rights, all the same things" sorry, its NOT the same.
For the first paragraph, simply stating that someone would find something offensive does not prove me wrong. What are those purely logical reasons? It is something like: people call you James but you do not like it and you find it really really offensive.
It is inhumane to say to a same-sex couple that their marriage means less than your own. If I heard someone say that I might punch them in the gut. Their commitment and life journey is no less, and you're only trying to make people feel bad, because you think you're being "correct", when infact you could have been atleast slightly empathic and 'humane'. Also you would be incorrect. Their lives are no less than yours, except for possibly in the areas where you infringe and try to take things away from Them. Otherwise their lives are the same, and you're not entitled to it in any way.
Show me, where I wrote that their marriage means less?? I do not think it means less but I think, as I wrote, it is just not the same.
I admit that putting it in the way of wanting/not wanting is unfortunate and inconsistent. But in the end, I still see difference between same and different sex, and again, the fundamental difference (and in my opinion the thing why marriage exists in the first place) is being able/not being able to make babies (and again of course: in principle)
Marriage is not about procreation, it's about love and making your relationship 'official' in order to receive legal benefits. Hell, I've heard about gay couples who couldn't get married, one of them got a terminal illness and the partner was not legally allowed to make decisions. I'm sure that's just one of the many cases where not being married works against a couple in dire situations.
Please read my whole discussion, dont confuse two things: particular reason for marriage and reason for the marrige as an institution. I am not against granting gay couples the rights to make decisions if someone gets a terminal illness, it is completely reasonable I think. I am against calling it marriage. Because as I said in my previous posts, I believe that marriage is to complement procreation on the social and other levels. If you allow gay to "marry" you simply twist the meaning of marriage. If you want the same particular rights then I am not against making a different institution dealing with gay partners rights. It looks to me that our argument is just about how it should be named :D
Again, what is the difference between homosexuals adopting a child and heterosexuals adopting a child? I can't see how any mechanism is different in any way, shape, or form, both legally and practically.
A semantic argument is disgusting and horrible. The entire point is just to feel superior and insult homosexual relationships. This is not what the law is for. The law is not a tool used for degrading the dignity of other people. In fact, you're insulting people's families, which I find incredibly shocking. Gay people are getting married, they have spouses. Get over it, and move on.
"A semantic argument is disgusting and horrible." reason please. "The entire point is just to feel superior and insult homosexual relationships." just..why?? "In fact, you're insulting people's families, which I find incredibly shocking."...please, do not just randomly state things. If you want me to really understand your argument, go through reasoning. How am I insulting families?? What ??
So let's say a lesbian couple with their 2 kids came up to you, and started talking to you. Now, if you were to explain to this lesbian couple why they weren't wives, but in fact domestic partners, I think you would offend them. This is even worse, because you are trying to institutionalize this into law. Yes, guess what, that's going to offend people, and for purely logical reasons. They are married, you dolt.
If everything about it is a marriage, all the same rights, all the same things, then explain to me what the point is of calling it anything but a marriage? Explain. The only reason I can see is because you want to be an asshole.
"If everything about it is a marriage, all the same rights, all the same things" sorry, its NOT the same.
For the first paragraph, simply stating that someone would find something offensive does not prove me wrong. What are those purely logical reasons? It is something like: people call you James but you do not like it and you find it really really offensive.
It is inhumane to say to a same-sex couple that their marriage means less than your own. If I heard someone say that I might punch them in the gut. Their commitment and life journey is no less, and you're only trying to make people feel bad, because you think you're being "correct", when infact you could have been atleast slightly empathic and 'humane'. Also you would be incorrect. Their lives are no less than yours, except for possibly in the areas where you infringe and try to take things away from Them. Otherwise their lives are the same, and you're not entitled to it in any way.
Show me, where I wrote that their marriage means less?? I do not think it means less but I think, as I wrote, it is just not the same.
On July 09 2012 00:14 Thorakh wrote: [quote]Marriage is not about procreation, it's about love and making your relationship 'official' in order to receive legal benefits. Hell, I've heard about gay couples who couldn't get married, one of them got a terminal illness and the partner was not legally allowed to make decisions. I'm sure that's just one of the many cases where not being married works against a couple in dire situations.
Please read my whole discussion, dont confuse two things: particular reason for marriage and reason for the marrige as an institution. I am not against granting gay couples the rights to make decisions if someone gets a terminal illness, it is completely reasonable I think. I am against calling it marriage. Because as I said in my previous posts, I believe that marriage is to complement procreation on the social and other levels. If you allow gay to "marry" you simply twist the meaning of marriage. If you want the same particular rights then I am not against making a different institution dealing with gay partners rights. It looks to me that our argument is just about how it should be named :D
Again, what is the difference between homosexuals adopting a child and heterosexuals adopting a child? I can't see how any mechanism is different in any way, shape, or form, both legally and practically.
A semantic argument is disgusting and horrible. The entire point is just to feel superior and insult homosexual relationships. This is not what the law is for. The law is not a tool used for degrading the dignity of other people. In fact, you're insulting people's families, which I find incredibly shocking. Gay people are getting married, they have spouses. Get over it, and move on.
"A semantic argument is disgusting and horrible." reason please. "The entire point is just to feel superior and insult homosexual relationships." just..why?? "In fact, you're insulting people's families, which I find incredibly shocking."...please, do not just randomly state things. If you want me to really understand your argument, go through reasoning. How am I insulting families?? What ??
So let's say a lesbian couple with their 2 kids came up to you, and started talking to you. Now, if you were to explain to this lesbian couple why they weren't wives, but in fact domestic partners, I think you would offend them. This is even worse, because you are trying to institutionalize this into law. Yes, guess what, that's going to offend people, and for purely logical reasons. They are married, you dolt.
If everything about it is a marriage, all the same rights, all the same things, then explain to me what the point is of calling it anything but a marriage? Explain. The only reason I can see is because you want to be an asshole.
"If everything about it is a marriage, all the same rights, all the same things" sorry, its NOT the same.
For the first paragraph, simply stating that someone would find something offensive does not prove me wrong. What are those purely logical reasons? It is something like: people call you James but you do not like it and you find it really really offensive.
It is inhumane to say to a same-sex couple that their marriage means less than your own. If I heard someone say that I might punch them in the gut. Their commitment and life journey is no less, and you're only trying to make people feel bad, because you think you're being "correct", when infact you could have been atleast slightly empathic and 'humane'. Also you would be incorrect. Their lives are no less than yours, except for possibly in the areas where you infringe and try to take things away from Them. Otherwise their lives are the same, and you're not entitled to it in any way.
Show me, where I wrote that their marriage means less?? I do not think it means less but I think, as I wrote, it is just not the same.
Was asking if you were meaning that gays should be seperate but equal, specifically here with regards to the marriage system. The link explains the concept as it was used in the past when race issues were dealt with that way.
No they don't have to draw a line between straight and gay marriage. In Norway they didn't. The only reason they might draw a line between gay and straight marriage, is because some people (like you) will want it. Therefore they'd be making laws based on what people want and don't want (AND they won't be making logical sense, for instance, we'd have to call it gay marriage and straight mawrraige; NOT gay marriage and marriage. Also, we don't say black marraige, etc etc). Therefore, in my eyes, you go against your own argument.
You must realize that, when "suggesting" these laws (such as you do) and their restrictions; you are basing it upon what YOU want and don't want. And to me, "my way" makes much more logical sense, and is much more reasonable. For instance, I would not go around calling your marriage a "straight financially struggling marriage about to be ended" just because that would better describe you. Similarly I would not need to distinguish between straight and gay marriage; in my eyes there is marriage between two people, and to add any "mandatory" prefix is simply hilariously stupid.
I admit that putting it in the way of wanting/not wanting is unfortunate and inconsistent. But in the end, I still see difference between same and different sex, and again, the fundamental difference (and in my opinion the thing why marriage exists in the first place) is being able/not being able to make babies (and again of course: in principle)
Marriage is not about procreation, it's about love and making your relationship 'official' in order to receive legal benefits. Hell, I've heard about gay couples who couldn't get married, one of them got a terminal illness and the partner was not legally allowed to make decisions. I'm sure that's just one of the many cases where not being married works against a couple in dire situations.
Please read my whole discussion, dont confuse two things: particular reason for marriage and reason for the marrige as an institution. I am not against granting gay couples the rights to make decisions if someone gets a terminal illness, it is completely reasonable I think. I am against calling it marriage. Because as I said in my previous posts, I believe that marriage is to complement procreation on the social and other levels. If you allow gay to "marry" you simply twist the meaning of marriage. If you want the same particular rights then I am not against making a different institution dealing with gay partners rights. It looks to me that our argument is just about how it should be named :D
Again, what is the difference between homosexuals adopting a child and heterosexuals adopting a child? I can't see how any mechanism is different in any way, shape, or form, both legally and practically.
A semantic argument is disgusting and horrible. The entire point is just to feel superior and insult homosexual relationships. This is not what the law is for. The law is not a tool used for degrading the dignity of other people. In fact, you're insulting people's families, which I find incredibly shocking. Gay people are getting married, they have spouses. Get over it, and move on.
"A semantic argument is disgusting and horrible." reason please. "The entire point is just to feel superior and insult homosexual relationships." just..why?? "In fact, you're insulting people's families, which I find incredibly shocking."...please, do not just randomly state things. If you want me to really understand your argument, go through reasoning. How am I insulting families?? What ??
So let's say a lesbian couple with their 2 kids came up to you, and started talking to you. Now, if you were to explain to this lesbian couple why they weren't wives, but in fact domestic partners, I think you would offend them. This is even worse, because you are trying to institutionalize this into law. Yes, guess what, that's going to offend people, and for purely logical reasons. They are married, you dolt.
If everything about it is a marriage, all the same rights, all the same things, then explain to me what the point is of calling it anything but a marriage? Explain. The only reason I can see is because you want to be an asshole.
"If everything about it is a marriage, all the same rights, all the same things" sorry, its NOT the same.
For the first paragraph, simply stating that someone would find something offensive does not prove me wrong. What are those purely logical reasons? It is something like: people call you James but you do not like it and you find it really really offensive.
It is inhumane to say to a same-sex couple that their marriage means less than your own. If I heard someone say that I might punch them in the gut. Their commitment and life journey is no less, and you're only trying to make people feel bad, because you think you're being "correct", when infact you could have been atleast slightly empathic and 'humane'. Also you would be incorrect. Their lives are no less than yours, except for possibly in the areas where you infringe and try to take things away from Them. Otherwise their lives are the same, and you're not entitled to it in any way.
Show me, where I wrote that their marriage means less?? I do not think it means less but I think, as I wrote, it is just not the same.
You didn't have to. You simply say their marriage can never be the same as "your" marriage. Not that I know exactly what it means. Atleast that's how I read it. "sorry, its NOT the same." .. It could be, couldn't it? If only you changed the law to give them the same benefits; their "marriage" would be exactly the same. And even if you don't give them benefits, their marriage is still the same kind of marriage between two people, regardless of wether you can stomach actually calling it a "marriage" or not.
I'm gonna butt out. Your implication about "the same but different" does not compute. Based upon what marriage is, to me, there must not be any specific gender roles involved, only people.
Please read my whole discussion, dont confuse two things: particular reason for marriage and reason for the marrige as an institution. I am not against granting gay couples the rights to make decisions if someone gets a terminal illness, it is completely reasonable I think. I am against calling it marriage. Because as I said in my previous posts, I believe that marriage is to complement procreation on the social and other levels. If you allow gay to "marry" you simply twist the meaning of marriage. If you want the same particular rights then I am not against making a different institution dealing with gay partners rights. It looks to me that our argument is just about how it should be named :D
Again, what is the difference between homosexuals adopting a child and heterosexuals adopting a child? I can't see how any mechanism is different in any way, shape, or form, both legally and practically.
A semantic argument is disgusting and horrible. The entire point is just to feel superior and insult homosexual relationships. This is not what the law is for. The law is not a tool used for degrading the dignity of other people. In fact, you're insulting people's families, which I find incredibly shocking. Gay people are getting married, they have spouses. Get over it, and move on.
"A semantic argument is disgusting and horrible." reason please. "The entire point is just to feel superior and insult homosexual relationships." just..why?? "In fact, you're insulting people's families, which I find incredibly shocking."...please, do not just randomly state things. If you want me to really understand your argument, go through reasoning. How am I insulting families?? What ??
So let's say a lesbian couple with their 2 kids came up to you, and started talking to you. Now, if you were to explain to this lesbian couple why they weren't wives, but in fact domestic partners, I think you would offend them. This is even worse, because you are trying to institutionalize this into law. Yes, guess what, that's going to offend people, and for purely logical reasons. They are married, you dolt.
If everything about it is a marriage, all the same rights, all the same things, then explain to me what the point is of calling it anything but a marriage? Explain. The only reason I can see is because you want to be an asshole.
"If everything about it is a marriage, all the same rights, all the same things" sorry, its NOT the same.
For the first paragraph, simply stating that someone would find something offensive does not prove me wrong. What are those purely logical reasons? It is something like: people call you James but you do not like it and you find it really really offensive.
It is inhumane to say to a same-sex couple that their marriage means less than your own. If I heard someone say that I might punch them in the gut. Their commitment and life journey is no less, and you're only trying to make people feel bad, because you think you're being "correct", when infact you could have been atleast slightly empathic and 'humane'. Also you would be incorrect. Their lives are no less than yours, except for possibly in the areas where you infringe and try to take things away from Them. Otherwise their lives are the same, and you're not entitled to it in any way.
Show me, where I wrote that their marriage means less?? I do not think it means less but I think, as I wrote, it is just not the same.
Was asking if you were meaning that gays should be seperate but equal, specifically here with regards to the marriage system. The link explains the concept as it was used in the past when race issues were dealt with that way.
No they don't have to draw a line between straight and gay marriage. In Norway they didn't. The only reason they might draw a line between gay and straight marriage, is because some people (like you) will want it. Therefore they'd be making laws based on what people want and don't want (AND they won't be making logical sense, for instance, we'd have to call it gay marriage and straight mawrraige; NOT gay marriage and marriage. Also, we don't say black marraige, etc etc). Therefore, in my eyes, you go against your own argument.
You must realize that, when "suggesting" these laws (such as you do) and their restrictions; you are basing it upon what YOU want and don't want. And to me, "my way" makes much more logical sense, and is much more reasonable. For instance, I would not go around calling your marriage a "straight financially struggling marriage about to be ended" just because that would better describe you. Similarly I would not need to distinguish between straight and gay marriage; in my eyes there is marriage between two people, and to add any "mandatory" prefix is simply hilariously stupid.
I admit that putting it in the way of wanting/not wanting is unfortunate and inconsistent. But in the end, I still see difference between same and different sex, and again, the fundamental difference (and in my opinion the thing why marriage exists in the first place) is being able/not being able to make babies (and again of course: in principle)
Marriage is not about procreation, it's about love and making your relationship 'official' in order to receive legal benefits. Hell, I've heard about gay couples who couldn't get married, one of them got a terminal illness and the partner was not legally allowed to make decisions. I'm sure that's just one of the many cases where not being married works against a couple in dire situations.
Please read my whole discussion, dont confuse two things: particular reason for marriage and reason for the marrige as an institution. I am not against granting gay couples the rights to make decisions if someone gets a terminal illness, it is completely reasonable I think. I am against calling it marriage. Because as I said in my previous posts, I believe that marriage is to complement procreation on the social and other levels. If you allow gay to "marry" you simply twist the meaning of marriage. If you want the same particular rights then I am not against making a different institution dealing with gay partners rights. It looks to me that our argument is just about how it should be named :D
Again, what is the difference between homosexuals adopting a child and heterosexuals adopting a child? I can't see how any mechanism is different in any way, shape, or form, both legally and practically.
A semantic argument is disgusting and horrible. The entire point is just to feel superior and insult homosexual relationships. This is not what the law is for. The law is not a tool used for degrading the dignity of other people. In fact, you're insulting people's families, which I find incredibly shocking. Gay people are getting married, they have spouses. Get over it, and move on.
"A semantic argument is disgusting and horrible." reason please. "The entire point is just to feel superior and insult homosexual relationships." just..why?? "In fact, you're insulting people's families, which I find incredibly shocking."...please, do not just randomly state things. If you want me to really understand your argument, go through reasoning. How am I insulting families?? What ??
So let's say a lesbian couple with their 2 kids came up to you, and started talking to you. Now, if you were to explain to this lesbian couple why they weren't wives, but in fact domestic partners, I think you would offend them. This is even worse, because you are trying to institutionalize this into law. Yes, guess what, that's going to offend people, and for purely logical reasons. They are married, you dolt.
If everything about it is a marriage, all the same rights, all the same things, then explain to me what the point is of calling it anything but a marriage? Explain. The only reason I can see is because you want to be an asshole.
"If everything about it is a marriage, all the same rights, all the same things" sorry, its NOT the same.
For the first paragraph, simply stating that someone would find something offensive does not prove me wrong. What are those purely logical reasons? It is something like: people call you James but you do not like it and you find it really really offensive.
It is inhumane to say to a same-sex couple that their marriage means less than your own. If I heard someone say that I might punch them in the gut. Their commitment and life journey is no less, and you're only trying to make people feel bad, because you think you're being "correct", when infact you could have been atleast slightly empathic and 'humane'. Also you would be incorrect. Their lives are no less than yours, except for possibly in the areas where you infringe and try to take things away from Them. Otherwise their lives are the same, and you're not entitled to it in any way.
Show me, where I wrote that their marriage means less?? I do not think it means less but I think, as I wrote, it is just not the same.
So if same sex marriage isn't less than opposite sex marriage, that means it's atleast equal or above (to you), then why should it not be legal again ?
Again, what is the difference between homosexuals adopting a child and heterosexuals adopting a child? I can't see how any mechanism is different in any way, shape, or form, both legally and practically.
A semantic argument is disgusting and horrible. The entire point is just to feel superior and insult homosexual relationships. This is not what the law is for. The law is not a tool used for degrading the dignity of other people. In fact, you're insulting people's families, which I find incredibly shocking. Gay people are getting married, they have spouses. Get over it, and move on.
"A semantic argument is disgusting and horrible." reason please. "The entire point is just to feel superior and insult homosexual relationships." just..why?? "In fact, you're insulting people's families, which I find incredibly shocking."...please, do not just randomly state things. If you want me to really understand your argument, go through reasoning. How am I insulting families?? What ??
So let's say a lesbian couple with their 2 kids came up to you, and started talking to you. Now, if you were to explain to this lesbian couple why they weren't wives, but in fact domestic partners, I think you would offend them. This is even worse, because you are trying to institutionalize this into law. Yes, guess what, that's going to offend people, and for purely logical reasons. They are married, you dolt.
If everything about it is a marriage, all the same rights, all the same things, then explain to me what the point is of calling it anything but a marriage? Explain. The only reason I can see is because you want to be an asshole.
"If everything about it is a marriage, all the same rights, all the same things" sorry, its NOT the same.
For the first paragraph, simply stating that someone would find something offensive does not prove me wrong. What are those purely logical reasons? It is something like: people call you James but you do not like it and you find it really really offensive.
It is inhumane to say to a same-sex couple that their marriage means less than your own. If I heard someone say that I might punch them in the gut. Their commitment and life journey is no less, and you're only trying to make people feel bad, because you think you're being "correct", when infact you could have been atleast slightly empathic and 'humane'. Also you would be incorrect. Their lives are no less than yours, except for possibly in the areas where you infringe and try to take things away from Them. Otherwise their lives are the same, and you're not entitled to it in any way.
Show me, where I wrote that their marriage means less?? I do not think it means less but I think, as I wrote, it is just not the same.
Was asking if you were meaning that gays should be seperate but equal, specifically here with regards to the marriage system. The link explains the concept as it was used in the past when race issues were dealt with that way.
No, they should not.
I think you are. You think it's ok that they get a recognized relationship status, but that should not be the same as your marriage. They are the same but different (atleast different in name). And this is where history repeats itself
It's ok. rome wasn't built in a day.
But really, you're allowed to think that marriage between man and woman is somehow different. It's ok. In a way it is, but not in any way that actually matter. And it wouldn't be the first time things started with "same but different". Before we unified civil union and marriage in Norway, we also had the "same but different" policy and philosophy. We don't anymore. It's only a natural step.
On July 08 2012 18:36 TirramirooO wrote: Sick of talking about gay people.. Im not Christian, i dont believe in religion but that is totally the ANTICHRIST... With the same sex you cant make children soo is against nature but make people understant that is becoming hard.
Keep going, in the future you all gonna open your EYES.
This is a common misconception about what would happen if gay marriage were to be legalized. There are MILLIONS of babies that are available for adoption and the gay community doesnt even make up 50% of our population so we would barely even see a dent in our population increase. Even if gay marriage legalization does cause the population to go down, then it is a good thing (look at china/india and other countries with overpopulation problem). Also, if you dont believe in religion, then why does it matter if this is anti christ..?
I admit that putting it in the way of wanting/not wanting is unfortunate and inconsistent. But in the end, I still see difference between same and different sex, and again, the fundamental difference (and in my opinion the thing why marriage exists in the first place) is being able/not being able to make babies (and again of course: in principle)
Marriage is not about procreation, it's about love and making your relationship 'official' in order to receive legal benefits. Hell, I've heard about gay couples who couldn't get married, one of them got a terminal illness and the partner was not legally allowed to make decisions. I'm sure that's just one of the many cases where not being married works against a couple in dire situations.
Please read my whole discussion, dont confuse two things: particular reason for marriage and reason for the marrige as an institution. I am not against granting gay couples the rights to make decisions if someone gets a terminal illness, it is completely reasonable I think. I am against calling it marriage. Because as I said in my previous posts, I believe that marriage is to complement procreation on the social and other levels. If you allow gay to "marry" you simply twist the meaning of marriage. If you want the same particular rights then I am not against making a different institution dealing with gay partners rights. It looks to me that our argument is just about how it should be named :D
Again, what is the difference between homosexuals adopting a child and heterosexuals adopting a child? I can't see how any mechanism is different in any way, shape, or form, both legally and practically.
A semantic argument is disgusting and horrible. The entire point is just to feel superior and insult homosexual relationships. This is not what the law is for. The law is not a tool used for degrading the dignity of other people. In fact, you're insulting people's families, which I find incredibly shocking. Gay people are getting married, they have spouses. Get over it, and move on.
"A semantic argument is disgusting and horrible." reason please. "The entire point is just to feel superior and insult homosexual relationships." just..why?? "In fact, you're insulting people's families, which I find incredibly shocking."...please, do not just randomly state things. If you want me to really understand your argument, go through reasoning. How am I insulting families?? What ??
So let's say a lesbian couple with their 2 kids came up to you, and started talking to you. Now, if you were to explain to this lesbian couple why they weren't wives, but in fact domestic partners, I think you would offend them. This is even worse, because you are trying to institutionalize this into law. Yes, guess what, that's going to offend people, and for purely logical reasons. They are married, you dolt.
If everything about it is a marriage, all the same rights, all the same things, then explain to me what the point is of calling it anything but a marriage? Explain. The only reason I can see is because you want to be an asshole.
"If everything about it is a marriage, all the same rights, all the same things" sorry, its NOT the same.
For the first paragraph, simply stating that someone would find something offensive does not prove me wrong. What are those purely logical reasons? It is something like: people call you James but you do not like it and you find it really really offensive.
It is inhumane to say to a same-sex couple that their marriage means less than your own. If I heard someone say that I might punch them in the gut. Their commitment and life journey is no less, and you're only trying to make people feel bad, because you think you're being "correct", when infact you could have been atleast slightly empathic and 'humane'. Also you would be incorrect. Their lives are no less than yours, except for possibly in the areas where you infringe and try to take things away from Them. Otherwise their lives are the same, and you're not entitled to it in any way.
Show me, where I wrote that their marriage means less?? I do not think it means less but I think, as I wrote, it is just not the same.
You didn't have to. You simply say their marriage can never be the same as "your" marriage. Not that I know exactly what it means. Atleast that's how I read it. "sorry, its NOT the same." .. It could be, couldn't it? If only you changed the law to give them the same benefits; their "marriage" would be exactly the same. And even if you don't give them benefits, their marriage is still the same kind of marriage between two people, regardless of wether you can stomach actually calling it a "marriage" or not.
I'm gonna butt out. Your implication about "the same but different" does not compute. Based upon what marriage is, to me, there must not be any specific gender roles involved, only people.
On July 08 2012 18:42 hypercube wrote: It's a little sad that the most effective way to fight for human right is through multinational corporations. I don't like what that says about the state of democracy in the World.
I think it's great that democracy can support google advocating an issue. It's good that our society makes it benefical.
Massive shitstorm so far with many people not liking it. You know what I call people who get disturbed by this? CAVE MEN. Grow up and evolve, please.
Homosexuality isn't a choice and it should be perfectly fine & legal for two homosexuals/lesbians (same shit but just to every1 understands) too marry and live togheter for life.
And I like how Google is liberal. Sweden is liberal, and is it a bad country overall? No, it's one of the best....
On July 08 2012 18:36 TirramirooO wrote: Sick of talking about gay people.. Im not Christian, i dont believe in religion but that is totally the ANTICHRIST... With the same sex you cant make children soo is against nature but make people understant that is becoming hard.
Keep going, in the future you all gonna open your EYES.
This is a common misconception about what would happen if gay marriage were to be legalized. There are MILLIONS of babies that are available for adoption and the gay community doesnt even make up 50% of our population so we would barely even see a dent in our population increase. Even if gay marriage legalization does cause the population to go down, then it is a good thing (look at china/india and other countries with overpopulation problem). Also, if you dont believe in religion, then why does it matter if this is anti christ..?
1 in 10 people are actually gay.
its more around 2-3% actually. depends on how do you define gay, where do you look at.
On July 08 2012 18:36 TirramirooO wrote: Sick of talking about gay people.. Im not Christian, i dont believe in religion but that is totally the ANTICHRIST... With the same sex you cant make children soo is against nature but make people understant that is becoming hard.
Keep going, in the future you all gonna open your EYES.
This is a common misconception about what would happen if gay marriage were to be legalized. There are MILLIONS of babies that are available for adoption and the gay community doesnt even make up 50% of our population so we would barely even see a dent in our population increase. Even if gay marriage legalization does cause the population to go down, then it is a good thing (look at china/india and other countries with overpopulation problem). Also, if you dont believe in religion, then why does it matter if this is anti christ..?
1 in 10 people are actually gay.
its more around 2-3% actually. depends on how do you define gay, where do you look at.
I always find it funny when people try to justify hating on gay people and imposing upon their rights, it is almost embarrassing that they're even a part of this community. But like anything, even the most unarguable data (homosexuality isn't a choice) will have idiots clambering to input their respective PhD level education on the specific topic and try to allude it's a choice.
On July 08 2012 18:36 TirramirooO wrote: Sick of talking about gay people.. Im not Christian, i dont believe in religion but that is totally the ANTICHRIST... With the same sex you cant make children soo is against nature but make people understant that is becoming hard.
Keep going, in the future you all gonna open your EYES.
This is a common misconception about what would happen if gay marriage were to be legalized. There are MILLIONS of babies that are available for adoption and the gay community doesnt even make up 50% of our population so we would barely even see a dent in our population increase. Even if gay marriage legalization does cause the population to go down, then it is a good thing (look at china/india and other countries with overpopulation problem). Also, if you dont believe in religion, then why does it matter if this is anti christ..?
1 in 10 people are actually gay.
its more around 2-3% actually. depends on how do you define gay, where do you look at.
Where are you getting this statistic?
From what I've heard, 1-3% of the population is out of the closet, while it is estimated that up to 10% are homosexual (including the previous 1-3%)
On July 08 2012 18:36 TirramirooO wrote: Sick of talking about gay people.. Im not Christian, i dont believe in religion but that is totally the ANTICHRIST... With the same sex you cant make children soo is against nature but make people understant that is becoming hard.
Keep going, in the future you all gonna open your EYES.
This is a common misconception about what would happen if gay marriage were to be legalized. There are MILLIONS of babies that are available for adoption and the gay community doesnt even make up 50% of our population so we would barely even see a dent in our population increase. Even if gay marriage legalization does cause the population to go down, then it is a good thing (look at china/india and other countries with overpopulation problem). Also, if you dont believe in religion, then why does it matter if this is anti christ..?
On July 08 2012 18:36 TirramirooO wrote: Sick of talking about gay people.. Im not Christian, i dont believe in religion but that is totally the ANTICHRIST... With the same sex you cant make children soo is against nature but make people understant that is becoming hard.
Keep going, in the future you all gonna open your EYES.
This is a common misconception about what would happen if gay marriage were to be legalized. There are MILLIONS of babies that are available for adoption and the gay community doesnt even make up 50% of our population so we would barely even see a dent in our population increase. Even if gay marriage legalization does cause the population to go down, then it is a good thing (look at china/india and other countries with overpopulation problem). Also, if you dont believe in religion, then why does it matter if this is anti christ..?
1 in 10 people are actually gay.
its more around 2-3% actually. depends on how do you define gay, where do you look at.
Where are you getting this statistic?
From what I've heard, 1-3% of the population is out of the closet, while it is estimated that up to 10% are homosexual (including the previous 1-3%)
No. around 7-8% had some kind of homosexual experience, 1-3% thinks themselves as gays.
On July 08 2012 18:36 TirramirooO wrote: Sick of talking about gay people.. Im not Christian, i dont believe in religion but that is totally the ANTICHRIST... With the same sex you cant make children soo is against nature but make people understant that is becoming hard.
Keep going, in the future you all gonna open your EYES.
This is a common misconception about what would happen if gay marriage were to be legalized. There are MILLIONS of babies that are available for adoption and the gay community doesnt even make up 50% of our population so we would barely even see a dent in our population increase. Even if gay marriage legalization does cause the population to go down, then it is a good thing (look at china/india and other countries with overpopulation problem). Also, if you dont believe in religion, then why does it matter if this is anti christ..?
1 in 10 people are actually gay.
its more around 2-3% actually. depends on how do you define gay, where do you look at.
Where are you getting this statistic?
From what I've heard, 1-3% of the population is out of the closet, while it is estimated that up to 10% are homosexual (including the previous 1-3%)
No. around 7-8% had some kind of homosexual experience, 1-3% thinks themselves as gays.
Yeah I read the article posted above. 10% was an estimate from some report in 1948 lol.
Guys stop arguing about how man people are gay. The statistics are all completely biased because of the social implications of admiting you are gay. 10 percent is acutally probably the best estimate. Anything below 5 percent is way to low given the size of current gay communities in relation to the their countries population. But the point is, no one really knows.
On July 09 2012 02:27 Smat wrote: Guys stop arguing about how man people are gay. The statistics are all completely biased because of the social implications of admiting you are gay. 10 percent is acutally probably the best estimate. Anything below 5 percent is way to low given the size of current gay communities in relation to the their countries population. But the point is, no one really knows.
Uhh... no they aren't... and gay communities have straight people in them, you know...
10% is a huge number that I would be very skeptical of. 5% is already 1/20. That means in all likelihood, at least one person in a classroom is gay. Think about your statistics for a bit. I know 2-4% sounds small, but it's really not.
On July 09 2012 02:29 Mohdoo wrote: Another instance of information having a liberal bias
social equality for a group of people is not and should not be deemed as liberal or with any political agenda. show some empathy for your fellow human beings.
On July 09 2012 02:27 Smat wrote: Guys stop arguing about how man people are gay. The statistics are all completely biased because of the social implications of admiting you are gay. 10 percent is acutally probably the best estimate. Anything below 5 percent is way to low given the size of current gay communities in relation to the their countries population. But the point is, no one really knows.
10% gay ? are you getting out of house ? not want to be mean but i know 1 gay man out of 200 .
OP : google will just get more publicity i dont think they step in becose they rly care about gay marriage imo .
On July 09 2012 02:27 Smat wrote: Guys stop arguing about how man people are gay. The statistics are all completely biased because of the social implications of admiting you are gay. 10 percent is acutally probably the best estimate. Anything below 5 percent is way to low given the size of current gay communities in relation to the their countries population. But the point is, no one really knows.
Uhh... no they aren't... and gay communities have straight people in them, you know...
10% is a huge number that I would be very skeptical of. 5% is already 1/20. That means in all likelihood, at least one person in a classroom is gay. Think about your statistics for a bit. I know 2-4% sounds small, but it's really not.
Yes I know you believe 10 percent is big, not if you take into account bisexual people and others with fluid sexuality. But what I am telling you is that you are completely unaware of how many queer people there actually are. 2-4 percent is actually quite small given what we already know about the numbers of "out" gay people.
On July 09 2012 02:29 Mohdoo wrote: Another instance of information having a liberal bias
social equality for a group of people is not and should not be deemed as liberal or with any political agenda. show some empathy for your fellow human beings.
I think you misunderstood my post. It was intended to bring up the fact that liberal policies tend to have basis in facts and science, as opposed to the opposite. Google being a company of information could have been said to be similar. Was a joke and I support Google here
On July 09 2012 02:27 Smat wrote: Guys stop arguing about how man people are gay. The statistics are all completely biased because of the social implications of admiting you are gay. 10 percent is acutally probably the best estimate. Anything below 5 percent is way to low given the size of current gay communities in relation to the their countries population. But the point is, no one really knows.
10% gay ? are you getting out of house ? not want to be mean but i know 1 gay man out of 200 .
OP : google will just get more publicity i dont think they step in becose they rly care about gay marriage imo .
Don't rely on your social circles to determine the amount of queer people seriously...
A better experiment would be to think about your high school class, but oh wait you have no idea how many people are gay from your high school class. See the problem?
On July 09 2012 02:29 Mohdoo wrote: Another instance of information having a liberal bias
social equality for a group of people is not and should not be deemed as liberal or with any political agenda. show some empathy for your fellow human beings.
I think you misunderstood my post. It was intended to bring up the fact that liberal policies tend to have basis in facts and science, as opposed to the opposite. Google being a company of information could have been said to be similar. Was a joke and I support Google here
I was gonna pull out the ole' "reality has a well known liberal bias" quote
On July 09 2012 02:27 Smat wrote: Guys stop arguing about how man people are gay. The statistics are all completely biased because of the social implications of admiting you are gay. 10 percent is acutally probably the best estimate. Anything below 5 percent is way to low given the size of current gay communities in relation to the their countries population. But the point is, no one really knows.
10% gay ? are you getting out of house ? not want to be mean but i know 1 gay man out of 200 .
OP : google will just get more publicity i dont think they step in becose they rly care about gay marriage imo .
Don't rely on your social circles to determine the amount of queer people seriously...
A better experiment would be to think about your high school class, but oh wait you have no idea how many people are gay from your high school class. See the problem?
No, a better experiment would be one that starts off without anecdotal bias, something you seem hopelessly mired in.
On July 09 2012 02:27 Smat wrote: Guys stop arguing about how man people are gay. The statistics are all completely biased because of the social implications of admiting you are gay. 10 percent is acutally probably the best estimate. Anything below 5 percent is way to low given the size of current gay communities in relation to the their countries population. But the point is, no one really knows.
Uhh... no they aren't... and gay communities have straight people in them, you know...
10% is a huge number that I would be very skeptical of. 5% is already 1/20. That means in all likelihood, at least one person in a classroom is gay. Think about your statistics for a bit. I know 2-4% sounds small, but it's really not.
Yes I know you believe 10 percent is big, not if you take into account bisexual people and others with fluid sexuality. But what I am telling you is that you are completely unaware of how many queer people there actually are. 2-4 percent is actually quite small given what we already know about the numbers of "out" gay people.
I was talking about identity, not people who have had homosexual experiences (or waffling or whatever), which tends to be more like 7-8%.
I dunno, if I see evidence that it's more then it's more. I don't care. Maybe I am completely unaware. I'm not going to pretend that I know a lot of gay people.
Its stupid if two people want to get married the government should not be able to stop them its a rediculously antiquated law in a society which at least from the surface appears accept the fact that some people are gay and they are not evil or perverted and are just regular people, we have TV shows and movies featuring gay people in a positive light, they are a part of out culture and society and if you ask your average person if they hate gays they would say "of course not.." because that is what is considered socially accaptable, the thing is if being gay is not a crime and it is considered socially accaptable then is is unconstitutional to deny gay people their right to live their life the way they choose. If its ok to be gay then it should be ok for gay people to get married anything else is hypocritical and the arguments against it are flimsy at best. There is a seperation between church and state at least where I live so it really shouldn't matter what the church says about marraige being between a man and a woman.
On July 09 2012 02:36 neoghaleon55 wrote: It's actually around 3-5% 10% is based off the Kinsey study which has since been proven false with the increase data collection.
Beaten. Although cities seem to be hot spots for the gay population (there could be a number of reasons for that). It is worth noting the number of people who have had sex with someone of the same sex or been attracted sexually to individuals of the same sex, yet consider themselves straight is higher.
On July 09 2012 02:46 bailando wrote: thats a pretty smart move.
i wouldnt be to happy for the gay community. imo google is doing it for the wrong reasons (marketing). but whatever. i guess it works.
Google has employees who are gay and have had to choose between moving and getting married and staying at Google. There are many corporations who are dealing with similar issues and want their employees to not have to make such ridiculous decisions.
This is not their first campaign for gay marriage. This is just the global one.
On July 09 2012 02:36 neoghaleon55 wrote: It's actually around 3-5% 10% is based off the Kinsey study which has since been proven false with the increase data collection.
I would like to see a study done in 2012, wouldn't be surprised if the results were different. Statistics only works when you have willing participants, or you develope a formula to account for unwilling participants.
On July 09 2012 02:27 Smat wrote: Guys stop arguing about how man people are gay. The statistics are all completely biased because of the social implications of admiting you are gay. 10 percent is acutally probably the best estimate. Anything below 5 percent is way to low given the size of current gay communities in relation to the their countries population. But the point is, no one really knows.
10% gay ? are you getting out of house ? not want to be mean but i know 1 gay man out of 200 .
OP : google will just get more publicity i dont think they step in becose they rly care about gay marriage imo .
Don't rely on your social circles to determine the amount of queer people seriously...
A better experiment would be to think about your high school class, but oh wait you have no idea how many people are gay from your high school class. See the problem?
No, a better experiment would be one that starts off without anecdotal bias, something you seem hopelessly mired in.
How can I have anecdotal bias if i never shared any anecdots? I have never tried to determine how many queer people are in my high school class.
let them do whatever they want, marriage and whatever. its not like the moment gay marriage is legalized the gays are gonna start forcefully marrying normal straight people lol whats there to be scared of?
On July 09 2012 03:15 zala2023 wrote: let them do whatever they want, marriage and whatever. its not like the moment gay marriage is legalized the gays are gonna start forcefully marrying normal straight people lol whats there to be scared of?
Exactly.
I'm from the country that was the first in the world to allow same-sex marriage in 2001 and since that time the country hasn't fallen apart, people are still getting married (straight and gay), babies are still being born, religion still has too much influence on daily life, and there is still noone who wants to get married to his dog, to a 12yr old or to 20 people at once (to reflect on some of the ridiculous slippery-slope-examples mentioned in this thread). Nothing has changed except for a group of people now being able to enjoy the same privileges that the rest of the population had taken for granted for themselves.
On July 09 2012 02:27 Smat wrote: Guys stop arguing about how man people are gay. The statistics are all completely biased because of the social implications of admiting you are gay. 10 percent is acutally probably the best estimate. Anything below 5 percent is way to low given the size of current gay communities in relation to the their countries population. But the point is, no one really knows.
10% gay ? are you getting out of house ? not want to be mean but i know 1 gay man out of 200 .
OP : google will just get more publicity i dont think they step in becose they rly care about gay marriage imo .
Don't rely on your social circles to determine the amount of queer people seriously...
A better experiment would be to think about your high school class, but oh wait you have no idea how many people are gay from your high school class. See the problem?
my highschool class is around 2.5% gay i would say. of course it's not concrete but i'm quite aware of my surroundings.
On July 09 2012 02:27 Smat wrote: Guys stop arguing about how man people are gay. The statistics are all completely biased because of the social implications of admiting you are gay. 10 percent is acutally probably the best estimate. Anything below 5 percent is way to low given the size of current gay communities in relation to the their countries population. But the point is, no one really knows.
10% gay ? are you getting out of house ? not want to be mean but i know 1 gay man out of 200 .
OP : google will just get more publicity i dont think they step in becose they rly care about gay marriage imo .
Don't rely on your social circles to determine the amount of queer people seriously...
A better experiment would be to think about your high school class, but oh wait you have no idea how many people are gay from your high school class. See the problem?
my highschool class is around 2.5% gay i would say. of course it's not concrete but i'm quite aware of my surroundings.
According to my recently recalibrated gaydar, there are approximately 4.7 homosexual individuals within 1000 ft of my computer. I can't be sure though, the tachion interference may be too strong.
On July 09 2012 02:46 bailando wrote: thats a pretty smart move.
i wouldnt be to happy for the gay community. imo google is doing it for the wrong reasons (marketing).
Probably so, but even if that's the case, it will still help a lot I think/hope
Yeah, it's awfully naive to think that your allies in any fight do not want some end of their own. Life isn't a 4v4 match or a football squad, everyone wants their own win.
It's a risky move, while it does bring them a lot of good publicity, some of the people against gays are very aggressive about it and will do everything they can to stop gay people marying each other. In some countries they even kill them or shame them in public.
I'm curious to see how some hardcore islamic countries will react.
On July 09 2012 04:17 NeonFox wrote: It's a risky move, while it does bring them a lot of good publicity, some of the people against gays are very aggressive about it and will do everything they can to stop gay people marying each other. In some countries they even kill them or shame them in public.
I'm curious to see how some hardcore islamic countries will react.
its fucking Google corp. There are not a whole lot of things out there that can combat a multinational multi-BILLION dollar corporation.
Google is a pretty legit company. One more reason why I want to work there.
There are way too many companies making stances on issues, especially an issue so polarizing as Gay Marriage. There must be some crazy numbers out there, where the math makes sense for a certain company to take a stance on it.
On July 09 2012 03:15 zala2023 wrote: let them do whatever they want, marriage and whatever. its not like the moment gay marriage is legalized the gays are gonna start forcefully marrying normal straight people lol whats there to be scared of?
Some people with inferiority complexes which are scared by their latent homosexuality feel the need to gather in groups and critizise people which are brave enough to openly admit their orientation. Haters gonna hate.
I consider a loving gay couple as way better parents than a divorced straight one. And if anyone wants to argument with "If everyone is getting faggy now, there will be no kids, omg", think about straight couples with 1 child. That's a decrease of one person in this generation.
On July 09 2012 04:22 RodrigoX wrote: There are way too many companies making stances on issues, especially an issue so polarizing as Gay Marriage. There must be some crazy numbers out there, where the math makes sense for a certain company to take a stance on it.
Most people don't give a shit wheter or not gays get married, at least among the younger generations. This is one of the most easy stance a company like google can take. Who are they going to loose here that they'd care about loosing?
Is that why most places in the world do not allow gay marriage nam nam? I think you're very wrong and a lot of people disagree. If they didn't it would not take so much work to achieve equality for all.
On July 09 2012 02:27 Smat wrote: Guys stop arguing about how man people are gay. The statistics are all completely biased because of the social implications of admiting you are gay. 10 percent is acutally probably the best estimate. Anything below 5 percent is way to low given the size of current gay communities in relation to the their countries population. But the point is, no one really knows.
10% gay ? are you getting out of house ? not want to be mean but i know 1 gay man out of 200 .
OP : google will just get more publicity i dont think they step in becose they rly care about gay marriage imo .
Don't rely on your social circles to determine the amount of queer people seriously...
A better experiment would be to think about your high school class, but oh wait you have no idea how many people are gay from your high school class. See the problem?
maybe in US . in europe everyone knows if your class mate is gay or not . and i only met 1 gay swapping 4 high schools in 2 diferent countrys . gays arent afraid of bully in eu .
On July 08 2012 19:42 shark. wrote: OMG. The whole definition of marriage is male and female not male male or female female or dog dog or rabid hamster ninjitsu monkey badger raper. Gay marriage is a contradiction of what marriage is ment to be. I got nothing against gay its just they always seem to be the jealous sibling always wanting to get in on what ther other one has but that their no ment to have. Marriage should stick to its meaning of male and female!!!
Meant by whom? As defined by whom? This idea that you have an objective truth which is self evident to you but which you cannot share the logical source of is quite frustrating. It's a concept created by the human mind and you only speak for one human mind. Marriage for you doesn't necessarily have to mean the same thing as it does for somebody else and if you fundamentally disagree with the idea of a gay marriage that much then I suggest that you don't marry a man. Interfering with the marriage of two other people who may have a completely different definition of marriage to yours is a massive encroachment on their personal liberty. You don't own marriage.
On July 09 2012 02:48 IrOnKaL wrote: Whelp! Time to go back to Firefox!
Except for Firefox is in large part funded by Google. You can switch to IE. Oh wait, Microsoft is also for Gay marriage. I guess you can try finding an old copy of Netscape somewhere. It's almost fitting for a backwards view like that.
On July 09 2012 02:27 Smat wrote: Guys stop arguing about how man people are gay. The statistics are all completely biased because of the social implications of admiting you are gay. 10 percent is acutally probably the best estimate. Anything below 5 percent is way to low given the size of current gay communities in relation to the their countries population. But the point is, no one really knows.
10% gay ? are you getting out of house ? not want to be mean but i know 1 gay man out of 200 .
OP : google will just get more publicity i dont think they step in becose they rly care about gay marriage imo .
Don't rely on your social circles to determine the amount of queer people seriously...
A better experiment would be to think about your high school class, but oh wait you have no idea how many people are gay from your high school class. See the problem?
my highschool class is around 2.5% gay i would say. of course it's not concrete but i'm quite aware of my surroundings.
They probably aren't open.
There have been many anonymous surveys done, with all of them pointing to around 7-10% of males being homosexual, and 4-5% of females.
On July 09 2012 02:27 Smat wrote: Guys stop arguing about how man people are gay. The statistics are all completely biased because of the social implications of admiting you are gay. 10 percent is acutally probably the best estimate. Anything below 5 percent is way to low given the size of current gay communities in relation to the their countries population. But the point is, no one really knows.
10% gay ? are you getting out of house ? not want to be mean but i know 1 gay man out of 200 .
OP : google will just get more publicity i dont think they step in becose they rly care about gay marriage imo .
Don't rely on your social circles to determine the amount of queer people seriously...
A better experiment would be to think about your high school class, but oh wait you have no idea how many people are gay from your high school class. See the problem?
maybe in US . in europe everyone knows if your class mate is gay or not . and i only met 1 gay swapping 4 high schools in 2 diferent countrys . gays arent afraid of bully in eu .
Its not about bullying... And your anecdote basically makes my point, do you realize how little chance there is that 4 different high schools have only one gay person between them all? It would be a pretty amazing coincidence.
On July 09 2012 02:27 Smat wrote: Guys stop arguing about how man people are gay. The statistics are all completely biased because of the social implications of admiting you are gay. 10 percent is acutally probably the best estimate. Anything below 5 percent is way to low given the size of current gay communities in relation to the their countries population. But the point is, no one really knows.
10% gay ? are you getting out of house ? not want to be mean but i know 1 gay man out of 200 .
OP : google will just get more publicity i dont think they step in becose they rly care about gay marriage imo .
Don't rely on your social circles to determine the amount of queer people seriously...
A better experiment would be to think about your high school class, but oh wait you have no idea how many people are gay from your high school class. See the problem?
my highschool class is around 2.5% gay i would say. of course it's not concrete but i'm quite aware of my surroundings.
They probably aren't open.
There have been many anonymous surveys done, with all of them pointing to around 7-10% of males being homosexual, and 4-5% of females.
Those figures make sense considering it is becoming a fairly accepted fact that there are more full on gay men than there are full on gay women, of course that could be do to society's different treatment or inherent differences between female and male sexualities.
On July 09 2012 02:27 Smat wrote: Guys stop arguing about how man people are gay. The statistics are all completely biased because of the social implications of admiting you are gay. 10 percent is acutally probably the best estimate. Anything below 5 percent is way to low given the size of current gay communities in relation to the their countries population. But the point is, no one really knows.
10% gay ? are you getting out of house ? not want to be mean but i know 1 gay man out of 200 .
OP : google will just get more publicity i dont think they step in becose they rly care about gay marriage imo .
Don't rely on your social circles to determine the amount of queer people seriously...
A better experiment would be to think about your high school class, but oh wait you have no idea how many people are gay from your high school class. See the problem?
my highschool class is around 2.5% gay i would say. of course it's not concrete but i'm quite aware of my surroundings.
They probably aren't open.
There have been many anonymous surveys done, with all of them pointing to around 7-10% of males being homosexual, and 4-5% of females.
Those figures make sense considering it is becoming a fairly accepted fact that there are more full on gay men than there are full on gay women, of course that could be do to society's different treatment or inherent differences between female and male sexualities.
I don't have any problem with Google fighting for a equal work place at their company but i don't feel like they have any business promoting social/political issues either way, because they and their search should be neutral.
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.
I'm sorry to say that but you are really disgusting.
On July 09 2012 04:32 fairymonger wrote: Its getting pretty retarded when major companies are supporting things that are highly controversial.
It's a good way to get the LGBT community to use your product. Google will also be all over the news for a while so free advertising just for supporting what's right!
On July 09 2012 02:48 IrOnKaL wrote: Whelp! Time to go back to Firefox!
Except for Firefox is in large part funded by Google. You can switch to IE. Oh wait, Microsoft is also for Gay marriage. I guess you can try finding an old copy of Netscape somewhere. It's almost fitting for a backwards view like that.
On July 09 2012 04:32 fairymonger wrote: Its getting pretty retarded when major companies are supporting things that are highly controversial.
It's a good way to get the LGBT community to use your product. Google will also be all over the news for a while so free advertising just for supporting what's right!
if google wants some free press they should be fixing schools or help people who need help, i dont see how throwing money at lgbt causes is helping really ... like i said earlier companies should be neutral on issues like this.
On July 09 2012 02:27 Smat wrote: Guys stop arguing about how man people are gay. The statistics are all completely biased because of the social implications of admiting you are gay. 10 percent is acutally probably the best estimate. Anything below 5 percent is way to low given the size of current gay communities in relation to the their countries population. But the point is, no one really knows.
10% gay ? are you getting out of house ? not want to be mean but i know 1 gay man out of 200 .
OP : google will just get more publicity i dont think they step in becose they rly care about gay marriage imo .
Don't rely on your social circles to determine the amount of queer people seriously...
A better experiment would be to think about your high school class, but oh wait you have no idea how many people are gay from your high school class. See the problem?
my highschool class is around 2.5% gay i would say. of course it's not concrete but i'm quite aware of my surroundings.
They probably aren't open.
There have been many anonymous surveys done, with all of them pointing to around 7-10% of males being homosexual, and 4-5% of females.
Those figures make sense considering it is becoming a fairly accepted fact that there are more full on gay men than there are full on gay women, of course that could be do to society's different treatment or inherent differences between female and male sexualities.
What about full on rapists?
I don't know, I imagine that almost all rapists are men so..
On July 09 2012 04:32 fairymonger wrote: Its getting pretty retarded when major companies are supporting things that are highly controversial.
This is actually not that uncommon. This happens throughout history. There were companies that favored desegregation back in those days. In fact, desegregated movie theaters (back in the 30s) earned some huge profits when it was very controversial.
On July 09 2012 04:32 fairymonger wrote: Its getting pretty retarded when major companies are supporting things that are highly controversial.
It's a good way to get the LGBT community to use your product. Google will also be all over the news for a while so free advertising just for supporting what's right!
if google wants some free press they should be fixing schools or help people who need help, i dont see how throwing money at lgbt causes is helping really ... like i said earlier companies should be neutral on issues like this.
Could I ask why its an issue for companies to take a stance on something equality based?
I fully support gay and lesbian marriage, but I've got mixed feelings towards Google. Part of me thinks this is just a stunt on their part, but if it's not then I give them my applause
On July 09 2012 04:32 fairymonger wrote: Its getting pretty retarded when major companies are supporting things that are highly controversial.
It's a good way to get the LGBT community to use your product. Google will also be all over the news for a while so free advertising just for supporting what's right!
if google wants some free press they should be fixing schools or help people who need help, i dont see how throwing money at lgbt causes is helping really ... like i said earlier companies should be neutral on issues like this.
Why? Do LGBT people not need help? They are discriminated against all over the world. Google wants to change that for the better.
On July 08 2012 23:55 Sinensis wrote: So much ignorance in this thread. This is like taking a time machine back to the 1950s and racism is not only everywhere, but widely accepted as a logical way to view the world.
How did we get on the race topic now?
Racial discrimination is just another way of discrimination, what has always been the topic.
A bit far fetched imo.
Nope. It really isn't. In other parts of the world it is much worse, and the similarities (to the dark parts of history) much more easy to see. It is discrimination (by the current law) to entitle a group of people to less civil rights than another.
But its something diffrent to get discriminated for having certain genes, than for example wearing funny cloth or what ever. You basically say its the same because its both discrimination. I think its a dagerous relativization.
Nobody can choose if he/she is white or black, just as little someone can choose if he/she is homo or hetero. Why dont you read a little bit in knowledgable and reliable sources about a topic before you come to such biased world views?
On July 09 2012 04:32 fairymonger wrote: Its getting pretty retarded when major companies are supporting things that are highly controversial.
It's a good way to get the LGBT community to use your product. Google will also be all over the news for a while so free advertising just for supporting what's right!
if google wants some free press they should be fixing schools or help people who need help, i dont see how throwing money at lgbt causes is helping really ... like i said earlier companies should be neutral on issues like this.
Social issues affect companies. People want to work in a state where they can get married. Many companies care about the well-being and happiness of their employees, which means getting involved is inevitable in this sort of thing.
On July 09 2012 02:27 Smat wrote: Guys stop arguing about how man people are gay. The statistics are all completely biased because of the social implications of admiting you are gay. 10 percent is acutally probably the best estimate. Anything below 5 percent is way to low given the size of current gay communities in relation to the their countries population. But the point is, no one really knows.
10% gay ? are you getting out of house ? not want to be mean but i know 1 gay man out of 200 .
OP : google will just get more publicity i dont think they step in becose they rly care about gay marriage imo .
Don't rely on your social circles to determine the amount of queer people seriously...
A better experiment would be to think about your high school class, but oh wait you have no idea how many people are gay from your high school class. See the problem?
my highschool class is around 2.5% gay i would say. of course it's not concrete but i'm quite aware of my surroundings.
They probably aren't open.
There have been many anonymous surveys done, with all of them pointing to around 7-10% of males being homosexual, and 4-5% of females.
Those figures make sense considering it is becoming a fairly accepted fact that there are more full on gay men than there are full on gay women, of course that could be do to society's different treatment or inherent differences between female and male sexualities.
To be fair, there are tons of sources that also call bullshit on the 10% number, and estimate it more around 4%.
maybe in US . in europe everyone knows if your class mate is gay or not . and i only met 1 gay swapping 4 high schools in 2 diferent countrys . gays arent afraid of bully in eu .
What a load of crap... what the hell are you talking about?
On July 09 2012 04:32 fairymonger wrote: Its getting pretty retarded when major companies are supporting things that are highly controversial.
And why is that? Because they're not on your side? The fact that this is a big thing just proves what's wrong with this world, gay-marriage should be such an obvious fucking thing, and the only counter-arguments I hear is fucking slippery slope bullshit like procreation. The fact that people bring up marriage with animals goes to show how dumb alot of people who are against gay marriage are.
The thing is that the ones who try to argue for gay marriage constantly debunk every fucking counter-argument, yet the people who are against gay marriage keep rambling on with the same bullshit, have you actually even watched any video that goes against your way of thinking? I suggest watching something like this, where you can also enjoy being made fun of at the same time for being a huge moron.
Henry E. Adams, Lester W. Wright, Jr., and Bethany A. Lohr
University of Georgia
The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who ad- mitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homo- phobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosex- ual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also com- pleted an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992 ). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.
I would say instead of how dumb people are, how little they actually have in defense of their bigoted beliefs.
To the opposition of gay marriage: You don't have any legitimate reasons to oppose gay marriage. Homosexuals make you uncomfortable. You're afraid of gay people and you're probably afraid of your own sexuality. So you hide behind the Old Testament and then pervert marriage laws that were never supposed to preserve the sanctity of Christian beliefs.
It's fuckin bigotry. The same arguments were used against Negros. The same shit was said about womens suffrage. It's stupid shit that feels great to say because it costs you nothing. Who cares if a gay man or woman doesn't have rights? It doesn't bother you in the slightest if a gay man or woman is alienated and given unfair or unequal treatment but it's a problem when they want to be given the same rights as a straight person?
maybe in US . in europe everyone knows if your class mate is gay or not . and i only met 1 gay swapping 4 high schools in 2 diferent countrys . gays arent afraid of bully in eu .
What a load of crap... what the hell are you talking about?
On July 09 2012 04:32 fairymonger wrote: Its getting pretty retarded when major companies are supporting things that are highly controversial.
And why is that? Because they're not on your side? The fact that this is a big thing just proves what's wrong with this world, gay-marriage should be such an obvious fucking thing, and the only counter-arguments I hear is fucking slippery slope bullshit like procreation. The fact that people bring up marriage with animals goes to show how dumb alot of people who are against gay marriage are.
The thing is that the ones who try to argue for gay marriage constantly debunk every fucking counter-argument, yet the people who are against gay marriage keep rambling on with the same bullshit, have you actually even watched any video that goes against your way of thinking? I suggest watching something like this, where you can also enjoy being made fun of at the same time for being a huge moron.
You'd be decrying Google if they had a different stance to you on this issue and were campaigning about it, why are you getting so angry?
If Google wants to be a force for social good, then perhaps they could start by paying their taxes instead of talking about gays getting married? Then again, I guess nice words don't cost them much.
Well, google is doing the same thing as a presidential candidate, so it can't be that bad can it? (I'm talking about taxes and romney)
Also, this might cost them something, but that's not even the point here. Taxes are one thing, fighting for social justice and against bigotry is infinitely more important than tax evasion (which is something every large company does anyway. Not justifying it, just saying).
On July 09 2012 02:27 Smat wrote: Guys stop arguing about how man people are gay. The statistics are all completely biased because of the social implications of admiting you are gay. 10 percent is acutally probably the best estimate. Anything below 5 percent is way to low given the size of current gay communities in relation to the their countries population. But the point is, no one really knows.
10% gay ? are you getting out of house ? not want to be mean but i know 1 gay man out of 200 .
OP : google will just get more publicity i dont think they step in becose they rly care about gay marriage imo .
Don't rely on your social circles to determine the amount of queer people seriously...
A better experiment would be to think about your high school class, but oh wait you have no idea how many people are gay from your high school class. See the problem?
my highschool class is around 2.5% gay i would say. of course it's not concrete but i'm quite aware of my surroundings.
They probably aren't open.
There have been many anonymous surveys done, with all of them pointing to around 7-10% of males being homosexual, and 4-5% of females.
Those figures make sense considering it is becoming a fairly accepted fact that there are more full on gay men than there are full on gay women, of course that could be do to society's different treatment or inherent differences between female and male sexualities.
What about full on rapists?
I don't know, I imagine that almost all rapists are men so..
Wait...you don't think women can rape people? Or that they haven't?
On July 09 2012 02:27 Smat wrote: Guys stop arguing about how man people are gay. The statistics are all completely biased because of the social implications of admiting you are gay. 10 percent is acutally probably the best estimate. Anything below 5 percent is way to low given the size of current gay communities in relation to the their countries population. But the point is, no one really knows.
10% gay ? are you getting out of house ? not want to be mean but i know 1 gay man out of 200 .
OP : google will just get more publicity i dont think they step in becose they rly care about gay marriage imo .
Don't rely on your social circles to determine the amount of queer people seriously...
A better experiment would be to think about your high school class, but oh wait you have no idea how many people are gay from your high school class. See the problem?
my highschool class is around 2.5% gay i would say. of course it's not concrete but i'm quite aware of my surroundings.
They probably aren't open.
There have been many anonymous surveys done, with all of them pointing to around 7-10% of males being homosexual, and 4-5% of females.
Those figures make sense considering it is becoming a fairly accepted fact that there are more full on gay men than there are full on gay women, of course that could be do to society's different treatment or inherent differences between female and male sexualities.
What about full on rapists?
I don't know, I imagine that almost all rapists are men so..
Wait...you don't think women can rape people? Or that they haven't?
I think it was a joke, but I don't get it.
Obviously there are female rapists. And even weird chauvinists who think that men can't be raped by women (even though it is a documented fact) would at least have to concede to the idea of lesbian rape (which is of course, also well documented).
Smart move by Google, unless they care about having supporters from the Southern States - LOL, jk.
For the people saying being gay isn't natural; someone doesn't simply choose to become gay, it's commonly believed that it comes from a mix of upbringing and the persons biological make up. If you call that unnatural, so be it.
One more thing to add.. marriage is about the stupidest thing to do in life unless you're a gold digger, otherwise I cannot see any bright side other than the big party, and the small benefits it provides in some countries(not sure if it provides benefits anywhere).
On July 09 2012 02:27 Smat wrote: Guys stop arguing about how man people are gay. The statistics are all completely biased because of the social implications of admiting you are gay. 10 percent is acutally probably the best estimate. Anything below 5 percent is way to low given the size of current gay communities in relation to the their countries population. But the point is, no one really knows.
10% gay ? are you getting out of house ? not want to be mean but i know 1 gay man out of 200 .
OP : google will just get more publicity i dont think they step in becose they rly care about gay marriage imo .
Don't rely on your social circles to determine the amount of queer people seriously...
A better experiment would be to think about your high school class, but oh wait you have no idea how many people are gay from your high school class. See the problem?
my highschool class is around 2.5% gay i would say. of course it's not concrete but i'm quite aware of my surroundings.
They probably aren't open.
There have been many anonymous surveys done, with all of them pointing to around 7-10% of males being homosexual, and 4-5% of females.
Those figures make sense considering it is becoming a fairly accepted fact that there are more full on gay men than there are full on gay women, of course that could be do to society's different treatment or inherent differences between female and male sexualities.
What about full on rapists?
I don't know, I imagine that almost all rapists are men so..
Wait...you don't think women can rape people? Or that they haven't?
I think it was a joke, but I don't get it.
Obviously there are female rapists. And even weird chauvinists who think that men can't be raped by women (even though it is a documented fact) would at least have to concede to the idea of lesbian rape (which is of course, also well documented).
I didn't get the joke either if there was one. I was only thinking of a female raping a male which I imagine rarely happens. Female/female rape/sexual assault is probably more common.
Henry E. Adams, Lester W. Wright, Jr., and Bethany A. Lohr
University of Georgia
The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who ad- mitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homo- phobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosex- ual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also com- pleted an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992 ). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.
maybe in US . in europe everyone knows if your class mate is gay or not . and i only met 1 gay swapping 4 high schools in 2 diferent countrys . gays arent afraid of bully in eu .
What a load of crap... what the hell are you talking about?
On July 09 2012 04:32 fairymonger wrote: Its getting pretty retarded when major companies are supporting things that are highly controversial.
And why is that? Because they're not on your side? The fact that this is a big thing just proves what's wrong with this world, gay-marriage should be such an obvious fucking thing, and the only counter-arguments I hear is fucking slippery slope bullshit like procreation. The fact that people bring up marriage with animals goes to show how dumb alot of people who are against gay marriage are.
The thing is that the ones who try to argue for gay marriage constantly debunk every fucking counter-argument, yet the people who are against gay marriage keep rambling on with the same bullshit, have you actually even watched any video that goes against your way of thinking? I suggest watching something like this, where you can also enjoy being made fun of at the same time for being a huge moron.
You'd be decrying Google if they had a different stance to you on this issue and were campaigning about it, why are you getting so angry?
If Google wants to be a force for social good, then perhaps they could start by paying their taxes instead of talking about gays getting married? Then again, I guess nice words don't cost them much.
How the fuck can people like you think that something like tax evasion is something more important than this?
10% gay ? are you getting out of house ? not want to be mean but i know 1 gay man out of 200 .
OP : google will just get more publicity i dont think they step in becose they rly care about gay marriage imo .
Don't rely on your social circles to determine the amount of queer people seriously...
A better experiment would be to think about your high school class, but oh wait you have no idea how many people are gay from your high school class. See the problem?
my highschool class is around 2.5% gay i would say. of course it's not concrete but i'm quite aware of my surroundings.
They probably aren't open.
There have been many anonymous surveys done, with all of them pointing to around 7-10% of males being homosexual, and 4-5% of females.
Those figures make sense considering it is becoming a fairly accepted fact that there are more full on gay men than there are full on gay women, of course that could be do to society's different treatment or inherent differences between female and male sexualities.
What about full on rapists?
I don't know, I imagine that almost all rapists are men so..
Wait...you don't think women can rape people? Or that they haven't?
I think it was a joke, but I don't get it.
Obviously there are female rapists. And even weird chauvinists who think that men can't be raped by women (even though it is a documented fact) would at least have to concede to the idea of lesbian rape (which is of course, also well documented).
I didn't get the joke either if there was one. I was only thinking of a female raping a male which I imagine rarely happens. Female/female rape/sexual assault is probably more common.
Female on male rape is a lot more common than people realize. The problem is that in addition to all the issues females face when publicly stating that they were raped, males also face the stigma of A) a large piece of society not believing that females can rape a male at all, and B) being treated as a "mockery" instead of a victim (indirectly caused by A).
maybe in US . in europe everyone knows if your class mate is gay or not . and i only met 1 gay swapping 4 high schools in 2 diferent countrys . gays arent afraid of bully in eu .
What a load of crap... what the hell are you talking about?
On July 09 2012 04:32 fairymonger wrote: Its getting pretty retarded when major companies are supporting things that are highly controversial.
And why is that? Because they're not on your side? The fact that this is a big thing just proves what's wrong with this world, gay-marriage should be such an obvious fucking thing, and the only counter-arguments I hear is fucking slippery slope bullshit like procreation. The fact that people bring up marriage with animals goes to show how dumb alot of people who are against gay marriage are.
The thing is that the ones who try to argue for gay marriage constantly debunk every fucking counter-argument, yet the people who are against gay marriage keep rambling on with the same bullshit, have you actually even watched any video that goes against your way of thinking? I suggest watching something like this, where you can also enjoy being made fun of at the same time for being a huge moron.
You'd be decrying Google if they had a different stance to you on this issue and were campaigning about it, why are you getting so angry?
If Google wants to be a force for social good, then perhaps they could start by paying their taxes instead of talking about gays getting married? Then again, I guess nice words don't cost them much.
It's legitimate how they did it. They hire accountants to tell them how to manage their taxes, and pay the least amount possible legally. That's what every other individual and company does in the U.S.
Don't rely on your social circles to determine the amount of queer people seriously...
A better experiment would be to think about your high school class, but oh wait you have no idea how many people are gay from your high school class. See the problem?
my highschool class is around 2.5% gay i would say. of course it's not concrete but i'm quite aware of my surroundings.
They probably aren't open.
There have been many anonymous surveys done, with all of them pointing to around 7-10% of males being homosexual, and 4-5% of females.
Those figures make sense considering it is becoming a fairly accepted fact that there are more full on gay men than there are full on gay women, of course that could be do to society's different treatment or inherent differences between female and male sexualities.
What about full on rapists?
I don't know, I imagine that almost all rapists are men so..
Wait...you don't think women can rape people? Or that they haven't?
I think it was a joke, but I don't get it.
Obviously there are female rapists. And even weird chauvinists who think that men can't be raped by women (even though it is a documented fact) would at least have to concede to the idea of lesbian rape (which is of course, also well documented).
I didn't get the joke either if there was one. I was only thinking of a female raping a male which I imagine rarely happens. Female/female rape/sexual assault is probably more common.
Female on male rape is a lot more common than people realize. The problem is that in addition to all the issues females face when publicly stating that they were raped, males also face the stigma of A) a large piece of society not believing that females can rape a male at all, and B) being treated as a "mockery" instead of a victim (indirectly caused by A).
It's supposedly less than 1% of all rapes. I wouldn't say that's too common.
10% gay ? are you getting out of house ? not want to be mean but i know 1 gay man out of 200 .
OP : google will just get more publicity i dont think they step in becose they rly care about gay marriage imo .
Don't rely on your social circles to determine the amount of queer people seriously...
A better experiment would be to think about your high school class, but oh wait you have no idea how many people are gay from your high school class. See the problem?
my highschool class is around 2.5% gay i would say. of course it's not concrete but i'm quite aware of my surroundings.
They probably aren't open.
There have been many anonymous surveys done, with all of them pointing to around 7-10% of males being homosexual, and 4-5% of females.
Those figures make sense considering it is becoming a fairly accepted fact that there are more full on gay men than there are full on gay women, of course that could be do to society's different treatment or inherent differences between female and male sexualities.
What about full on rapists?
I don't know, I imagine that almost all rapists are men so..
Wait...you don't think women can rape people? Or that they haven't?
I think it was a joke, but I don't get it.
Obviously there are female rapists. And even weird chauvinists who think that men can't be raped by women (even though it is a documented fact) would at least have to concede to the idea of lesbian rape (which is of course, also well documented).
I didn't get the joke either if there was one. I was only thinking of a female raping a male which I imagine rarely happens. Female/female rape/sexual assault is probably more common.
It's rare but likely more common than you think. If you think there's a problem with women coming forward about rape, think of the stigma that men would have coming forward about rape. And the police may not even take you seriously.
The majority of rape is male-male prison rape. It's actually a ridiculous epidemic. Obama recently signed the Prison Rape Elimination Act.
maybe in US . in europe everyone knows if your class mate is gay or not . and i only met 1 gay swapping 4 high schools in 2 diferent countrys . gays arent afraid of bully in eu .
What a load of crap... what the hell are you talking about?
On July 09 2012 04:32 fairymonger wrote: Its getting pretty retarded when major companies are supporting things that are highly controversial.
And why is that? Because they're not on your side? The fact that this is a big thing just proves what's wrong with this world, gay-marriage should be such an obvious fucking thing, and the only counter-arguments I hear is fucking slippery slope bullshit like procreation. The fact that people bring up marriage with animals goes to show how dumb alot of people who are against gay marriage are.
The thing is that the ones who try to argue for gay marriage constantly debunk every fucking counter-argument, yet the people who are against gay marriage keep rambling on with the same bullshit, have you actually even watched any video that goes against your way of thinking? I suggest watching something like this, where you can also enjoy being made fun of at the same time for being a huge moron.
You'd be decrying Google if they had a different stance to you on this issue and were campaigning about it, why are you getting so angry?
If Google wants to be a force for social good, then perhaps they could start by paying their taxes instead of talking about gays getting married? Then again, I guess nice words don't cost them much.
Pretty much all big enterprises and rich people hire tax lawyers to save millions of dollars of taxes in one way or the other. This is not new.
Foreign multinationals meddling in domestic politics. This is not going to work at all in countries with strong anti-gay sentiments. It could backfire heavily, especially given that this is an American company as well. Maybe google will lose ground to new competitors in such areas, like they did in China after they got into an argument in regards to censorship.
Personally I'm against any crossovers between businesses and politics, so I won't be cheering google on for this.
Few things in the world are more powerful than a huge, multinational, extremely wealthy company. Nice to have one of these monsters working for the people for once.
maybe in US . in europe everyone knows if your class mate is gay or not . and i only met 1 gay swapping 4 high schools in 2 diferent countrys . gays arent afraid of bully in eu .
What a load of crap... what the hell are you talking about?
On July 09 2012 04:32 fairymonger wrote: Its getting pretty retarded when major companies are supporting things that are highly controversial.
And why is that? Because they're not on your side? The fact that this is a big thing just proves what's wrong with this world, gay-marriage should be such an obvious fucking thing, and the only counter-arguments I hear is fucking slippery slope bullshit like procreation. The fact that people bring up marriage with animals goes to show how dumb alot of people who are against gay marriage are.
The thing is that the ones who try to argue for gay marriage constantly debunk every fucking counter-argument, yet the people who are against gay marriage keep rambling on with the same bullshit, have you actually even watched any video that goes against your way of thinking? I suggest watching something like this, where you can also enjoy being made fun of at the same time for being a huge moron.
You'd be decrying Google if they had a different stance to you on this issue and were campaigning about it, why are you getting so angry?
If Google wants to be a force for social good, then perhaps they could start by paying their taxes instead of talking about gays getting married? Then again, I guess nice words don't cost them much.
How the fuck can people like you think that something like tax money not being paid by them is something more important than this?
Disgusting, really.
Man you are really vitriolic for a person who chose the screen name "serenity."
Don't get me wrong, I'm not asking you to stop. It's hilarious.
On July 09 2012 02:27 Smat wrote: Guys stop arguing about how man people are gay. The statistics are all completely biased because of the social implications of admiting you are gay. 10 percent is acutally probably the best estimate. Anything below 5 percent is way to low given the size of current gay communities in relation to the their countries population. But the point is, no one really knows.
10% gay ? are you getting out of house ? not want to be mean but i know 1 gay man out of 200 .
OP : google will just get more publicity i dont think they step in becose they rly care about gay marriage imo .
Don't rely on your social circles to determine the amount of queer people seriously...
A better experiment would be to think about your high school class, but oh wait you have no idea how many people are gay from your high school class. See the problem?
my highschool class is around 2.5% gay i would say. of course it's not concrete but i'm quite aware of my surroundings.
According to my recently recalibrated gaydar, there are approximately 4.7 homosexual individuals within 1000 ft of my computer. I can't be sure though, the tachion interference may be too strong.
if you were making fun of me it flew over my head, sorry to dissapoint
On July 09 2012 02:27 Smat wrote: Guys stop arguing about how man people are gay. The statistics are all completely biased because of the social implications of admiting you are gay. 10 percent is acutally probably the best estimate. Anything below 5 percent is way to low given the size of current gay communities in relation to the their countries population. But the point is, no one really knows.
10% gay ? are you getting out of house ? not want to be mean but i know 1 gay man out of 200 .
OP : google will just get more publicity i dont think they step in becose they rly care about gay marriage imo .
Don't rely on your social circles to determine the amount of queer people seriously...
A better experiment would be to think about your high school class, but oh wait you have no idea how many people are gay from your high school class. See the problem?
my highschool class is around 2.5% gay i would say. of course it's not concrete but i'm quite aware of my surroundings.
According to my recently recalibrated gaydar, there are approximately 4.7 homosexual individuals within 1000 ft of my computer. I can't be sure though, the tachion interference may be too strong.
if you were making fun of me it flew over my head, sorry to dissapoint
How the fuck can people like you think that something like tax money not being paid by them is something more important than this?
Disgusting, really.
I think providing a decent education (which is generally paid for by taxes) to children is going to be far more effective at creating equality then Google hectoring random governments. Stuff like health care, public transport, national defense and foreign aid are pretty important as well.
On July 09 2012 07:00 Djzapz wrote:
Pretty much all big enterprises and rich people hire tax lawyers to save millions of dollars of taxes in one way or the other. This is not new.
Yes, I know it's done by many, but I don't think that makes it excusable. At least companies like Tesco and Nokia don't bleat about their motto being "do no evil" while they send their profits to a headquarters based in Jersey or whatever.
How the fuck can people like you think that something like tax money not being paid by them is something more important than this?
Disgusting, really.
I think providing a decent education (which is generally paid for by taxes) to children is going to be far more effective at creating equality then Google hectoring random governments. Stuff like health care, public transport, national defense and foreign aid are pretty important as well.
Pretty much all big enterprises and rich people hire tax lawyers to save millions of dollars of taxes in one way or the other. This is not new.
Yes, I know it's done by many, but I don't think that makes it excusable. At least companies like Tesco and Nokia don't bleat about their motto being "do no evil" while they send their profits to a headquarters based in Jersey or whatever.
Firstly, this is a legal solution to minimizing taxes made popular by Apple. No accounting department anywhere would suggest "hey you know, we should pay more tax. our board of directors will love that." If you want large corporations to pay sufficient tax, then get on the politicians and force them to close the damn loopholes. You can't expect profit driven public (this is important) corporations to intentionally decrease their value for what you perceive as "fair."
Secondly, it sounds like you're supporting a sort of "all or nothing" fallacy. Well, why do they care about gay rights when they don't [...]. Support google for things they do well, and reproach them for things they do wrong (e,g, taxes).
On July 09 2012 07:25 Romantic wrote: Google announces plan to get more business by giving it self good PR.
We all know that's a big reason for this, but in the end, does that really matter? They're trying to make a change for the better, personally I don't care if they're doing it for recognition or just because they are such good people.
This study describes very well the problems of determining the distribution of homosexuality & bisexuality in populations:
Abstract
Sampling Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Populations
Ilan H. Meyer and Patrick A. Wilson
Columbia University
Sampling has been the single most influential component of conducting research with lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) populations. Poor sampling designs can result in biased results that will mislead other researchers, policymakers, and practitioners. Investigators wishing to study LGB populations must therefore devote significant energy and resources to choosing a sampling approach and executing the sampling plan. The authors describe probability and nonprobability sampling methods used in LGB populations and critically discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the sampling methods they review. The authors conclude that no single sampling methodology is correct or incorrect for use in LGB populations; rather, researchers must evaluate advantages and disadvantages of each sampling method- ology in the context of the specific research question and the research design.
On July 09 2012 02:27 Smat wrote: Guys stop arguing about how man people are gay. The statistics are all completely biased because of the social implications of admiting you are gay. 10 percent is acutally probably the best estimate. Anything below 5 percent is way to low given the size of current gay communities in relation to the their countries population. But the point is, no one really knows.
10% gay ? are you getting out of house ? not want to be mean but i know 1 gay man out of 200 .
OP : google will just get more publicity i dont think they step in becose they rly care about gay marriage imo .
Don't rely on your social circles to determine the amount of queer people seriously...
A better experiment would be to think about your high school class, but oh wait you have no idea how many people are gay from your high school class. See the problem?
maybe in US . in europe everyone knows if your class mate is gay or not . and i only met 1 gay swapping 4 high schools in 2 diferent countrys . gays arent afraid of bully in eu .
Its not about bullying... And your anecdote basically makes my point, do you realize how little chance there is that 4 different high schools have only one gay person between them all? It would be a pretty amazing coincidence.
well actualy in europe we have other problems then sexuality . how about that ?
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.
The funny part is, well besides the whole bigoted ignorant parts of your post, that you're going to continue to use google because it's the best search engine on the net.
On July 09 2012 02:27 Smat wrote: Guys stop arguing about how man people are gay. The statistics are all completely biased because of the social implications of admiting you are gay. 10 percent is acutally probably the best estimate. Anything below 5 percent is way to low given the size of current gay communities in relation to the their countries population. But the point is, no one really knows.
10% gay ? are you getting out of house ? not want to be mean but i know 1 gay man out of 200 .
OP : google will just get more publicity i dont think they step in becose they rly care about gay marriage imo .
Don't rely on your social circles to determine the amount of queer people seriously...
A better experiment would be to think about your high school class, but oh wait you have no idea how many people are gay from your high school class. See the problem?
maybe in US . in europe everyone knows if your class mate is gay or not . and i only met 1 gay swapping 4 high schools in 2 diferent countrys . gays arent afraid of bully in eu .
Its not about bullying... And your anecdote basically makes my point, do you realize how little chance there is that 4 different high schools have only one gay person between them all? It would be a pretty amazing coincidence.
well actualy in europe we have other problems then sexuality . how about that ?
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.
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.
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?
On July 09 2012 07:03 DoubleReed wrote:
Man you are really vitriolic for a person who chose the screen name "serenity."
Don't get me wrong, I'm not asking you to stop. It's hilarious.
What can I say, people like this bring out the worst in me...
On July 09 2012 02:27 Smat wrote: Guys stop arguing about how man people are gay. The statistics are all completely biased because of the social implications of admiting you are gay. 10 percent is acutally probably the best estimate. Anything below 5 percent is way to low given the size of current gay communities in relation to the their countries population. But the point is, no one really knows.
10% gay ? are you getting out of house ? not want to be mean but i know 1 gay man out of 200 .
OP : google will just get more publicity i dont think they step in becose they rly care about gay marriage imo .
Don't rely on your social circles to determine the amount of queer people seriously...
A better experiment would be to think about your high school class, but oh wait you have no idea how many people are gay from your high school class. See the problem?
maybe in US . in europe everyone knows if your class mate is gay or not . and i only met 1 gay swapping 4 high schools in 2 diferent countrys . gays arent afraid of bully in eu .
Its not about bullying... And your anecdote basically makes my point, do you realize how little chance there is that 4 different high schools have only one gay person between them all? It would be a pretty amazing coincidence.
well actualy in europe we have other problems then sexuality . how about that ?
And here I thought the only problem on the planet was sexual discrimination.... thank you for enlightening me good sir. You see in America we only have one problem, the gays.
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.
I'd like to see a man and a woman alone on an island give birth to a newborn baby also. It would be a great reality tv show.
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.
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?
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?
And old people. If a woman has had menopause I think that basically should be an annulment of marriage. She is no longer a wife, she is a domestic partner.
And if a man needs medication to have sex, he also loses his status as a husband and is just a domestic partner. After all viagra ain't how god intended things to be!
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.
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?
I love it when homophobes use the line "I have gay/lesb friends". Reminds of this awesome website
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.
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?
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.
I'd like to see a man and a woman alone on an island give birth to a newborn baby also. It would be a great reality tv show.
Hey we are stuck on an island, let's give birth to a baby so we have more to worry about, another mouth to feed, etc.. also unless we give birth to another baby that's of the opposite sex, there will still be no one for this baby to mate with, so doesn't really matter in the long scheme, unless we get off of course, which well.. why didn't we wait till we got home to have this baby ????
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.
I'd like to see a man and a woman alone on an island give birth to a newborn baby also. It would be a great reality tv show.
Hey we are stuck on an island, let's give birth to a baby so we have more to worry about, another mouth to feed, etc.. also unless we give birth to another baby that's of the opposite sex, there will still be no one for this baby to mate with, so doesn't really matter in the long scheme, unless we get off of course, which well.. why didn't we wait till we got home to have this baby ????
Cool for google btw.
Its Adam and Eve propagating the human race through incest, not Adam and Steve propagating the human race through incest!
10% gay ? are you getting out of house ? not want to be mean but i know 1 gay man out of 200 .
OP : google will just get more publicity i dont think they step in becose they rly care about gay marriage imo .
Don't rely on your social circles to determine the amount of queer people seriously...
A better experiment would be to think about your high school class, but oh wait you have no idea how many people are gay from your high school class. See the problem?
my highschool class is around 2.5% gay i would say. of course it's not concrete but i'm quite aware of my surroundings.
They probably aren't open.
There have been many anonymous surveys done, with all of them pointing to around 7-10% of males being homosexual, and 4-5% of females.
Those figures make sense considering it is becoming a fairly accepted fact that there are more full on gay men than there are full on gay women, of course that could be do to society's different treatment or inherent differences between female and male sexualities.
What about full on rapists?
I don't know, I imagine that almost all rapists are men so..
Wait...you don't think women can rape people? Or that they haven't?
I think it was a joke, but I don't get it.
Obviously there are female rapists. And even weird chauvinists who think that men can't be raped by women (even though it is a documented fact) would at least have to concede to the idea of lesbian rape (which is of course, also well documented).
I didn't get the joke either if there was one. I was only thinking of a female raping a male which I imagine rarely happens. Female/female rape/sexual assault is probably more common.
If you do the math, ~1,003,000 men were forced to penetrate women (e.g. raped by women since the CDC's skewed definitions don't allow you to count men as rape victims), while ~1,246,000 women were raped by men.
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.
I'd like to see a man and a woman alone on an island give birth to a newborn baby also. It would be a great reality tv show.
Hey we are stuck on an island, let's give birth to a baby so we have more to worry about, another mouth to feed, etc.. also unless we give birth to another baby that's of the opposite sex, there will still be no one for this baby to mate with, so doesn't really matter in the long scheme, unless we get off of course, which well.. why didn't we wait till we got home to have this baby ????
Cool for google btw.
Its Adam and Eve propagating the human race through incest, not Adam and Steve propagating the human race through incest!
(Thank you smbc!)
Duff: I wanna be Kyle. I knew this guy at camp. He was maybe 13. He got *two* girls pregnant, man. *Two* girls pregnant. Yea, Kyle. Who you gonna be? John: Steve... Duff: Steve. John: Yeah. Duff: OK, Steve. John: OK, Kyle. [John and Duff continue walking] Duff: Wait. John: What? Duff: I wanna change. I wanna be Steve. John: I'm Steve; You're Karl. Duff: Kyle!
I find it ridiculous that there's people on this planet that care about other people's love lives to the point where they have to actively make a contract illegal.
Interesting that a company is taking such an interest in a political issue. I guess they get marketing from it, but still, you'd think it would hurt them about as much as it would help.
On July 09 2012 10:03 FuzzyJAM wrote: Interesting that a company is taking such an interest in a political issue. I guess they get marketing from it, but still, you'd think it would hurt them about as much as it would help.
Google is actually composed of people. Many of them care about such issues. Of course it wouldn't get forward at a company level if it didn't at least minimally benefit the company, but don't think that this is all just some fat cats sitting around trying to figure out how to best increase revenue.
Its not even a profit motive. Stupid discriminatory laws actually hurt the employees at Google (and at MS and Amazon who are also fighting for marriage equality) and that hurts productivity and so it actually hurts the entire company.
In other cases the law might drive people away from working for the company or provide an incentive for them to go work in a better location. And ofcourse smarter more educated applicants will respect google more for fighting for civil liberties and will be more likely to pick google as their employer of choice.
All in all, even if the bigots all boycott google (as if they could), it would still be a win for the company.
On July 09 2012 10:03 FuzzyJAM wrote: Interesting that a company is taking such an interest in a political issue. I guess they get marketing from it, but still, you'd think it would hurt them about as much as it would help.
i think the idea that people choose their search engine based on views on sexuality kinda sums up this whole issue.
On July 08 2012 18:36 TirramirooO wrote: Sick of talking about gay people.. Im not Christian, i dont believe in religion but that is totally the ANTICHRIST... With the same sex you cant make children soo is against nature but make people understant that is becoming hard.
Keep going, in the future you all gonna open your EYES.
Props to Google for being open about this stuff. If nothing else taking a stand makes their position (and any subsequent lobbying) clear. I also happen to agree that their is no logical reason why marriage should not be extended to include members of the same gender. If marriage can exist for a couple who never intend to have children and have no religious affiliation, why does their gender have anything to do with their right to get married?
The anti gay marriage alliance are trying to hold back a change that we know is coming. In the same way that race used to be an issue, sexual alignment will be a non-issue in the near future. You can see this by the desperate and irrational arguments put forward in this debate.
It's unnatural -> Evidence of homosexuality in animals
Marriage is about children -> People who never intend to have children can get married
Why bother? There are other bigger issues -> This is a basic right for a section of the population. In addition the two are not mutually exclusive. You can help famine in Africa and legalise gay marriage.
But religion.. -> Not the government's domian.
It's just a word -> If the word is important to those already married who have no religious affiliation, why can it not be important to those who want to get married? Dumb argument
There are more arguments but they are all based on assuming that homosexuals are somehow different, other than their sexuality. This will change and trying to stop it is like trying to hold back the tide.
On July 08 2012 18:36 TirramirooO wrote: Sick of talking about gay people.. Im not Christian, i dont believe in religion but that is totally the ANTICHRIST... With the same sex you cant make children soo is against nature but make people understant that is becoming hard.
Keep going, in the future you all gonna open your EYES.
But with all the people like you who have no sex lives at all, how are you making children? Imo you're part of the problem with not making enough children. An important problem, what with the 7 billion people and whatnot. Now get out there and make some children! Save the species.
I support it because there is no rational, logical or meaningful reason to oppose it (imo), and I'm all for the progression of society...
But why do gays (and non gays for that matter) fight so hard for this "right to marriage" when it is so largely associated with and dominated by the same organisation that demonises and persecutes them?
EDIT: Not trying to be an ass btw, just wanna understand.
On July 08 2012 18:36 TirramirooO wrote: Sick of talking about gay people.. Im not Christian, i dont believe in religion but that is totally the ANTICHRIST... With the same sex you cant make children soo is against nature but make people understant that is becoming hard.
Keep going, in the future you all gonna open your EYES.
I would have to agree with this man. 100%.
You've not read much in this thread past that post have you?
On July 09 2012 10:55 Phenny wrote:But why do gays (and non gays for that matter) fight so hard for this "right to marriage" when it is so largely associated with and dominated by the same organisation that demonises and persecutes them?
EDIT: Not trying to be an ass btw, just wanna understand.
Because marriage isn't religious and the state gives married couples benefits.
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.
On July 09 2012 10:55 Phenny wrote: I support it because there is no rational, logical or meaningful reason to oppose it (imo), and I'm all for the progression of society...
But why do gays (and non gays for that matter) fight so hard for this "right to marriage" when it is so largely associated with and dominated by the same organisation that demonises and persecutes them?
EDIT: Not trying to be an ass btw, just wanna understand.
Uhh... well first of all there are lots and lots of benefits attained with marriage. Some of these are state-level and some are at the federal level. Right now, even marriages recognized by states are not recognized at the federal level due to the Defense of Marriage Act. This means that spousal benefits for veterans (you know, those people fighting for the country) are not given to homosexuals. There are also things like hospital visitation rights and such.
Secondly, do you ever want to get married? Simply guessing: you probably do. Homosexuals are not any less sentimental about marriage. They have the same desires of the American family of having a nice house in suburbs with some children blah blah blah.
Thirdly, religions do not have a monopoly on marriage. They never have. People have nonreligious marriages all the time in America. It's not even that unusual.
On July 09 2012 10:55 Phenny wrote: I support it because there is no rational, logical or meaningful reason to oppose it (imo), and I'm all for the progression of society...
But why do gays (and non gays for that matter) fight so hard for this "right to marriage" when it is so largely associated with and dominated by the same organisation that demonises and persecutes them?
EDIT: Not trying to be an ass btw, just wanna understand.
Honestly I think it is about being treated equally and having society accept that your love with your partner is no less than someone else.
You're a fellow aussie so this might have some meaning for you. A while ago Penny Wong (Minister for Finance who is a lesbian in a civil union with children) was on Q&A with Joe Hockey. Joe outlined his position that Marriage was between a man and a woman and should stay that way. When asked how that made her feel Penny's response was
"Hurt. But I know what my family is worth."
To me that pretty sums up what this fight is about. Recognition that your relationship, your family, your life, is just as valuable as anyone else. Right now the government judges that not to be the case. If there was no role in government for marriage, than there would be no reason to fight for gay marriage. The fact that the country as a whole (through their government) has sanctioned marriage, makes it an important issue. Whenever this argument comes up I go back to that quote. No-one should have to defend the basic value of their family, especially not from the government.
I have nothing against the principle driving the move, honestly you guys acting like it's the end of the world for gays to marry should realize that the legalization of gay marriage really doesn't change the fact that people will still be gay and that your superiority complex is counter productive.
I do feel very uncomfortable with the idea of corporations doing this kind of things though. Leave it to the politicians. Companies launching campaigns and making laws just makes me feel a bit uneasy. I'm sure people are doing it since age old times below the table or by lobbying, but I still don't like it.
I guess it's a better alternative to the Church making laws though isn't it.
On July 09 2012 00:28 mdb wrote: If forbidding gay marriage is discrimination agains gay people, is forbidding having more than one husband/wife discrimantion against people who would like to live a life with polygamous marriage?
This kind of argument makes sense on first appearance but if you think about it it's just ridiculous. Polygamy does not work anywhere in the world. Almost all except for the very rare ones collapse due to jealousy, there is some inequality between the partners, etc. Polygamy is mostly just a sort of harem for a dominant male that provides shelter to multiple women, with the first wife generally being held in more regard than the "concubines", with just rampant jealousy throughout. There is no legitimate reason for polygamy to be considered. No doubt the divorce rate would be something like 95%.
Pedophilia is obviously taking advantage of a child in 99.99% of scenarios unless there's some weird Lolita thing going on there. Children also have restrictions on a lot of things they would do, why would the government allow prepubescent children to be married when they can't even legally have sex in the first place? When they are not allowed to live on their own, make a lot of their life decisions, etc. because the government (often correctly) deems them incapable of making such important decisions at that age? It makes no sense to allow a child to enter a civil union when they barely understand addition.
Bestiality is obviously not an equal union in 99.99% of scenarios. It's a man having sex with animals, the animal needs none of the benefits granted from marriage and is not discriminated in any way upon. It's an animal. It has no higher cognitive functions that would make it sad it doesn't get tax exemptions, when it pays no taxes.
Incest has obvious genetic ramifications with the children. I suppose there is less arguments against that but really, incest is far more taboo than gay sex. It can literally tear the foundations of families apart and completely destroy them in a much more personal way than "oh wow my son likes boys". Maybe it'll be legal in the future but I really could not care less. Like someone else mentioned, I imagine they could just change their name and get it done in some Las Vegas cathedral if they wanted.
On July 09 2012 10:49 Probulous wrote: Props to Google for being open about this stuff. If nothing else taking a stand makes their position (and any subsequent lobbying) clear. I also happen to agree that their is no logical reason why marriage should not be extended to include members of the same gender. If marriage can exist for a couple who never intend to have children and have no religious affiliation, why does their gender have anything to do with their right to get married?
The anti gay marriage alliance are trying to hold back a change that we know is coming. In the same way that race used to be an issue, sexual alignment will be a non-issue in the near future. You can see this by the desperate and irrational arguments put forward in this debate.
It's unnatural -> Evidence of homosexuality in animals
[*]Marriage is about children -> People who never intend to have children can get married [*]Why bother? There are other bigger issues -> This is a basic right for a section of the population. In addition the two are not mutually exclusive. You can help famine in Africa and legalise gay marriage. [*]But religion.. -> Not the government's domian. [*]It's just a word -> If the word is important to those already married who have no religious affiliation, why can it not be important to those who want to get married? Dumb argument There are more arguments but they are all based on assuming that homosexuals are somehow different, other than their sexuality. This will change and trying to stop it is like trying to hold back the tide.
I have nothing against gay marriage although a bit strange google is doing something like this.
However just want to point out that just because something happens in the animal world doesn't immidiately make it "natural".
In this case anti gay marriage or anti gay people in general points out the "unnatural" part as the only obvious part: Two people of the same gender can't give birth to a child.
What this has to do with marriage is beyond me since there is nothing "natural or scientific" about marriage but merely something we have created. It's silly to not allow gay people to get married.
On July 08 2012 18:36 TirramirooO wrote: Sick of talking about gay people.. Im not Christian, i dont believe in religion but that is totally the ANTICHRIST... With the same sex you cant make children soo is against nature but make people understant that is becoming hard.
Keep going, in the future you all gonna open your EYES.
What about surrogate mothers? What about couples where a womans baren and cant have kids...you saying they should just be not loved...get the fuck out
On July 09 2012 10:49 Probulous wrote: Props to Google for being open about this stuff. If nothing else taking a stand makes their position (and any subsequent lobbying) clear. I also happen to agree that their is no logical reason why marriage should not be extended to include members of the same gender. If marriage can exist for a couple who never intend to have children and have no religious affiliation, why does their gender have anything to do with their right to get married?
The anti gay marriage alliance are trying to hold back a change that we know is coming. In the same way that race used to be an issue, sexual alignment will be a non-issue in the near future. You can see this by the desperate and irrational arguments put forward in this debate.
It's unnatural -> Evidence of homosexuality in animals
[*]Marriage is about children -> People who never intend to have children can get married [*]Why bother? There are other bigger issues -> This is a basic right for a section of the population. In addition the two are not mutually exclusive. You can help famine in Africa and legalise gay marriage. [*]But religion.. -> Not the government's domian. [*]It's just a word -> If the word is important to those already married who have no religious affiliation, why can it not be important to those who want to get married? Dumb argument There are more arguments but they are all based on assuming that homosexuals are somehow different, other than their sexuality. This will change and trying to stop it is like trying to hold back the tide.
I have nothing against gay marriage although a bit strange google is doing something like this.
However just want to point out that just because something happens in the animal world doesn't immidiately make it "natural".
In this case anti gay marriage or anti gay people in general points out the "unnatural" part as the only obvious part: Two people of the same gender can't give birth to a child.
What this has to do with marriage is beyond me since there is nothing "natural or scientific" about marriage but merely something we have created. It's silly to not allow gay people to get married.
The definition of natural isn't "continues evolution" it's "naturally occuring" (if you want to get technical the oxford english dictionary says "Existing in, determined by, conforming to, or based on nature.") which is generally assumed to mean something that occurs without humans making it or causing it to (I think there's an argument to be made that everything is natural because we're animals like anything else, but that's for another debate) and by that definition homosexuality is easily natural.
I wonder if they decided this before or after the whole Oreos-going-rainbow hype.
That's probably a bit too cynical. Nice to see big companies using their pull for good. Thumbs up for google! Don't think they can get me to use more of their products than I already do though, I wonder if they even have products I am not currently using
On July 09 2012 16:59 NeoLearner wrote: Don't think they can get me to use more of their products than I already do though, I wonder if they even have products I am not currently using
In terms of how many products they have, that's pretty much guaranteed.
I only support gay marriage because religion is against it.
That's...kind of an odd reason to support it, isn't it?
Gogo Google! I fully support this, and it will indeed be very interesting to see how this plays out in countries that have significant anti-gay populations.
On July 08 2012 18:36 TirramirooO wrote: Sick of talking about gay people.. Im not Christian, i dont believe in religion but that is totally the ANTICHRIST... With the same sex you cant make children soo is against nature but make people understant that is becoming hard.
Keep going, in the future you all gonna open your EYES.
Can someone explain to me why Christians have a tendency to capitalize random WORDS for emphasis, even when it SEEMS awkward to place emphasis on those words. It can BE really random.
Also, you're as Christian as those Christians who disassociate themselves with the institution, instead referring to their faith as a "relationship with God."
Very clever move by Google. They're really getting their name out there.
On July 08 2012 18:36 TirramirooO wrote: Sick of talking about gay people.. Im not Christian, i dont believe in religion but that is totally the ANTICHRIST... With the same sex you cant make children soo is against nature but make people understant that is becoming hard.
Keep going, in the future you all gonna open your EYES.
i am totally a christian but like... dont hate on gays they can be the coolest ppl ever (sometimes, sometimes they are just super wierd) but seriously, if you're looking at it from a nature standpoint, i think it's a way of natural saying, our world is wayy to populated lets thin the population down a little and still allow for relationships and not a lifetime of lonelyness. Nature is telling us that we are growing wayy to fast for our world imo. and how is being gay against nature? doesnt it occur in many different species?
This should scare people regardless of their stance on gay marriage: the fact that Google thinks as a giant ass corporation that they can and should influence political decisions.
On July 09 2012 19:13 Go1den wrote: This should scare people regardless of their stance on gay marriage: the fact that Google thinks as a giant ass corporation that they can and should influence political decisions.
It's just strange that such a base civil rights (and human rights) issue is considered political.
I mean, if Google came out in favor of interracial marriage.. would any care? It's such a "no shit" issue.
The fact that in 2012 it's still socially acceptable to discriminate against homosexuals is fucking disgusting.
On July 09 2012 19:13 Go1den wrote: This should scare people regardless of their stance on gay marriage: the fact that Google thinks as a giant ass corporation that they can and should influence political decisions.
Don't be fooled, they are doing this because they think it will benefit them finacially, not because they want to make politics. It's the same reason so many companies market themselfs as "green/sustainable/CO2 reducing/etc" despite it costing them money to be so. It's good for buissness in the end, not because they think it will save the world or because they want to force politicians to make laws to save the enviroment. This issue is basically the same, Google sees where the winds are blowing so to speak and coming out being for this it will only improve their image in the long run.
On July 09 2012 19:13 Go1den wrote: This should scare people regardless of their stance on gay marriage: the fact that Google thinks as a giant ass corporation that they can and should influence political decisions.
Don't be fooled, they are doing this because they think it will benefit them finacially, not because they want to make politics. It's the same reason so many companies market themselfs as "green/sustainable/CO2 reducing/etc" despite it costing them money to be so. It's good for buissness in the end, not because they think it will save the world or because they want to force politicians to make laws to save the enviroment. This issue is basically the same, Google sees where the winds are blowing so to speak and coming out being for this it will only improve their image in the long run.
You're so bitter and cynical. You preach and shout a vision that you hold that is backed up by hate ( most probably ).
Also, just because I can't prove you're wrong, doesn't mean you're correct, if you're going to go there.
On July 09 2012 19:13 Go1den wrote: This should scare people regardless of their stance on gay marriage: the fact that Google thinks as a giant ass corporation that they can and should influence political decisions.
Don't be fooled, they are doing this because they think it will benefit them finacially, not because they want to make politics. It's the same reason so many companies market themselfs as "green/sustainable/CO2 reducing/etc" despite it costing them money to be so. It's good for buissness in the end, not because they think it will save the world or because they want to force politicians to make laws to save the enviroment. This issue is basically the same, Google sees where the winds are blowing so to speak and coming out being for this it will only improve their image in the long run.
You're so bitter and cynical. You preach and shout a vision that you hold that is backed up by hate ( most probably ).
Also, just because I can't prove you're wrong, doesn't mean you're correct, if you're going to go there.
Technically he's right; part of why they're doing this is because marriage offers financial benefits that gays and lesbians don't get.
Of course, that overlooks a whole slew of other benefits that come with the recognition of marital stat
Oh, not to mention that the entire point of this is that all the heterosexuals are getting these benefits anyways, meaning that gays and lesbians are being deprived of them.
I dont believe the benefits of marriage is everything those couple have in mind, usually there is a romantic side to it too. This said, the hole point in those benefits are that the people get sooner married and therefore get children sooner. The financial benefits are a good base to build a family on. But we could make those marriages possible without giving those gay-couples the benefits until they actually adopt a child. But in my eyes those hetero-couples would need to get pregnant first as well then.
Also I believe this is absolutely non-politic since its more of an religious question, and the influence of religion in the western world (except USA) is quite low.
On July 08 2012 18:36 TirramirooO wrote: Sick of talking about gay people.. Im not Christian, i dont believe in religion but that is totally the ANTICHRIST... With the same sex you cant make children soo is against nature but make people understant that is becoming hard.
Keep going, in the future you all gonna open your EYES.
This is one of the stupidest statements i have ever heard. First of all the act of making children doesn't make it against nature. Your saying if a man or women is impotent that its the same thing as being gay. Second it isnt against nature if you do some research you'll see in all animals that get to a certain population, that gay ones start to come up. This is NATURES way of population control and in case you didnt know this world is not exactly getting smaller. Having a group of people who cannot propagate is a good thing for humanity as well as the fact that there are millions of kids looking for a good home. Please keep YOUR eyes open cause the words you just typed into teamliquid are total bullshit
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.
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.
you may have a point. paedophilia was acceptable in ancient greece
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.
you may have a point. paedophilia was acceptable in ancient greece
And it's accepted in various Christian churches worldwide even today.
Edit: Err allegedly. Even though the claims aren't unfounded.
I often don't understand why people care so much about the love interests and the marriage behaviour of others. It's not like it influences them at all. Unless ofcourse you don't like them seeing on the public street. YEAH, we should forbid dogs to poop too.
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.
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.
That's because people were marrying much earlier. If anything pedophilia has become more hated now than it ever was, because we're more aware of trauma and we aren't blaming the victim as much.
Nice to see that Google is doing something nice with all their money. ^^ I still wonder why they are doing it though. I don't see how they could benifit from this. Still nice though.
I think its quite dumb how people here cheer about on of the most influencial companies of the world getting involved in politics, just because they support this particular concern.
I hope this is not the beginning of the big companies meddling even stronger in politics. They should go about their business and otherwise stay neutral.
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.
For the mean time, I think we should all be able to agree that two adult men (or women) being in a loving relationship is somewhat closer to a 'regular' heterosexual relationship than it is to paedophilia.
And shouldn't your question of whether or not its right to 'leagalize love', as it were, actually start with heterosexual relationships and unions?
On July 09 2012 21:49 Redox wrote: I think its quite dumb how people here cheer about on of the most influencial companies of the world getting involved in politics, just because they support this particular concern.
I hope this is not the beginning of the big companies meddling even stronger in politics. They should go about their business and otherwise stay neutral.
This is very true. Big business already has enough influence on politics, seeing it increase in a more open way is somewhat worrying to me.
On July 09 2012 21:18 Wortie wrote: I often don't understand why people care so much about the love interests and the marriage behaviour of others. It's not like it influences them at all. Unless ofcourse you don't like them seeing on the public street. YEAH, we should forbid dogs to poop too.
Many people who are vehemently against homosexuality are latent homosexuals afraid that society won't accept them, and so they expound against it as forcefully as possible so as not to seem gay.
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.
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)
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?
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.
Clearly a troll, its just too bigoted and stupid to be true... right?
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.
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.
Clearly a troll, its just too bigoted and stupid to be true... right?
Unless he's a full time troll, no. Check his other posts.
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.
Are you for real? I hope this is just a troll, but you can't be certain of anything these days.
Gay marriage is going on for more than a decade in the Netherlands. And nothing has changed. Society hasn't collapsed in on itself, murderers aren't roaming the streets en masse with their "second chances". I wish people would stop overdramatizing the effect that legalizing gay marriage has on a society. It affects the gay people. And that's it.
Also, please go get your head checked for comparing gays wanting to get married to paedophiles, rapists and murderers.
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.
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.
So what you're saying is that if society becomes accustomed to homosexuals marrying each other we'll eventually decide that pedophelia and rape is okay too? Seems like quite a stretch. We'd better never legalize pot or else everyone will become a cocaine addict!
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.
No, there is no connection at all. Stop being an idiot for your own good, maybe you'll grow a little if you do.
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.
Your post is an excellent example of how stupid some people have been for ages. What a bunch of idiotic incoherent rambling. Learn to construct a fucking argument.
By all means, I agree with their views but Google is getting a bit too much opinionistic. They have a lot of power when it comes to propaganda. I kind of wish they remain passively objective and not make themselves a tool to social movements. That just makes extremists want to control and abuse the power they have.
I guess I'm just a skeptic. It is nice to have a corporate giant on the same side.
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.
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.
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"?
As I said earlier in this thread, anyone arguing a slippery slope line is clearly uneducated on this particular subject and not worth discussing with. You're just giving additional attention to the views of someone who doesn't deserve it and hasn't done a moment of reasearch or introspection on the issue. You end up trying to debate with people who say stuff like you've seen on the last page and accusing people of supporting/being marxist if they disagree with them, once again without any idea what that means.
Google is still awesome for their position. I do agree with concerns others have about large companies influencing politics, but they are constantly anyway. It's an issue that should be addressed, but whilst it's common place we should support those who use their influence for good practices and work on eroding the influence when we can. Like a different type of people power, not perfect but something we can work on.
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.
Your post is an excellent example of how stupid some people have been for ages. What a bunch of idiotic incoherent rambling. Learn to construct a fucking argument.
i call bullshit, my argument is taking two things that have a similar background to it. The level of the two vary at a substantial amount yet the main ideology is intact. We have a choice in everything we do, I believe we should take account for whatever decisions we make whether they are good or bad.Being gay is nowhere near as bad as raping someone yet it is still a choice in my book.
I believe that political correctness is a bunch of bullshit. If you are politically correct you can call someone a bigot or retarded and its perfectly ok.It also tries to make humans seem like they have no logic and no reason and no ability to comprehend what they do. This is literally bullshit, I know for a fact that unless you literally are retarded due to a medical condition, you do have control over what you do and say.
Even though i am probably a thousand times smarter then you.You can say what you want about who I am or what I believe in.At least i am not controlled by what society deems as correct.
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.
Your post is an excellent example of how stupid some people have been for ages. What a bunch of idiotic incoherent rambling. Learn to construct a fucking argument.
i call bullshit, my argument is taking two things that have a similar background to it. The level of the two vary at a substantial amount yet the main ideology is intact. We have a choice in everything we do, I believe we should take account for whatever decisions we make whether they are good or bad.Being gay is nowhere near as bad as raping someone yet it is still a choice in my book.
I believe that political correctness is a bunch of bullshit. If you are politically correct you can call someone a bigot or retarded and its perfectly ok.It also tries to make humans seem like they have no logic and no reason and no ability to comprehend what they do. This is literally bullshit, I know for a fact that unless you literally are retarded due to a medical condition, you do have control over what you do and say.
Even though i am probably a thousand times smarter then you.You can say what you want about who I am or what I believe in.At least i am not controlled by what society deems as correct.
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 have nothing against their choice except I believe it is wrong"
Do you even understand what you are writing? Your moral foundation is fucking stupid, and I have no respect for it, and I hate you for perpetuating such bigotry. Your primitive desert religion validates nothing and it does not excuse you from being hateful. Just thought I'd let you know.
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"?
I believe a higher power created us for specific things. These things have a correct way to do things and an incorrect way to do things.This is why I believe being gay is wrong. Also it is in the Bible but it is not the main reason as far as you should consider the reason why I believe it is wrong.
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 have nothing against their choice except I believe it is wrong"
Do you even understand what you are writing? Your moral foundation is fucking stupid, and I have no respect for it, and I hate you for perpetuating such bigotry. Your primitive desert religion validates nothing and it does not excuse you from being hateful. Just thought I'd let you know.
Fuck you, you do not know what being hateful is. I know hate, I literally hate someone and i can say with a 100 percent certainty I really could care less if your gay. It is your decision, however, your decision does not account for the way i believe i should live. This is literally me saying you have your decision, i have mine but apparently your too fucking stupid to realize that unless i literally say what it means, you do not understand what i am saying even though i literally wrote it like that.
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.
Your post is an excellent example of how stupid some people have been for ages. What a bunch of idiotic incoherent rambling. Learn to construct a fucking argument.
i call bullshit, my argument is taking two things that have a similar background to it. The level of the two vary at a substantial amount yet the main ideology is intact. We have a choice in everything we do, I believe we should take account for whatever decisions we make whether they are good or bad.Being gay is nowhere near as bad as raping someone yet it is still a choice in my book.
I believe that political correctness is a bunch of bullshit. If you are politically correct you can call someone a bigot or retarded and its perfectly ok.It also tries to make humans seem like they have no logic and no reason and no ability to comprehend what they do. This is literally bullshit, I know for a fact that unless you literally are retarded due to a medical condition, you do have control over what you do and say.
Even though i am probably a thousand times smarter then you.You can say what you want about who I am or what I believe in.At least i am not controlled by what society deems as correct.
Just because you are comparing two things which you believe are choices, doesn't make the comparison valid. If you want to argue on the basis of moral decay, e.g. that gay marriage is one step down the path of moral decay, pederasty another (what you called pedophilia), then perhaps you should (and good luck with that as well).
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.
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.
Your post is an excellent example of how stupid some people have been for ages. What a bunch of idiotic incoherent rambling. Learn to construct a fucking argument.
i call bullshit, my argument is taking two things that have a similar background to it. The level of the two vary at a substantial amount yet the main ideology is intact. We have a choice in everything we do, I believe we should take account for whatever decisions we make whether they are good or bad.Being gay is nowhere near as bad as raping someone yet it is still a choice in my book.
I believe that political correctness is a bunch of bullshit. If you are politically correct you can call someone a bigot or retarded and its perfectly ok.It also tries to make humans seem like they have no logic and no reason and no ability to comprehend what they do. This is literally bullshit, I know for a fact that unless you literally are retarded due to a medical condition, you do have control over what you do and say.
Even though i am probably a thousand times smarter then you.You can say what you want about who I am or what I believe in.At least i am not controlled by what society deems as correct.
Why do you see being gay as something bad?
Same reason i believe lying is bad ,and cheating on your spouse is bad. It's just not a good way to live your life by. I am literally the type of Christian that knows what God intended when he wrote that verse. He thinks its disgusting ,but it is not anymore sinful than telling a white lie.
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"?
I believe a higher power created us for specific things. These things have a correct way to do things and an incorrect way to do things.This is why I believe being gay is wrong. Also it is in the Bible but it is not the main reason as far as you should consider the reason why I believe it is wrong.
Too bad your higher power can't come down to earth and explain exactly what's wrong with it. You can't make laws based on the opinion on something we're not even sure exists.
On July 08 2012 18:36 TirramirooO wrote: Sick of talking about gay people.. Im not Christian, i dont believe in religion but that is totally the ANTICHRIST... With the same sex you cant make children soo is against nature but make people understant that is becoming hard.
Keep going, in the future you all gonna open your EYES.
This is a common misconception about what would happen if gay marriage were to be legalized. There are MILLIONS of babies that are available for adoption and the gay community doesnt even make up 50% of our population so we would barely even see a dent in our population increase. Even if gay marriage legalization does cause the population to go down, then it is a good thing (look at china/india and other countries with overpopulation problem). Also, if you dont believe in religion, then why does it matter if this is anti christ..?
Look at the entier planet with an overpopulation problem, hahaha.
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"?
I believe a higher power created us for specific things. These things have a correct way to do things and an incorrect way to do things.This is why I believe being gay is wrong. Also it is in the Bible but it is not the main reason as far as you should consider the reason why I believe it is wrong.
Too bad your higher power can't come down to earth and explain exactly what's wrong with it. You can't make laws based on the opinion on something we're not even sure exists.
Apparently Jesus came down to earth ,and already did that. Now this is where faith comes into play as far as was Jesus, God in the flesh? Although you cannot deny the fact that Jesus did exist on this earth.If you do, ill let other atheists tear you a new one.
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?
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.
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"?
I believe a higher power created us for specific things. These things have a correct way to do things and an incorrect way to do things.This is why I believe being gay is wrong. Also it is in the Bible but it is not the main reason as far as you should consider the reason why I believe it is wrong.
Too bad your higher power can't come down to earth and explain exactly what's wrong with it. You can't make laws based on the opinion on something we're not even sure exists.
Apparently Jesus came down to earth ,and already did that. Now this is where faith comes into play as far as was Jesus, God in the flesh? Although you cannot deny the fact that Jesus did exist on this earth.If you do, ill let other atheists tear you a new one.
There is no hard evidence that the mythical figure of Jesus was based on a real person. Though the overwhelming majority of historians do believe that there probably was such a person, the position that there wasn't, is not ridiculous. Very few contemporary sources mention such a person, and those that do are ambiguous at best, and are not eyewitness reports. They very well could refer to any number of Jewish cult leaders.
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"?
I believe a higher power created us for specific things. These things have a correct way to do things and an incorrect way to do things.This is why I believe being gay is wrong. Also it is in the Bible but it is not the main reason as far as you should consider the reason why I believe it is wrong.
Too bad your higher power can't come down to earth and explain exactly what's wrong with it. You can't make laws based on the opinion on something we're not even sure exists.
Apparently Jesus came down to earth ,and already did that. Now this is where faith comes into play as far as was Jesus, God in the flesh? Although you cannot deny the fact that Jesus did exist on this earth.If you do, ill let other atheists tear you a new one.
Yeah sorry I don't buy the whole jesus story. I don't believe someone who could walk on water (except David Blaine of course) ever existed.
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.
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.
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.
Since you seem to not care for political correctness:
I hope you can actually form opinions without having to copy/paste them from a book that ought to be in the fantasy-section of the library. You don't see me quoting Lord of the Rings and claiming it to be the ultimate truth, now, do you?
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.
Do you even KNOW what you're saying? Seriously READ back your posts before you post them, maybe you could see what kind of utter garbage you are puking unto these forums. I guess you warned us beforehand with your sig.
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.
Your post is an excellent example of how stupid some people have been for ages. What a bunch of idiotic incoherent rambling. Learn to construct a fucking argument.
i call bullshit, my argument is taking two things that have a similar background to it. The level of the two vary at a substantial amount yet the main ideology is intact. We have a choice in everything we do, I believe we should take account for whatever decisions we make whether they are good or bad.Being gay is nowhere near as bad as raping someone yet it is still a choice in my book.
I believe that political correctness is a bunch of bullshit. If you are politically correct you can call someone a bigot or retarded and its perfectly ok.It also tries to make humans seem like they have no logic and no reason and no ability to comprehend what they do. This is literally bullshit, I know for a fact that unless you literally are retarded due to a medical condition, you do have control over what you do and say.
Even though i am probably a thousand times smarter then you.You can say what you want about who I am or what I believe in.At least i am not controlled by what society deems as correct.
Just because you are comparing two things which you believe are choices, doesn't make the comparison valid. If you want to argue on the basis of moral decay, e.g. that gay marriage is one step down the path of moral decay, pederasty another (what you called pedophilia), then perhaps you should (and good luck with that as well).
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.
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.
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.
Your post is an excellent example of how stupid some people have been for ages. What a bunch of idiotic incoherent rambling. Learn to construct a fucking argument.
i call bullshit, my argument is taking two things that have a similar background to it. The level of the two vary at a substantial amount yet the main ideology is intact. We have a choice in everything we do, I believe we should take account for whatever decisions we make whether they are good or bad.Being gay is nowhere near as bad as raping someone yet it is still a choice in my book.
I believe that political correctness is a bunch of bullshit. If you are politically correct you can call someone a bigot or retarded and its perfectly ok.It also tries to make humans seem like they have no logic and no reason and no ability to comprehend what they do. This is literally bullshit, I know for a fact that unless you literally are retarded due to a medical condition, you do have control over what you do and say.
Even though i am probably a thousand times smarter then you.You can say what you want about who I am or what I believe in.At least i am not controlled by what society deems as correct.
Why do you see being gay as something bad?
Same reason i believe lying is bad ,and cheating on your spouse is bad. It's just not a good way to live your life by. I am literally the type of Christian that knows what God intended when he wrote that verse. He thinks its disgusting ,but it is not anymore sinful than telling a white lie.
It simply doesn't matter what you believe is best for other people, beacuse you can not know what's best for other people. As long as what people do are not hurting others, you have no right to decide what is best for them. The government has no right to decide what's best for people. Religions have no right to decide whats best for people. This is at the root of freedom, and no amount of Christian Mythology, nor any other mythology humans have formed, can change this simple truth.
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.
Fair enough, I would say that not raping children is a political correct thing to do. By your logic you would despise the act of not raping children. I think you need to reconsider your post.
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.
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.
Your post is an excellent example of how stupid some people have been for ages. What a bunch of idiotic incoherent rambling. Learn to construct a fucking argument.
i call bullshit, my argument is taking two things that have a similar background to it. The level of the two vary at a substantial amount yet the main ideology is intact. We have a choice in everything we do, I believe we should take account for whatever decisions we make whether they are good or bad.Being gay is nowhere near as bad as raping someone yet it is still a choice in my book.
I believe that political correctness is a bunch of bullshit. If you are politically correct you can call someone a bigot or retarded and its perfectly ok.It also tries to make humans seem like they have no logic and no reason and no ability to comprehend what they do. This is literally bullshit, I know for a fact that unless you literally are retarded due to a medical condition, you do have control over what you do and say.
Even though i am probably a thousand times smarter then you.You can say what you want about who I am or what I believe in.At least i am not controlled by what society deems as correct.
Why do you see being gay as something bad?
Same reason i believe lying is bad ,and cheating on your spouse is bad. It's just not a good way to live your life by. I am literally the type of Christian that knows what God intended when he wrote that verse. He thinks its disgusting ,but it is not anymore sinful than telling a white lie.
It simply doesn't matter what you believe is best for other people, beacuse you can not know what's best for other people. As long as what people do are not hurting others, you have no right to decide what is best for them. The government has no right to decide what's best for people. Religions have no right to decide whats best for people. This is at the root of freedom, and no amount of Christian Mythology, nor any other mythology humans have formed, can change this simple truth.
See, this is why we will never see eye to eye. You believe it is mythology, I believe it is the word of God and everything it says is true.You can say what you want, but it does not change the fact that both beliefs are equally faith based.
You say there is no God and i say there is a God.How you say that can vary, theories, humanistic logic, and things of that nature.
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.
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?
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.
Your post is an excellent example of how stupid some people have been for ages. What a bunch of idiotic incoherent rambling. Learn to construct a fucking argument.
i call bullshit, my argument is taking two things that have a similar background to it. The level of the two vary at a substantial amount yet the main ideology is intact. We have a choice in everything we do, I believe we should take account for whatever decisions we make whether they are good or bad.Being gay is nowhere near as bad as raping someone yet it is still a choice in my book.
I believe that political correctness is a bunch of bullshit. If you are politically correct you can call someone a bigot or retarded and its perfectly ok.It also tries to make humans seem like they have no logic and no reason and no ability to comprehend what they do. This is literally bullshit, I know for a fact that unless you literally are retarded due to a medical condition, you do have control over what you do and say.
Even though i am probably a thousand times smarter then you.You can say what you want about who I am or what I believe in.At least i am not controlled by what society deems as correct.
Just because you are comparing two things which you believe are choices, doesn't make the comparison valid. If you want to argue on the basis of moral decay, e.g. that gay marriage is one step down the path of moral decay, pederasty another (what you called pedophilia), then perhaps you should (and good luck with that as well).
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.
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.
Your post is an excellent example of how stupid some people have been for ages. What a bunch of idiotic incoherent rambling. Learn to construct a fucking argument.
i call bullshit, my argument is taking two things that have a similar background to it. The level of the two vary at a substantial amount yet the main ideology is intact. We have a choice in everything we do, I believe we should take account for whatever decisions we make whether they are good or bad.Being gay is nowhere near as bad as raping someone yet it is still a choice in my book.
I believe that political correctness is a bunch of bullshit. If you are politically correct you can call someone a bigot or retarded and its perfectly ok.It also tries to make humans seem like they have no logic and no reason and no ability to comprehend what they do. This is literally bullshit, I know for a fact that unless you literally are retarded due to a medical condition, you do have control over what you do and say.
Even though i am probably a thousand times smarter then you.You can say what you want about who I am or what I believe in.At least i am not controlled by what society deems as correct.
Just because you are comparing two things which you believe are choices, doesn't make the comparison valid. If you want to argue on the basis of moral decay, e.g. that gay marriage is one step down the path of moral decay, pederasty another (what you called pedophilia), then perhaps you should (and good luck with that as well).
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?
You dispute that causing unnecessary harm to people is wrong?
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.
Your post is an excellent example of how stupid some people have been for ages. What a bunch of idiotic incoherent rambling. Learn to construct a fucking argument.
i call bullshit, my argument is taking two things that have a similar background to it. The level of the two vary at a substantial amount yet the main ideology is intact. We have a choice in everything we do, I believe we should take account for whatever decisions we make whether they are good or bad.Being gay is nowhere near as bad as raping someone yet it is still a choice in my book.
I believe that political correctness is a bunch of bullshit. If you are politically correct you can call someone a bigot or retarded and its perfectly ok.It also tries to make humans seem like they have no logic and no reason and no ability to comprehend what they do. This is literally bullshit, I know for a fact that unless you literally are retarded due to a medical condition, you do have control over what you do and say.
Even though i am probably a thousand times smarter then you.You can say what you want about who I am or what I believe in.At least i am not controlled by what society deems as correct.
Just because you are comparing two things which you believe are choices, doesn't make the comparison valid. If you want to argue on the basis of moral decay, e.g. that gay marriage is one step down the path of moral decay, pederasty another (what you called pedophilia), then perhaps you should (and good luck with that as well).
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.
Subjective morality allows for such claims from the majority.
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.
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.
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 naturally infertile straight couples lose benefits too because they can't have kids? What about couples that CAN but don't intend to have children?
If the benefits come with having children, why not just give all those benefits when the children are actually in the picture? Why in hell would they get benefits their whole life if they never have kids but are married?
Either you don't know what the benefits are and their reason, or you're just trying to camouflage your dislike for homosexuals.
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.
Two words. Sterile couples. Hit me, what have you got? Should they be disallowed from marrying?
Oh and if that's not enough how about couples who decide not to have children? Seriously you're arguments aren't original and they're not thought out. They're stupid trite and it's easy to point out why and where they're wrong.
On July 09 2012 23:19 decker247777 wrote: 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.
With this view, should also man and woman, who are unable to get children, be the reason any, not be able to marry? Example if a man is sterile, and there for he cannot have child, he should not be allowed to marry?
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.
Your post is an excellent example of how stupid some people have been for ages. What a bunch of idiotic incoherent rambling. Learn to construct a fucking argument.
i call bullshit, my argument is taking two things that have a similar background to it. The level of the two vary at a substantial amount yet the main ideology is intact. We have a choice in everything we do, I believe we should take account for whatever decisions we make whether they are good or bad.Being gay is nowhere near as bad as raping someone yet it is still a choice in my book.
I believe that political correctness is a bunch of bullshit. If you are politically correct you can call someone a bigot or retarded and its perfectly ok.It also tries to make humans seem like they have no logic and no reason and no ability to comprehend what they do. This is literally bullshit, I know for a fact that unless you literally are retarded due to a medical condition, you do have control over what you do and say.
Even though i am probably a thousand times smarter then you.You can say what you want about who I am or what I believe in.At least i am not controlled by what society deems as correct.
Just because you are comparing two things which you believe are choices, doesn't make the comparison valid. If you want to argue on the basis of moral decay, e.g. that gay marriage is one step down the path of moral decay, pederasty another (what you called pedophilia), then perhaps you should (and good luck with that as well).
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?
You dispute that causing unnecessary harm to people is wrong?
I'm not disputing anything right now. I'm asking why I should accept this as wrong. If you would like to go off on same inflamatory rant on how I should see this as obvious, save yourself the effort.
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.
Your post is an excellent example of how stupid some people have been for ages. What a bunch of idiotic incoherent rambling. Learn to construct a fucking argument.
i call bullshit, my argument is taking two things that have a similar background to it. The level of the two vary at a substantial amount yet the main ideology is intact. We have a choice in everything we do, I believe we should take account for whatever decisions we make whether they are good or bad.Being gay is nowhere near as bad as raping someone yet it is still a choice in my book.
I believe that political correctness is a bunch of bullshit. If you are politically correct you can call someone a bigot or retarded and its perfectly ok.It also tries to make humans seem like they have no logic and no reason and no ability to comprehend what they do. This is literally bullshit, I know for a fact that unless you literally are retarded due to a medical condition, you do have control over what you do and say.
Even though i am probably a thousand times smarter then you.You can say what you want about who I am or what I believe in.At least i am not controlled by what society deems as correct.
Just because you are comparing two things which you believe are choices, doesn't make the comparison valid. If you want to argue on the basis of moral decay, e.g. that gay marriage is one step down the path of moral decay, pederasty another (what you called pedophilia), then perhaps you should (and good luck with that as well).
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?
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.
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.
I think ''Legalizing love'' is just a slogan dude.
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.
On July 09 2012 23:19 decker247777 wrote: 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.
With this view, should also man and woman, who are unable to get children, be the reason any, not be able to marry? Example if a man is sterile, and there for he cannot have child, he should not be allowed to marry?
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.
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.
I think ''Legalizing love'' is just a slogan dude.
Some people tend to take things too literally. This case is a gross example of that.
AT&T's slogan is "Your World. Delivered." and that's not consistent with the required logistics of delivering an entire world.
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?
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.
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.
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.
decker247777 bases his opinion on what he thinks a supernatural being says. There is literally zero way to argue with someone who does this so I don't know why people would bother. In order to disprove their belief, you have to disprove their god, and good luck with that.
As for why unnecessary harm is wrong, it isn't objectively so, but then objective morality doesn't exist (even if there were supernatural beings, for the record). However, I want to live in a society that holds to the harm principle (among more nuanced philosophical beliefs) and that's enough for me to believe in it.
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.
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 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 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 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 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 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.
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 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 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 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 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I forget which comedian said it, but Homosexuals have every right to be as miserable as Heterosexuals. Marriage has no sanctity; it has been used in many cultures as a means to an end (see European nobility). I don't see why people have such delusions of grandeur regarding marriage. Maybe it's from watching all those romantic comedies or some shit. I'd just like to remind some of you that divorce is legal because marriage is recognized as being fickle and non-binding. Hardly a contract with any substance other than to cut the paperwork in half in any bureaucracy (see joint bank accounts, spousal RRSPs, etc).
On July 09 2012 23:36 FuzzyJAM wrote: decker247777 bases his opinion on what he thinks a supernatural being says. There is literally zero way to argue with someone who does this so I don't know why people would bother. In order to disprove their belief, you have to disprove their god, and good luck with that.
As for why unnecessary harm is wrong, it isn't objectively so, but then objective morality doesn't exist (even if there were supernatural beings, for the record). However, I want to live in a society that holds to the harm principle (among more nuanced philosophical beliefs) and that's enough for me to believe in it.
That's the point, you can't argue against belief because belief is based on autogenerical self-inducing logic. I tried that once with a friend who is a pastor and it seemed to me that we speak different languages (I still respect him).
On July 09 2012 23:36 FuzzyJAM wrote: decker247777 bases his opinion on what he thinks a supernatural being says. There is literally zero way to argue with someone who does this so I don't know why people would bother. In order to disprove their belief, you have to disprove their god, and good luck with that.
As for why unnecessary harm is wrong, it isn't objectively so, but then objective morality doesn't exist (even if there were supernatural beings, for the record). However, I want to live in a society that holds to the harm principle (among more nuanced philosophical beliefs) and that's enough for me to believe in it.
That's the point, you can't argue against belief because belief is based on autogenerical self-inducing logic.
On July 09 2012 23:36 FuzzyJAM wrote: decker247777 bases his opinion on what he thinks a supernatural being says. There is literally zero way to argue with someone who does this so I don't know why people would bother. In order to disprove their belief, you have to disprove their god, and good luck with that.
As for why unnecessary harm is wrong, it isn't objectively so, but then objective morality doesn't exist (even if there were supernatural beings, for the record). However, I want to live in a society that holds to the harm principle (among more nuanced philosophical beliefs) and that's enough for me to believe in it.
That's the point, you can't argue against belief because belief is based on autogenerical self-inducing logic.
All forms of belief are not created equal.
I mean belief is a logical coherence contruct of mutually validating hypotheses. Whenever there is any "untruth" arising you can expand the system to restore its logical integrity.
On July 09 2012 23:36 FuzzyJAM wrote: decker247777 bases his opinion on what he thinks a supernatural being says. There is literally zero way to argue with someone who does this so I don't know why people would bother. In order to disprove their belief, you have to disprove their god, and good luck with that.
As for why unnecessary harm is wrong, it isn't objectively so, but then objective morality doesn't exist (even if there were supernatural beings, for the record). However, I want to live in a society that holds to the harm principle (among more nuanced philosophical beliefs) and that's enough for me to believe in it.
That's the point, you can't argue against belief because belief is based on autogenerical self-inducing logic.
All forms of belief are not created equal.
I mean belief is a logical coherence contruct of mutually validating hypotheses. Whenever there is any "untruth" arising you can expand the system to restore its logical integrity.
Or one can forego the rules of logic altogether when working with the irrational or absurd, and instead opt for different sorts of understanding altogether.
On July 09 2012 23:36 FuzzyJAM wrote: decker247777 bases his opinion on what he thinks a supernatural being says. There is literally zero way to argue with someone who does this so I don't know why people would bother. In order to disprove their belief, you have to disprove their god, and good luck with that.
As for why unnecessary harm is wrong, it isn't objectively so, but then objective morality doesn't exist (even if there were supernatural beings, for the record). However, I want to live in a society that holds to the harm principle (among more nuanced philosophical beliefs) and that's enough for me to believe in it.
That's the point, you can't argue against belief because belief is based on autogenerical self-inducing logic.
All forms of belief are not created equal.
I mean belief is a logical coherence contruct of mutually validating hypotheses. Whenever there is any "untruth" arising you can expand the system to restore its logical integrity.
Or one can forego the rules of logic altogether when working with the irrational or absurd, and instead opt for different sorts of understanding altogether.
I like your signature but the "vanity of vanities" is not absurd, its more or less the evidence that we all have the possibilty to be independent of heteronomy.
On July 09 2012 23:36 FuzzyJAM wrote: decker247777 bases his opinion on what he thinks a supernatural being says. There is literally zero way to argue with someone who does this so I don't know why people would bother. In order to disprove their belief, you have to disprove their god, and good luck with that.
As for why unnecessary harm is wrong, it isn't objectively so, but then objective morality doesn't exist (even if there were supernatural beings, for the record). However, I want to live in a society that holds to the harm principle (among more nuanced philosophical beliefs) and that's enough for me to believe in it.
That's the point, you can't argue against belief because belief is based on autogenerical self-inducing logic.
All forms of belief are not created equal.
I mean belief is a logical coherence contruct of mutually validating hypotheses. Whenever there is any "untruth" arising you can expand the system to restore its logical integrity.
Or one can forego the rules of logic altogether when working with the irrational or absurd, and instead opt for different sorts of understanding altogether.
I like your signature but the "vanity of vanities" is not absurd, its more or less the evidence that we all have the possibilty to be independent of heteronomy.
Well you certainly are right in that the quote is decidedly non-absurd, as it is one of my favorites of Wittgenstein and he was very much concerned with reason. That being said, one of my current research focuses is an attempt at linking some of Wittgenstein's thoughts to those of existentialists/absurdists, like Soren Kierkegaard. Cheers
Google tips China on how to deal with overpopulation. China spent over 1000 billions on building new cities with every bit of infrastructure in place but forgot 90% of it's population got their wages courtesy of corporations who pay them just enough to barely survive a month.
On July 08 2012 18:36 TirramirooO wrote: Sick of talking about gay people.. Im not Christian, i dont believe in religion but that is totally the ANTICHRIST... With the same sex you cant make children soo is against nature but make people understant that is becoming hard.
Keep going, in the future you all gonna open your EYES.
I'm sure if we are ever in trouble for lack of offspring and the only viable males are gay, they'll donate sperm or close their eyes and imagine Ryan Goslin or something. Short of that... you can sit in your crazy corner alone.
Also, same sex orientation IS a natural phenomenon. Nearly all species have gay individuals at near the same rate of incidence. And as far as i know, nature can't "go against" nature.
I think there is the same guy who registers at TL just to troll any thread involving gay rights, where they have less than 75 posts, and they're all in threads like this. Happened in the other one, too.
On July 08 2012 18:36 TirramirooO wrote: Sick of talking about gay people.. Im not Christian, i dont believe in religion but that is totally the ANTICHRIST... With the same sex you cant make children soo is against nature but make people understant that is becoming hard.
Keep going, in the future you all gonna open your EYES.
I'm sure if we are ever in trouble for lack of offspring and the only viable males are gay, they'll donate sperm or close their eyes and imagine Ryan Goslin or something. Short of that... you can sit in your crazy corner alone.
Also, same sex orientation IS a natural phenomenon. Nearly all species have gay individuals at near the same rate of incidence. And as far as i know, nature can't "go against" nature.
Not really. Nearly all species have animals that tend towards homosexual tendencies, including intercourse. However, the vast majority of those that display homosexual tendencies also display heterosexual tendencies. In short, it's quite rare to find exclusively homosexual animals/organisms in nature, at least at any comparable rate to those of humans.
An exception is the ram I believe, where it's estimated up to 10% of them will only mate with others rams and absolutely refuse to mate with any females.
I agree with the part of having a legal civil union for financial purposes to be equal But if they want to get "Married" in a church or a religious place, there is nothing the government can do about that
On July 10 2012 10:45 PiPoGevy wrote: I agree with the part of having a legal civil union for financial purposes to be equal But if they want to get "Married" in a church or a religious place, there is nothing the government can do about that
What the government can do is allow for civil marriage (the option currently available to people who wish to be married but cannot or do not wish to marry in a religious ceremony) and allow religions to decide whether or not they wish to permit gay couples to marry in their religious services. Currently, churches which wish to treat gay and straight couples equally are not permitted to do so in most states in the US.
Saw this today on Reddit - thought it was pretty good response to the people who go on about how marriage has always traditionally been between a man and woman:
It is absolutely sickening to me that much more important issues in the world are completely overshadowed by gay marriage and other self-interests when there are very simple solutions and the whole issue could have been put to rest with civil unions decades ago
Gay marriage is just a political football they use to keep the circus of American politics going
On July 10 2012 11:44 Panasony wrote: It is absolutely sickening to me that much more important issues in the world are completely overshadowed by gay marriage and other self-interests when there are very simple solutions and the whole issue could have been put to rest with civil unions decades ago. Gay marriage is just a political football they use to keep the circus of American politics going
I would have thought equality before the law is important. Again, the two are not mutually exclusive. You can feed Africa/ Cure Cancer / Whatever cause you want, and allow gay marriage.
I the government was not involved in marriage at all (ie everyone had civil unions) and marriage was a religious institution, then your argument makes sense. The fact is the government has sanctioned heterosexual marriages as superior to homosexual unions and that is unfair.
in that case I would propose either remove marriage from law or simply replace it with a union that recognizes religious and secular "marriage" the entire debate is centered on the definition of a word
On July 10 2012 12:05 Panasony wrote: in that case I would propose either remove marriage from law or simply replace it with a union that recognizes religious and secular "marriage" the entire debate is centered on the definition of a word
No, the entire debate is centered around a group of people who want to impose their religious views on others because they are so incredibly offended about other people's relationships.
If it were really about the definition of a word, there probably would be no problem. Unfortunately, that's not actually what it's about. The semantic argument is a disguise for bigotry.
On July 10 2012 12:05 Panasony wrote: in that case I would propose either remove marriage from law or simply replace it with a union that recognizes religious and secular "marriage" the entire debate is centered on the definition of a word
So you feel it is better to invalidate all the marriages that have taken place and to rewrite every law that has any mention of marriage, rather than allowing homosexuals to marry?
I've heard some of the arguments from Christian colleagues against homosexuals and gay marriage and it's jaw dropping that a person with access to literally the world's cutting edge research materials can base their worldview on an utterly discredited model of homosexuality, simply because their pastor says so. When the New World Order and the "homosexual agenda to destroy families for Satan" are points in an argument, you know that someone's completely lost their grasp on reality, at least for that particular topic.
On July 10 2012 12:23 hummingbird23 wrote: I've heard some of the arguments from Christian colleagues against homosexuals and gay marriage and it's jaw dropping that a person with access to literally the world's cutting edge research materials can base their worldview on an utterly discredited model of homosexuality, simply because their pastor says so. When the New World Order and the "homosexual agenda to destroy families for Satan" are points in an argument, you know that someone's completely lost their grasp on reality, at least for that particular topic.
Yeah, I remember ages ago when my economics lecturer used to teach me about monetary policy and interest rates and inflation and shit and thinking: "This man knows his shit, he should be our country's Finance Minister." Then years later I found out he believes in eating biscuits that are supposedly made out of God at Church and that to do so he is literally eating the body of Christ. Like seriously, what the fuck is up with that? Makes me think of this - SFW but still rather disturbing:
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.
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,
Well, at least it's good that all you want to do is get the fuck out of the Europe rather than shoot up some kids at a political camp to prove your point.
my life is worth too much + i dont see any chances as it stands now. But just you wait, they (and i don`t mean gays) will come and show you how they also support your values, I`ll be watching from afar... laughing
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,
Maybe you should read the thread before you start spouting your bullshit. If you bothered to read you would know that there is scientific evidence showing that homosexuality is not a choice. Why post here? You clearly couldn't care less about learning something, or even presenting an argument. Instead you drop your ignorant opinion down and then expect people to take you seriously.
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?
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?
Relevance?
I never said that homosexuals ONLY have homosexual partners. I would imagine, particularly in the current climate of demonisation, it is bloody difficult for a homosexual to accept their sexuality without trying to live a straight life. This has no relevance on marriage and your point is lost. Are you suggesting that homosexuals should not be allowed to choose which gender they sleep with, if they want to get married?
On July 10 2012 12:05 Panasony wrote: in that case I would propose either remove marriage from law or simply replace it with a union that recognizes religious and secular "marriage" the entire debate is centered on the definition of a word
So you feel it is better to invalidate all the marriages that have taken place and to rewrite every law that has any mention of marriage, rather than allowing homosexuals to marry?
Whose creating a useless fuss now?
No, I agree with him. Who's says it's the state's responsibility to validate what a marriage is? They should only be able to say what a marriage is not (Minor and a person in their thirties, or a person and a animal) otherwise give everyone the same tax benefits. If you do that you sidestep trampling on the religious definition of marriage.
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?
You know two gay people. TWO. Two people aren't indicative of all of a group. Plus, how can you know that he enjoyed having sex with women? I could theoretically have sex with another man, but I would certainly not enjoy it one bit. If society as a whole (and,living in Poland which afaik is still very Catholic and with people like you there) tells you not to be gay, you're probably not going to want to be gay in the first place.
Anyway, this isn't even that related to the issue at hand. Whether homosexuality is natural or overblown is irrelevant. What is relevant is that if two people love each other and want to enter a civil union, there is no reason that they should be discriminated based on their sexes.
On July 10 2012 12:05 Panasony wrote: in that case I would propose either remove marriage from law or simply replace it with a union that recognizes religious and secular "marriage" the entire debate is centered on the definition of a word
So you feel it is better to invalidate all the marriages that have taken place and to rewrite every law that has any mention of marriage, rather than allowing homosexuals to marry?
Whose creating a useless fuss now?
No, I agree with him. Who's says it's the state's responsibility to validate what a marriage is? They should only be able to say what a marriage is not (Minor and a person in their thirties, or a person and a animal) otherwise give everyone the same tax benefits. If you do that you sidestep trampling on the religious definition of marriage.
I fail to see the difference. Saying that a marriage is only between a man and a woman is no differnt from saying that marriage is not between two people of the same gender. In fact, short of listing everything marriage is not, it makes sense to just decide what marriage is. Or better yet, have nothing to say about marriage at all but that will never happen.
On July 10 2012 12:05 Panasony wrote: in that case I would propose either remove marriage from law or simply replace it with a union that recognizes religious and secular "marriage" the entire debate is centered on the definition of a word
No, the entire debate is centered around a group of people who want to impose their religious views on others because they are so incredibly offended about other people's relationships.
If it were really about the definition of a word, there probably would be no problem. Unfortunately, that's not actually what it's about. The semantic argument is a disguise for bigotry.
Good point, alot of the opposition stems from hatred which is going nowhere and the only way to sidestep that issue is to abolish marriage from law, the devout just like everyone else can continue on with their own internal morality and there will be no conflict of interest
On July 10 2012 12:05 Panasony wrote: in that case I would propose either remove marriage from law or simply replace it with a union that recognizes religious and secular "marriage" the entire debate is centered on the definition of a word
So you feel it is better to invalidate all the marriages that have taken place and to rewrite every law that has any mention of marriage, rather than allowing homosexuals to marry?
Whose creating a useless fuss now?
More energy, manpower and legal resources has been wasted in one year of administrating marriages than it would take to rewrite some laws, responsibility would fall back to the individual where it belongs
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?
Are you kidding me? You're basing all your thoughts on your two fucking experiences with homosexuals? Do you not see the incredibly faulty logic you're going off of?
Anecdotal evidence is the WORST kind of evidence. I know plenty of people that have known they were gay at super young ages. Just because you happen to live in an area where people aren't as open about it (not all gays are flamboyant and show off that they are gay you know, there are many that are and you would never know), doesn't mean you can extrapolate your obnoxiously small sample size of two onto the population.
Maybe you should read the thread before you start spouting your bullshit. If you bothered to read you would know that there is scientific evidence showing that homosexuality is not a choice. Why post here? You clearly couldn't care less about learning something, or even presenting an argument. Instead you drop your ignorant opinion down and then expect people to take you seriously.
[/QUOTE] Lol @ scientific evidence. I am sorry but no evidence exist proving it a something you learn or are born.(social sciences such as psychology don't count) There are many openly gay people who says it preference as why they are gay while others say they are born that way. However all lgbt lobbiest groups state it is not a choice for political purposes. My opinion of gay marriage and gays in general is one of no opinion. I don't need to agree with there life choices to respect them or treat them as equals. I do however feel when people say that gay rights are a civil rights issue they are wrong. Last time I checked if you go on a job interview There's no box to check or question asked about sexual preference. Do homosexual deserve job benefits of there partner, my answer is yes but I think that. Could be arranged without them being married. I find it laughable in country where gay people excel in every profession in America that we need these anti bully laws and another non sense to protect them when really they are doing just fine
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.
Maybe you should read the thread before you start spouting your bullshit. If you bothered to read you would know that there is scientific evidence showing that homosexuality is not a choice. Why post here? You clearly couldn't care less about learning something, or even presenting an argument. Instead you drop your ignorant opinion down and then expect people to take you seriously.
Lol @ scientific evidence. I am sorry but no evidence exist proving it a something you learn or are born.(social sciences such as psychology don't count) There are many openly gay people who says it preference as why they are gay while others say they are born that way. However all lgbt lobbiest groups state it is not a choice for political purposes. My opinion of gay marriage and gays in general is one of no opinion. I don't need to agree with there life choices to respect them or treat them as equals. I do however feel when people say that gay rights are a civil rights issue they are wrong. Last time I checked if you go on a job interview There's no box to check or question asked about sexual preference. Do homosexual deserve job benefits of there partner, my answer is yes but I think that. Could be arranged without them being married. I find it laughable in country where gay people excel in every profession in America that we need these anti bully laws and another non sense to protect them when really they are doing just fine
The reason that anti-discrimination laws are necessary in places like the USA is so that people who are discriminated against because of their assumed or actual sexual preferences have some way of seeking redress. Even with such legal protections, people who are known or assumed to be non-heterosexual regularly face discrimination, harassment and violence - especially as children. There is a reason projects like It Gets Better exist.
Attacks are often made with the intention of harming people other than primary victims; they are meant to create an atmosphere in which non-heterosexual people cannot live their lives openly without fear of violent persecution. Note that false assumptions about the sexuality of individuals are sufficient to lead to them becoming targets in many instances.
In any work environment where people interact with their colleagues socially to any extent it is nigh on impossible to avoid revealing the gender of a long term partner either willingly in trust of colleagues, or accidentally by use of pronouns, or by recognition outside of work, or a number of other circumstances.
Marriage, used in the civil rather than religious sense, is the form which has been established to grant shared benefits and consideration as a family unit to people in long-term relationships. To use a different term, in the civil sense, would require rewriting all existing legislation involving the term marriage to include whatever alternate term you wish to use and then passing it all. Not only would that be a phenomenal amount of work, it would also drag out this battle far longer than necessary because of the necessity that every amendment or equivalent law would need to be pressed until it passes if full equality is to be ensured. It is far simpler to change the civil definition of marriage to describe the union of two consenting adults without regard to gender.
Here is a list of physiological and cognitive differences that have been observed in homo- and bisexual populations as compared to heterosexual populations. You will note that people do not consciously mediate traits like the relative size of different regions of their brain, yet there remain several statistically significant differences between populations. If you scroll up from that list you can find a summary of empirical studies aimed at examining the likelihood that sexual orientation is affected by a range of genetic and environmental factors, the majority of which found there to be a statistically significant link to factors that are far outside the control of the child. Of particular note would be the Swedish twin study, as they eliminated selection bias as a factor when they used the entire population of twins in Sweden, and the study of children with a condition leading to sex-reassignment at birth where sex-at-birth was determinable. If you scroll down, you will find links to the studies discussed in the article.
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
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 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 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)
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.
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
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 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?
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 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 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 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 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?"
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?"
So, you want to say someone with no prejudices bases his decisions on indifference, that means in your eyes you should never question your prejudices and follow blindly? Whose behavior is more apathetic?
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.
Gay marriage cannot be wrong because no one is harmed by it. No reason exists why any number of consenting (the keyword here!) adults should not be able to enter a contract.
There is nothing arbitrary about it, the line is drawn at contracts/relationships where one or more parties do not consent. If an open minded person has mixed feelings on the subject of marriage, he isn't openminded.
On July 12 2012 07:36 chaosftw wrote: wow you fucken sick people who support this. yeah go suck another man's dick. seriously.
At least put some effort into trolling.
I really don't see why anyone cares if gay people get married. I have yet to hear a convincing argument about how gay marriage hurts anyone besides the feelings of bigots.
On July 12 2012 07:36 chaosftw wrote: wow you fucken sick people who support this. yeah go suck another man's dick. seriously.
At least put some effort into trolling.
I really don't see why anyone cares if gay people get married. I have yet to hear a convincing argument about how gay marriage hurts anyone besides the feelings of bigots.
yes gay marriage should be allowed because it doesn't hurt anyone. wanna suck my dick bitch?
On July 12 2012 07:36 chaosftw wrote: wow you fucken sick people who support this. yeah go suck another man's dick. seriously.
At least put some effort into trolling.
I really don't see why anyone cares if gay people get married. I have yet to hear a convincing argument about how gay marriage hurts anyone besides the feelings of bigots.
yes gay marriage should be allowed because it doesn't hurt anyone. wanna suck my dick bitch?
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?"
So, you want to say someone with no prejudices bases his decisions on indifference, that means in your eyes you should never question your prejudices and follow blindly? Whose behavior is more apathetic?
What? I don't understand your connection at all. I was just trying to deal with the 'neutral individual' if you will. I don't see how you get 'follow blindly' from apathy. Apathetic people don't follow things, and we assumed there was no prejudice.
Indifference is the default attitude toward other people's behavior (that doesn't affect you). Unless you're gay, gay marriage is other people's behavior.
On July 12 2012 09:02 PiPoGevy wrote: There are much more important things to spend money on
Google's employees already have enough food and ready access to clean water - guaranteed source of food within a few metres of their desks for programmers. They have homes and even if those become temporarily unavailable the offices are equipped with sleep pods, showers and lockers. They get rewarded for their efforts with a generous salary. Their healthcare needs are well covered in every jurisdiction, and they are set up for a good retirement. They are selected on the basis of talent, and their productivity is linked to their happiness as well as their sense of fulfilment in their work. Gay marriage and reduced prejudice in society would make a great number of staff happier and better able to focus on their work.
Why would Google not also use their money to prevent their employees from being discriminated against?
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?"
So, you want to say someone with no prejudices bases his decisions on indifference, that means in your eyes you should never question your prejudices and follow blindly? Whose behavior is more apathetic?
What? I don't understand your connection at all. I was just trying to deal with the 'neutral individual' if you will. I don't see how you get 'follow blindly' from apathy. Apathetic people don't follow things, and we assumed there was no prejudice.
Indifference is the default attitude toward other people's behavior (that doesn't affect you). Unless you're gay, gay marriage is other people's behavior.
There is no 'neutral individual', that would mean you are projecting objectivity on a subject. Every attribute of an individual is more or less reciprocally connected/related to memories or affects, for instance if your mother had blond hair you are to some extent related in some way (dependent on your association with your mother) to individuals with that attribute. In can be in an obvious way or more subtile one. These relations are nothing different but prejudices because you implicitly extract conclusions out of them with arbitrary predicative power, thats what Einstein meant when he said "common sense is the sum of our prejudices". By not questioning their rationality (indifference) you follow them blindly (heteronomy).
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?"
So, you want to say someone with no prejudices bases his decisions on indifference, that means in your eyes you should never question your prejudices and follow blindly? Whose behavior is more apathetic?
What? I don't understand your connection at all. I was just trying to deal with the 'neutral individual' if you will. I don't see how you get 'follow blindly' from apathy. Apathetic people don't follow things, and we assumed there was no prejudice.
Indifference is the default attitude toward other people's behavior (that doesn't affect you). Unless you're gay, gay marriage is other people's behavior.
There is no 'neutral individual', that would mean you are projecting objectivity on a subject. Every attribute of an individual is more or less reciprocally connected/related to memories or affects, for instance if your mother had blond hair you are to some extent related in some way (dependent on your association with your mother) to individuals with that attribute. In can be in an obvious way or more subtile one. These relations are nothing different but prejudices because you implicitly extract conclusions out of them with arbitrary predicative power, thats what Einstein meant when he said "common sense is the sum of our prejudices". By not questioning their rationality (indifference) you follow them blindly (heteronomy).
Okay, I don't know why you're thinking about this so hard. It's pretty obvious that I didn't.
I think someone already stated this in here, but shouldn't we be worried when big corporations are fighting ethical battles? It's just a big advertising campaign for them I think, unless Google's CEO is gay
If gay marriage becomes legal then the flood gates will open for companies as they are persons too. A merger between two big legal persons with an unclear sexuality is wrong...
On July 12 2012 22:37 sc2superfan101 wrote: i think Google needs to be less political.
Agreed.
From a business stand point, wouldn't it make more sense to remain neutral on polarizing subjects like this? I'm only one consumer, but I'm now considering changing to Bing and removing chrome.
On July 12 2012 23:29 archonOOid wrote: If gay marriage becomes legal then the flood gates will open for companies as they are persons too. A merger between two big legal persons with an unclear sexuality is wrong...
I'm pretty sure there are sufficient distinctions between a person and a company in the law for your wacko scenario to not be an issue.
On July 12 2012 22:37 sc2superfan101 wrote: i think Google needs to be less political.
Agreed.
From a business stand point, wouldn't it make more sense to remain neutral on polarizing subjects like this? I'm only one consumer, but I'm now considering changing to Bing and removing chrome.
As has been stated before, among young people (=most internet users, especially when looking ahead) people with anti-gay feeling as you are becoming more and more rare. So this stance should appeal to the majority of their possible users. Also, you would have to stop using your Android phone, Google, Chrome, Gmail, YouTube, Maps, Earth, etc.. Most people won't do that. People who are so undeveloped that they think gay marriage is a bad thing probably won't know all of these services belong to Google anyway, so they'll take even less losses.
Besides, you can bet Google has considered the business standpoint, and disagrees with you
On July 12 2012 23:23 slappy wrote: I think someone already stated this in here, but shouldn't we be worried when big corporations are fighting ethical battles? It's just a big advertising campaign for them I think, unless Google's CEO is gay
I think we should be worried about other things big companies are doing...and yes this is supposed to give them some good exposure with a given public.
On July 12 2012 22:37 sc2superfan101 wrote: i think Google needs to be less political.
Agreed.
From a business stand point, wouldn't it make more sense to remain neutral on polarizing subjects like this? I'm only one consumer, but I'm now considering changing to Bing and removing chrome.
As has been stated before, among young people (=most internet users, especially when looking ahead) people with anti-gay feeling as you are becoming more and more rare. So this stance should appeal to the majority of their possible users. Also, you would have to stop using your Android phone, Google, Chrome, Gmail, YouTube, Maps, Earth, etc.. Most people won't do that. People who are so undeveloped that they think gay marriage is a bad thing probably won't know all of these services belong to Google anyway, so they'll take even less losses.
Besides, you can bet Google has considered the business standpoint, and disagrees with you
Wow! Google owns soooo much stuff. Anywho~ not really fair to label people who don't agree with gay marriage as "underdeveloped." There are a large number of people in this world who are well educated and hold power who don't support gay marriage. If it weren't so, then this wouldn't even be a debate. Let's not resort to name calling just because someone disagrees with us
On July 12 2012 22:37 sc2superfan101 wrote: i think Google needs to be less political.
Agreed.
From a business stand point, wouldn't it make more sense to remain neutral on polarizing subjects like this? I'm only one consumer, but I'm now considering changing to Bing and removing chrome.
As has been stated before, among young people (=most internet users, especially when looking ahead) people with anti-gay feeling as you are becoming more and more rare. So this stance should appeal to the majority of their possible users. Also, you would have to stop using your Android phone, Google, Chrome, Gmail, YouTube, Maps, Earth, etc.. Most people won't do that. People who are so undeveloped that they think gay marriage is a bad thing probably won't know all of these services belong to Google anyway, so they'll take even less losses.
Besides, you can bet Google has considered the business standpoint, and disagrees with you
Wow! Google owns soooo much stuff. Anywho~ not really fair to label people who don't agree with gay marriage as "underdeveloped." There are a large number of people in this world who are well educated and hold power who don't support gay marriage. If it weren't so, then this wouldn't even be a debate. Let's not resort to name calling just because someone disagrees with us
As a Christian I don't believe I'n same-sex marriage. According to the bible marriage Is a holy union between a man and a woman. That doesn't make me undeveloped. Anyways this won't make me stop using google products.
On July 12 2012 22:37 sc2superfan101 wrote: i think Google needs to be less political.
Agreed.
From a business stand point, wouldn't it make more sense to remain neutral on polarizing subjects like this? I'm only one consumer, but I'm now considering changing to Bing and removing chrome.
As has been stated before, among young people (=most internet users, especially when looking ahead) people with anti-gay feeling as you are becoming more and more rare. So this stance should appeal to the majority of their possible users. Also, you would have to stop using your Android phone, Google, Chrome, Gmail, YouTube, Maps, Earth, etc.. Most people won't do that. People who are so undeveloped that they think gay marriage is a bad thing probably won't know all of these services belong to Google anyway, so they'll take even less losses.
Besides, you can bet Google has considered the business standpoint, and disagrees with you
Wow! Google owns soooo much stuff. Anywho~ not really fair to label people who don't agree with gay marriage as "underdeveloped." There are a large number of people in this world who are well educated and hold power who don't support gay marriage. If it weren't so, then this wouldn't even be a debate. Let's not resort to name calling just because someone disagrees with us
As a Christian I don't believe I'n same-sex marriage. According to the bible marriage Is a holy union between a man and a woman. That doesn't make me undeveloped. Anyways this won't make me stop using google products.
It at very least makes you undeveloped in the sense that you aren't able to grasp the idea that your belief is one of thousands and that yours shouldn't have any more influence over other's as theirs should over yours.
On July 12 2012 22:37 sc2superfan101 wrote: i think Google needs to be less political.
Agreed.
From a business stand point, wouldn't it make more sense to remain neutral on polarizing subjects like this? I'm only one consumer, but I'm now considering changing to Bing and removing chrome.
As has been stated before, among young people (=most internet users, especially when looking ahead) people with anti-gay feeling as you are becoming more and more rare. So this stance should appeal to the majority of their possible users. Also, you would have to stop using your Android phone, Google, Chrome, Gmail, YouTube, Maps, Earth, etc.. Most people won't do that. People who are so undeveloped that they think gay marriage is a bad thing probably won't know all of these services belong to Google anyway, so they'll take even less losses.
Besides, you can bet Google has considered the business standpoint, and disagrees with you
Wow! Google owns soooo much stuff. Anywho~ not really fair to label people who don't agree with gay marriage as "underdeveloped." There are a large number of people in this world who are well educated and hold power who don't support gay marriage. If it weren't so, then this wouldn't even be a debate. Let's not resort to name calling just because someone disagrees with us
As a Christian I don't believe I'n same-sex marriage. According to the bible marriage Is a holy union between a man and a woman. That doesn't make me undeveloped. Anyways this won't make me stop using google products.
I can deal with citing a 2000 1967 year old book but please say what you mean. When you say you don't believe in gay marriage your wrong, cause I'm pretty sure it exist. I think what you mean to say is that gay marriage is not ethical? I'm not sure please clarify.
On July 12 2012 22:37 sc2superfan101 wrote: i think Google needs to be less political.
Agreed.
From a business stand point, wouldn't it make more sense to remain neutral on polarizing subjects like this? I'm only one consumer, but I'm now considering changing to Bing and removing chrome.
As has been stated before, among young people (=most internet users, especially when looking ahead) people with anti-gay feeling as you are becoming more and more rare. So this stance should appeal to the majority of their possible users. Also, you would have to stop using your Android phone, Google, Chrome, Gmail, YouTube, Maps, Earth, etc.. Most people won't do that. People who are so undeveloped that they think gay marriage is a bad thing probably won't know all of these services belong to Google anyway, so they'll take even less losses.
Besides, you can bet Google has considered the business standpoint, and disagrees with you
Wow! Google owns soooo much stuff. Anywho~ not really fair to label people who don't agree with gay marriage as "underdeveloped." There are a large number of people in this world who are well educated and hold power who don't support gay marriage. If it weren't so, then this wouldn't even be a debate. Let's not resort to name calling just because someone disagrees with us
As a Christian I don't believe I'n same-sex marriage. According to the bible marriage Is a holy union between a man and a woman. That doesn't make me undeveloped. Anyways this won't make me stop using google products.
I can deal with citing a 2000 year old book but please say what you mean. When you say you don't believe in gay marriage your wrong, cause I'm pretty sure it exist. I think what you mean to say is that gay marriage is not ethical? I'm not sure please clarify.
I can only speak for myself but....
Obviously Gay marriage "exists," but as a Christian I believe that having physical/sexual relations with someone of the same sex is immoral, against God, and a sin. If you ever hear me say "I don't believe in gay marriage," that is what I mean.
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).
So basically, you back up your argument with "just cause". You have not added anything to show that your viewpoint is consistent and as such it is basically invalid. If gay people can't get married because they can't have children, then neither should sterile people be able to.
On July 12 2012 22:37 sc2superfan101 wrote: i think Google needs to be less political.
Agreed.
From a business stand point, wouldn't it make more sense to remain neutral on polarizing subjects like this? I'm only one consumer, but I'm now considering changing to Bing and removing chrome.
As has been stated before, among young people (=most internet users, especially when looking ahead) people with anti-gay feeling as you are becoming more and more rare. So this stance should appeal to the majority of their possible users. Also, you would have to stop using your Android phone, Google, Chrome, Gmail, YouTube, Maps, Earth, etc.. Most people won't do that. People who are so undeveloped that they think gay marriage is a bad thing probably won't know all of these services belong to Google anyway, so they'll take even less losses.
Besides, you can bet Google has considered the business standpoint, and disagrees with you
Wow! Google owns soooo much stuff. Anywho~ not really fair to label people who don't agree with gay marriage as "underdeveloped." There are a large number of people in this world who are well educated and hold power who don't support gay marriage. If it weren't so, then this wouldn't even be a debate. Let's not resort to name calling just because someone disagrees with us
As a Christian I don't believe I'n same-sex marriage. According to the bible marriage Is a holy union between a man and a woman. That doesn't make me undeveloped. Anyways this won't make me stop using google products.
I can deal with citing a 2000 year old book but please say what you mean. When you say you don't believe in gay marriage your wrong, cause I'm pretty sure it exist. I think what you mean to say is that gay marriage is not ethical? I'm not sure please clarify.
I can only speak for myself but....
Obviously Gay marriage "exists," but as a Christian I believe that having physical/sexual relations with someone of the same sex is immoral, against God, and a sin. If you ever hear me say "I don't believe in gay marriage," that is what I mean.
As a rational human being I believe that your point of view is barbaric, against reason, and evil. I don't believe in Christians like you.
Also the whole ''as a Christian'' bit, is presumptuous. Plenty of Christians are not against gay marriage and plenty of Christian churches will wed homesexuals. ''As a fundamentalist Christian'' would be more accurate.
On July 12 2012 22:37 sc2superfan101 wrote: i think Google needs to be less political.
Agreed.
From a business stand point, wouldn't it make more sense to remain neutral on polarizing subjects like this? I'm only one consumer, but I'm now considering changing to Bing and removing chrome.
As has been stated before, among young people (=most internet users, especially when looking ahead) people with anti-gay feeling as you are becoming more and more rare. So this stance should appeal to the majority of their possible users. Also, you would have to stop using your Android phone, Google, Chrome, Gmail, YouTube, Maps, Earth, etc.. Most people won't do that. People who are so undeveloped that they think gay marriage is a bad thing probably won't know all of these services belong to Google anyway, so they'll take even less losses.
Besides, you can bet Google has considered the business standpoint, and disagrees with you
Wow! Google owns soooo much stuff. Anywho~ not really fair to label people who don't agree with gay marriage as "underdeveloped." There are a large number of people in this world who are well educated and hold power who don't support gay marriage. If it weren't so, then this wouldn't even be a debate. Let's not resort to name calling just because someone disagrees with us
As a Christian I don't believe I'n same-sex marriage. According to the bible marriage Is a holy union between a man and a woman. That doesn't make me undeveloped. Anyways this won't make me stop using google products.
The bible says a lot of ridiculous shit that no one takes seriously anymore. Gay marriage should be included in that.
ex: If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
On July 12 2012 22:37 sc2superfan101 wrote: i think Google needs to be less political.
Agreed.
From a business stand point, wouldn't it make more sense to remain neutral on polarizing subjects like this? I'm only one consumer, but I'm now considering changing to Bing and removing chrome.
As has been stated before, among young people (=most internet users, especially when looking ahead) people with anti-gay feeling as you are becoming more and more rare. So this stance should appeal to the majority of their possible users. Also, you would have to stop using your Android phone, Google, Chrome, Gmail, YouTube, Maps, Earth, etc.. Most people won't do that. People who are so undeveloped that they think gay marriage is a bad thing probably won't know all of these services belong to Google anyway, so they'll take even less losses.
Besides, you can bet Google has considered the business standpoint, and disagrees with you
Wow! Google owns soooo much stuff. Anywho~ not really fair to label people who don't agree with gay marriage as "underdeveloped." There are a large number of people in this world who are well educated and hold power who don't support gay marriage. If it weren't so, then this wouldn't even be a debate. Let's not resort to name calling just because someone disagrees with us
As a Christian I don't believe I'n same-sex marriage. According to the bible marriage Is a holy union between a man and a woman. That doesn't make me undeveloped. Anyways this won't make me stop using google products.
I can deal with citing a 2000 year old book but please say what you mean. When you say you don't believe in gay marriage your wrong, cause I'm pretty sure it exist. I think what you mean to say is that gay marriage is not ethical? I'm not sure please clarify.
I can only speak for myself but....
Obviously Gay marriage "exists," but as a Christian I believe that having physical/sexual relations with someone of the same sex is immoral, against God, and a sin. If you ever hear me say "I don't believe in gay marriage," that is what I mean.
As a rational human being I believe that your point of view is barbaric, against reason, and evil. I don't believe in Christians like you.
that's mean.
Also the whole ''as a Christian'' bit, is presumptuous. Plenty of Christians are not against gay marriage and plenty of Christian churches will wed homesexuals. ''As a fundamentalist Christian'' would be more accurate.
one doesn't have to be a fundamentalist christian to believe that gay-marriage is not ethical. and it is a minority of christians that support it and an even smaller minority of churches that will perform homosexual marriages. and i think his point was that his christianity is the reason he does not support it. now, i guess one could argue that christianity doesn't necessarily mean "no gay marriage" but at the same time, a lot of denominations, that is what it means. i don't think it's presumptuous to explain that your christianity is what makes you not support it.
edit: woooah... reading over that last page, that chaos guy was a fucking nutball. i rly hate it when people take a position i hold and then act like a fucking idiot.
On July 12 2012 22:37 sc2superfan101 wrote: i think Google needs to be less political.
Agreed.
From a business stand point, wouldn't it make more sense to remain neutral on polarizing subjects like this? I'm only one consumer, but I'm now considering changing to Bing and removing chrome.
As has been stated before, among young people (=most internet users, especially when looking ahead) people with anti-gay feeling as you are becoming more and more rare. So this stance should appeal to the majority of their possible users. Also, you would have to stop using your Android phone, Google, Chrome, Gmail, YouTube, Maps, Earth, etc.. Most people won't do that. People who are so undeveloped that they think gay marriage is a bad thing probably won't know all of these services belong to Google anyway, so they'll take even less losses.
Besides, you can bet Google has considered the business standpoint, and disagrees with you
Wow! Google owns soooo much stuff. Anywho~ not really fair to label people who don't agree with gay marriage as "underdeveloped." There are a large number of people in this world who are well educated and hold power who don't support gay marriage. If it weren't so, then this wouldn't even be a debate. Let's not resort to name calling just because someone disagrees with us
As a Christian I don't believe I'n same-sex marriage. According to the bible marriage Is a holy union between a man and a woman. That doesn't make me undeveloped. Anyways this won't make me stop using google products.
I can deal with citing a 2000 year old book but please say what you mean. When you say you don't believe in gay marriage your wrong, cause I'm pretty sure it exist. I think what you mean to say is that gay marriage is not ethical? I'm not sure please clarify.
I can only speak for myself but....
Obviously Gay marriage "exists," but as a Christian I believe that having physical/sexual relations with someone of the same sex is immoral, against God, and a sin. If you ever hear me say "I don't believe in gay marriage," that is what I mean.
Why is it a sin? As has been mentioned there are a fuckton of 'sins' in the bible and you're just cherry-picking. Homosexuality is just as much a 'sin' as working on the Sabbath or rebelling against your parents.
Also, if your only justification for condemning gay marriage is "it's in the bible lul" then you must realize how little that means. Believe what you want, but don't meddle in the affairs of consenting adults who deserve the same rights as everyone else.
On July 12 2012 22:37 sc2superfan101 wrote: i think Google needs to be less political.
Agreed.
From a business stand point, wouldn't it make more sense to remain neutral on polarizing subjects like this? I'm only one consumer, but I'm now considering changing to Bing and removing chrome.
As has been stated before, among young people (=most internet users, especially when looking ahead) people with anti-gay feeling as you are becoming more and more rare. So this stance should appeal to the majority of their possible users. Also, you would have to stop using your Android phone, Google, Chrome, Gmail, YouTube, Maps, Earth, etc.. Most people won't do that. People who are so undeveloped that they think gay marriage is a bad thing probably won't know all of these services belong to Google anyway, so they'll take even less losses.
Besides, you can bet Google has considered the business standpoint, and disagrees with you
Wow! Google owns soooo much stuff. Anywho~ not really fair to label people who don't agree with gay marriage as "underdeveloped." There are a large number of people in this world who are well educated and hold power who don't support gay marriage. If it weren't so, then this wouldn't even be a debate. Let's not resort to name calling just because someone disagrees with us
As a Christian I don't believe I'n same-sex marriage. According to the bible marriage Is a holy union between a man and a woman. That doesn't make me undeveloped. Anyways this won't make me stop using google products.
I can deal with citing a 2000 year old book but please say what you mean. When you say you don't believe in gay marriage your wrong, cause I'm pretty sure it exist. I think what you mean to say is that gay marriage is not ethical? I'm not sure please clarify.
I can only speak for myself but....
Obviously Gay marriage "exists," but as a Christian I believe that having physical/sexual relations with someone of the same sex is immoral, against God, and a sin. If you ever hear me say "I don't believe in gay marriage," that is what I mean.
As a rational human being I believe that your point of view is barbaric, against reason, and evil. I don't believe in Christians like you.
Also the whole ''as a Christian'' bit, is presumptuous. Plenty of Christians are not against gay marriage and plenty of Christian churches will wed homesexuals. ''As a fundamentalist Christian'' would be more accurate.
You sound bitter and angry, and I don't know why. Maybe I'm misinterpreting the tone of your post~
Someone asked for clarification about "I don't believe in gay marriage." So I clarified. I don't think aggressive posting from either side of this debate is beneficial.
On July 12 2012 22:37 sc2superfan101 wrote: i think Google needs to be less political.
Agreed.
From a business stand point, wouldn't it make more sense to remain neutral on polarizing subjects like this? I'm only one consumer, but I'm now considering changing to Bing and removing chrome.
As has been stated before, among young people (=most internet users, especially when looking ahead) people with anti-gay feeling as you are becoming more and more rare. So this stance should appeal to the majority of their possible users. Also, you would have to stop using your Android phone, Google, Chrome, Gmail, YouTube, Maps, Earth, etc.. Most people won't do that. People who are so undeveloped that they think gay marriage is a bad thing probably won't know all of these services belong to Google anyway, so they'll take even less losses.
Besides, you can bet Google has considered the business standpoint, and disagrees with you
Wow! Google owns soooo much stuff. Anywho~ not really fair to label people who don't agree with gay marriage as "underdeveloped." There are a large number of people in this world who are well educated and hold power who don't support gay marriage. If it weren't so, then this wouldn't even be a debate. Let's not resort to name calling just because someone disagrees with us
As a Christian I don't believe I'n same-sex marriage. According to the bible marriage Is a holy union between a man and a woman. That doesn't make me undeveloped. Anyways this won't make me stop using google products.
I can deal with citing a 2000 year old book but please say what you mean. When you say you don't believe in gay marriage your wrong, cause I'm pretty sure it exist. I think what you mean to say is that gay marriage is not ethical? I'm not sure please clarify.
I can only speak for myself but....
Obviously Gay marriage "exists," but as a Christian I believe that having physical/sexual relations with someone of the same sex is immoral, against God, and a sin. If you ever hear me say "I don't believe in gay marriage," that is what I mean.
As a rational human being I believe that your point of view is barbaric, against reason, and evil. I don't believe in Christians like you.
Also the whole ''as a Christian'' bit, is presumptuous. Plenty of Christians are not against gay marriage and plenty of Christian churches will wed homesexuals. ''As a fundamentalist Christian'' would be more accurate.
one doesn't have to be a fundamentalist christian to believe that gay-marriage is not ethical. and it is a minority of christians that support it and an even smaller minority of churches that will perform homosexual marriages. and i think his point was that his christianity is the reason he does not support it. now, i guess one could argue that christianity doesn't necessarily mean "no gay marriage" but at the same time, a lot of denominations, that is what it means. i don't think it's presumptuous to explain that your christianity is what makes you not support it.
Not allowing homosexuals to marry cos you read it in a book once is mean.
On July 12 2012 22:37 sc2superfan101 wrote: i think Google needs to be less political.
Agreed.
From a business stand point, wouldn't it make more sense to remain neutral on polarizing subjects like this? I'm only one consumer, but I'm now considering changing to Bing and removing chrome.
As has been stated before, among young people (=most internet users, especially when looking ahead) people with anti-gay feeling as you are becoming more and more rare. So this stance should appeal to the majority of their possible users. Also, you would have to stop using your Android phone, Google, Chrome, Gmail, YouTube, Maps, Earth, etc.. Most people won't do that. People who are so undeveloped that they think gay marriage is a bad thing probably won't know all of these services belong to Google anyway, so they'll take even less losses.
Besides, you can bet Google has considered the business standpoint, and disagrees with you
Wow! Google owns soooo much stuff. Anywho~ not really fair to label people who don't agree with gay marriage as "underdeveloped." There are a large number of people in this world who are well educated and hold power who don't support gay marriage. If it weren't so, then this wouldn't even be a debate. Let's not resort to name calling just because someone disagrees with us
As a Christian I don't believe I'n same-sex marriage. According to the bible marriage Is a holy union between a man and a woman. That doesn't make me undeveloped. Anyways this won't make me stop using google products.
I can deal with citing a 2000 year old book but please say what you mean. When you say you don't believe in gay marriage your wrong, cause I'm pretty sure it exist. I think what you mean to say is that gay marriage is not ethical? I'm not sure please clarify.
I can only speak for myself but....
Obviously Gay marriage "exists," but as a Christian I believe that having physical/sexual relations with someone of the same sex is immoral, against God, and a sin. If you ever hear me say "I don't believe in gay marriage," that is what I mean.
Understood, but nowhere in the new testament does Christ ask that of you (I'm sure he appreciates the help tho judging). And the old book (lev?) with that one anti-homo command was written in a time and place where the population was low and they were surrounded by enemies so they needed more babehs. Its also responsible for the whole pork shell fish whatever thing, as eating these things when not prepared in a sanitary manner or cooked throughly can make you sick or 'unclean'. (Josephs or Persian period no idea, I'm remembering this from a convo with some rel studies maj.)
On July 12 2012 22:37 sc2superfan101 wrote: i think Google needs to be less political.
Agreed.
From a business stand point, wouldn't it make more sense to remain neutral on polarizing subjects like this? I'm only one consumer, but I'm now considering changing to Bing and removing chrome.
I don't mean to derail, but you bring up an interesting question. What kind of thing would Google need to do to stop you from using their site? It would have to be pretty huge for me, because frankly I've come to use Google enough that the annoyance of finding a new site would be emmense. Although I could be an extremely lazy annomaly.
On July 12 2012 22:37 sc2superfan101 wrote: i think Google needs to be less political.
Agreed.
From a business stand point, wouldn't it make more sense to remain neutral on polarizing subjects like this? I'm only one consumer, but I'm now considering changing to Bing and removing chrome.
As has been stated before, among young people (=most internet users, especially when looking ahead) people with anti-gay feeling as you are becoming more and more rare. So this stance should appeal to the majority of their possible users. Also, you would have to stop using your Android phone, Google, Chrome, Gmail, YouTube, Maps, Earth, etc.. Most people won't do that. People who are so undeveloped that they think gay marriage is a bad thing probably won't know all of these services belong to Google anyway, so they'll take even less losses.
Besides, you can bet Google has considered the business standpoint, and disagrees with you
Wow! Google owns soooo much stuff. Anywho~ not really fair to label people who don't agree with gay marriage as "underdeveloped." There are a large number of people in this world who are well educated and hold power who don't support gay marriage. If it weren't so, then this wouldn't even be a debate. Let's not resort to name calling just because someone disagrees with us
As a Christian I don't believe I'n same-sex marriage. According to the bible marriage Is a holy union between a man and a woman. That doesn't make me undeveloped. Anyways this won't make me stop using google products.
I can deal with citing a 2000 year old book but please say what you mean. When you say you don't believe in gay marriage your wrong, cause I'm pretty sure it exist. I think what you mean to say is that gay marriage is not ethical? I'm not sure please clarify.
I can only speak for myself but....
Obviously Gay marriage "exists," but as a Christian I believe that having physical/sexual relations with someone of the same sex is immoral, against God, and a sin. If you ever hear me say "I don't believe in gay marriage," that is what I mean.
As a rational human being I believe that your point of view is barbaric, against reason, and evil. I don't believe in Christians like you.
that's mean.
Also the whole ''as a Christian'' bit, is presumptuous. Plenty of Christians are not against gay marriage and plenty of Christian churches will wed homesexuals. ''As a fundamentalist Christian'' would be more accurate.
one doesn't have to be a fundamentalist christian to believe that gay-marriage is not ethical. and it is a minority of christians that support it and an even smaller minority of churches that will perform homosexual marriages. and i think his point was that his christianity is the reason he does not support it. now, i guess one could argue that christianity doesn't necessarily mean "no gay marriage" but at the same time, a lot of denominations, that is what it means. i don't think it's presumptuous to explain that your christianity is what makes you not support it.
Not allowing homosexuals to marry cos you read it in a book once is mean.
mmm... i suppose one could make that argument. in fact, i don't really have much to say against it. i mean, from my point of view, it's not mean (and it's not just cause of some book)... but i could be wrong. maybe it is just "a book" and maybe it is mean.
but i think there is a difference between being intentionally mean and being unintentionally mean. if im being mean by not supporting gay marriage, than i guess im sorry for being mean. i hope if i am that i learn someday and stop doing it.
On July 12 2012 22:37 sc2superfan101 wrote: i think Google needs to be less political.
Agreed.
From a business stand point, wouldn't it make more sense to remain neutral on polarizing subjects like this? I'm only one consumer, but I'm now considering changing to Bing and removing chrome.
As has been stated before, among young people (=most internet users, especially when looking ahead) people with anti-gay feeling as you are becoming more and more rare. So this stance should appeal to the majority of their possible users. Also, you would have to stop using your Android phone, Google, Chrome, Gmail, YouTube, Maps, Earth, etc.. Most people won't do that. People who are so undeveloped that they think gay marriage is a bad thing probably won't know all of these services belong to Google anyway, so they'll take even less losses.
Besides, you can bet Google has considered the business standpoint, and disagrees with you
Wow! Google owns soooo much stuff. Anywho~ not really fair to label people who don't agree with gay marriage as "underdeveloped." There are a large number of people in this world who are well educated and hold power who don't support gay marriage. If it weren't so, then this wouldn't even be a debate. Let's not resort to name calling just because someone disagrees with us
As a Christian I don't believe I'n same-sex marriage. According to the bible marriage Is a holy union between a man and a woman. That doesn't make me undeveloped. Anyways this won't make me stop using google products.
I can deal with citing a 2000 year old book but please say what you mean. When you say you don't believe in gay marriage your wrong, cause I'm pretty sure it exist. I think what you mean to say is that gay marriage is not ethical? I'm not sure please clarify.
I can only speak for myself but....
Obviously Gay marriage "exists," but as a Christian I believe that having physical/sexual relations with someone of the same sex is immoral, against God, and a sin. If you ever hear me say "I don't believe in gay marriage," that is what I mean.
Understood, but nowhere in the new testament does Christ ask that of you (I'm sure he appreciates the help tho judging). And the old book (lev?) with that one anti-homo command was written in a time when and place where the population was low and they were surrounded by enemies so they needed more babehs. Its also responsible for the whole pork shell fish whatever thing, as eating these things when not prepared in a sanitary manner or cooked throughly can make you sick or 'unclean'. (Josephs or Persian period no idea, I'm remembering this from a convo with some rel studies maj.)
im not sure if i should respond because it's kind of off-topic i think, but i have two small problems:
just because Christ didn't tell us specifically that a thing was wrong doesn't mean that the thing isn't wrong. and i tend to think it's more along the lines of: if he didn't tell us specifically that the old rules were not applicable, than they are still applicable.
and the other problem i have is that i don't think that is what he meant by "judge not".
On July 12 2012 22:37 sc2superfan101 wrote: i think Google needs to be less political.
Agreed.
From a business stand point, wouldn't it make more sense to remain neutral on polarizing subjects like this? I'm only one consumer, but I'm now considering changing to Bing and removing chrome.
As has been stated before, among young people (=most internet users, especially when looking ahead) people with anti-gay feeling as you are becoming more and more rare. So this stance should appeal to the majority of their possible users. Also, you would have to stop using your Android phone, Google, Chrome, Gmail, YouTube, Maps, Earth, etc.. Most people won't do that. People who are so undeveloped that they think gay marriage is a bad thing probably won't know all of these services belong to Google anyway, so they'll take even less losses.
Besides, you can bet Google has considered the business standpoint, and disagrees with you
Wow! Google owns soooo much stuff. Anywho~ not really fair to label people who don't agree with gay marriage as "underdeveloped." There are a large number of people in this world who are well educated and hold power who don't support gay marriage. If it weren't so, then this wouldn't even be a debate. Let's not resort to name calling just because someone disagrees with us
As a Christian I don't believe I'n same-sex marriage. According to the bible marriage Is a holy union between a man and a woman. That doesn't make me undeveloped. Anyways this won't make me stop using google products.
I can deal with citing a 2000 year old book but please say what you mean. When you say you don't believe in gay marriage your wrong, cause I'm pretty sure it exist. I think what you mean to say is that gay marriage is not ethical? I'm not sure please clarify.
I can only speak for myself but....
Obviously Gay marriage "exists," but as a Christian I believe that having physical/sexual relations with someone of the same sex is immoral, against God, and a sin. If you ever hear me say "I don't believe in gay marriage," that is what I mean.
As a rational human being I believe that your point of view is barbaric, against reason, and evil. I don't believe in Christians like you.
Also the whole ''as a Christian'' bit, is presumptuous. Plenty of Christians are not against gay marriage and plenty of Christian churches will wed homesexuals. ''As a fundamentalist Christian'' would be more accurate.
You sound bitter and angry, and I don't know why. Maybe I'm misinterpreting the tone of your post~
Someone asked for clarification about "I don't believe in gay marriage." So I clarified. I don't think aggressive posting from either side of this debate is beneficial.
I am bitter and angry because people like you will still needlessly support the discrimination of a group of people who harm nobody.
I simply gave my opinion of your clarification. I will not spare the feelings of those who support oppression. I have called you no names, and I will show you the same respect I would show to any fellow human being. However, your views are not entiteled to special sensitivity just because their origin is a maistream religion.
On July 12 2012 22:37 sc2superfan101 wrote: i think Google needs to be less political.
Agreed.
From a business stand point, wouldn't it make more sense to remain neutral on polarizing subjects like this? I'm only one consumer, but I'm now considering changing to Bing and removing chrome.
As has been stated before, among young people (=most internet users, especially when looking ahead) people with anti-gay feeling as you are becoming more and more rare. So this stance should appeal to the majority of their possible users. Also, you would have to stop using your Android phone, Google, Chrome, Gmail, YouTube, Maps, Earth, etc.. Most people won't do that. People who are so undeveloped that they think gay marriage is a bad thing probably won't know all of these services belong to Google anyway, so they'll take even less losses.
Besides, you can bet Google has considered the business standpoint, and disagrees with you
Wow! Google owns soooo much stuff. Anywho~ not really fair to label people who don't agree with gay marriage as "underdeveloped." There are a large number of people in this world who are well educated and hold power who don't support gay marriage. If it weren't so, then this wouldn't even be a debate. Let's not resort to name calling just because someone disagrees with us
As a Christian I don't believe I'n same-sex marriage. According to the bible marriage Is a holy union between a man and a woman. That doesn't make me undeveloped. Anyways this won't make me stop using google products.
I can deal with citing a 2000 year old book but please say what you mean. When you say you don't believe in gay marriage your wrong, cause I'm pretty sure it exist. I think what you mean to say is that gay marriage is not ethical? I'm not sure please clarify.
I can only speak for myself but....
Obviously Gay marriage "exists," but as a Christian I believe that having physical/sexual relations with someone of the same sex is immoral, against God, and a sin. If you ever hear me say "I don't believe in gay marriage," that is what I mean.
Why is it a sin? As has been mentioned there are a fuckton of 'sins' in the bible and you're just cherry-picking. Homosexuality is just as much a 'sin' as working on the Sabbath or rebelling against your parents.
Also, if your only justification for condemning gay marriage is "it's in the bible lul" then you must realize how little that means. Believe what you want, but don't meddle in the affairs of consenting adults who deserve the same rights as everyone else.
Who's cherrypicking? I've never once said on these forums that "this" sin is greater than "that" sin. I've never once (and never will) say that I'm holier than thou, better than, or with less sin than a gay person.
Gay marriage has implications that go beyond the personal bubble of the gay couple. I'm not meddling in any consenting adults' personal lives, but in a country where democracy is the order of the day, I have a right to encourage our elected officials to vote in a way that represents the America I want to see.
And in a forum that promotes contrasting beliefs/ideas/opinions I think its safe for both sides of this debate, and every other debate, to share their thoughts with one another without belittling each other.
Also:
Understood, but nowhere in the new testament does Christ ask that of you (I'm sure he appreciates the help tho judging).
From a business stand point, wouldn't it make more sense to remain neutral on polarizing subjects like this? I'm only one consumer, but I'm now considering changing to Bing and removing chrome.
As has been stated before, among young people (=most internet users, especially when looking ahead) people with anti-gay feeling as you are becoming more and more rare. So this stance should appeal to the majority of their possible users. Also, you would have to stop using your Android phone, Google, Chrome, Gmail, YouTube, Maps, Earth, etc.. Most people won't do that. People who are so undeveloped that they think gay marriage is a bad thing probably won't know all of these services belong to Google anyway, so they'll take even less losses.
Besides, you can bet Google has considered the business standpoint, and disagrees with you
Wow! Google owns soooo much stuff. Anywho~ not really fair to label people who don't agree with gay marriage as "underdeveloped." There are a large number of people in this world who are well educated and hold power who don't support gay marriage. If it weren't so, then this wouldn't even be a debate. Let's not resort to name calling just because someone disagrees with us
As a Christian I don't believe I'n same-sex marriage. According to the bible marriage Is a holy union between a man and a woman. That doesn't make me undeveloped. Anyways this won't make me stop using google products.
I can deal with citing a 2000 year old book but please say what you mean. When you say you don't believe in gay marriage your wrong, cause I'm pretty sure it exist. I think what you mean to say is that gay marriage is not ethical? I'm not sure please clarify.
I can only speak for myself but....
Obviously Gay marriage "exists," but as a Christian I believe that having physical/sexual relations with someone of the same sex is immoral, against God, and a sin. If you ever hear me say "I don't believe in gay marriage," that is what I mean.
As a rational human being I believe that your point of view is barbaric, against reason, and evil. I don't believe in Christians like you.
that's mean.
Also the whole ''as a Christian'' bit, is presumptuous. Plenty of Christians are not against gay marriage and plenty of Christian churches will wed homesexuals. ''As a fundamentalist Christian'' would be more accurate.
one doesn't have to be a fundamentalist christian to believe that gay-marriage is not ethical. and it is a minority of christians that support it and an even smaller minority of churches that will perform homosexual marriages. and i think his point was that his christianity is the reason he does not support it. now, i guess one could argue that christianity doesn't necessarily mean "no gay marriage" but at the same time, a lot of denominations, that is what it means. i don't think it's presumptuous to explain that your christianity is what makes you not support it.
Not allowing homosexuals to marry cos you read it in a book once is mean.
mmm... i suppose one could make that argument. in fact, i don't really have much to say against it. i mean, from my point of view, it's not mean (and it's not just cause of some book)... but i could be wrong. maybe it is just "a book" and maybe it is mean.
but i think there is a difference between being intentionally mean and being unintentionally mean. if im being mean by not supporting gay marriage, than i guess im sorry for being mean. i hope if i am that i learn someday and stop doing it.
On July 12 2012 22:37 sc2superfan101 wrote: i think Google needs to be less political.
Agreed.
From a business stand point, wouldn't it make more sense to remain neutral on polarizing subjects like this? I'm only one consumer, but I'm now considering changing to Bing and removing chrome.
As has been stated before, among young people (=most internet users, especially when looking ahead) people with anti-gay feeling as you are becoming more and more rare. So this stance should appeal to the majority of their possible users. Also, you would have to stop using your Android phone, Google, Chrome, Gmail, YouTube, Maps, Earth, etc.. Most people won't do that. People who are so undeveloped that they think gay marriage is a bad thing probably won't know all of these services belong to Google anyway, so they'll take even less losses.
Besides, you can bet Google has considered the business standpoint, and disagrees with you
Wow! Google owns soooo much stuff. Anywho~ not really fair to label people who don't agree with gay marriage as "underdeveloped." There are a large number of people in this world who are well educated and hold power who don't support gay marriage. If it weren't so, then this wouldn't even be a debate. Let's not resort to name calling just because someone disagrees with us
As a Christian I don't believe I'n same-sex marriage. According to the bible marriage Is a holy union between a man and a woman. That doesn't make me undeveloped. Anyways this won't make me stop using google products.
I can deal with citing a 2000 year old book but please say what you mean. When you say you don't believe in gay marriage your wrong, cause I'm pretty sure it exist. I think what you mean to say is that gay marriage is not ethical? I'm not sure please clarify.
I can only speak for myself but....
Obviously Gay marriage "exists," but as a Christian I believe that having physical/sexual relations with someone of the same sex is immoral, against God, and a sin. If you ever hear me say "I don't believe in gay marriage," that is what I mean.
Understood, but nowhere in the new testament does Christ ask that of you (I'm sure he appreciates the help tho judging). And the old book (lev?) with that one anti-homo command was written in a time when and place where the population was low and they were surrounded by enemies so they needed more babehs. Its also responsible for the whole pork shell fish whatever thing, as eating these things when not prepared in a sanitary manner or cooked throughly can make you sick or 'unclean'. (Josephs or Persian period no idea, I'm remembering this from a convo with some rel studies maj.)
im not sure if i should respond because it's kind of off-topic i think, but i have two small problems:
just because Christ didn't tell us specifically that a thing was wrong doesn't mean that the thing isn't wrong. and i tend to think it's more along the lines of: if he didn't tell us specifically that the old rules were not applicable, than they are still applicable.
and the other problem i have is that i don't think that is what he meant by "judge not".
Do you then also think we would stone people who work on the Sabbath? After all, the old rules apparently still apply. Also, my kid talked back to me today so I'll just go ahead and put him to death, since, y'know, that's what the bible tells me to do.
On July 12 2012 22:37 sc2superfan101 wrote: i think Google needs to be less political.
Agreed.
From a business stand point, wouldn't it make more sense to remain neutral on polarizing subjects like this? I'm only one consumer, but I'm now considering changing to Bing and removing chrome.
As has been stated before, among young people (=most internet users, especially when looking ahead) people with anti-gay feeling as you are becoming more and more rare. So this stance should appeal to the majority of their possible users. Also, you would have to stop using your Android phone, Google, Chrome, Gmail, YouTube, Maps, Earth, etc.. Most people won't do that. People who are so undeveloped that they think gay marriage is a bad thing probably won't know all of these services belong to Google anyway, so they'll take even less losses.
Besides, you can bet Google has considered the business standpoint, and disagrees with you
Wow! Google owns soooo much stuff. Anywho~ not really fair to label people who don't agree with gay marriage as "underdeveloped." There are a large number of people in this world who are well educated and hold power who don't support gay marriage. If it weren't so, then this wouldn't even be a debate. Let's not resort to name calling just because someone disagrees with us
As a Christian I don't believe I'n same-sex marriage. According to the bible marriage Is a holy union between a man and a woman. That doesn't make me undeveloped. Anyways this won't make me stop using google products.
I can deal with citing a 2000 year old book but please say what you mean. When you say you don't believe in gay marriage your wrong, cause I'm pretty sure it exist. I think what you mean to say is that gay marriage is not ethical? I'm not sure please clarify.
I can only speak for myself but....
Obviously Gay marriage "exists," but as a Christian I believe that having physical/sexual relations with someone of the same sex is immoral, against God, and a sin. If you ever hear me say "I don't believe in gay marriage," that is what I mean.
Why is it a sin? As has been mentioned there are a fuckton of 'sins' in the bible and you're just cherry-picking. Homosexuality is just as much a 'sin' as working on the Sabbath or rebelling against your parents.
Also, if your only justification for condemning gay marriage is "it's in the bible lul" then you must realize how little that means. Believe what you want, but don't meddle in the affairs of consenting adults who deserve the same rights as everyone else.
Who's cherrypicking? I've never once said on these forums that "this" sin is greater than "that" sin. I've never once (and never will) say that I'm holier than thou, better than, or with less sin than a gay person.
Gay marriage has implications that go beyond the personal bubble of the gay couple. I'm not meddling in any consenting adults' personal lives, but in a country where democracy is the order of the day, I have a right to encourage our elected officials to vote in a way that represents the America I want to see.
And in a forum that promotes contrasting beliefs/ideas/opinions I think its safe for both sides of this debate, and every other debate, to share their thoughts with one another without belittling each other.
Why don't you push for working on the Sabbath to be illegal then? Or any of the many sins of the bible we commit every single day? Maybe because the one about homosexuals is easy for you to go against... I don't see anyone doing this, so yes, it is cherry-picking.
Again, you clearly are meddling in the lives of consenting adults when you want to take away their rights, lol.
On July 12 2012 23:53 bblack wrote: [quote] As has been stated before, among young people (=most internet users, especially when looking ahead) people with anti-gay feeling as you are becoming more and more rare. So this stance should appeal to the majority of their possible users. Also, you would have to stop using your Android phone, Google, Chrome, Gmail, YouTube, Maps, Earth, etc.. Most people won't do that. People who are so undeveloped that they think gay marriage is a bad thing probably won't know all of these services belong to Google anyway, so they'll take even less losses.
Besides, you can bet Google has considered the business standpoint, and disagrees with you
Wow! Google owns soooo much stuff. Anywho~ not really fair to label people who don't agree with gay marriage as "underdeveloped." There are a large number of people in this world who are well educated and hold power who don't support gay marriage. If it weren't so, then this wouldn't even be a debate. Let's not resort to name calling just because someone disagrees with us
As a Christian I don't believe I'n same-sex marriage. According to the bible marriage Is a holy union between a man and a woman. That doesn't make me undeveloped. Anyways this won't make me stop using google products.
I can deal with citing a 2000 year old book but please say what you mean. When you say you don't believe in gay marriage your wrong, cause I'm pretty sure it exist. I think what you mean to say is that gay marriage is not ethical? I'm not sure please clarify.
I can only speak for myself but....
Obviously Gay marriage "exists," but as a Christian I believe that having physical/sexual relations with someone of the same sex is immoral, against God, and a sin. If you ever hear me say "I don't believe in gay marriage," that is what I mean.
As a rational human being I believe that your point of view is barbaric, against reason, and evil. I don't believe in Christians like you.
that's mean.
Also the whole ''as a Christian'' bit, is presumptuous. Plenty of Christians are not against gay marriage and plenty of Christian churches will wed homesexuals. ''As a fundamentalist Christian'' would be more accurate.
one doesn't have to be a fundamentalist christian to believe that gay-marriage is not ethical. and it is a minority of christians that support it and an even smaller minority of churches that will perform homosexual marriages. and i think his point was that his christianity is the reason he does not support it. now, i guess one could argue that christianity doesn't necessarily mean "no gay marriage" but at the same time, a lot of denominations, that is what it means. i don't think it's presumptuous to explain that your christianity is what makes you not support it.
Not allowing homosexuals to marry cos you read it in a book once is mean.
mmm... i suppose one could make that argument. in fact, i don't really have much to say against it. i mean, from my point of view, it's not mean (and it's not just cause of some book)... but i could be wrong. maybe it is just "a book" and maybe it is mean.
but i think there is a difference between being intentionally mean and being unintentionally mean. if im being mean by not supporting gay marriage, than i guess im sorry for being mean. i hope if i am that i learn someday and stop doing it.
On July 13 2012 04:48 AdamBanks wrote:
On July 13 2012 04:28 Joedaddy wrote:
On July 13 2012 04:22 AdamBanks wrote:
On July 13 2012 04:04 MindBreaker wrote:
On July 13 2012 03:56 Joedaddy wrote:
On July 12 2012 23:53 bblack wrote:
On July 12 2012 23:30 Joedaddy wrote:
On July 12 2012 22:37 sc2superfan101 wrote: i think Google needs to be less political.
Agreed.
From a business stand point, wouldn't it make more sense to remain neutral on polarizing subjects like this? I'm only one consumer, but I'm now considering changing to Bing and removing chrome.
As has been stated before, among young people (=most internet users, especially when looking ahead) people with anti-gay feeling as you are becoming more and more rare. So this stance should appeal to the majority of their possible users. Also, you would have to stop using your Android phone, Google, Chrome, Gmail, YouTube, Maps, Earth, etc.. Most people won't do that. People who are so undeveloped that they think gay marriage is a bad thing probably won't know all of these services belong to Google anyway, so they'll take even less losses.
Besides, you can bet Google has considered the business standpoint, and disagrees with you
Wow! Google owns soooo much stuff. Anywho~ not really fair to label people who don't agree with gay marriage as "underdeveloped." There are a large number of people in this world who are well educated and hold power who don't support gay marriage. If it weren't so, then this wouldn't even be a debate. Let's not resort to name calling just because someone disagrees with us
As a Christian I don't believe I'n same-sex marriage. According to the bible marriage Is a holy union between a man and a woman. That doesn't make me undeveloped. Anyways this won't make me stop using google products.
I can deal with citing a 2000 year old book but please say what you mean. When you say you don't believe in gay marriage your wrong, cause I'm pretty sure it exist. I think what you mean to say is that gay marriage is not ethical? I'm not sure please clarify.
I can only speak for myself but....
Obviously Gay marriage "exists," but as a Christian I believe that having physical/sexual relations with someone of the same sex is immoral, against God, and a sin. If you ever hear me say "I don't believe in gay marriage," that is what I mean.
Understood, but nowhere in the new testament does Christ ask that of you (I'm sure he appreciates the help tho judging). And the old book (lev?) with that one anti-homo command was written in a time when and place where the population was low and they were surrounded by enemies so they needed more babehs. Its also responsible for the whole pork shell fish whatever thing, as eating these things when not prepared in a sanitary manner or cooked throughly can make you sick or 'unclean'. (Josephs or Persian period no idea, I'm remembering this from a convo with some rel studies maj.)
im not sure if i should respond because it's kind of off-topic i think, but i have two small problems:
just because Christ didn't tell us specifically that a thing was wrong doesn't mean that the thing isn't wrong. and i tend to think it's more along the lines of: if he didn't tell us specifically that the old rules were not applicable, than they are still applicable.
and the other problem i have is that i don't think that is what he meant by "judge not".
Do you then also think we would stone people who work on the Sabbath? After all, the old rules apparently still apply. Also, my kid talked back to me today so I'll just go ahead and put him to death, since, y'know, that's what the bible tells me to do.
well the stoning people to death thing can be reasonably assumed to have been covered by the "You who have not sinned, cast the first stone" story where he saved the prostitute. and also by the apostles picking wheat on the sabbath story. also, the story of him telling the pharisees "if it were the sabbath and your sheep fell in a ravine, would you not stoop to pick it up"
and the putting kids to death thing (imo) can be covered by the previous story, and by the "resist not the evil man" speech. also, the context of "dishonor your mother and father" was not "talking back" but rather more of a "abandoning them in their old age" kind of thing.
also: i am rather uncomfortable even talking about stoning people while discussing this topic. i once made a very stupid and hasty comparison while discussing a topic like this and was rightfully temp-banned for it.
On July 12 2012 22:37 sc2superfan101 wrote: i think Google needs to be less political.
Agreed.
From a business stand point, wouldn't it make more sense to remain neutral on polarizing subjects like this? I'm only one consumer, but I'm now considering changing to Bing and removing chrome.
As has been stated before, among young people (=most internet users, especially when looking ahead) people with anti-gay feeling as you are becoming more and more rare. So this stance should appeal to the majority of their possible users. Also, you would have to stop using your Android phone, Google, Chrome, Gmail, YouTube, Maps, Earth, etc.. Most people won't do that. People who are so undeveloped that they think gay marriage is a bad thing probably won't know all of these services belong to Google anyway, so they'll take even less losses.
Besides, you can bet Google has considered the business standpoint, and disagrees with you
Wow! Google owns soooo much stuff. Anywho~ not really fair to label people who don't agree with gay marriage as "underdeveloped." There are a large number of people in this world who are well educated and hold power who don't support gay marriage. If it weren't so, then this wouldn't even be a debate. Let's not resort to name calling just because someone disagrees with us
As a Christian I don't believe I'n same-sex marriage. According to the bible marriage Is a holy union between a man and a woman. That doesn't make me undeveloped. Anyways this won't make me stop using google products.
I can deal with citing a 2000 year old book but please say what you mean. When you say you don't believe in gay marriage your wrong, cause I'm pretty sure it exist. I think what you mean to say is that gay marriage is not ethical? I'm not sure please clarify.
I can only speak for myself but....
Obviously Gay marriage "exists," but as a Christian I believe that having physical/sexual relations with someone of the same sex is immoral, against God, and a sin. If you ever hear me say "I don't believe in gay marriage," that is what I mean.
Why is it a sin? As has been mentioned there are a fuckton of 'sins' in the bible and you're just cherry-picking. Homosexuality is just as much a 'sin' as working on the Sabbath or rebelling against your parents.
Also, if your only justification for condemning gay marriage is "it's in the bible lul" then you must realize how little that means. Believe what you want, but don't meddle in the affairs of consenting adults who deserve the same rights as everyone else.
Who's cherrypicking? I've never once said on these forums that "this" sin is greater than "that" sin. I've never once (and never will) say that I'm holier than thou, better than, or with less sin than a gay person.
Gay marriage has implications that go beyond the personal bubble of the gay couple. I'm not meddling in any consenting adults' personal lives, but in a country where democracy is the order of the day, I have a right to encourage our elected officials to vote in a way that represents the America I want to see.
And in a forum that promotes contrasting beliefs/ideas/opinions I think its safe for both sides of this debate, and every other debate, to share their thoughts with one another without belittling each other.
Why don't you push for working on the Sabbath to be illegal then? Or any of the many sins of the bible we commit every single day? Maybe because the one about homosexuals is easy for you to go against... I don't see anyone doing this, so yes, it is cherry-picking.
Again, you clearly are meddling in the lives of consenting adults when you want to take away their rights, lol.
Personally, I don't work on Sunday's. Never have and hopefully never will. If there were a debate on working on Sundays then I would put my 2 cents in and encourage my politicians etc etc etc.
From a business stand point, wouldn't it make more sense to remain neutral on polarizing subjects like this? I'm only one consumer, but I'm now considering changing to Bing and removing chrome.
As has been stated before, among young people (=most internet users, especially when looking ahead) people with anti-gay feeling as you are becoming more and more rare. So this stance should appeal to the majority of their possible users. Also, you would have to stop using your Android phone, Google, Chrome, Gmail, YouTube, Maps, Earth, etc.. Most people won't do that. People who are so undeveloped that they think gay marriage is a bad thing probably won't know all of these services belong to Google anyway, so they'll take even less losses.
Besides, you can bet Google has considered the business standpoint, and disagrees with you
Wow! Google owns soooo much stuff. Anywho~ not really fair to label people who don't agree with gay marriage as "underdeveloped." There are a large number of people in this world who are well educated and hold power who don't support gay marriage. If it weren't so, then this wouldn't even be a debate. Let's not resort to name calling just because someone disagrees with us
As a Christian I don't believe I'n same-sex marriage. According to the bible marriage Is a holy union between a man and a woman. That doesn't make me undeveloped. Anyways this won't make me stop using google products.
I can deal with citing a 2000 year old book but please say what you mean. When you say you don't believe in gay marriage your wrong, cause I'm pretty sure it exist. I think what you mean to say is that gay marriage is not ethical? I'm not sure please clarify.
I can only speak for myself but....
Obviously Gay marriage "exists," but as a Christian I believe that having physical/sexual relations with someone of the same sex is immoral, against God, and a sin. If you ever hear me say "I don't believe in gay marriage," that is what I mean.
Why is it a sin? As has been mentioned there are a fuckton of 'sins' in the bible and you're just cherry-picking. Homosexuality is just as much a 'sin' as working on the Sabbath or rebelling against your parents.
Also, if your only justification for condemning gay marriage is "it's in the bible lul" then you must realize how little that means. Believe what you want, but don't meddle in the affairs of consenting adults who deserve the same rights as everyone else.
Who's cherrypicking? I've never once said on these forums that "this" sin is greater than "that" sin. I've never once (and never will) say that I'm holier than thou, better than, or with less sin than a gay person.
Gay marriage has implications that go beyond the personal bubble of the gay couple. I'm not meddling in any consenting adults' personal lives, but in a country where democracy is the order of the day, I have a right to encourage our elected officials to vote in a way that represents the America I want to see.
And in a forum that promotes contrasting beliefs/ideas/opinions I think its safe for both sides of this debate, and every other debate, to share their thoughts with one another without belittling each other.
Why don't you push for working on the Sabbath to be illegal then? Or any of the many sins of the bible we commit every single day? Maybe because the one about homosexuals is easy for you to go against... I don't see anyone doing this, so yes, it is cherry-picking.
Again, you clearly are meddling in the lives of consenting adults when you want to take away their rights, lol.
Personally, I don't work on Sunday's. Never have and hopefully never will. If there were a debate on working on Sundays then I would put my 2 cents in and encourage my politicians etc etc etc.
So, then you actually DON'T have a problem with meddling in the lives of consenting adults, if your book seems to tell you to do so?
On July 12 2012 22:37 sc2superfan101 wrote: i think Google needs to be less political.
Agreed.
From a business stand point, wouldn't it make more sense to remain neutral on polarizing subjects like this? I'm only one consumer, but I'm now considering changing to Bing and removing chrome.
As has been stated before, among young people (=most internet users, especially when looking ahead) people with anti-gay feeling as you are becoming more and more rare. So this stance should appeal to the majority of their possible users. Also, you would have to stop using your Android phone, Google, Chrome, Gmail, YouTube, Maps, Earth, etc.. Most people won't do that. People who are so undeveloped that they think gay marriage is a bad thing probably won't know all of these services belong to Google anyway, so they'll take even less losses.
Besides, you can bet Google has considered the business standpoint, and disagrees with you
Wow! Google owns soooo much stuff. Anywho~ not really fair to label people who don't agree with gay marriage as "underdeveloped." There are a large number of people in this world who are well educated and hold power who don't support gay marriage. If it weren't so, then this wouldn't even be a debate. Let's not resort to name calling just because someone disagrees with us
As a Christian I don't believe I'n same-sex marriage. According to the bible marriage Is a holy union between a man and a woman. That doesn't make me undeveloped. Anyways this won't make me stop using google products.
I can deal with citing a 2000 year old book but please say what you mean. When you say you don't believe in gay marriage your wrong, cause I'm pretty sure it exist. I think what you mean to say is that gay marriage is not ethical? I'm not sure please clarify.
I can only speak for myself but....
Obviously Gay marriage "exists," but as a Christian I believe that having physical/sexual relations with someone of the same sex is immoral, against God, and a sin. If you ever hear me say "I don't believe in gay marriage," that is what I mean.
Why is it a sin? As has been mentioned there are a fuckton of 'sins' in the bible and you're just cherry-picking. Homosexuality is just as much a 'sin' as working on the Sabbath or rebelling against your parents.
Also, if your only justification for condemning gay marriage is "it's in the bible lul" then you must realize how little that means. Believe what you want, but don't meddle in the affairs of consenting adults who deserve the same rights as everyone else.
Who's cherrypicking? I've never once said on these forums that "this" sin is greater than "that" sin. I've never once (and never will) say that I'm holier than thou, better than, or with less sin than a gay person.
Gay marriage has implications that go beyond the personal bubble of the gay couple. I'm not meddling in any consenting adults' personal lives, but in a country where democracy is the order of the day, I have a right to encourage our elected officials to vote in a way that represents the America I want to see.
And in a forum that promotes contrasting beliefs/ideas/opinions I think its safe for both sides of this debate, and every other debate, to share their thoughts with one another without belittling each other.
Why don't you push for working on the Sabbath to be illegal then? Or any of the many sins of the bible we commit every single day? Maybe because the one about homosexuals is easy for you to go against... I don't see anyone doing this, so yes, it is cherry-picking.
Again, you clearly are meddling in the lives of consenting adults when you want to take away their rights, lol.
This is a common argument for gay marriage but it severely misses the point of what the gay marriage movement is trying to do.
This is a debate about standards. Both sides want a different standard for what constitutes a valid marriage. Gay marriage activists want a standard that includes two consenting adults, and traditional marriage activists want a standard that includes two consenting, one male and one female adults. The important thing to remember that BOTH sides want a standard.
Standards are inherently unfair. But every society has standards for all sorts of behavior or allowable actions. Blind people or people with chronic seizures are not allowed a driving liscence. Color blind people are not allowed to be fighter pilots in the Air force. These are all unfair, but we want these standards because proper standards make for a better society.
The debate about marriage is not about people "meddling" or "being unfair" with gays, both sides of the debate, by nature of wanting a standard for marriage at all are guilty of being unfair to some group or person to whom the standard will exclude.
The real debate is about what standard forms the best society and why. People need to talk about that and not about this religious stuff, etc.
From a business stand point, wouldn't it make more sense to remain neutral on polarizing subjects like this? I'm only one consumer, but I'm now considering changing to Bing and removing chrome.
As has been stated before, among young people (=most internet users, especially when looking ahead) people with anti-gay feeling as you are becoming more and more rare. So this stance should appeal to the majority of their possible users. Also, you would have to stop using your Android phone, Google, Chrome, Gmail, YouTube, Maps, Earth, etc.. Most people won't do that. People who are so undeveloped that they think gay marriage is a bad thing probably won't know all of these services belong to Google anyway, so they'll take even less losses.
Besides, you can bet Google has considered the business standpoint, and disagrees with you
Wow! Google owns soooo much stuff. Anywho~ not really fair to label people who don't agree with gay marriage as "underdeveloped." There are a large number of people in this world who are well educated and hold power who don't support gay marriage. If it weren't so, then this wouldn't even be a debate. Let's not resort to name calling just because someone disagrees with us
As a Christian I don't believe I'n same-sex marriage. According to the bible marriage Is a holy union between a man and a woman. That doesn't make me undeveloped. Anyways this won't make me stop using google products.
I can deal with citing a 2000 year old book but please say what you mean. When you say you don't believe in gay marriage your wrong, cause I'm pretty sure it exist. I think what you mean to say is that gay marriage is not ethical? I'm not sure please clarify.
I can only speak for myself but....
Obviously Gay marriage "exists," but as a Christian I believe that having physical/sexual relations with someone of the same sex is immoral, against God, and a sin. If you ever hear me say "I don't believe in gay marriage," that is what I mean.
As a rational human being I believe that your point of view is barbaric, against reason, and evil. I don't believe in Christians like you.
that's mean.
Also the whole ''as a Christian'' bit, is presumptuous. Plenty of Christians are not against gay marriage and plenty of Christian churches will wed homesexuals. ''As a fundamentalist Christian'' would be more accurate.
one doesn't have to be a fundamentalist christian to believe that gay-marriage is not ethical. and it is a minority of christians that support it and an even smaller minority of churches that will perform homosexual marriages. and i think his point was that his christianity is the reason he does not support it. now, i guess one could argue that christianity doesn't necessarily mean "no gay marriage" but at the same time, a lot of denominations, that is what it means. i don't think it's presumptuous to explain that your christianity is what makes you not support it.
Not allowing homosexuals to marry cos you read it in a book once is mean.
mmm... i suppose one could make that argument. in fact, i don't really have much to say against it. i mean, from my point of view, it's not mean (and it's not just cause of some book)... but i could be wrong. maybe it is just "a book" and maybe it is mean.
but i think there is a difference between being intentionally mean and being unintentionally mean. if im being mean by not supporting gay marriage, than i guess im sorry for being mean. i hope if i am that i learn someday and stop doing it.
On July 12 2012 22:37 sc2superfan101 wrote: i think Google needs to be less political.
Agreed.
From a business stand point, wouldn't it make more sense to remain neutral on polarizing subjects like this? I'm only one consumer, but I'm now considering changing to Bing and removing chrome.
As has been stated before, among young people (=most internet users, especially when looking ahead) people with anti-gay feeling as you are becoming more and more rare. So this stance should appeal to the majority of their possible users. Also, you would have to stop using your Android phone, Google, Chrome, Gmail, YouTube, Maps, Earth, etc.. Most people won't do that. People who are so undeveloped that they think gay marriage is a bad thing probably won't know all of these services belong to Google anyway, so they'll take even less losses.
Besides, you can bet Google has considered the business standpoint, and disagrees with you
Wow! Google owns soooo much stuff. Anywho~ not really fair to label people who don't agree with gay marriage as "underdeveloped." There are a large number of people in this world who are well educated and hold power who don't support gay marriage. If it weren't so, then this wouldn't even be a debate. Let's not resort to name calling just because someone disagrees with us
As a Christian I don't believe I'n same-sex marriage. According to the bible marriage Is a holy union between a man and a woman. That doesn't make me undeveloped. Anyways this won't make me stop using google products.
I can deal with citing a 2000 year old book but please say what you mean. When you say you don't believe in gay marriage your wrong, cause I'm pretty sure it exist. I think what you mean to say is that gay marriage is not ethical? I'm not sure please clarify.
I can only speak for myself but....
Obviously Gay marriage "exists," but as a Christian I believe that having physical/sexual relations with someone of the same sex is immoral, against God, and a sin. If you ever hear me say "I don't believe in gay marriage," that is what I mean.
Understood, but nowhere in the new testament does Christ ask that of you (I'm sure he appreciates the help tho judging). And the old book (lev?) with that one anti-homo command was written in a time when and place where the population was low and they were surrounded by enemies so they needed more babehs. Its also responsible for the whole pork shell fish whatever thing, as eating these things when not prepared in a sanitary manner or cooked throughly can make you sick or 'unclean'. (Josephs or Persian period no idea, I'm remembering this from a convo with some rel studies maj.)
im not sure if i should respond because it's kind of off-topic i think, but i have two small problems:
just because Christ didn't tell us specifically that a thing was wrong doesn't mean that the thing isn't wrong. and i tend to think it's more along the lines of: if he didn't tell us specifically that the old rules were not applicable, than they are still applicable.
and the other problem i have is that i don't think that is what he meant by "judge not".
I dunno, I prefer the 10 commandments to the 613 Mitzvot.
"When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. "
From a business stand point, wouldn't it make more sense to remain neutral on polarizing subjects like this? I'm only one consumer, but I'm now considering changing to Bing and removing chrome.
As has been stated before, among young people (=most internet users, especially when looking ahead) people with anti-gay feeling as you are becoming more and more rare. So this stance should appeal to the majority of their possible users. Also, you would have to stop using your Android phone, Google, Chrome, Gmail, YouTube, Maps, Earth, etc.. Most people won't do that. People who are so undeveloped that they think gay marriage is a bad thing probably won't know all of these services belong to Google anyway, so they'll take even less losses.
Besides, you can bet Google has considered the business standpoint, and disagrees with you
Wow! Google owns soooo much stuff. Anywho~ not really fair to label people who don't agree with gay marriage as "underdeveloped." There are a large number of people in this world who are well educated and hold power who don't support gay marriage. If it weren't so, then this wouldn't even be a debate. Let's not resort to name calling just because someone disagrees with us
As a Christian I don't believe I'n same-sex marriage. According to the bible marriage Is a holy union between a man and a woman. That doesn't make me undeveloped. Anyways this won't make me stop using google products.
I can deal with citing a 2000 year old book but please say what you mean. When you say you don't believe in gay marriage your wrong, cause I'm pretty sure it exist. I think what you mean to say is that gay marriage is not ethical? I'm not sure please clarify.
I can only speak for myself but....
Obviously Gay marriage "exists," but as a Christian I believe that having physical/sexual relations with someone of the same sex is immoral, against God, and a sin. If you ever hear me say "I don't believe in gay marriage," that is what I mean.
Why is it a sin? As has been mentioned there are a fuckton of 'sins' in the bible and you're just cherry-picking. Homosexuality is just as much a 'sin' as working on the Sabbath or rebelling against your parents.
Also, if your only justification for condemning gay marriage is "it's in the bible lul" then you must realize how little that means. Believe what you want, but don't meddle in the affairs of consenting adults who deserve the same rights as everyone else.
Who's cherrypicking? I've never once said on these forums that "this" sin is greater than "that" sin. I've never once (and never will) say that I'm holier than thou, better than, or with less sin than a gay person.
Gay marriage has implications that go beyond the personal bubble of the gay couple. I'm not meddling in any consenting adults' personal lives, but in a country where democracy is the order of the day, I have a right to encourage our elected officials to vote in a way that represents the America I want to see.
And in a forum that promotes contrasting beliefs/ideas/opinions I think its safe for both sides of this debate, and every other debate, to share their thoughts with one another without belittling each other.
Why don't you push for working on the Sabbath to be illegal then? Or any of the many sins of the bible we commit every single day? Maybe because the one about homosexuals is easy for you to go against... I don't see anyone doing this, so yes, it is cherry-picking.
Again, you clearly are meddling in the lives of consenting adults when you want to take away their rights, lol.
This is a common argument for gay marriage but it severely misses the point of what the gay marriage movement is trying to do.
This is a debate about standards. Both sides want a different standard for what constitutes a valid marriage. Gay marriage activists want a standard that includes two consenting adults, and traditional marriage activists want a standard that includes two consenting, one male and one female adults. The important thing to remember that BOTH sides want a standard.
Standards are inherently unfair. But every society has standards for all sorts of behavior or allowable actions. Blind people or people with chronic seizures are not allowed a driving liscence. Color blind people are not allowed to be fighter pilots in the Air force. These are all unfair, but we want these standards because proper standards make for a better society.
The debate about marriage is not about people "meddling" or "being unfair" with gays, both sides of the debate, by nature of wanting a standard for marriage at all are guilty of being unfair to some group or person to whom the standard will exclude.
The real debate is about what standard forms the best society and why. People need to talk about that and not about this religious stuff, etc.
What? Denying blind people a driver's license is unfair? They can't competently operate a vehicle, what is unfair about that?
On July 12 2012 22:37 sc2superfan101 wrote: i think Google needs to be less political.
Agreed.
From a business stand point, wouldn't it make more sense to remain neutral on polarizing subjects like this? I'm only one consumer, but I'm now considering changing to Bing and removing chrome.
As has been stated before, among young people (=most internet users, especially when looking ahead) people with anti-gay feeling as you are becoming more and more rare. So this stance should appeal to the majority of their possible users. Also, you would have to stop using your Android phone, Google, Chrome, Gmail, YouTube, Maps, Earth, etc.. Most people won't do that. People who are so undeveloped that they think gay marriage is a bad thing probably won't know all of these services belong to Google anyway, so they'll take even less losses.
Besides, you can bet Google has considered the business standpoint, and disagrees with you
Wow! Google owns soooo much stuff. Anywho~ not really fair to label people who don't agree with gay marriage as "underdeveloped." There are a large number of people in this world who are well educated and hold power who don't support gay marriage. If it weren't so, then this wouldn't even be a debate. Let's not resort to name calling just because someone disagrees with us
As a Christian I don't believe I'n same-sex marriage. According to the bible marriage Is a holy union between a man and a woman. That doesn't make me undeveloped. Anyways this won't make me stop using google products.
I can deal with citing a 2000 year old book but please say what you mean. When you say you don't believe in gay marriage your wrong, cause I'm pretty sure it exist. I think what you mean to say is that gay marriage is not ethical? I'm not sure please clarify.
I can only speak for myself but....
Obviously Gay marriage "exists," but as a Christian I believe that having physical/sexual relations with someone of the same sex is immoral, against God, and a sin. If you ever hear me say "I don't believe in gay marriage," that is what I mean.
Why is it a sin? As has been mentioned there are a fuckton of 'sins' in the bible and you're just cherry-picking. Homosexuality is just as much a 'sin' as working on the Sabbath or rebelling against your parents.
Also, if your only justification for condemning gay marriage is "it's in the bible lul" then you must realize how little that means. Believe what you want, but don't meddle in the affairs of consenting adults who deserve the same rights as everyone else.
Who's cherrypicking? I've never once said on these forums that "this" sin is greater than "that" sin. I've never once (and never will) say that I'm holier than thou, better than, or with less sin than a gay person.
Gay marriage has implications that go beyond the personal bubble of the gay couple. I'm not meddling in any consenting adults' personal lives, but in a country where democracy is the order of the day, I have a right to encourage our elected officials to vote in a way that represents the America I want to see.
And in a forum that promotes contrasting beliefs/ideas/opinions I think its safe for both sides of this debate, and every other debate, to share their thoughts with one another without belittling each other.
On July 12 2012 23:53 bblack wrote: [quote] As has been stated before, among young people (=most internet users, especially when looking ahead) people with anti-gay feeling as you are becoming more and more rare. So this stance should appeal to the majority of their possible users. Also, you would have to stop using your Android phone, Google, Chrome, Gmail, YouTube, Maps, Earth, etc.. Most people won't do that. People who are so undeveloped that they think gay marriage is a bad thing probably won't know all of these services belong to Google anyway, so they'll take even less losses.
Besides, you can bet Google has considered the business standpoint, and disagrees with you
Wow! Google owns soooo much stuff. Anywho~ not really fair to label people who don't agree with gay marriage as "underdeveloped." There are a large number of people in this world who are well educated and hold power who don't support gay marriage. If it weren't so, then this wouldn't even be a debate. Let's not resort to name calling just because someone disagrees with us
As a Christian I don't believe I'n same-sex marriage. According to the bible marriage Is a holy union between a man and a woman. That doesn't make me undeveloped. Anyways this won't make me stop using google products.
I can deal with citing a 2000 year old book but please say what you mean. When you say you don't believe in gay marriage your wrong, cause I'm pretty sure it exist. I think what you mean to say is that gay marriage is not ethical? I'm not sure please clarify.
I can only speak for myself but....
Obviously Gay marriage "exists," but as a Christian I believe that having physical/sexual relations with someone of the same sex is immoral, against God, and a sin. If you ever hear me say "I don't believe in gay marriage," that is what I mean.
Why is it a sin? As has been mentioned there are a fuckton of 'sins' in the bible and you're just cherry-picking. Homosexuality is just as much a 'sin' as working on the Sabbath or rebelling against your parents.
Also, if your only justification for condemning gay marriage is "it's in the bible lul" then you must realize how little that means. Believe what you want, but don't meddle in the affairs of consenting adults who deserve the same rights as everyone else.
Who's cherrypicking? I've never once said on these forums that "this" sin is greater than "that" sin. I've never once (and never will) say that I'm holier than thou, better than, or with less sin than a gay person.
Gay marriage has implications that go beyond the personal bubble of the gay couple. I'm not meddling in any consenting adults' personal lives, but in a country where democracy is the order of the day, I have a right to encourage our elected officials to vote in a way that represents the America I want to see.
And in a forum that promotes contrasting beliefs/ideas/opinions I think its safe for both sides of this debate, and every other debate, to share their thoughts with one another without belittling each other.
Why don't you push for working on the Sabbath to be illegal then? Or any of the many sins of the bible we commit every single day? Maybe because the one about homosexuals is easy for you to go against... I don't see anyone doing this, so yes, it is cherry-picking.
Again, you clearly are meddling in the lives of consenting adults when you want to take away their rights, lol.
This is a common argument for gay marriage but it severely misses the point of what the gay marriage movement is trying to do.
This is a debate about standards. Both sides want a different standard for what constitutes a valid marriage. Gay marriage activists want a standard that includes two consenting adults, and traditional marriage activists want a standard that includes two consenting, one male and one female adults. The important thing to remember that BOTH sides want a standard.
Standards are inherently unfair. But every society has standards for all sorts of behavior or allowable actions. Blind people or people with chronic seizures are not allowed a driving liscence. Color blind people are not allowed to be fighter pilots in the Air force. These are all unfair, but we want these standards because proper standards make for a better society.
The debate about marriage is not about people "meddling" or "being unfair" with gays, both sides of the debate, by nature of wanting a standard for marriage at all are guilty of being unfair to some group or person to whom the standard will exclude.
The real debate is about what standard forms the best society and why. People need to talk about that and not about this religious stuff, etc.
What? Denying blind people a driver's license is unfair? They can't competently operate a vehicle, what is unfair about that?
It's unfair because the vast majority of blind people have not chosen to be blind, were born that way, or had some unfortunate accident. They have done nothing, yet we deprive them of the same rights that we give to others. That is basically pure unfairness.
On July 12 2012 23:53 bblack wrote: [quote] As has been stated before, among young people (=most internet users, especially when looking ahead) people with anti-gay feeling as you are becoming more and more rare. So this stance should appeal to the majority of their possible users. Also, you would have to stop using your Android phone, Google, Chrome, Gmail, YouTube, Maps, Earth, etc.. Most people won't do that. People who are so undeveloped that they think gay marriage is a bad thing probably won't know all of these services belong to Google anyway, so they'll take even less losses.
Besides, you can bet Google has considered the business standpoint, and disagrees with you
Wow! Google owns soooo much stuff. Anywho~ not really fair to label people who don't agree with gay marriage as "underdeveloped." There are a large number of people in this world who are well educated and hold power who don't support gay marriage. If it weren't so, then this wouldn't even be a debate. Let's not resort to name calling just because someone disagrees with us
As a Christian I don't believe I'n same-sex marriage. According to the bible marriage Is a holy union between a man and a woman. That doesn't make me undeveloped. Anyways this won't make me stop using google products.
I can deal with citing a 2000 year old book but please say what you mean. When you say you don't believe in gay marriage your wrong, cause I'm pretty sure it exist. I think what you mean to say is that gay marriage is not ethical? I'm not sure please clarify.
I can only speak for myself but....
Obviously Gay marriage "exists," but as a Christian I believe that having physical/sexual relations with someone of the same sex is immoral, against God, and a sin. If you ever hear me say "I don't believe in gay marriage," that is what I mean.
As a rational human being I believe that your point of view is barbaric, against reason, and evil. I don't believe in Christians like you.
that's mean.
Also the whole ''as a Christian'' bit, is presumptuous. Plenty of Christians are not against gay marriage and plenty of Christian churches will wed homesexuals. ''As a fundamentalist Christian'' would be more accurate.
one doesn't have to be a fundamentalist christian to believe that gay-marriage is not ethical. and it is a minority of christians that support it and an even smaller minority of churches that will perform homosexual marriages. and i think his point was that his christianity is the reason he does not support it. now, i guess one could argue that christianity doesn't necessarily mean "no gay marriage" but at the same time, a lot of denominations, that is what it means. i don't think it's presumptuous to explain that your christianity is what makes you not support it.
Not allowing homosexuals to marry cos you read it in a book once is mean.
mmm... i suppose one could make that argument. in fact, i don't really have much to say against it. i mean, from my point of view, it's not mean (and it's not just cause of some book)... but i could be wrong. maybe it is just "a book" and maybe it is mean.
but i think there is a difference between being intentionally mean and being unintentionally mean. if im being mean by not supporting gay marriage, than i guess im sorry for being mean. i hope if i am that i learn someday and stop doing it.
On July 13 2012 04:48 AdamBanks wrote:
On July 13 2012 04:28 Joedaddy wrote:
On July 13 2012 04:22 AdamBanks wrote:
On July 13 2012 04:04 MindBreaker wrote:
On July 13 2012 03:56 Joedaddy wrote:
On July 12 2012 23:53 bblack wrote:
On July 12 2012 23:30 Joedaddy wrote:
On July 12 2012 22:37 sc2superfan101 wrote: i think Google needs to be less political.
Agreed.
From a business stand point, wouldn't it make more sense to remain neutral on polarizing subjects like this? I'm only one consumer, but I'm now considering changing to Bing and removing chrome.
As has been stated before, among young people (=most internet users, especially when looking ahead) people with anti-gay feeling as you are becoming more and more rare. So this stance should appeal to the majority of their possible users. Also, you would have to stop using your Android phone, Google, Chrome, Gmail, YouTube, Maps, Earth, etc.. Most people won't do that. People who are so undeveloped that they think gay marriage is a bad thing probably won't know all of these services belong to Google anyway, so they'll take even less losses.
Besides, you can bet Google has considered the business standpoint, and disagrees with you
Wow! Google owns soooo much stuff. Anywho~ not really fair to label people who don't agree with gay marriage as "underdeveloped." There are a large number of people in this world who are well educated and hold power who don't support gay marriage. If it weren't so, then this wouldn't even be a debate. Let's not resort to name calling just because someone disagrees with us
As a Christian I don't believe I'n same-sex marriage. According to the bible marriage Is a holy union between a man and a woman. That doesn't make me undeveloped. Anyways this won't make me stop using google products.
I can deal with citing a 2000 year old book but please say what you mean. When you say you don't believe in gay marriage your wrong, cause I'm pretty sure it exist. I think what you mean to say is that gay marriage is not ethical? I'm not sure please clarify.
I can only speak for myself but....
Obviously Gay marriage "exists," but as a Christian I believe that having physical/sexual relations with someone of the same sex is immoral, against God, and a sin. If you ever hear me say "I don't believe in gay marriage," that is what I mean.
Understood, but nowhere in the new testament does Christ ask that of you (I'm sure he appreciates the help tho judging). And the old book (lev?) with that one anti-homo command was written in a time when and place where the population was low and they were surrounded by enemies so they needed more babehs. Its also responsible for the whole pork shell fish whatever thing, as eating these things when not prepared in a sanitary manner or cooked throughly can make you sick or 'unclean'. (Josephs or Persian period no idea, I'm remembering this from a convo with some rel studies maj.)
im not sure if i should respond because it's kind of off-topic i think, but i have two small problems:
just because Christ didn't tell us specifically that a thing was wrong doesn't mean that the thing isn't wrong. and i tend to think it's more along the lines of: if he didn't tell us specifically that the old rules were not applicable, than they are still applicable.
and the other problem i have is that i don't think that is what he meant by "judge not".
I dunno, I prefer the 10 commandments to the 613 Mitzvot's.
"When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. "
Colossians 2:13-14
Cant believe I'm writing this while tsl is on -.-
hmmm... that's a good point. a very good point. i have to be honest, that takes me a little off-guard. my immediate reaction is to say that this is Paul speaking, not Christ, but at the same time... that doesn't sound very good and actually makes me uncomfortable even suggesting it because then it does seem like cherry-picking (and heresy) for the sake of keeping an opinion i'm not even sure is valid.
:/
i'm gonna have to think about that one and get back to you. excellent point though.
Wow! Google owns soooo much stuff. Anywho~ not really fair to label people who don't agree with gay marriage as "underdeveloped." There are a large number of people in this world who are well educated and hold power who don't support gay marriage. If it weren't so, then this wouldn't even be a debate. Let's not resort to name calling just because someone disagrees with us
As a Christian I don't believe I'n same-sex marriage. According to the bible marriage Is a holy union between a man and a woman. That doesn't make me undeveloped. Anyways this won't make me stop using google products.
I can deal with citing a 2000 year old book but please say what you mean. When you say you don't believe in gay marriage your wrong, cause I'm pretty sure it exist. I think what you mean to say is that gay marriage is not ethical? I'm not sure please clarify.
I can only speak for myself but....
Obviously Gay marriage "exists," but as a Christian I believe that having physical/sexual relations with someone of the same sex is immoral, against God, and a sin. If you ever hear me say "I don't believe in gay marriage," that is what I mean.
Why is it a sin? As has been mentioned there are a fuckton of 'sins' in the bible and you're just cherry-picking. Homosexuality is just as much a 'sin' as working on the Sabbath or rebelling against your parents.
Also, if your only justification for condemning gay marriage is "it's in the bible lul" then you must realize how little that means. Believe what you want, but don't meddle in the affairs of consenting adults who deserve the same rights as everyone else.
Who's cherrypicking? I've never once said on these forums that "this" sin is greater than "that" sin. I've never once (and never will) say that I'm holier than thou, better than, or with less sin than a gay person.
Gay marriage has implications that go beyond the personal bubble of the gay couple. I'm not meddling in any consenting adults' personal lives, but in a country where democracy is the order of the day, I have a right to encourage our elected officials to vote in a way that represents the America I want to see.
And in a forum that promotes contrasting beliefs/ideas/opinions I think its safe for both sides of this debate, and every other debate, to share their thoughts with one another without belittling each other.
Why don't you push for working on the Sabbath to be illegal then? Or any of the many sins of the bible we commit every single day? Maybe because the one about homosexuals is easy for you to go against... I don't see anyone doing this, so yes, it is cherry-picking.
Again, you clearly are meddling in the lives of consenting adults when you want to take away their rights, lol.
This is a common argument for gay marriage but it severely misses the point of what the gay marriage movement is trying to do.
This is a debate about standards. Both sides want a different standard for what constitutes a valid marriage. Gay marriage activists want a standard that includes two consenting adults, and traditional marriage activists want a standard that includes two consenting, one male and one female adults. The important thing to remember that BOTH sides want a standard.
Standards are inherently unfair. But every society has standards for all sorts of behavior or allowable actions. Blind people or people with chronic seizures are not allowed a driving liscence. Color blind people are not allowed to be fighter pilots in the Air force. These are all unfair, but we want these standards because proper standards make for a better society.
The debate about marriage is not about people "meddling" or "being unfair" with gays, both sides of the debate, by nature of wanting a standard for marriage at all are guilty of being unfair to some group or person to whom the standard will exclude.
The real debate is about what standard forms the best society and why. People need to talk about that and not about this religious stuff, etc.
What? Denying blind people a driver's license is unfair? They can't competently operate a vehicle, what is unfair about that?
It's unfair because the vast majority of blind people have not chosen to be blind, were born that way, or had some unfortunate accident. They have done nothing, yet we deprive them of the same rights that we give to others. That is basically pure unfairness.
I strongly disagree with the definition of fairness you seem to have come up with.
As a Christian I don't believe I'n same-sex marriage. According to the bible marriage Is a holy union between a man and a woman. That doesn't make me undeveloped. Anyways this won't make me stop using google products.
I can deal with citing a 2000 year old book but please say what you mean. When you say you don't believe in gay marriage your wrong, cause I'm pretty sure it exist. I think what you mean to say is that gay marriage is not ethical? I'm not sure please clarify.
I can only speak for myself but....
Obviously Gay marriage "exists," but as a Christian I believe that having physical/sexual relations with someone of the same sex is immoral, against God, and a sin. If you ever hear me say "I don't believe in gay marriage," that is what I mean.
Why is it a sin? As has been mentioned there are a fuckton of 'sins' in the bible and you're just cherry-picking. Homosexuality is just as much a 'sin' as working on the Sabbath or rebelling against your parents.
Also, if your only justification for condemning gay marriage is "it's in the bible lul" then you must realize how little that means. Believe what you want, but don't meddle in the affairs of consenting adults who deserve the same rights as everyone else.
Who's cherrypicking? I've never once said on these forums that "this" sin is greater than "that" sin. I've never once (and never will) say that I'm holier than thou, better than, or with less sin than a gay person.
Gay marriage has implications that go beyond the personal bubble of the gay couple. I'm not meddling in any consenting adults' personal lives, but in a country where democracy is the order of the day, I have a right to encourage our elected officials to vote in a way that represents the America I want to see.
And in a forum that promotes contrasting beliefs/ideas/opinions I think its safe for both sides of this debate, and every other debate, to share their thoughts with one another without belittling each other.
Why don't you push for working on the Sabbath to be illegal then? Or any of the many sins of the bible we commit every single day? Maybe because the one about homosexuals is easy for you to go against... I don't see anyone doing this, so yes, it is cherry-picking.
Again, you clearly are meddling in the lives of consenting adults when you want to take away their rights, lol.
This is a common argument for gay marriage but it severely misses the point of what the gay marriage movement is trying to do.
This is a debate about standards. Both sides want a different standard for what constitutes a valid marriage. Gay marriage activists want a standard that includes two consenting adults, and traditional marriage activists want a standard that includes two consenting, one male and one female adults. The important thing to remember that BOTH sides want a standard.
Standards are inherently unfair. But every society has standards for all sorts of behavior or allowable actions. Blind people or people with chronic seizures are not allowed a driving liscence. Color blind people are not allowed to be fighter pilots in the Air force. These are all unfair, but we want these standards because proper standards make for a better society.
The debate about marriage is not about people "meddling" or "being unfair" with gays, both sides of the debate, by nature of wanting a standard for marriage at all are guilty of being unfair to some group or person to whom the standard will exclude.
The real debate is about what standard forms the best society and why. People need to talk about that and not about this religious stuff, etc.
What? Denying blind people a driver's license is unfair? They can't competently operate a vehicle, what is unfair about that?
It's unfair because the vast majority of blind people have not chosen to be blind, were born that way, or had some unfortunate accident. They have done nothing, yet we deprive them of the same rights that we give to others. That is basically pure unfairness.
I strongly disagree with the definition of fairness you seem to have come up with.
You think that treating people differently based upon characteristics which they had no choice over is not unfair? I don't know what is unfair if that is not.
I can deal with citing a 2000 year old book but please say what you mean. When you say you don't believe in gay marriage your wrong, cause I'm pretty sure it exist. I think what you mean to say is that gay marriage is not ethical? I'm not sure please clarify.
I can only speak for myself but....
Obviously Gay marriage "exists," but as a Christian I believe that having physical/sexual relations with someone of the same sex is immoral, against God, and a sin. If you ever hear me say "I don't believe in gay marriage," that is what I mean.
Why is it a sin? As has been mentioned there are a fuckton of 'sins' in the bible and you're just cherry-picking. Homosexuality is just as much a 'sin' as working on the Sabbath or rebelling against your parents.
Also, if your only justification for condemning gay marriage is "it's in the bible lul" then you must realize how little that means. Believe what you want, but don't meddle in the affairs of consenting adults who deserve the same rights as everyone else.
Who's cherrypicking? I've never once said on these forums that "this" sin is greater than "that" sin. I've never once (and never will) say that I'm holier than thou, better than, or with less sin than a gay person.
Gay marriage has implications that go beyond the personal bubble of the gay couple. I'm not meddling in any consenting adults' personal lives, but in a country where democracy is the order of the day, I have a right to encourage our elected officials to vote in a way that represents the America I want to see.
And in a forum that promotes contrasting beliefs/ideas/opinions I think its safe for both sides of this debate, and every other debate, to share their thoughts with one another without belittling each other.
Why don't you push for working on the Sabbath to be illegal then? Or any of the many sins of the bible we commit every single day? Maybe because the one about homosexuals is easy for you to go against... I don't see anyone doing this, so yes, it is cherry-picking.
Again, you clearly are meddling in the lives of consenting adults when you want to take away their rights, lol.
This is a common argument for gay marriage but it severely misses the point of what the gay marriage movement is trying to do.
This is a debate about standards. Both sides want a different standard for what constitutes a valid marriage. Gay marriage activists want a standard that includes two consenting adults, and traditional marriage activists want a standard that includes two consenting, one male and one female adults. The important thing to remember that BOTH sides want a standard.
Standards are inherently unfair. But every society has standards for all sorts of behavior or allowable actions. Blind people or people with chronic seizures are not allowed a driving liscence. Color blind people are not allowed to be fighter pilots in the Air force. These are all unfair, but we want these standards because proper standards make for a better society.
The debate about marriage is not about people "meddling" or "being unfair" with gays, both sides of the debate, by nature of wanting a standard for marriage at all are guilty of being unfair to some group or person to whom the standard will exclude.
The real debate is about what standard forms the best society and why. People need to talk about that and not about this religious stuff, etc.
What? Denying blind people a driver's license is unfair? They can't competently operate a vehicle, what is unfair about that?
It's unfair because the vast majority of blind people have not chosen to be blind, were born that way, or had some unfortunate accident. They have done nothing, yet we deprive them of the same rights that we give to others. That is basically pure unfairness.
I strongly disagree with the definition of fairness you seem to have come up with.
You think that treating people differently based upon characteristics which they had no choice over is not unfair? I don't know what is unfair if that is not.
That is an absolutely ridiculous line of argument considering they can't pass a test to get a drivers license.
On July 12 2012 23:53 bblack wrote: [quote] As has been stated before, among young people (=most internet users, especially when looking ahead) people with anti-gay feeling as you are becoming more and more rare. So this stance should appeal to the majority of their possible users. Also, you would have to stop using your Android phone, Google, Chrome, Gmail, YouTube, Maps, Earth, etc.. Most people won't do that. People who are so undeveloped that they think gay marriage is a bad thing probably won't know all of these services belong to Google anyway, so they'll take even less losses.
Besides, you can bet Google has considered the business standpoint, and disagrees with you
Wow! Google owns soooo much stuff. Anywho~ not really fair to label people who don't agree with gay marriage as "underdeveloped." There are a large number of people in this world who are well educated and hold power who don't support gay marriage. If it weren't so, then this wouldn't even be a debate. Let's not resort to name calling just because someone disagrees with us
As a Christian I don't believe I'n same-sex marriage. According to the bible marriage Is a holy union between a man and a woman. That doesn't make me undeveloped. Anyways this won't make me stop using google products.
I can deal with citing a 2000 year old book but please say what you mean. When you say you don't believe in gay marriage your wrong, cause I'm pretty sure it exist. I think what you mean to say is that gay marriage is not ethical? I'm not sure please clarify.
I can only speak for myself but....
Obviously Gay marriage "exists," but as a Christian I believe that having physical/sexual relations with someone of the same sex is immoral, against God, and a sin. If you ever hear me say "I don't believe in gay marriage," that is what I mean.
Why is it a sin? As has been mentioned there are a fuckton of 'sins' in the bible and you're just cherry-picking. Homosexuality is just as much a 'sin' as working on the Sabbath or rebelling against your parents.
Also, if your only justification for condemning gay marriage is "it's in the bible lul" then you must realize how little that means. Believe what you want, but don't meddle in the affairs of consenting adults who deserve the same rights as everyone else.
Who's cherrypicking? I've never once said on these forums that "this" sin is greater than "that" sin. I've never once (and never will) say that I'm holier than thou, better than, or with less sin than a gay person.
Gay marriage has implications that go beyond the personal bubble of the gay couple. I'm not meddling in any consenting adults' personal lives, but in a country where democracy is the order of the day, I have a right to encourage our elected officials to vote in a way that represents the America I want to see.
And in a forum that promotes contrasting beliefs/ideas/opinions I think its safe for both sides of this debate, and every other debate, to share their thoughts with one another without belittling each other.
Why don't you push for working on the Sabbath to be illegal then? Or any of the many sins of the bible we commit every single day? Maybe because the one about homosexuals is easy for you to go against... I don't see anyone doing this, so yes, it is cherry-picking.
Again, you clearly are meddling in the lives of consenting adults when you want to take away their rights, lol.
Personally, I don't work on Sunday's. Never have and hopefully never will. If there were a debate on working on Sundays then I would put my 2 cents in and encourage my politicians etc etc etc.
So, then you actually DON'T have a problem with meddling in the lives of consenting adults, if your book seems to tell you to do so?
Sorry to disappoint, but there is no "aha gotcha!" moment here or in the future. Let me try to explain...
I have ideas and beliefs about what is best for our society and my/our(?) country. You have ideas and beliefs about what is best for our society and your/our(?) country. Those ideas and beliefs are not always the same. That doesn't make one or the other sub-human. You feel strongly enough about your particular beliefs on gay marriage to post your opinions on this forum. I do too. I believe that gay marriage has consequences that reach outside of the personal space of an individual couple. Speaking out in non-support of gay marriage isn't meddling in the personal lives of anyone, anymore than your support of gay marriage is meddling in my personal life. People are allowed to have opinions and beliefs. In a democratic society, people are allowed to persuade their elected officials and those around them to enact policies that align with their personal beliefs/ideas. I don't have to like your ideas, and you don't have to like mine. We should however be respectful of one another because anything less than that only heightens tensions and further divides us.
There really is no point to this "tit for tat" back and forth.
Obviously Gay marriage "exists," but as a Christian I believe that having physical/sexual relations with someone of the same sex is immoral, against God, and a sin. If you ever hear me say "I don't believe in gay marriage," that is what I mean.
Why is it a sin? As has been mentioned there are a fuckton of 'sins' in the bible and you're just cherry-picking. Homosexuality is just as much a 'sin' as working on the Sabbath or rebelling against your parents.
Also, if your only justification for condemning gay marriage is "it's in the bible lul" then you must realize how little that means. Believe what you want, but don't meddle in the affairs of consenting adults who deserve the same rights as everyone else.
Who's cherrypicking? I've never once said on these forums that "this" sin is greater than "that" sin. I've never once (and never will) say that I'm holier than thou, better than, or with less sin than a gay person.
Gay marriage has implications that go beyond the personal bubble of the gay couple. I'm not meddling in any consenting adults' personal lives, but in a country where democracy is the order of the day, I have a right to encourage our elected officials to vote in a way that represents the America I want to see.
And in a forum that promotes contrasting beliefs/ideas/opinions I think its safe for both sides of this debate, and every other debate, to share their thoughts with one another without belittling each other.
Why don't you push for working on the Sabbath to be illegal then? Or any of the many sins of the bible we commit every single day? Maybe because the one about homosexuals is easy for you to go against... I don't see anyone doing this, so yes, it is cherry-picking.
Again, you clearly are meddling in the lives of consenting adults when you want to take away their rights, lol.
This is a common argument for gay marriage but it severely misses the point of what the gay marriage movement is trying to do.
This is a debate about standards. Both sides want a different standard for what constitutes a valid marriage. Gay marriage activists want a standard that includes two consenting adults, and traditional marriage activists want a standard that includes two consenting, one male and one female adults. The important thing to remember that BOTH sides want a standard.
Standards are inherently unfair. But every society has standards for all sorts of behavior or allowable actions. Blind people or people with chronic seizures are not allowed a driving liscence. Color blind people are not allowed to be fighter pilots in the Air force. These are all unfair, but we want these standards because proper standards make for a better society.
The debate about marriage is not about people "meddling" or "being unfair" with gays, both sides of the debate, by nature of wanting a standard for marriage at all are guilty of being unfair to some group or person to whom the standard will exclude.
The real debate is about what standard forms the best society and why. People need to talk about that and not about this religious stuff, etc.
What? Denying blind people a driver's license is unfair? They can't competently operate a vehicle, what is unfair about that?
It's unfair because the vast majority of blind people have not chosen to be blind, were born that way, or had some unfortunate accident. They have done nothing, yet we deprive them of the same rights that we give to others. That is basically pure unfairness.
I strongly disagree with the definition of fairness you seem to have come up with.
You think that treating people differently based upon characteristics which they had no choice over is not unfair? I don't know what is unfair if that is not.
That is an absolutely ridiculous line of argument considering they can't pass a test to get a drivers license.
My whole point is that we have a test in the first place. A drivers test unfairly excludes those who by no fault of their own, due to some physical condition are unable to pass. Yet we still have a test because making sure we have competent drivers is more important than preventing unfairness.
I think it is a bit amusing that people are so troubled by my pointing out how we are unfair in all sorts of ways.
Why is it a sin? As has been mentioned there are a fuckton of 'sins' in the bible and you're just cherry-picking. Homosexuality is just as much a 'sin' as working on the Sabbath or rebelling against your parents.
Also, if your only justification for condemning gay marriage is "it's in the bible lul" then you must realize how little that means. Believe what you want, but don't meddle in the affairs of consenting adults who deserve the same rights as everyone else.
Who's cherrypicking? I've never once said on these forums that "this" sin is greater than "that" sin. I've never once (and never will) say that I'm holier than thou, better than, or with less sin than a gay person.
Gay marriage has implications that go beyond the personal bubble of the gay couple. I'm not meddling in any consenting adults' personal lives, but in a country where democracy is the order of the day, I have a right to encourage our elected officials to vote in a way that represents the America I want to see.
And in a forum that promotes contrasting beliefs/ideas/opinions I think its safe for both sides of this debate, and every other debate, to share their thoughts with one another without belittling each other.
Why don't you push for working on the Sabbath to be illegal then? Or any of the many sins of the bible we commit every single day? Maybe because the one about homosexuals is easy for you to go against... I don't see anyone doing this, so yes, it is cherry-picking.
Again, you clearly are meddling in the lives of consenting adults when you want to take away their rights, lol.
This is a common argument for gay marriage but it severely misses the point of what the gay marriage movement is trying to do.
This is a debate about standards. Both sides want a different standard for what constitutes a valid marriage. Gay marriage activists want a standard that includes two consenting adults, and traditional marriage activists want a standard that includes two consenting, one male and one female adults. The important thing to remember that BOTH sides want a standard.
Standards are inherently unfair. But every society has standards for all sorts of behavior or allowable actions. Blind people or people with chronic seizures are not allowed a driving liscence. Color blind people are not allowed to be fighter pilots in the Air force. These are all unfair, but we want these standards because proper standards make for a better society.
The debate about marriage is not about people "meddling" or "being unfair" with gays, both sides of the debate, by nature of wanting a standard for marriage at all are guilty of being unfair to some group or person to whom the standard will exclude.
The real debate is about what standard forms the best society and why. People need to talk about that and not about this religious stuff, etc.
What? Denying blind people a driver's license is unfair? They can't competently operate a vehicle, what is unfair about that?
It's unfair because the vast majority of blind people have not chosen to be blind, were born that way, or had some unfortunate accident. They have done nothing, yet we deprive them of the same rights that we give to others. That is basically pure unfairness.
I strongly disagree with the definition of fairness you seem to have come up with.
You think that treating people differently based upon characteristics which they had no choice over is not unfair? I don't know what is unfair if that is not.
That is an absolutely ridiculous line of argument considering they can't pass a test to get a drivers license.
My whole point is that we have a test in the first place. A drivers test unfairly excludes those who by no fault of their own, due to some physical condition are unable to pass. Yet we still have a test because making sure we have competent drivers is more important than preventing unfairness.
I think it is a bit amusing that people are so troubled by my pointing out how we are unfair in all sorts of ways.
What are you talking about? Driving is a privilege not a right, you cannot drive on public roads if you're going to endanger other people through incompetence that's not unfair in any manner whatsoever. If anything allowing blind people to drive would be unfair on the people they share the road with.
I'm sure we're unfair in many ways but that is one of them.
I can deal with citing a 2000 year old book but please say what you mean. When you say you don't believe in gay marriage your wrong, cause I'm pretty sure it exist. I think what you mean to say is that gay marriage is not ethical? I'm not sure please clarify.
I can only speak for myself but....
Obviously Gay marriage "exists," but as a Christian I believe that having physical/sexual relations with someone of the same sex is immoral, against God, and a sin. If you ever hear me say "I don't believe in gay marriage," that is what I mean.
Why is it a sin? As has been mentioned there are a fuckton of 'sins' in the bible and you're just cherry-picking. Homosexuality is just as much a 'sin' as working on the Sabbath or rebelling against your parents.
Also, if your only justification for condemning gay marriage is "it's in the bible lul" then you must realize how little that means. Believe what you want, but don't meddle in the affairs of consenting adults who deserve the same rights as everyone else.
Who's cherrypicking? I've never once said on these forums that "this" sin is greater than "that" sin. I've never once (and never will) say that I'm holier than thou, better than, or with less sin than a gay person.
Gay marriage has implications that go beyond the personal bubble of the gay couple. I'm not meddling in any consenting adults' personal lives, but in a country where democracy is the order of the day, I have a right to encourage our elected officials to vote in a way that represents the America I want to see.
And in a forum that promotes contrasting beliefs/ideas/opinions I think its safe for both sides of this debate, and every other debate, to share their thoughts with one another without belittling each other.
Why don't you push for working on the Sabbath to be illegal then? Or any of the many sins of the bible we commit every single day? Maybe because the one about homosexuals is easy for you to go against... I don't see anyone doing this, so yes, it is cherry-picking.
Again, you clearly are meddling in the lives of consenting adults when you want to take away their rights, lol.
This is a common argument for gay marriage but it severely misses the point of what the gay marriage movement is trying to do.
This is a debate about standards. Both sides want a different standard for what constitutes a valid marriage. Gay marriage activists want a standard that includes two consenting adults, and traditional marriage activists want a standard that includes two consenting, one male and one female adults. The important thing to remember that BOTH sides want a standard.
Standards are inherently unfair. But every society has standards for all sorts of behavior or allowable actions. Blind people or people with chronic seizures are not allowed a driving liscence. Color blind people are not allowed to be fighter pilots in the Air force. These are all unfair, but we want these standards because proper standards make for a better society.
The debate about marriage is not about people "meddling" or "being unfair" with gays, both sides of the debate, by nature of wanting a standard for marriage at all are guilty of being unfair to some group or person to whom the standard will exclude.
The real debate is about what standard forms the best society and why. People need to talk about that and not about this religious stuff, etc.
What? Denying blind people a driver's license is unfair? They can't competently operate a vehicle, what is unfair about that?
It's unfair because the vast majority of blind people have not chosen to be blind, were born that way, or had some unfortunate accident. They have done nothing, yet we deprive them of the same rights that we give to others. That is basically pure unfairness.
I strongly disagree with the definition of fairness you seem to have come up with.
You think that treating people differently based upon characteristics which they had no choice over is not unfair? I don't know what is unfair if that is not.
I think the rule ''People that are competent drivers, should be allowed to operate a vehicle, and those that are not competent drivers, should not'' is a reasonable rule. It discriminates based on a reasoning process that is undeniably necessary.
Denying a group of people that logically cannot be competent, is fair in that it is consistent with this rule. If all the individuals in a group would be denied the right to drive for reasons other than competency, that would be unfair. FOr example Saudi-Arabian women.
Who's cherrypicking? I've never once said on these forums that "this" sin is greater than "that" sin. I've never once (and never will) say that I'm holier than thou, better than, or with less sin than a gay person.
Gay marriage has implications that go beyond the personal bubble of the gay couple. I'm not meddling in any consenting adults' personal lives, but in a country where democracy is the order of the day, I have a right to encourage our elected officials to vote in a way that represents the America I want to see.
And in a forum that promotes contrasting beliefs/ideas/opinions I think its safe for both sides of this debate, and every other debate, to share their thoughts with one another without belittling each other.
Why don't you push for working on the Sabbath to be illegal then? Or any of the many sins of the bible we commit every single day? Maybe because the one about homosexuals is easy for you to go against... I don't see anyone doing this, so yes, it is cherry-picking.
Again, you clearly are meddling in the lives of consenting adults when you want to take away their rights, lol.
This is a common argument for gay marriage but it severely misses the point of what the gay marriage movement is trying to do.
This is a debate about standards. Both sides want a different standard for what constitutes a valid marriage. Gay marriage activists want a standard that includes two consenting adults, and traditional marriage activists want a standard that includes two consenting, one male and one female adults. The important thing to remember that BOTH sides want a standard.
Standards are inherently unfair. But every society has standards for all sorts of behavior or allowable actions. Blind people or people with chronic seizures are not allowed a driving liscence. Color blind people are not allowed to be fighter pilots in the Air force. These are all unfair, but we want these standards because proper standards make for a better society.
The debate about marriage is not about people "meddling" or "being unfair" with gays, both sides of the debate, by nature of wanting a standard for marriage at all are guilty of being unfair to some group or person to whom the standard will exclude.
The real debate is about what standard forms the best society and why. People need to talk about that and not about this religious stuff, etc.
What? Denying blind people a driver's license is unfair? They can't competently operate a vehicle, what is unfair about that?
It's unfair because the vast majority of blind people have not chosen to be blind, were born that way, or had some unfortunate accident. They have done nothing, yet we deprive them of the same rights that we give to others. That is basically pure unfairness.
I strongly disagree with the definition of fairness you seem to have come up with.
You think that treating people differently based upon characteristics which they had no choice over is not unfair? I don't know what is unfair if that is not.
That is an absolutely ridiculous line of argument considering they can't pass a test to get a drivers license.
My whole point is that we have a test in the first place. A drivers test unfairly excludes those who by no fault of their own, due to some physical condition are unable to pass. Yet we still have a test because making sure we have competent drivers is more important than preventing unfairness.
I think it is a bit amusing that people are so troubled by my pointing out how we are unfair in all sorts of ways.
What are you talking about? Driving is a privilege not a right, you cannot drive on public roads if you're going to endanger other people through incompetence that's not unfair in any manner whatsoever. If anything allowing blind people to drive would be unfair on the people they share the road with.
I'm sure we're unfair in many ways but that is one of them.
This is some weird pretzel logic here. So it's not unfair to deny the privilege of driving to a blind person, even though it's not their fault, because they cannot pass a test which we have crafted, which is designed so that blind people cannot pass....
Why don't you push for working on the Sabbath to be illegal then? Or any of the many sins of the bible we commit every single day? Maybe because the one about homosexuals is easy for you to go against... I don't see anyone doing this, so yes, it is cherry-picking.
Again, you clearly are meddling in the lives of consenting adults when you want to take away their rights, lol.
This is a common argument for gay marriage but it severely misses the point of what the gay marriage movement is trying to do.
This is a debate about standards. Both sides want a different standard for what constitutes a valid marriage. Gay marriage activists want a standard that includes two consenting adults, and traditional marriage activists want a standard that includes two consenting, one male and one female adults. The important thing to remember that BOTH sides want a standard.
Standards are inherently unfair. But every society has standards for all sorts of behavior or allowable actions. Blind people or people with chronic seizures are not allowed a driving liscence. Color blind people are not allowed to be fighter pilots in the Air force. These are all unfair, but we want these standards because proper standards make for a better society.
The debate about marriage is not about people "meddling" or "being unfair" with gays, both sides of the debate, by nature of wanting a standard for marriage at all are guilty of being unfair to some group or person to whom the standard will exclude.
The real debate is about what standard forms the best society and why. People need to talk about that and not about this religious stuff, etc.
What? Denying blind people a driver's license is unfair? They can't competently operate a vehicle, what is unfair about that?
It's unfair because the vast majority of blind people have not chosen to be blind, were born that way, or had some unfortunate accident. They have done nothing, yet we deprive them of the same rights that we give to others. That is basically pure unfairness.
I strongly disagree with the definition of fairness you seem to have come up with.
You think that treating people differently based upon characteristics which they had no choice over is not unfair? I don't know what is unfair if that is not.
That is an absolutely ridiculous line of argument considering they can't pass a test to get a drivers license.
My whole point is that we have a test in the first place. A drivers test unfairly excludes those who by no fault of their own, due to some physical condition are unable to pass. Yet we still have a test because making sure we have competent drivers is more important than preventing unfairness.
I think it is a bit amusing that people are so troubled by my pointing out how we are unfair in all sorts of ways.
What are you talking about? Driving is a privilege not a right, you cannot drive on public roads if you're going to endanger other people through incompetence that's not unfair in any manner whatsoever. If anything allowing blind people to drive would be unfair on the people they share the road with.
I'm sure we're unfair in many ways but that is one of them.
This is some weird pretzel logic here. So it's not unfair to deny the privilege of driving to a blind person, even though it's not their fault, because they cannot pass a test which we have crafted, which is designed so that blind people cannot pass....
What is unfair then?
It'd be unfair if they could pass the test and drive fine and we still denied them driving privileges.
Obviously Gay marriage "exists," but as a Christian I believe that having physical/sexual relations with someone of the same sex is immoral, against God, and a sin. If you ever hear me say "I don't believe in gay marriage," that is what I mean.
Why is it a sin? As has been mentioned there are a fuckton of 'sins' in the bible and you're just cherry-picking. Homosexuality is just as much a 'sin' as working on the Sabbath or rebelling against your parents.
Also, if your only justification for condemning gay marriage is "it's in the bible lul" then you must realize how little that means. Believe what you want, but don't meddle in the affairs of consenting adults who deserve the same rights as everyone else.
Who's cherrypicking? I've never once said on these forums that "this" sin is greater than "that" sin. I've never once (and never will) say that I'm holier than thou, better than, or with less sin than a gay person.
Gay marriage has implications that go beyond the personal bubble of the gay couple. I'm not meddling in any consenting adults' personal lives, but in a country where democracy is the order of the day, I have a right to encourage our elected officials to vote in a way that represents the America I want to see.
And in a forum that promotes contrasting beliefs/ideas/opinions I think its safe for both sides of this debate, and every other debate, to share their thoughts with one another without belittling each other.
Why don't you push for working on the Sabbath to be illegal then? Or any of the many sins of the bible we commit every single day? Maybe because the one about homosexuals is easy for you to go against... I don't see anyone doing this, so yes, it is cherry-picking.
Again, you clearly are meddling in the lives of consenting adults when you want to take away their rights, lol.
This is a common argument for gay marriage but it severely misses the point of what the gay marriage movement is trying to do.
This is a debate about standards. Both sides want a different standard for what constitutes a valid marriage. Gay marriage activists want a standard that includes two consenting adults, and traditional marriage activists want a standard that includes two consenting, one male and one female adults. The important thing to remember that BOTH sides want a standard.
Standards are inherently unfair. But every society has standards for all sorts of behavior or allowable actions. Blind people or people with chronic seizures are not allowed a driving liscence. Color blind people are not allowed to be fighter pilots in the Air force. These are all unfair, but we want these standards because proper standards make for a better society.
The debate about marriage is not about people "meddling" or "being unfair" with gays, both sides of the debate, by nature of wanting a standard for marriage at all are guilty of being unfair to some group or person to whom the standard will exclude.
The real debate is about what standard forms the best society and why. People need to talk about that and not about this religious stuff, etc.
What? Denying blind people a driver's license is unfair? They can't competently operate a vehicle, what is unfair about that?
It's unfair because the vast majority of blind people have not chosen to be blind, were born that way, or had some unfortunate accident. They have done nothing, yet we deprive them of the same rights that we give to others. That is basically pure unfairness.
I strongly disagree with the definition of fairness you seem to have come up with.
You think that treating people differently based upon characteristics which they had no choice over is not unfair? I don't know what is unfair if that is not.
I think the rule ''People that are competent drivers, should be allowed to operate a vehicle, and those that are not competent drivers, should not'' is a reasonable rule. It discriminates based on a reasoning process that is undeniably necessary.
Denying a group of people that logically cannot be competent, is fair in that it is consistent with this rule. If all the individuals in a group would be denied the right to drive for reasons other than competency, that would be unfair. FOr example Saudi-Arabian women.
I agree it with you. It does indeed discriminate based on a reasoning process that is undeniably necessary. That makes it a good idea, but it doesnt make it a fair one.
Good standards do not automatically make for fair standards. I think you are equating the two for some reason.
This is a common argument for gay marriage but it severely misses the point of what the gay marriage movement is trying to do.
This is a debate about standards. Both sides want a different standard for what constitutes a valid marriage. Gay marriage activists want a standard that includes two consenting adults, and traditional marriage activists want a standard that includes two consenting, one male and one female adults. The important thing to remember that BOTH sides want a standard.
Standards are inherently unfair. But every society has standards for all sorts of behavior or allowable actions. Blind people or people with chronic seizures are not allowed a driving liscence. Color blind people are not allowed to be fighter pilots in the Air force. These are all unfair, but we want these standards because proper standards make for a better society.
The debate about marriage is not about people "meddling" or "being unfair" with gays, both sides of the debate, by nature of wanting a standard for marriage at all are guilty of being unfair to some group or person to whom the standard will exclude.
The real debate is about what standard forms the best society and why. People need to talk about that and not about this religious stuff, etc.
What? Denying blind people a driver's license is unfair? They can't competently operate a vehicle, what is unfair about that?
It's unfair because the vast majority of blind people have not chosen to be blind, were born that way, or had some unfortunate accident. They have done nothing, yet we deprive them of the same rights that we give to others. That is basically pure unfairness.
I strongly disagree with the definition of fairness you seem to have come up with.
You think that treating people differently based upon characteristics which they had no choice over is not unfair? I don't know what is unfair if that is not.
That is an absolutely ridiculous line of argument considering they can't pass a test to get a drivers license.
My whole point is that we have a test in the first place. A drivers test unfairly excludes those who by no fault of their own, due to some physical condition are unable to pass. Yet we still have a test because making sure we have competent drivers is more important than preventing unfairness.
I think it is a bit amusing that people are so troubled by my pointing out how we are unfair in all sorts of ways.
What are you talking about? Driving is a privilege not a right, you cannot drive on public roads if you're going to endanger other people through incompetence that's not unfair in any manner whatsoever. If anything allowing blind people to drive would be unfair on the people they share the road with.
I'm sure we're unfair in many ways but that is one of them.
This is some weird pretzel logic here. So it's not unfair to deny the privilege of driving to a blind person, even though it's not their fault, because they cannot pass a test which we have crafted, which is designed so that blind people cannot pass....
What is unfair then?
It'd be unfair if they could pass the test and drive fine and we still denied them driving privileges.
It's unfair in both instances. The key component of unfairness is lack of ability to pass due to discrimination on some characteristic that, at no fault of their own, they have.
Wow! Google owns soooo much stuff. Anywho~ not really fair to label people who don't agree with gay marriage as "underdeveloped." There are a large number of people in this world who are well educated and hold power who don't support gay marriage. If it weren't so, then this wouldn't even be a debate. Let's not resort to name calling just because someone disagrees with us
As a Christian I don't believe I'n same-sex marriage. According to the bible marriage Is a holy union between a man and a woman. That doesn't make me undeveloped. Anyways this won't make me stop using google products.
I can deal with citing a 2000 year old book but please say what you mean. When you say you don't believe in gay marriage your wrong, cause I'm pretty sure it exist. I think what you mean to say is that gay marriage is not ethical? I'm not sure please clarify.
I can only speak for myself but....
Obviously Gay marriage "exists," but as a Christian I believe that having physical/sexual relations with someone of the same sex is immoral, against God, and a sin. If you ever hear me say "I don't believe in gay marriage," that is what I mean.
Why is it a sin? As has been mentioned there are a fuckton of 'sins' in the bible and you're just cherry-picking. Homosexuality is just as much a 'sin' as working on the Sabbath or rebelling against your parents.
Also, if your only justification for condemning gay marriage is "it's in the bible lul" then you must realize how little that means. Believe what you want, but don't meddle in the affairs of consenting adults who deserve the same rights as everyone else.
Who's cherrypicking? I've never once said on these forums that "this" sin is greater than "that" sin. I've never once (and never will) say that I'm holier than thou, better than, or with less sin than a gay person.
Gay marriage has implications that go beyond the personal bubble of the gay couple. I'm not meddling in any consenting adults' personal lives, but in a country where democracy is the order of the day, I have a right to encourage our elected officials to vote in a way that represents the America I want to see.
And in a forum that promotes contrasting beliefs/ideas/opinions I think its safe for both sides of this debate, and every other debate, to share their thoughts with one another without belittling each other.
Why don't you push for working on the Sabbath to be illegal then? Or any of the many sins of the bible we commit every single day? Maybe because the one about homosexuals is easy for you to go against... I don't see anyone doing this, so yes, it is cherry-picking.
Again, you clearly are meddling in the lives of consenting adults when you want to take away their rights, lol.
Personally, I don't work on Sunday's. Never have and hopefully never will. If there were a debate on working on Sundays then I would put my 2 cents in and encourage my politicians etc etc etc.
So, then you actually DON'T have a problem with meddling in the lives of consenting adults, if your book seems to tell you to do so?
Sorry to disappoint, but there is no "aha gotcha!" moment here or in the future. Let me try to explain...
I have ideas and beliefs about what is best for our society and my/our(?) country. You have ideas and beliefs about what is best for our society and your/our(?) country. Those ideas and beliefs are not always the same. That doesn't make one or the other sub-human. You feel strongly enough about your particular beliefs on gay marriage to post your opinions on this forum. I do too. I believe that gay marriage has consequences that reach outside of the personal space of an individual couple. Speaking out in non-support of gay marriage isn't meddling in the personal lives of anyone, anymore than your support of gay marriage is meddling in my personal life. People are allowed to have opinions and beliefs. In a democratic society, people are allowed to persuade their elected officials and those around them to enact policies that align with their personal beliefs/ideas. I don't have to like your ideas, and you don't have to like mine. We should however be respectful of one another because anything less than that only heightens tensions and further divides us.
There really is no point to this "tit for tat" back and forth.
You made the claim: I am not meddling in the affairs of consenting adults (I presume to get sympathy, because the belief that you shouldn't do this is very popular) You also made the claim: I would support representives that want to outlaw working on Sundays.
In my view these are contradictory claims. And I called you on it. To show that there is no ''haha, gotcha'' moment, you would have to say that you did not make one of these claims, or, you would have to argue that these claims are not contradictory.
Instead, you once again, and very elaborately, point out that you have a right to hold an opinion. Nobody here is disputing that. So I don't know why you keep bringing it up. ''I am allowed to have this opinion" is not actually an argument.
Why is it a sin? As has been mentioned there are a fuckton of 'sins' in the bible and you're just cherry-picking. Homosexuality is just as much a 'sin' as working on the Sabbath or rebelling against your parents.
Also, if your only justification for condemning gay marriage is "it's in the bible lul" then you must realize how little that means. Believe what you want, but don't meddle in the affairs of consenting adults who deserve the same rights as everyone else.
Who's cherrypicking? I've never once said on these forums that "this" sin is greater than "that" sin. I've never once (and never will) say that I'm holier than thou, better than, or with less sin than a gay person.
Gay marriage has implications that go beyond the personal bubble of the gay couple. I'm not meddling in any consenting adults' personal lives, but in a country where democracy is the order of the day, I have a right to encourage our elected officials to vote in a way that represents the America I want to see.
And in a forum that promotes contrasting beliefs/ideas/opinions I think its safe for both sides of this debate, and every other debate, to share their thoughts with one another without belittling each other.
Why don't you push for working on the Sabbath to be illegal then? Or any of the many sins of the bible we commit every single day? Maybe because the one about homosexuals is easy for you to go against... I don't see anyone doing this, so yes, it is cherry-picking.
Again, you clearly are meddling in the lives of consenting adults when you want to take away their rights, lol.
This is a common argument for gay marriage but it severely misses the point of what the gay marriage movement is trying to do.
This is a debate about standards. Both sides want a different standard for what constitutes a valid marriage. Gay marriage activists want a standard that includes two consenting adults, and traditional marriage activists want a standard that includes two consenting, one male and one female adults. The important thing to remember that BOTH sides want a standard.
Standards are inherently unfair. But every society has standards for all sorts of behavior or allowable actions. Blind people or people with chronic seizures are not allowed a driving liscence. Color blind people are not allowed to be fighter pilots in the Air force. These are all unfair, but we want these standards because proper standards make for a better society.
The debate about marriage is not about people "meddling" or "being unfair" with gays, both sides of the debate, by nature of wanting a standard for marriage at all are guilty of being unfair to some group or person to whom the standard will exclude.
The real debate is about what standard forms the best society and why. People need to talk about that and not about this religious stuff, etc.
What? Denying blind people a driver's license is unfair? They can't competently operate a vehicle, what is unfair about that?
It's unfair because the vast majority of blind people have not chosen to be blind, were born that way, or had some unfortunate accident. They have done nothing, yet we deprive them of the same rights that we give to others. That is basically pure unfairness.
I strongly disagree with the definition of fairness you seem to have come up with.
You think that treating people differently based upon characteristics which they had no choice over is not unfair? I don't know what is unfair if that is not.
I think the rule ''People that are competent drivers, should be allowed to operate a vehicle, and those that are not competent drivers, should not'' is a reasonable rule. It discriminates based on a reasoning process that is undeniably necessary.
Denying a group of people that logically cannot be competent, is fair in that it is consistent with this rule. If all the individuals in a group would be denied the right to drive for reasons other than competency, that would be unfair. FOr example Saudi-Arabian women.
I agree it with you. It does indeed discriminate based on a reasoning process that is undeniably necessary. That makes it a good idea, but it doesnt make it a fair one.
Good standards do not automatically make for fair standards. I think you are equating the two for some reason.
I don't know if I am equating the two. Unfairness comes in when you make distinctions based on completely arbitrary or vague criteria, or when you denying competent indivduals rights based on the fact that their group generally is incompetent.
For example: Dutch women cannot be fighter pilots. This is a rule, and for budget reasons it may be a good standard (selection process is expensive), but is not fair, because some women may infact be good fighter pilots.
For example: A judge makes a completely different ruling in similar cases, perhaps because he liked one defendent more than the other.
Edit: we should probably stop this, it is quite a stupid semantics discussion.
You made the claim: I am not meddling in the affairs of consenting adults (I presume to get sympathy, because the belief that you shouldn't do this is very popular) You also made the claim: I would support representives that want to outlaw working on Sundays.
Personally, I don't work on Sunday's. Never have and hopefully never will. If there were a debate on working on Sundays then I would put my 2 cents in and encourage my politicians etc etc etc.
Tell me exactly which part said I would "outlaw" working on Sundays. Please.
You made the claim: I am not meddling in the affairs of consenting adults (I presume to get sympathy, because the belief that you shouldn't do this is very popular) You also made the claim: I would support representives that want to outlaw working on Sundays.
Personally, I don't work on Sunday's. Never have and hopefully never will. If there were a debate on working on Sundays then I would put my 2 cents in and encourage my politicians etc etc etc.
Tell me exactly which part said I would "outlaw" working on Sundays. Please.
I was not directly quoting. I thought you had implied it when you said something like ''If there was a debate about working on sunday I would support my representative etcetc''.
Who's cherrypicking? I've never once said on these forums that "this" sin is greater than "that" sin. I've never once (and never will) say that I'm holier than thou, better than, or with less sin than a gay person.
Gay marriage has implications that go beyond the personal bubble of the gay couple. I'm not meddling in any consenting adults' personal lives, but in a country where democracy is the order of the day, I have a right to encourage our elected officials to vote in a way that represents the America I want to see.
And in a forum that promotes contrasting beliefs/ideas/opinions I think its safe for both sides of this debate, and every other debate, to share their thoughts with one another without belittling each other.
Why don't you push for working on the Sabbath to be illegal then? Or any of the many sins of the bible we commit every single day? Maybe because the one about homosexuals is easy for you to go against... I don't see anyone doing this, so yes, it is cherry-picking.
Again, you clearly are meddling in the lives of consenting adults when you want to take away their rights, lol.
This is a common argument for gay marriage but it severely misses the point of what the gay marriage movement is trying to do.
This is a debate about standards. Both sides want a different standard for what constitutes a valid marriage. Gay marriage activists want a standard that includes two consenting adults, and traditional marriage activists want a standard that includes two consenting, one male and one female adults. The important thing to remember that BOTH sides want a standard.
Standards are inherently unfair. But every society has standards for all sorts of behavior or allowable actions. Blind people or people with chronic seizures are not allowed a driving liscence. Color blind people are not allowed to be fighter pilots in the Air force. These are all unfair, but we want these standards because proper standards make for a better society.
The debate about marriage is not about people "meddling" or "being unfair" with gays, both sides of the debate, by nature of wanting a standard for marriage at all are guilty of being unfair to some group or person to whom the standard will exclude.
The real debate is about what standard forms the best society and why. People need to talk about that and not about this religious stuff, etc.
What? Denying blind people a driver's license is unfair? They can't competently operate a vehicle, what is unfair about that?
It's unfair because the vast majority of blind people have not chosen to be blind, were born that way, or had some unfortunate accident. They have done nothing, yet we deprive them of the same rights that we give to others. That is basically pure unfairness.
I strongly disagree with the definition of fairness you seem to have come up with.
You think that treating people differently based upon characteristics which they had no choice over is not unfair? I don't know what is unfair if that is not.
I think the rule ''People that are competent drivers, should be allowed to operate a vehicle, and those that are not competent drivers, should not'' is a reasonable rule. It discriminates based on a reasoning process that is undeniably necessary.
Denying a group of people that logically cannot be competent, is fair in that it is consistent with this rule. If all the individuals in a group would be denied the right to drive for reasons other than competency, that would be unfair. FOr example Saudi-Arabian women.
I agree it with you. It does indeed discriminate based on a reasoning process that is undeniably necessary. That makes it a good idea, but it doesnt make it a fair one.
Good standards do not automatically make for fair standards. I think you are equating the two for some reason.
I don't know if I am equating the two. Unfairness comes in when you make distinctions based on completely arbitrary or vague criteria, or when you denying competent indivduals rights based on the fact that their group generally is incompetent.
For example: Dutch women cannot be fighter pilots. This is a rule, and for budget reasons it may be a good standard (selection process is expensive), but is not fair, because some women may infact be good fighter pilots.
For example: A judge makes a completely different ruling in similar cases, perhaps because he liked one defendent more than the other.
Edit: we should probably stop this, it is quite a stupid semantics discussion.
I don't see any reason why to limit unfairness to just arbitrary or vague standards.
But you're right, this stuff is a bit of a derail.
Regardless of whether you think stopping a little blind 16 year old orphan who's only dream in life is to drive a car legally up and down a driveway for a few minutes is fair to him... jk . Like I said earlier it all comes down to what standard of marriage we should have and why you think that standard produces the best result for society, because both sides want a standard, they just want different standards. And I assume we would agree that both sides want an unfair standard becuase both arbitrarily limit it to two consenting adults...
In the ideal society, we would all have fairness, all have opportunity, all have the right to express ourselves, to live, and all other rights that we have been endowed with. In that society, people would be free-minded, their thoughts unconstrained by bias, hatred, greed.
But such a perfect society cannot and never will exist. Why? Without these things, a society cannot function peoperly-people have no motivation to work to better themselves, to help others. Without everyone being totally altruistic, it is impossible to achieve equality.
Google has done something here which I am high in favor of. This is not a matter of sin, sodomy, ungodly acts. This is a matter of having EQUALITY. I do not presume to lord my religious views over anyone else on this earth. There have been many times when I have thought about expressing my dissatisfaction with someone's choices by hurting them, lashing at the with both my mind and my body.
Why didn't I?
Because I respect the right of other humans to choose how they want to live. I do not believe that any deity who expressly gave humanity free will to choose their own fate would be in favor of his moral agents attempting to take away free will, to create the perfect and moral society.
Without free will, what are we to be?
I don't believe that we ought interfere and impose rules when it is obvious that we ought make our own decisions.
If you believe the teachings of the Bible, remember this-we were endowed with free will to make a choice. It is up to us to make that choice for ourselves, and not proper to impose such a belief on others.
Why don't you push for working on the Sabbath to be illegal then? Or any of the many sins of the bible we commit every single day? Maybe because the one about homosexuals is easy for you to go against... I don't see anyone doing this, so yes, it is cherry-picking.
Again, you clearly are meddling in the lives of consenting adults when you want to take away their rights, lol.
This is a common argument for gay marriage but it severely misses the point of what the gay marriage movement is trying to do.
This is a debate about standards. Both sides want a different standard for what constitutes a valid marriage. Gay marriage activists want a standard that includes two consenting adults, and traditional marriage activists want a standard that includes two consenting, one male and one female adults. The important thing to remember that BOTH sides want a standard.
Standards are inherently unfair. But every society has standards for all sorts of behavior or allowable actions. Blind people or people with chronic seizures are not allowed a driving liscence. Color blind people are not allowed to be fighter pilots in the Air force. These are all unfair, but we want these standards because proper standards make for a better society.
The debate about marriage is not about people "meddling" or "being unfair" with gays, both sides of the debate, by nature of wanting a standard for marriage at all are guilty of being unfair to some group or person to whom the standard will exclude.
The real debate is about what standard forms the best society and why. People need to talk about that and not about this religious stuff, etc.
What? Denying blind people a driver's license is unfair? They can't competently operate a vehicle, what is unfair about that?
It's unfair because the vast majority of blind people have not chosen to be blind, were born that way, or had some unfortunate accident. They have done nothing, yet we deprive them of the same rights that we give to others. That is basically pure unfairness.
I strongly disagree with the definition of fairness you seem to have come up with.
You think that treating people differently based upon characteristics which they had no choice over is not unfair? I don't know what is unfair if that is not.
I think the rule ''People that are competent drivers, should be allowed to operate a vehicle, and those that are not competent drivers, should not'' is a reasonable rule. It discriminates based on a reasoning process that is undeniably necessary.
Denying a group of people that logically cannot be competent, is fair in that it is consistent with this rule. If all the individuals in a group would be denied the right to drive for reasons other than competency, that would be unfair. FOr example Saudi-Arabian women.
I agree it with you. It does indeed discriminate based on a reasoning process that is undeniably necessary. That makes it a good idea, but it doesnt make it a fair one.
Good standards do not automatically make for fair standards. I think you are equating the two for some reason.
I don't know if I am equating the two. Unfairness comes in when you make distinctions based on completely arbitrary or vague criteria, or when you denying competent indivduals rights based on the fact that their group generally is incompetent.
For example: Dutch women cannot be fighter pilots. This is a rule, and for budget reasons it may be a good standard (selection process is expensive), but is not fair, because some women may infact be good fighter pilots.
For example: A judge makes a completely different ruling in similar cases, perhaps because he liked one defendent more than the other.
Edit: we should probably stop this, it is quite a stupid semantics discussion.
I don't see any reason why to limit unfairness to just arbitrary or vague standards.
But you're right, this stuff is a bit of a derail.
Regardless of whether you think stopping a little blind 16 year old orphan who's only dream in life is to drive a car legally up and down a driveway for a few minutes is fair to him... jk . Like I said earlier it all comes down to what standard of marriage we should have and why you think that standard produces the best result for society, because both sides want a standard, they just want different standards. And I assume we would agree that both sides want an unfair standard becuase both arbitrarily limit it to two consenting adults...
I can sort of agree with all of that. Though I would argue that including homosexuals is more fair than not including them.
This is a common argument for gay marriage but it severely misses the point of what the gay marriage movement is trying to do.
This is a debate about standards. Both sides want a different standard for what constitutes a valid marriage. Gay marriage activists want a standard that includes two consenting adults, and traditional marriage activists want a standard that includes two consenting, one male and one female adults. The important thing to remember that BOTH sides want a standard.
Standards are inherently unfair. But every society has standards for all sorts of behavior or allowable actions. Blind people or people with chronic seizures are not allowed a driving liscence. Color blind people are not allowed to be fighter pilots in the Air force. These are all unfair, but we want these standards because proper standards make for a better society.
The debate about marriage is not about people "meddling" or "being unfair" with gays, both sides of the debate, by nature of wanting a standard for marriage at all are guilty of being unfair to some group or person to whom the standard will exclude.
The real debate is about what standard forms the best society and why. People need to talk about that and not about this religious stuff, etc.
What? Denying blind people a driver's license is unfair? They can't competently operate a vehicle, what is unfair about that?
It's unfair because the vast majority of blind people have not chosen to be blind, were born that way, or had some unfortunate accident. They have done nothing, yet we deprive them of the same rights that we give to others. That is basically pure unfairness.
I strongly disagree with the definition of fairness you seem to have come up with.
You think that treating people differently based upon characteristics which they had no choice over is not unfair? I don't know what is unfair if that is not.
I think the rule ''People that are competent drivers, should be allowed to operate a vehicle, and those that are not competent drivers, should not'' is a reasonable rule. It discriminates based on a reasoning process that is undeniably necessary.
Denying a group of people that logically cannot be competent, is fair in that it is consistent with this rule. If all the individuals in a group would be denied the right to drive for reasons other than competency, that would be unfair. FOr example Saudi-Arabian women.
I agree it with you. It does indeed discriminate based on a reasoning process that is undeniably necessary. That makes it a good idea, but it doesnt make it a fair one.
Good standards do not automatically make for fair standards. I think you are equating the two for some reason.
I don't know if I am equating the two. Unfairness comes in when you make distinctions based on completely arbitrary or vague criteria, or when you denying competent indivduals rights based on the fact that their group generally is incompetent.
For example: Dutch women cannot be fighter pilots. This is a rule, and for budget reasons it may be a good standard (selection process is expensive), but is not fair, because some women may infact be good fighter pilots.
For example: A judge makes a completely different ruling in similar cases, perhaps because he liked one defendent more than the other.
Edit: we should probably stop this, it is quite a stupid semantics discussion.
I don't see any reason why to limit unfairness to just arbitrary or vague standards.
But you're right, this stuff is a bit of a derail.
Regardless of whether you think stopping a little blind 16 year old orphan who's only dream in life is to drive a car legally up and down a driveway for a few minutes is fair to him... jk . Like I said earlier it all comes down to what standard of marriage we should have and why you think that standard produces the best result for society, because both sides want a standard, they just want different standards. And I assume we would agree that both sides want an unfair standard becuase both arbitrarily limit it to two consenting adults...
I can sort of agree with all of that. Though I would argue that including homosexuals is more fair than not including them.
And I would agree with that. I also think that fairness of the standard should be considered when creating one. If you had no benefit to society and a lot of unfairness, then it's probably a bad standard. If you had a big benefit and small unfairness then you probably have a good standard. etc..
By nature of any standard the less restrictive it is the more fair it is. So eliminating the requirement of having one male and one female by definition makes it more fair.
That's why I'm in favor of civil unions. That way you keep (in my opinion, obviously not everyone thinks there is a benefit) the benefit to society of having the traditional definition of marriage, while also limiting the inherent unfairness of that standard to gays.
What? Denying blind people a driver's license is unfair? They can't competently operate a vehicle, what is unfair about that?
It's unfair because the vast majority of blind people have not chosen to be blind, were born that way, or had some unfortunate accident. They have done nothing, yet we deprive them of the same rights that we give to others. That is basically pure unfairness.
I strongly disagree with the definition of fairness you seem to have come up with.
You think that treating people differently based upon characteristics which they had no choice over is not unfair? I don't know what is unfair if that is not.
I think the rule ''People that are competent drivers, should be allowed to operate a vehicle, and those that are not competent drivers, should not'' is a reasonable rule. It discriminates based on a reasoning process that is undeniably necessary.
Denying a group of people that logically cannot be competent, is fair in that it is consistent with this rule. If all the individuals in a group would be denied the right to drive for reasons other than competency, that would be unfair. FOr example Saudi-Arabian women.
I agree it with you. It does indeed discriminate based on a reasoning process that is undeniably necessary. That makes it a good idea, but it doesnt make it a fair one.
Good standards do not automatically make for fair standards. I think you are equating the two for some reason.
I don't know if I am equating the two. Unfairness comes in when you make distinctions based on completely arbitrary or vague criteria, or when you denying competent indivduals rights based on the fact that their group generally is incompetent.
For example: Dutch women cannot be fighter pilots. This is a rule, and for budget reasons it may be a good standard (selection process is expensive), but is not fair, because some women may infact be good fighter pilots.
For example: A judge makes a completely different ruling in similar cases, perhaps because he liked one defendent more than the other.
Edit: we should probably stop this, it is quite a stupid semantics discussion.
I don't see any reason why to limit unfairness to just arbitrary or vague standards.
But you're right, this stuff is a bit of a derail.
Regardless of whether you think stopping a little blind 16 year old orphan who's only dream in life is to drive a car legally up and down a driveway for a few minutes is fair to him... jk . Like I said earlier it all comes down to what standard of marriage we should have and why you think that standard produces the best result for society, because both sides want a standard, they just want different standards. And I assume we would agree that both sides want an unfair standard becuase both arbitrarily limit it to two consenting adults...
I can sort of agree with all of that. Though I would argue that including homosexuals is more fair than not including them.
And I would agree with that. I also think that fairness of the standard should be considered when creating one. If you had no benefit to society and a lot of unfairness, then it's probably a bad standard. If you had a big benefit and small unfairness then you probably have a good standard. etc..
By nature of any standard the less restrictive it is the more fair it is. So eliminating the requirement of having one male and one female by definition makes it more fair.
That's why I'm in favor of civil unions. That way you keep (in my opinion, obviously not everyone thinks there is a benefit) the benefit to society of having the traditional definition of marriage, while also limiting the inherent unfairness of that standard to gays.
How is marriage a benefit to society? It's an atiquated notion of monogamous bonding/ownership of a female that was invented because sanctimonious and sexually insecure men of power wanted to make sex and procreation to be the remit of the church, or the rabbi, or mullah, whatever nature the local superstitious nonsense might have taken.
Marriage is not, has never been, and will never be an intrinsic component to procreation. Humans were fucking away just fine before it was forced upon our species, and we'll be fucking happily tomorrow if it were to disappear overnight. Which is also why the analogies to beastiality are so nonsensical, animals just don't bother with this inane stupidity, they'll get jiggy with it whenever the opportunity presents itself. Just like we did for the majority of our existence.
It's kind of sad that this even a debate in 2012, it's like having to explain why evolution isn't, "just a theory".
As a thought experiment, as some people seem to be using the "limiting peoples options over something they have no control over is fundamentally false"
If we presume that homosexuality, or homosexual desires//tendancies are entirely and completely an issue of nurture. There is no "out of our control" influence or genetic, biological aspects that create such.
Would those using the idea sexuality is genetic and non choosable, change their mind on this or relating issues?
What? Denying blind people a driver's license is unfair? They can't competently operate a vehicle, what is unfair about that?
It's unfair because the vast majority of blind people have not chosen to be blind, were born that way, or had some unfortunate accident. They have done nothing, yet we deprive them of the same rights that we give to others. That is basically pure unfairness.
I strongly disagree with the definition of fairness you seem to have come up with.
You think that treating people differently based upon characteristics which they had no choice over is not unfair? I don't know what is unfair if that is not.
I think the rule ''People that are competent drivers, should be allowed to operate a vehicle, and those that are not competent drivers, should not'' is a reasonable rule. It discriminates based on a reasoning process that is undeniably necessary.
Denying a group of people that logically cannot be competent, is fair in that it is consistent with this rule. If all the individuals in a group would be denied the right to drive for reasons other than competency, that would be unfair. FOr example Saudi-Arabian women.
I agree it with you. It does indeed discriminate based on a reasoning process that is undeniably necessary. That makes it a good idea, but it doesnt make it a fair one.
Good standards do not automatically make for fair standards. I think you are equating the two for some reason.
I don't know if I am equating the two. Unfairness comes in when you make distinctions based on completely arbitrary or vague criteria, or when you denying competent indivduals rights based on the fact that their group generally is incompetent.
For example: Dutch women cannot be fighter pilots. This is a rule, and for budget reasons it may be a good standard (selection process is expensive), but is not fair, because some women may infact be good fighter pilots.
For example: A judge makes a completely different ruling in similar cases, perhaps because he liked one defendent more than the other.
Edit: we should probably stop this, it is quite a stupid semantics discussion.
I don't see any reason why to limit unfairness to just arbitrary or vague standards.
But you're right, this stuff is a bit of a derail.
Regardless of whether you think stopping a little blind 16 year old orphan who's only dream in life is to drive a car legally up and down a driveway for a few minutes is fair to him... jk . Like I said earlier it all comes down to what standard of marriage we should have and why you think that standard produces the best result for society, because both sides want a standard, they just want different standards. And I assume we would agree that both sides want an unfair standard becuase both arbitrarily limit it to two consenting adults...
I can sort of agree with all of that. Though I would argue that including homosexuals is more fair than not including them.
And I would agree with that. I also think that fairness of the standard should be considered when creating one. If you had no benefit to society and a lot of unfairness, then it's probably a bad standard. If you had a big benefit and small unfairness then you probably have a good standard. etc..
By nature of any standard the less restrictive it is the more fair it is. So eliminating the requirement of having one male and one female by definition makes it more fair.
That's why I'm in favor of civil unions. That way you keep (in my opinion, obviously not everyone thinks there is a benefit) the benefit to society of having the traditional definition of marriage, while also limiting the inherent unfairness of that standard to gays.
Unless you're saying you're in favor of civil unions for all couples, I don't see your point. I guess you're trying to abstractify your point with all this talk about standards. If you separate gay couples out with civil unions for the only purpose of giving them a different nominal status then that is a terrible law. That means the only purpose of that construct is to demean people. That's not what the law is for.
It's unfair because the vast majority of blind people have not chosen to be blind, were born that way, or had some unfortunate accident. They have done nothing, yet we deprive them of the same rights that we give to others. That is basically pure unfairness.
I strongly disagree with the definition of fairness you seem to have come up with.
You think that treating people differently based upon characteristics which they had no choice over is not unfair? I don't know what is unfair if that is not.
I think the rule ''People that are competent drivers, should be allowed to operate a vehicle, and those that are not competent drivers, should not'' is a reasonable rule. It discriminates based on a reasoning process that is undeniably necessary.
Denying a group of people that logically cannot be competent, is fair in that it is consistent with this rule. If all the individuals in a group would be denied the right to drive for reasons other than competency, that would be unfair. FOr example Saudi-Arabian women.
I agree it with you. It does indeed discriminate based on a reasoning process that is undeniably necessary. That makes it a good idea, but it doesnt make it a fair one.
Good standards do not automatically make for fair standards. I think you are equating the two for some reason.
I don't know if I am equating the two. Unfairness comes in when you make distinctions based on completely arbitrary or vague criteria, or when you denying competent indivduals rights based on the fact that their group generally is incompetent.
For example: Dutch women cannot be fighter pilots. This is a rule, and for budget reasons it may be a good standard (selection process is expensive), but is not fair, because some women may infact be good fighter pilots.
For example: A judge makes a completely different ruling in similar cases, perhaps because he liked one defendent more than the other.
Edit: we should probably stop this, it is quite a stupid semantics discussion.
I don't see any reason why to limit unfairness to just arbitrary or vague standards.
But you're right, this stuff is a bit of a derail.
Regardless of whether you think stopping a little blind 16 year old orphan who's only dream in life is to drive a car legally up and down a driveway for a few minutes is fair to him... jk . Like I said earlier it all comes down to what standard of marriage we should have and why you think that standard produces the best result for society, because both sides want a standard, they just want different standards. And I assume we would agree that both sides want an unfair standard becuase both arbitrarily limit it to two consenting adults...
I can sort of agree with all of that. Though I would argue that including homosexuals is more fair than not including them.
And I would agree with that. I also think that fairness of the standard should be considered when creating one. If you had no benefit to society and a lot of unfairness, then it's probably a bad standard. If you had a big benefit and small unfairness then you probably have a good standard. etc..
By nature of any standard the less restrictive it is the more fair it is. So eliminating the requirement of having one male and one female by definition makes it more fair.
That's why I'm in favor of civil unions. That way you keep (in my opinion, obviously not everyone thinks there is a benefit) the benefit to society of having the traditional definition of marriage, while also limiting the inherent unfairness of that standard to gays.
How is marriage a benefit to society? It's an atiquated notion of monogamous bonding/ownership of a female that was invented because sanctimonious and sexually insecure men of power wanted to make sex and procreation to be the remit of the church, or the rabbi, or mullah, whatever nature the local superstitious nonsense might have taken.
Marriage is not, has never been, and will never be an intrinsic component to procreation. Humans were fucking away just fine before it was forced upon our species, and we'll be fucking happily tomorrow if it were to disappear overnight. Which is also why the analogies to beastiality are so nonsensical, animals just don't bother with this inane stupidity, they'll get jiggy with it whenever the opportunity presents itself. Just like we did for the majority of our existence.
It's kind of sad that this even a debate in 2012, it's like having to explain why evolution isn't, "just a theory".
I don't think it's sad to have a discussion about something. I think most people, including gay marriage advocates and traditional marriage advocates, would disagree with you and say that marriage is fundamental to the raising of children, the passing on of values of society to the next generation, and maintaining an orderly society.
Obviously you do not need to be marriage to procreate, but I'd advise you to take a look at the statistics of poverty, crime, etc. for childrnen who were raised out of wedlock, and then make an opinion as to whether marriage is an intrinsic component to procreation.
It's unfair because the vast majority of blind people have not chosen to be blind, were born that way, or had some unfortunate accident. They have done nothing, yet we deprive them of the same rights that we give to others. That is basically pure unfairness.
I strongly disagree with the definition of fairness you seem to have come up with.
You think that treating people differently based upon characteristics which they had no choice over is not unfair? I don't know what is unfair if that is not.
I think the rule ''People that are competent drivers, should be allowed to operate a vehicle, and those that are not competent drivers, should not'' is a reasonable rule. It discriminates based on a reasoning process that is undeniably necessary.
Denying a group of people that logically cannot be competent, is fair in that it is consistent with this rule. If all the individuals in a group would be denied the right to drive for reasons other than competency, that would be unfair. FOr example Saudi-Arabian women.
I agree it with you. It does indeed discriminate based on a reasoning process that is undeniably necessary. That makes it a good idea, but it doesnt make it a fair one.
Good standards do not automatically make for fair standards. I think you are equating the two for some reason.
I don't know if I am equating the two. Unfairness comes in when you make distinctions based on completely arbitrary or vague criteria, or when you denying competent indivduals rights based on the fact that their group generally is incompetent.
For example: Dutch women cannot be fighter pilots. This is a rule, and for budget reasons it may be a good standard (selection process is expensive), but is not fair, because some women may infact be good fighter pilots.
For example: A judge makes a completely different ruling in similar cases, perhaps because he liked one defendent more than the other.
Edit: we should probably stop this, it is quite a stupid semantics discussion.
I don't see any reason why to limit unfairness to just arbitrary or vague standards.
But you're right, this stuff is a bit of a derail.
Regardless of whether you think stopping a little blind 16 year old orphan who's only dream in life is to drive a car legally up and down a driveway for a few minutes is fair to him... jk . Like I said earlier it all comes down to what standard of marriage we should have and why you think that standard produces the best result for society, because both sides want a standard, they just want different standards. And I assume we would agree that both sides want an unfair standard becuase both arbitrarily limit it to two consenting adults...
I can sort of agree with all of that. Though I would argue that including homosexuals is more fair than not including them.
And I would agree with that. I also think that fairness of the standard should be considered when creating one. If you had no benefit to society and a lot of unfairness, then it's probably a bad standard. If you had a big benefit and small unfairness then you probably have a good standard. etc..
By nature of any standard the less restrictive it is the more fair it is. So eliminating the requirement of having one male and one female by definition makes it more fair.
That's why I'm in favor of civil unions. That way you keep (in my opinion, obviously not everyone thinks there is a benefit) the benefit to society of having the traditional definition of marriage, while also limiting the inherent unfairness of that standard to gays.
Unless you're saying you're in favor of civil unions for all couples, I don't see your point. I guess you're trying to abstractify your point with all this talk about standards. If you separate gay couples out with civil unions for the only purpose of giving them a different nominal status then that is a terrible law. That means the only purpose of that construct is to demean people. That's not what the law is for.
My point is that I believe there is a benefit to society from maintaining the traditional marriage definition. There is also unfairness in it, which is what all my standards talk was about. Civil unions are a way to decrease the unfairness of the traditional marriage defintion, while also keeping the benefit of maintaining the traditional marriage defintion. And sure, I see no reason why to limit civil unions to gays. I actually have no idea how you would tell/prove if someone is gay unless they told you, so im not sure how you would limit it to gays in the first place.
Although I would keep civil unions exclusively for same sex couples and marriage for heterosexual couples. I don't think I made that clear.
I strongly disagree with the definition of fairness you seem to have come up with.
You think that treating people differently based upon characteristics which they had no choice over is not unfair? I don't know what is unfair if that is not.
I think the rule ''People that are competent drivers, should be allowed to operate a vehicle, and those that are not competent drivers, should not'' is a reasonable rule. It discriminates based on a reasoning process that is undeniably necessary.
Denying a group of people that logically cannot be competent, is fair in that it is consistent with this rule. If all the individuals in a group would be denied the right to drive for reasons other than competency, that would be unfair. FOr example Saudi-Arabian women.
I agree it with you. It does indeed discriminate based on a reasoning process that is undeniably necessary. That makes it a good idea, but it doesnt make it a fair one.
Good standards do not automatically make for fair standards. I think you are equating the two for some reason.
I don't know if I am equating the two. Unfairness comes in when you make distinctions based on completely arbitrary or vague criteria, or when you denying competent indivduals rights based on the fact that their group generally is incompetent.
For example: Dutch women cannot be fighter pilots. This is a rule, and for budget reasons it may be a good standard (selection process is expensive), but is not fair, because some women may infact be good fighter pilots.
For example: A judge makes a completely different ruling in similar cases, perhaps because he liked one defendent more than the other.
Edit: we should probably stop this, it is quite a stupid semantics discussion.
I don't see any reason why to limit unfairness to just arbitrary or vague standards.
But you're right, this stuff is a bit of a derail.
Regardless of whether you think stopping a little blind 16 year old orphan who's only dream in life is to drive a car legally up and down a driveway for a few minutes is fair to him... jk . Like I said earlier it all comes down to what standard of marriage we should have and why you think that standard produces the best result for society, because both sides want a standard, they just want different standards. And I assume we would agree that both sides want an unfair standard becuase both arbitrarily limit it to two consenting adults...
I can sort of agree with all of that. Though I would argue that including homosexuals is more fair than not including them.
And I would agree with that. I also think that fairness of the standard should be considered when creating one. If you had no benefit to society and a lot of unfairness, then it's probably a bad standard. If you had a big benefit and small unfairness then you probably have a good standard. etc..
By nature of any standard the less restrictive it is the more fair it is. So eliminating the requirement of having one male and one female by definition makes it more fair.
That's why I'm in favor of civil unions. That way you keep (in my opinion, obviously not everyone thinks there is a benefit) the benefit to society of having the traditional definition of marriage, while also limiting the inherent unfairness of that standard to gays.
Unless you're saying you're in favor of civil unions for all couples, I don't see your point. I guess you're trying to abstractify your point with all this talk about standards. If you separate gay couples out with civil unions for the only purpose of giving them a different nominal status then that is a terrible law. That means the only purpose of that construct is to demean people. That's not what the law is for.
My point is that I believe there is a benefit to society from maintaining the traditional marriage definition. There is also unfairness in it, which is what all my standards talk was about. Civil unions are a way to decrease the unfairness of the traditional marriage defintion, while also keeping the benefit of maintaining the traditional marriage defintion. And sure, I see no reason why to limit civil unions to gays. I actually have no idea how you would tell/prove if someone is gay unless they told you, so im not sure how you would limit it to gays in the first place.
Although I would keep civil unions exclusively for same sex couples and marriage for heterosexual couples. I don't think I made that clear.
...right, so the purpose of that, the entire purpose of that construction is to put homosexuals in a different section from heterosexuals, despite being treated exactly the same. Explain to me the purpose of this legal construction other than to demean homosexuals with different language.
I strongly disagree with the definition of fairness you seem to have come up with.
You think that treating people differently based upon characteristics which they had no choice over is not unfair? I don't know what is unfair if that is not.
I think the rule ''People that are competent drivers, should be allowed to operate a vehicle, and those that are not competent drivers, should not'' is a reasonable rule. It discriminates based on a reasoning process that is undeniably necessary.
Denying a group of people that logically cannot be competent, is fair in that it is consistent with this rule. If all the individuals in a group would be denied the right to drive for reasons other than competency, that would be unfair. FOr example Saudi-Arabian women.
I agree it with you. It does indeed discriminate based on a reasoning process that is undeniably necessary. That makes it a good idea, but it doesnt make it a fair one.
Good standards do not automatically make for fair standards. I think you are equating the two for some reason.
I don't know if I am equating the two. Unfairness comes in when you make distinctions based on completely arbitrary or vague criteria, or when you denying competent indivduals rights based on the fact that their group generally is incompetent.
For example: Dutch women cannot be fighter pilots. This is a rule, and for budget reasons it may be a good standard (selection process is expensive), but is not fair, because some women may infact be good fighter pilots.
For example: A judge makes a completely different ruling in similar cases, perhaps because he liked one defendent more than the other.
Edit: we should probably stop this, it is quite a stupid semantics discussion.
I don't see any reason why to limit unfairness to just arbitrary or vague standards.
But you're right, this stuff is a bit of a derail.
Regardless of whether you think stopping a little blind 16 year old orphan who's only dream in life is to drive a car legally up and down a driveway for a few minutes is fair to him... jk . Like I said earlier it all comes down to what standard of marriage we should have and why you think that standard produces the best result for society, because both sides want a standard, they just want different standards. And I assume we would agree that both sides want an unfair standard becuase both arbitrarily limit it to two consenting adults...
I can sort of agree with all of that. Though I would argue that including homosexuals is more fair than not including them.
And I would agree with that. I also think that fairness of the standard should be considered when creating one. If you had no benefit to society and a lot of unfairness, then it's probably a bad standard. If you had a big benefit and small unfairness then you probably have a good standard. etc..
By nature of any standard the less restrictive it is the more fair it is. So eliminating the requirement of having one male and one female by definition makes it more fair.
That's why I'm in favor of civil unions. That way you keep (in my opinion, obviously not everyone thinks there is a benefit) the benefit to society of having the traditional definition of marriage, while also limiting the inherent unfairness of that standard to gays.
Unless you're saying you're in favor of civil unions for all couples, I don't see your point. I guess you're trying to abstractify your point with all this talk about standards. If you separate gay couples out with civil unions for the only purpose of giving them a different nominal status then that is a terrible law. That means the only purpose of that construct is to demean people. That's not what the law is for.
Although I would keep civil unions exclusively for same sex couples and marriage for heterosexual couples. I don't think I made that clear.
Your right you didnt make that clear, on the justifications you have just outlined on what basis would you keep civil unions exclusive for gay couples and marriage exclusive for heterosexual couples?
You think that treating people differently based upon characteristics which they had no choice over is not unfair? I don't know what is unfair if that is not.
I think the rule ''People that are competent drivers, should be allowed to operate a vehicle, and those that are not competent drivers, should not'' is a reasonable rule. It discriminates based on a reasoning process that is undeniably necessary.
Denying a group of people that logically cannot be competent, is fair in that it is consistent with this rule. If all the individuals in a group would be denied the right to drive for reasons other than competency, that would be unfair. FOr example Saudi-Arabian women.
I agree it with you. It does indeed discriminate based on a reasoning process that is undeniably necessary. That makes it a good idea, but it doesnt make it a fair one.
Good standards do not automatically make for fair standards. I think you are equating the two for some reason.
I don't know if I am equating the two. Unfairness comes in when you make distinctions based on completely arbitrary or vague criteria, or when you denying competent indivduals rights based on the fact that their group generally is incompetent.
For example: Dutch women cannot be fighter pilots. This is a rule, and for budget reasons it may be a good standard (selection process is expensive), but is not fair, because some women may infact be good fighter pilots.
For example: A judge makes a completely different ruling in similar cases, perhaps because he liked one defendent more than the other.
Edit: we should probably stop this, it is quite a stupid semantics discussion.
I don't see any reason why to limit unfairness to just arbitrary or vague standards.
But you're right, this stuff is a bit of a derail.
Regardless of whether you think stopping a little blind 16 year old orphan who's only dream in life is to drive a car legally up and down a driveway for a few minutes is fair to him... jk . Like I said earlier it all comes down to what standard of marriage we should have and why you think that standard produces the best result for society, because both sides want a standard, they just want different standards. And I assume we would agree that both sides want an unfair standard becuase both arbitrarily limit it to two consenting adults...
I can sort of agree with all of that. Though I would argue that including homosexuals is more fair than not including them.
And I would agree with that. I also think that fairness of the standard should be considered when creating one. If you had no benefit to society and a lot of unfairness, then it's probably a bad standard. If you had a big benefit and small unfairness then you probably have a good standard. etc..
By nature of any standard the less restrictive it is the more fair it is. So eliminating the requirement of having one male and one female by definition makes it more fair.
That's why I'm in favor of civil unions. That way you keep (in my opinion, obviously not everyone thinks there is a benefit) the benefit to society of having the traditional definition of marriage, while also limiting the inherent unfairness of that standard to gays.
Unless you're saying you're in favor of civil unions for all couples, I don't see your point. I guess you're trying to abstractify your point with all this talk about standards. If you separate gay couples out with civil unions for the only purpose of giving them a different nominal status then that is a terrible law. That means the only purpose of that construct is to demean people. That's not what the law is for.
My point is that I believe there is a benefit to society from maintaining the traditional marriage definition. There is also unfairness in it, which is what all my standards talk was about. Civil unions are a way to decrease the unfairness of the traditional marriage defintion, while also keeping the benefit of maintaining the traditional marriage defintion. And sure, I see no reason why to limit civil unions to gays. I actually have no idea how you would tell/prove if someone is gay unless they told you, so im not sure how you would limit it to gays in the first place.
What? I'm confused. Are you suggesting we get rid of civil marriage altogether and have civil unions for everybody? Or are you suggesting that straight people get married and gay people get unioned?
There really isn't a benefit to maintaining the traditional marriage definition. Maybe for religious purposes, but the government doesn't get involved in that. Gays and Lesbians are just as much married as straight people are. They just happen to have the same genitalia. Let's just drop the sexism from marriage. I know it's a hard concept, considering its origins, but we do live in a modern society.
Im not interested in maintaining it for religious purposes. I would maintain the distinction between hetero couples and same sex couples because I believe the governement should prefer that the ideal familial unit be a heterosexual couple because it brings the most benefit to society. The reason why heterosexual couples have that benefit in contrast to same sex couples is because men and women are inherently different in material ways beyond mere sexual genitalia, and those differences create the best enviroment for raising children, let alone the fact that those relationships create children in the first place.
This is not to say that the government should discourage same sex relationships, or that they are bad or any nonsense like that. But I do think that heterosexual unions should be the ideal. Obviously not eveyone can have those unions, and it's not their fault either, but I'm not willing to eliminate having an ideal family relationship on purely arguments of fairness.
Anyways, thats my take. If you don't think men and women are any differnet except for sexual organs then this goes out the window, and you should support gay marriage.
There is no evidential basis that shows heterosexual relationships being the "ideal" towards the development of a child.
If your argument is based, as it seems to be, in this notion then at least cite your sources that justify the claim.
Secondly, on the basis you have just given heterosexual couples who openly and actively do not want to, and take measures to stop themselves, having children should not be allowed to marry and perhaps instead be forced to have a civil partnership in order to maintain the primary function of marriage which is to create an ideal structure for the raising of children.
In which case, again I ask you, why would you state so bluntly that hetersoexual couples alone should be allowed to marry, and civil partnerships should be reserved completely for homosexual couples.
This is by no means the only flaw in your argument and justification but it is a pretty easy one to highlight as self contradictory.
..Not to mention the laughable way you end your post, essentially saying "If you think men are the same as women thats fine, otherwise I'm right"....
I think the rule ''People that are competent drivers, should be allowed to operate a vehicle, and those that are not competent drivers, should not'' is a reasonable rule. It discriminates based on a reasoning process that is undeniably necessary.
Denying a group of people that logically cannot be competent, is fair in that it is consistent with this rule. If all the individuals in a group would be denied the right to drive for reasons other than competency, that would be unfair. FOr example Saudi-Arabian women.
I agree it with you. It does indeed discriminate based on a reasoning process that is undeniably necessary. That makes it a good idea, but it doesnt make it a fair one.
Good standards do not automatically make for fair standards. I think you are equating the two for some reason.
I don't know if I am equating the two. Unfairness comes in when you make distinctions based on completely arbitrary or vague criteria, or when you denying competent indivduals rights based on the fact that their group generally is incompetent.
For example: Dutch women cannot be fighter pilots. This is a rule, and for budget reasons it may be a good standard (selection process is expensive), but is not fair, because some women may infact be good fighter pilots.
For example: A judge makes a completely different ruling in similar cases, perhaps because he liked one defendent more than the other.
Edit: we should probably stop this, it is quite a stupid semantics discussion.
I don't see any reason why to limit unfairness to just arbitrary or vague standards.
But you're right, this stuff is a bit of a derail.
Regardless of whether you think stopping a little blind 16 year old orphan who's only dream in life is to drive a car legally up and down a driveway for a few minutes is fair to him... jk . Like I said earlier it all comes down to what standard of marriage we should have and why you think that standard produces the best result for society, because both sides want a standard, they just want different standards. And I assume we would agree that both sides want an unfair standard becuase both arbitrarily limit it to two consenting adults...
I can sort of agree with all of that. Though I would argue that including homosexuals is more fair than not including them.
And I would agree with that. I also think that fairness of the standard should be considered when creating one. If you had no benefit to society and a lot of unfairness, then it's probably a bad standard. If you had a big benefit and small unfairness then you probably have a good standard. etc..
By nature of any standard the less restrictive it is the more fair it is. So eliminating the requirement of having one male and one female by definition makes it more fair.
That's why I'm in favor of civil unions. That way you keep (in my opinion, obviously not everyone thinks there is a benefit) the benefit to society of having the traditional definition of marriage, while also limiting the inherent unfairness of that standard to gays.
Unless you're saying you're in favor of civil unions for all couples, I don't see your point. I guess you're trying to abstractify your point with all this talk about standards. If you separate gay couples out with civil unions for the only purpose of giving them a different nominal status then that is a terrible law. That means the only purpose of that construct is to demean people. That's not what the law is for.
My point is that I believe there is a benefit to society from maintaining the traditional marriage definition. There is also unfairness in it, which is what all my standards talk was about. Civil unions are a way to decrease the unfairness of the traditional marriage defintion, while also keeping the benefit of maintaining the traditional marriage defintion. And sure, I see no reason why to limit civil unions to gays. I actually have no idea how you would tell/prove if someone is gay unless they told you, so im not sure how you would limit it to gays in the first place.
What? I'm confused. Are you suggesting we get rid of civil marriage altogether and have civil unions for everybody? Or are you suggesting that straight people get married and gay people get unioned?
There really isn't a benefit to maintaining the traditional marriage definition. Maybe for religious purposes, but the government doesn't get involved in that. Gays and Lesbians are just as much married as straight people are. They just happen to have the same genitalia. Let's just drop the sexism from marriage. I know it's a hard concept, considering its origins, but we do live in a modern society.
Im not interested in maintaining it for religious purposes. I would maintain the distinction between hetero couples and same sex couples because I believe the governement should prefer that the ideal familial unit be a heterosexual couple because it brings the most benefit to society. The reason why heterosexual couples have that benefit in contrast to same sex couples is because men and women are inherently different in material ways beyond mere sexual genitalia, and those differences create the best enviroment for raising children, let alone the fact that those relationships create children in the first place.
This is not to say that the government should discourage same sex relationships, or that they are bad or any nonsense like that. But I do think that heterosexual unions should be the ideal. Obviously not eveyone can have those unions, and it's not their fault either, but I'm not willing to eliminate having an ideal family relationship on purely arguments of fairness.
Anyways, thats my take. If you don't think men and women are any differnet except for sexual organs then this goes out the window, and you should support gay marriage.
Saying men and women are different besides sexual organs is not what I'm talking about. I never said men and women are the same. However, codifying law that differentiates between the two for arbitrary reasons like this one is illegal and goes against the 14th amendment's equal protection clause. I don't think you understand that. There is massive difference between sexism and institutionalized sexism.
Again, I see no reason why a homosexual couple would be inherently worse for raising children than a heterosexual couple. There is no evidence or logical basis for that assertion (besides for the is-ought fallacy).
On July 13 2012 07:21 XeliN wrote: There is no evidential basis that shows heterosexual relationships being the "ideal" towards the development of a child.
If your argument is based, as it seems to be, in this notion then at least cite your sources that justify the claim.
Secondly, on the basis you have just given heterosexual couples who openly and actively do not want to, and take measures to stop themselves, having children should not be allowed to marry and perhaps instead be forced to have a civil partnership in order to maintain the primary function of marriage which is to create an ideal structure for the raising of children.
In which case, again I ask you, why would you state so bluntly that hetersoexual couples alone should be allowed to marry, and civil partnerships should be reserved completely for homosexual couples.
This is by no means the only flaw in your argument and justification but it is a pretty easy one to highlight as self contradictory.
Yes, I do not have any sources on hand to support my claim that men and women are the best for raising children. But I think evolutionary biology suggests it as do the inherent differences between men and women. Obviously, you may disagree and think that there are no differences between men and women beside sexual organs, but there are no sources for that claim either. I'm never a huge fan of the "cite sources" argument unless it's something very technical. Most statements about preference etc. can be supported by examples from real life and observations.
I did not say anything about limiting marriage to people who have children. I merely stated that the government can logically prefer hetero couples to same sex couples because hetero couples are the kind of couples that have children and same sex cannot. Because some people choose to not have children has nothing to do with the biological ability of men and women to procreate.
So because of that I would restate my argument above. Hetero couples should be preferred and distinguished from other types of relationships. I don't think we're going to agree though, but that's cool. I'm not really trying to convince people, I'm more interested in getting the traditional marriage viewpoint out there because I think it's severely lacking in everyday life. (Probably especially in the U.K. )
I agree it with you. It does indeed discriminate based on a reasoning process that is undeniably necessary. That makes it a good idea, but it doesnt make it a fair one.
Good standards do not automatically make for fair standards. I think you are equating the two for some reason.
I don't know if I am equating the two. Unfairness comes in when you make distinctions based on completely arbitrary or vague criteria, or when you denying competent indivduals rights based on the fact that their group generally is incompetent.
For example: Dutch women cannot be fighter pilots. This is a rule, and for budget reasons it may be a good standard (selection process is expensive), but is not fair, because some women may infact be good fighter pilots.
For example: A judge makes a completely different ruling in similar cases, perhaps because he liked one defendent more than the other.
Edit: we should probably stop this, it is quite a stupid semantics discussion.
I don't see any reason why to limit unfairness to just arbitrary or vague standards.
But you're right, this stuff is a bit of a derail.
Regardless of whether you think stopping a little blind 16 year old orphan who's only dream in life is to drive a car legally up and down a driveway for a few minutes is fair to him... jk . Like I said earlier it all comes down to what standard of marriage we should have and why you think that standard produces the best result for society, because both sides want a standard, they just want different standards. And I assume we would agree that both sides want an unfair standard becuase both arbitrarily limit it to two consenting adults...
I can sort of agree with all of that. Though I would argue that including homosexuals is more fair than not including them.
And I would agree with that. I also think that fairness of the standard should be considered when creating one. If you had no benefit to society and a lot of unfairness, then it's probably a bad standard. If you had a big benefit and small unfairness then you probably have a good standard. etc..
By nature of any standard the less restrictive it is the more fair it is. So eliminating the requirement of having one male and one female by definition makes it more fair.
That's why I'm in favor of civil unions. That way you keep (in my opinion, obviously not everyone thinks there is a benefit) the benefit to society of having the traditional definition of marriage, while also limiting the inherent unfairness of that standard to gays.
Unless you're saying you're in favor of civil unions for all couples, I don't see your point. I guess you're trying to abstractify your point with all this talk about standards. If you separate gay couples out with civil unions for the only purpose of giving them a different nominal status then that is a terrible law. That means the only purpose of that construct is to demean people. That's not what the law is for.
My point is that I believe there is a benefit to society from maintaining the traditional marriage definition. There is also unfairness in it, which is what all my standards talk was about. Civil unions are a way to decrease the unfairness of the traditional marriage defintion, while also keeping the benefit of maintaining the traditional marriage defintion. And sure, I see no reason why to limit civil unions to gays. I actually have no idea how you would tell/prove if someone is gay unless they told you, so im not sure how you would limit it to gays in the first place.
What? I'm confused. Are you suggesting we get rid of civil marriage altogether and have civil unions for everybody? Or are you suggesting that straight people get married and gay people get unioned?
There really isn't a benefit to maintaining the traditional marriage definition. Maybe for religious purposes, but the government doesn't get involved in that. Gays and Lesbians are just as much married as straight people are. They just happen to have the same genitalia. Let's just drop the sexism from marriage. I know it's a hard concept, considering its origins, but we do live in a modern society.
Im not interested in maintaining it for religious purposes. I would maintain the distinction between hetero couples and same sex couples because I believe the governement should prefer that the ideal familial unit be a heterosexual couple because it brings the most benefit to society. The reason why heterosexual couples have that benefit in contrast to same sex couples is because men and women are inherently different in material ways beyond mere sexual genitalia, and those differences create the best enviroment for raising children, let alone the fact that those relationships create children in the first place.
This is not to say that the government should discourage same sex relationships, or that they are bad or any nonsense like that. But I do think that heterosexual unions should be the ideal. Obviously not eveyone can have those unions, and it's not their fault either, but I'm not willing to eliminate having an ideal family relationship on purely arguments of fairness.
Anyways, thats my take. If you don't think men and women are any differnet except for sexual organs then this goes out the window, and you should support gay marriage.
Saying men and women are different besides sexual organs is not what I'm talking about. I never said men and women are the same. However, codifying law that differentiates between the two for arbitrary reasons like this one is illegal and goes against the 14th amendment's equal protection clause. I don't think you understand that. There is massive difference between sexism and institutionalized sexism.
Again, I see no reason why a homosexual couple would be inherently worse for raising children than a heterosexual couple. There is no evidence or logical basis for that assertion (besides for the is-ought fallacy).
The 14th amendment has never been interpreted that way by the Supreme Court, which is the only court that matters when it comes to Con law. As a law student I understand what you're saying very well.
We'll get to see what the Roberts court thinks about it though pretty soon though. The 9th circuit recently struck down prop 8 in california on that basis, and the Supreme Court will almost certainly grant review.
Gender distinctions are not reviewed with strict scrutiny like racial distinctions, but you never know what the court will decide.
Well thats fine, but lets say i accept your premise that heterosexual couples are the best possible for raising children.
Goverments could, on the exact same basis, logically prefer heterosexual couples of certain types.
Whether it be ones who have features, financial stability, lack of addictions, reliable jobs, live in safe areas etc. etc.
To heterosexual couples that do not fulfill these same criteria.
How is saying homosexual marriage should not be allowed based on this any different than saying governments should prefer certain types of hereosexual relationship and limit the ability to marry to certain types of heterosexual relationship any different?
And the above is vague. Take my earlier example of a heterosexual couple who fervently do not wish, and will not have children. Would you say the government can logically limit their right to marry, to the extent that they deny it.
This is what you are arguing for in the case of homosexual couples not being allowed to marry, and on the grounds you have provided I cannot see how you can justify it without also allowing for the limitation of the rights of heterosexual couples to marry, at least in some circumstances.
I'd like to illustrate the issue with what you are proposing. Say your lesbian friend told you she was getting married. You proceed to explain to her why her fiancé is not technically a fiancé and she's technically not getting married. Now, hopefully you would agree that saying this to your friend is a horrible breach of taste. If you don't then I can only say that you're a total asshole.
Now realize that what we're talking about is way way worse than that. This is putting into law your insulting, degrading opinions. This is not the purpose of the law.
On July 13 2012 07:45 DoubleReed wrote: I'd like to illustrate the issue with what you are proposing. Say your lesbian friend told you she was getting married. You proceed to explain to her why her fiancé is not technically a fiancé and she's technically not getting married. Now, hopefully you would agree that saying this to your friend is a horrible breach of taste. If you don't then I can only say that you're a total asshole.
Now realize that what we're talking about is way way worse than that. This is putting into law your insulting, degrading opinions. This is not the purpose of the law.
I would tell my lesbian friend congrats and I would happily attend her wedding with no issue. I have no problem separating my opinions on how society should work in general from what happens in my personal life.
Look I agree with you that it's unfair to gays that they cant get married. That's why I'm in favor of civil unions. But I dont agree with you that the distinction between marriage and a civil union is degrading if you believe as I do, that men and women are inherently different. Calling two different things two different names is not degrading.
I understand what you're saying though. For example it would be very degrading to call marriage different things based on the race of those getting married. But I think that's degrading becase there are no inherent differences between the races. Unlike between the sexes.
On July 13 2012 07:45 XeliN wrote: Well thats fine, but lets say i accept your premise that heterosexual couples are the best possible for raising children.
Goverments could, on the exact same basis, logically prefer heterosexual couples of certain types.
Whether it be ones who have features, financial stability, lack of addictions, reliable jobs, live in safe areas etc. etc.
To heterosexual couples that do not fulfill these same criteria.
How is saying homosexual marriage should not be allowed based on this any different than saying governments should prefer certain types of hereosexual relationship and limit the ability to marry to certain types of heterosexual relationship any different?
And the above is vague. Take my earlier example of a heterosexual couple who fervently do not wish, and will not have children. Would you say the government can logically limit their right to marry, to the extent that they deny it.
This is what you are arguing for in the case of homosexual couples not being allowed to marry, and on the grounds you have provided I cannot see how you can justify it without also allowing for the limitation of the rights of heterosexual couples to marry, at least in some circumstances.
Please illucidate me
Thats true, they could but those criteria are not related to the selection of what kind of couple should be preferred. Financial stability, lack of addictions, etc. are not inherent characteristics of a heterosexual couple or any kind of couple for that matter, so those criteria really arn't any use in determining what kind of relationship we should prefer as a society. If you want to figure out what type of relationship to prefer, we should only focus on those inherent characteristics that they possess in distinction to the inherent characteristics of a same sex couple or any kind of couple.
On July 13 2012 07:45 DoubleReed wrote: I'd like to illustrate the issue with what you are proposing. Say your lesbian friend told you she was getting married. You proceed to explain to her why her fiancé is not technically a fiancé and she's technically not getting married. Now, hopefully you would agree that saying this to your friend is a horrible breach of taste. If you don't then I can only say that you're a total asshole.
Now realize that what we're talking about is way way worse than that. This is putting into law your insulting, degrading opinions. This is not the purpose of the law.
I would tell my lesbian friend congrats and I would happily attend her wedding with no issue. I have no problem separating my opinions on how society should work in general from what happens in my personal life.
Look I agree with you that it's unfair to gays that they cant get married. That's why I'm in favor of civil unions. But I dont agree with you that the distinction between marriage and a civil union is degrading if you believe as I do, that men and women are inherently different. Calling two different things two different names is not degrading.
I understand what you're saying though. For example it would be very degrading to call marriage different things based on the race of those getting married. But I think that's degrading becase there are no inherent differences between the races. Unlike between the sexes.
If you aren't willing to tell someone that their marriage isn't a marriage to their face then why are you willing to do something that is way more offensive, putting institution into place that says it to their face, and millions of other faces. You're nothing but a goddamn coward.
On July 13 2012 07:45 DoubleReed wrote: I'd like to illustrate the issue with what you are proposing. Say your lesbian friend told you she was getting married. You proceed to explain to her why her fiancé is not technically a fiancé and she's technically not getting married. Now, hopefully you would agree that saying this to your friend is a horrible breach of taste. If you don't then I can only say that you're a total asshole.
Now realize that what we're talking about is way way worse than that. This is putting into law your insulting, degrading opinions. This is not the purpose of the law.
I would tell my lesbian friend congrats and I would happily attend her wedding with no issue. I have no problem separating my opinions on how society should work in general from what happens in my personal life.
Look I agree with you that it's unfair to gays that they cant get married. That's why I'm in favor of civil unions. But I dont agree with you that the distinction between marriage and a civil union is degrading if you believe as I do, that men and women are inherently different. Calling two different things two different names is not degrading.
I understand what you're saying though. For example it would be very degrading to call marriage different things based on the race of those getting married. But I think that's degrading becase there are no inherent differences between the races. Unlike between the sexes.
If you aren't willing to tell someone that their marriage isn't a marriage to their face then why are you willing to do something that is way more offensive, putting institution into place that says it to their face. You're nothing but a goddamn coward.
Ha, alrighty then. I disagree. But you shouldn't get so mad :/
I guess I would have to respond. Why do you think, your own, individual conception.......
On firstly what marriage is, and what it should be about.
Secondly on the nature of child development and nurture and the role that gender plays in this.
Thirdly on the basis for which governments can and should favour certain relationships.
Fourthly on the extent to which they can act on this favouring, and the kinds of limitations or restrictions they can implement.
.......Be established and written into an unbinding law of society that everyone be forced to follow? There is a difference between having a view on something and demanding that the law of the land align with that view, especially when your view attempts to justify treating others differently and restricting their rights or abilities on arbitrary notions.
On July 13 2012 08:13 DoubleReed wrote: Really. If you don't think it's degrading, then why wouldn't you say it to their face?
If she asked me about it, I would tell her that I thought it was different from heterosexual marriage. But I'm not in the habit of injecting a contentious political discussions right after my friend came to me and told me they're getting married. lol
On July 13 2012 07:45 DoubleReed wrote: I'd like to illustrate the issue with what you are proposing. Say your lesbian friend told you she was getting married. You proceed to explain to her why her fiancé is not technically a fiancé and she's technically not getting married. Now, hopefully you would agree that saying this to your friend is a horrible breach of taste. If you don't then I can only say that you're a total asshole.
Now realize that what we're talking about is way way worse than that. This is putting into law your insulting, degrading opinions. This is not the purpose of the law.
I would tell my lesbian friend congrats and I would happily attend her wedding with no issue. I have no problem separating my opinions on how society should work in general from what happens in my personal life.
Look I agree with you that it's unfair to gays that they cant get married. That's why I'm in favor of civil unions. But I dont agree with you that the distinction between marriage and a civil union is degrading if you believe as I do, that men and women are inherently different. Calling two different things two different names is not degrading.
I understand what you're saying though. For example it would be very degrading to call marriage different things based on the race of those getting married. But I think that's degrading becase there are no inherent differences between the races. Unlike between the sexes.
If you aren't willing to tell someone that their marriage isn't a marriage to their face then why are you willing to do something that is way more offensive, putting institution into place that says it to their face. You're nothing but a goddamn coward.
Ha, alrighty then. I disagree. But you shouldn't get so mad :/
On July 13 2012 08:13 XeliN wrote: Ok i see the point your trying to make here.
I guess I would have to respond. Why do you think, your own, individual conception.......
On firstly what marriage is, and what it should be about.
Secondly on the nature of child development and nurture and the role that gender plays in this.
Thirdly on the basis for which governments can and should favour certain relationships.
Fourthly on the extent to which they can act on this favouring, and the kinds of limitations or restrictions they can implement.
.......Be established and written into an unbinding law of society that everyone be forced to follow? There is a difference between having a view on something and demanding that the law of the land align with that view, especially when your view attempts to justify treating others differently and restricting their rights or abilities on arbitrary notions.
As to your last point. I think it's up to society to decide what marriage is and what it means through the democratic process. I'm arguing what I think the standard should be and that's what I would vote for, but it is truly up to society to decide as a whole what the definition should be. So I could easily and may soon be overridden by the populace.
To the first question, from a secular standpoint marriage is what society decides is the ideal family unit for society. It's why we still, even by most gay marriage supporters, don't like polygamy, or other types of unusual relationships.
As to child development. I'm not too sure about. I know it's a combination of nature and nurture, but I'd probably say it leans slightly more towards nature rather than nurture. Stories about identical twins separated at birth, who end up with same job, same amound of kids, and wives with the same name are weird examples of this.
As to the third point, the basis for doing so would be that one relationship provides more benefits to society then others. Benefits could be anything from child rearing, procreation, fairness, really anything that people like to see. Again it would just be up to the society in general to decide what benefits to obtain and what relationship gives those benefits. I suppose in a society where they did not want to increase population they would prefer same sex unions to heterosexual on that basis.
As to the fourth thing. The extent to which I would like to see one preferred is pretty much just identify one as the ideal.
On July 13 2012 07:45 DoubleReed wrote: I'd like to illustrate the issue with what you are proposing. Say your lesbian friend told you she was getting married. You proceed to explain to her why her fiancé is not technically a fiancé and she's technically not getting married. Now, hopefully you would agree that saying this to your friend is a horrible breach of taste. If you don't then I can only say that you're a total asshole.
Now realize that what we're talking about is way way worse than that. This is putting into law your insulting, degrading opinions. This is not the purpose of the law.
I would tell my lesbian friend congrats and I would happily attend her wedding with no issue. I have no problem separating my opinions on how society should work in general from what happens in my personal life.
Look I agree with you that it's unfair to gays that they cant get married. That's why I'm in favor of civil unions. But I dont agree with you that the distinction between marriage and a civil union is degrading if you believe as I do, that men and women are inherently different. Calling two different things two different names is not degrading.
I understand what you're saying though. For example it would be very degrading to call marriage different things based on the race of those getting married. But I think that's degrading becase there are no inherent differences between the races. Unlike between the sexes.
If you aren't willing to tell someone that their marriage isn't a marriage to their face then why are you willing to do something that is way more offensive, putting institution into place that says it to their face. You're nothing but a goddamn coward.
Ha, alrighty then. I disagree. But you shouldn't get so mad :/
I'm not mad, but I also think you're a coward.
Sometimes I don't gg after I lose. You may be right.
On July 13 2012 07:45 XeliN wrote: Well thats fine, but lets say i accept your premise that heterosexual couples are the best possible for raising children.
Goverments could, on the exact same basis, logically prefer heterosexual couples of certain types.
Whether it be ones who have features, financial stability, lack of addictions, reliable jobs, live in safe areas etc. etc.
To heterosexual couples that do not fulfill these same criteria.
How is saying homosexual marriage should not be allowed based on this any different than saying governments should prefer certain types of hereosexual relationship and limit the ability to marry to certain types of heterosexual relationship any different?
And the above is vague. Take my earlier example of a heterosexual couple who fervently do not wish, and will not have children. Would you say the government can logically limit their right to marry, to the extent that they deny it.
This is what you are arguing for in the case of homosexual couples not being allowed to marry, and on the grounds you have provided I cannot see how you can justify it without also allowing for the limitation of the rights of heterosexual couples to marry, at least in some circumstances.
Please illucidate me
Thats true, they could but those criteria are not related to the selection of what kind of couple should be preferred. Financial stability, lack of addictions, etc. are not inherent characteristics of a heterosexual couple or any kind of couple for that matter, so those criteria really arn't any use in determining what kind of relationship we should prefer as a society. If you want to figure out what type of relationship to prefer, we should only focus on those inherent characteristics that they possess in distinction to the inherent characteristics of a same sex couple or any kind of couple.
Pragmatically, trying to decide on that is a bit pointless, because there are orphans that never get adopted, so rules making it harder to adopt for homosexual couples could be worse for the actual orphans.
Another thing that I am suspicious and very unsure about is what you said about evolutionary factors in another post. I could very well imagine, by pure nature, a completely different setup was the norm. Perhaps the best for a healthy human mind and children would be to live in groups with a dozen adults without walls between them, couples being an informal construct.
I feel arguing that something is natural and something is not, does not make sense other than getting an overview about what is possible and what is not. People are too different for rules working for everyone's happiness, and need to decide and find out by themselves how to best live their lives.
Besides nature, other real cultures had different setups than ours. There is for example polygamy with many men never marrying. In China, there is a region with a culture where families and property are organized around the women. Each woman gets her own private room in the family's house when she is old enough, there are no marriages, a woman takes anyone she fancies into her room at night.
In my opinion, the officials deciding on an adoption should look at the character of the individuals, and about anything more than character, base the decision on a comparison to what the orphan's environment would be like without the adoption.
Wikipedia says that marriage is not distinct as being between a man and a woman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage "a social union or legal contract between people called spouses that creates kinship"
Merriam-Webster has marriage down as being between any combination of sexes: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>
Now, the people who run these dictionaries are much better educated in grammar and vocabulary than any politician, so I can't really see how anyone could define marriage between a man and a woman without thumping a Bible in righteous indignation.
On July 08 2012 18:36 TirramirooO wrote: Sick of talking about gay people.. Im not Christian, i dont believe in religion but that is totally the ANTICHRIST... With the same sex you cant make children soo is against nature but make people understant that is becoming hard.
Keep going, in the future you all gonna open your EYES.
On July 08 2012 18:36 TirramirooO wrote: Sick of talking about gay people.. Im not Christian, i dont believe in religion but that is totally the ANTICHRIST... With the same sex you cant make children soo is against nature but make people understant that is becoming hard.
Keep going, in the future you all gonna open your EYES.
This guy has a good point, you can't make babies.
There's a difference between making babies and raising babies.
And I don't understand how someone like BobbyT, who claims to be a "law student" (WOOT! ANOTHER UNVERIFIED EXPERT I MUST LISTEN TO!), can support civil unions but not gay marriages when that's essentially "separate but equal" when Brown vs Board of Education has stated that "separate but equal" is inherently unequal. Although, I suppose if you want to say you're allowing the inequality on the basis of sex, there's some merit, but let's be realistic. The difference is not on the basis of sex but sexual orientation.
On July 08 2012 18:36 TirramirooO wrote: Sick of talking about gay people.. Im not Christian, i dont believe in religion but that is totally the ANTICHRIST... With the same sex you cant make children soo is against nature but make people understant that is becoming hard.
Keep going, in the future you all gonna open your EYES.
This guy has a good point, you can't make babies.
There's a difference between making babies and raising babies.
And I don't understand how someone like BobbyT, who claims to be a "law student" (WOOT! ANOTHER UNVERIFIED EXPERT I MUST LISTEN TO!), can support civil unions but not gay marriages when that's essentially "separate but equal" when Brown vs Board of Education has stated that "separate but equal" is inherently unequal. Although, I suppose if you want to say you're allowing the inequality on the basis of sex, there's some merit, but let's be realistic. The difference is not on the basis of sex but sexual orientation.
You answered your own question. There are differences between the sexes. There are not differences between the races. Gay marriage supporters do not support a definition which involves a determination of your sexual orientation. So any two straight people will be able to marry. I have no idea how you could prove/disprove that someone is gay, you'd have to take their word for it. So obviously any definition of marriage that involved orientation would be unworkable and stupid because there is no way to tell who someone is truely attracted to.
On July 08 2012 18:36 TirramirooO wrote: Sick of talking about gay people.. Im not Christian, i dont believe in religion but that is totally the ANTICHRIST... With the same sex you cant make children soo is against nature but make people understant that is becoming hard.
Keep going, in the future you all gonna open your EYES.
This guy has a good point, you can't make babies.
There's a difference between making babies and raising babies.
And I don't understand how someone like BobbyT, who claims to be a "law student" (WOOT! ANOTHER UNVERIFIED EXPERT I MUST LISTEN TO!), can support civil unions but not gay marriages when that's essentially "separate but equal" when Brown vs Board of Education has stated that "separate but equal" is inherently unequal. Although, I suppose if you want to say you're allowing the inequality on the basis of sex, there's some merit, but let's be realistic. The difference is not on the basis of sex but sexual orientation.
You answered your own question. There are differences between the sexes. There are not differences between the races. Gay marriage supporters do not support a definition which involves a determination of your sexual orientation. So any two straight people will be able to marry. I have no idea how you could prove/disprove that someone is gay, you'd have to take their word for it. So obviously any definition of marriage that involved orientation would be unworkable and stupid because there is no way to tell who someone is truely attracted to.
So then don't involve orientation in the definition of marriage?
The fact that you think it's "unworkable" is hilarious considering that dozens of nations around the world seem to have done it without any issues.
On July 08 2012 18:36 TirramirooO wrote: Sick of talking about gay people.. Im not Christian, i dont believe in religion but that is totally the ANTICHRIST... With the same sex you cant make children soo is against nature but make people understant that is becoming hard.
Keep going, in the future you all gonna open your EYES.
This guy has a good point, you can't make babies.
There's a difference between making babies and raising babies.
And I don't understand how someone like BobbyT, who claims to be a "law student" (WOOT! ANOTHER UNVERIFIED EXPERT I MUST LISTEN TO!), can support civil unions but not gay marriages when that's essentially "separate but equal" when Brown vs Board of Education has stated that "separate but equal" is inherently unequal. Although, I suppose if you want to say you're allowing the inequality on the basis of sex, there's some merit, but let's be realistic. The difference is not on the basis of sex but sexual orientation.
You answered your own question. There are differences between the sexes. There are not differences between the races. Gay marriage supporters do not support a definition which involves a determination of your sexual orientation. So any two straight people will be able to marry. I have no idea how you could prove/disprove that someone is gay, you'd have to take their word for it. So obviously any definition of marriage that involved orientation would be unworkable and stupid because there is no way to tell who someone is truely attracted to.
So then don't involve orientation in the definition of marriage?
The fact that you think it's "unworkable" is hilarious considering that dozens of nations around the world seem to have done it without any issues.
You misunderstand my point. What's unworkable is conditioning same sex marriage on sexual orientation. Not allowing same sex unions themselves, thats easily done.
A long, long time ago 22:15-21 Matthew wrote: he [Jesus] responded “Then give to Caesar what is Caesar, but give to God what is God’s.”
This response supports the separation of church and state, and the idea that Christians should support their state in its matters.
Christians are supported by this passage when they protest against the idea of gay marriage being lawful in their own church on the basis of other sections of the religious text, no matter how contrary to the Golden Rule amongst other Christian principles it might seem to other Christians - this is a theological debate and one that will take rather a while to settle, though it seems likely that the shift towards inclusivity and away from apocalyptic thought in most mainstream strands of Christianity is likely to decide on the primacy of the Golden Rule at some point. (This is not guaranteed, but is my prediction.)
However, should a Christian wish to protest against taxes, gay marriage in the civil sense, or property laws, they cannot use scripture as their justification. Civil law is in the arena of Caesar rather than God, so the arguments made to support or oppose changes to civil laws must stand without reference to scripture. Arguments may be based on philosophy, evidence or the combination of the two.
Just as the laws of a state cannot make any marital union valid in the eyes of any church, no church can pass laws that invalidate the marital union of any couple in the eyes of the state.
Wow! Google owns soooo much stuff. Anywho~ not really fair to label people who don't agree with gay marriage as "underdeveloped." There are a large number of people in this world who are well educated and hold power who don't support gay marriage. If it weren't so, then this wouldn't even be a debate. Let's not resort to name calling just because someone disagrees with us
As a Christian I don't believe I'n same-sex marriage. According to the bible marriage Is a holy union between a man and a woman. That doesn't make me undeveloped. Anyways this won't make me stop using google products.
I can deal with citing a 2000 year old book but please say what you mean. When you say you don't believe in gay marriage your wrong, cause I'm pretty sure it exist. I think what you mean to say is that gay marriage is not ethical? I'm not sure please clarify.
I can only speak for myself but....
Obviously Gay marriage "exists," but as a Christian I believe that having physical/sexual relations with someone of the same sex is immoral, against God, and a sin. If you ever hear me say "I don't believe in gay marriage," that is what I mean.
Why is it a sin? As has been mentioned there are a fuckton of 'sins' in the bible and you're just cherry-picking. Homosexuality is just as much a 'sin' as working on the Sabbath or rebelling against your parents.
Also, if your only justification for condemning gay marriage is "it's in the bible lul" then you must realize how little that means. Believe what you want, but don't meddle in the affairs of consenting adults who deserve the same rights as everyone else.
Who's cherrypicking? I've never once said on these forums that "this" sin is greater than "that" sin. I've never once (and never will) say that I'm holier than thou, better than, or with less sin than a gay person.
Gay marriage has implications that go beyond the personal bubble of the gay couple. I'm not meddling in any consenting adults' personal lives, but in a country where democracy is the order of the day, I have a right to encourage our elected officials to vote in a way that represents the America I want to see.
And in a forum that promotes contrasting beliefs/ideas/opinions I think its safe for both sides of this debate, and every other debate, to share their thoughts with one another without belittling each other.
Why don't you push for working on the Sabbath to be illegal then? Or any of the many sins of the bible we commit every single day? Maybe because the one about homosexuals is easy for you to go against... I don't see anyone doing this, so yes, it is cherry-picking.
Again, you clearly are meddling in the lives of consenting adults when you want to take away their rights, lol.
This is a common argument for gay marriage but it severely misses the point of what the gay marriage movement is trying to do.
This is a debate about standards. Both sides want a different standard for what constitutes a valid marriage. Gay marriage activists want a standard that includes two consenting adults, and traditional marriage activists want a standard that includes two consenting, one male and one female adults. The important thing to remember that BOTH sides want a standard.
Standards are inherently unfair. But every society has standards for all sorts of behavior or allowable actions. Blind people or people with chronic seizures are not allowed a driving liscence. Color blind people are not allowed to be fighter pilots in the Air force. These are all unfair, but we want these standards because proper standards make for a better society.
The debate about marriage is not about people "meddling" or "being unfair" with gays, both sides of the debate, by nature of wanting a standard for marriage at all are guilty of being unfair to some group or person to whom the standard will exclude.
The real debate is about what standard forms the best society and why. People need to talk about that and not about this religious stuff, etc.
What? Denying blind people a driver's license is unfair? They can't competently operate a vehicle, what is unfair about that?
It's unfair because the vast majority of blind people have not chosen to be blind, were born that way, or had some unfortunate accident. They have done nothing, yet we deprive them of the same rights that we give to others. That is basically pure unfairness.
That is not the reason that blind people are generally not allowed to drive. The reason most are not allowed to drive is because they have not demonstrated enough safety in vehicle operation to even be offered a test, let alone passed the test. We also don't allow non-blind people who can't drive well enough to pass the test to drive. You can be legally blind and hold a license in the US, you just need to pass the test.
A saavy business move. Im sure their analysts are telling just them much internet and tech spending is attributable to young liberals and gays, whereas their ability to extract money from ultra conservative Christians is relatively insignificant.
The construct of marriage predates christianity, it is not something christianity invented. the whole issue is moot.
If a religious person does not want to marry a same sex couple, fine.... (i can respect that, well not really but meh)
There should however, since we use a separation of state and church, never be any question whether they should be allowed to marry before the state. It should always be allowed.
Hard to believe people still have issues with this.
On July 13 2012 17:34 Arunu wrote: I don't get it,
The construct of marriage predates christianity, it is not something christianity invented. the whole issue is moot.
If a religious person does not want to marry a same sex couple, fine.... (i can respect that, well not really but meh)
There should however, since we use a separation of state and church, never be any question whether they should be allowed to marry before the state. It should always be allowed.
Hard to believe people still have issues with this.
I believe the thought process is this:
Christianity has a concept of marriage Christians are God's favorites because Jesus was God and God's son or something like that Therefore, Christians have sole ownership of marriage
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's the logic. I don't agree, but I think that's how they rationalize being the one religion that gets to decide, even though lots of others have different ideas.
On July 13 2012 17:34 Arunu wrote: I don't get it,
The construct of marriage predates christianity, it is not something christianity invented. the whole issue is moot.
If a religious person does not want to marry a same sex couple, fine.... (i can respect that, well not really but meh)
There should however, since we use a separation of state and church, never be any question whether they should be allowed to marry before the state. It should always be allowed.
Hard to believe people still have issues with this.
I believe the thought process is this:
Christianity has a concept of marriage Christians are God's favorites because Jesus was God and God's son or something like that Therefore, Christians have sole ownership of marriage
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's the logic. I don't agree, but I think that's how they rationalize being the one religion that gets to decide, even though lots of others have different ideas.
For a lot of the Christians who have difficulties understanding the separation of church and state it seems that there is a distinct failure to comprehend that different beliefs are actually possible. They might know that there are different religions, and people have different interpretations of their own religion, but they have not thought through the logical consequences of the co-existence of people with differing beliefs. Often they fail to realise that morality does not stem from religion, though aspects are often guided or encouraged by it. So to them, secularism or indeed any law that goes against some aspect of the behavioural code of their religion are immoral and dangerous. Better religious and philosophical education would be useful in helping people to differentiate between the parts of a religious code that are useful for wider society, and the parts they can live by and let others not live by without allowing harm to happen by saying nothing. By doing so, it would reassure religious people that society can run along secular lines without becoming a nightmare dystopia.
TL; DR: Many Christians in Christian majority areas have difficulty internalising the idea that other beliefs are valid and lack of unbiased education in world religions and philosophy does not help.
On July 08 2012 18:36 TirramirooO wrote: Sick of talking about gay people.. Im not Christian, i dont believe in religion but that is totally the ANTICHRIST... With the same sex you cant make children soo is against nature but make people understant that is becoming hard.
Keep going, in the future you all gonna open your EYES.
The last thing this world needs is more children/people.
On July 13 2012 17:34 Arunu wrote: I don't get it,
The construct of marriage predates christianity, it is not something christianity invented. the whole issue is moot.
If a religious person does not want to marry a same sex couple, fine.... (i can respect that, well not really but meh)
There should however, since we use a separation of state and church, never be any question whether they should be allowed to marry before the state. It should always be allowed.
Hard to believe people still have issues with this.
I believe the thought process is this:
Christianity has a concept of marriage Christians are God's favorites because Jesus was God and God's son or something like that Therefore, Christians have sole ownership of marriage
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's the logic. I don't agree, but I think that's how they rationalize being the one religion that gets to decide, even though lots of others have different ideas.
For a lot of the Christians who have difficulties understanding the separation of church and state it seems that there is a distinct failure to comprehend that different beliefs are actually possible. They might know that there are different religions, and people have different interpretations of their own religion, but they have not thought through the logical consequences of the co-existence of people with differing beliefs. Often they fail to realise that morality does not stem from religion, though aspects are often guided or encouraged by it. So to them, secularism or indeed any law that goes against some aspect of the behavioural code of their religion are immoral and dangerous. Better religious and philosophical education would be useful in helping people to differentiate between the parts of a religious code that are useful for wider society, and the parts they can live by and let others not live by without allowing harm to happen by saying nothing. By doing so, it would reassure religious people that society can run along secular lines without becoming a nightmare dystopia.
TL; DR: Many Christians in Christian majority areas have difficulty internalising the idea that other beliefs are valid and lack of unbiased education in world religions and philosophy does not help.
On July 09 2012 06:09 Probe1 wrote: I would say instead of how dumb people are, how little they actually have in defense of their bigoted beliefs.
To the opposition of gay marriage: You don't have any legitimate reasons to oppose gay marriage. Homosexuals make you uncomfortable. You're afraid of gay people and you're probably afraid of your own sexuality. So you hide behind the Old Testament and then pervert marriage laws that were never supposed to preserve the sanctity of Christian beliefs.
It's fuckin bigotry. The same arguments were used against Negros. The same shit was said about womens suffrage. It's stupid shit that feels great to say because it costs you nothing. Who cares if a gay man or woman doesn't have rights? It doesn't bother you in the slightest if a gay man or woman is alienated and given unfair or unequal treatment but it's a problem when they want to be given the same rights as a straight person?
I don't want you to live on my planet anymore.
Those are my thoughts.
It is becoming evident to me that the hinge of your focus is around the derogitorisation of homosexuals, and in terms of such discrimination I am in absolute agreement. As Christians we must not despise or be anything other than loving towards homosexuals. I think what happens is people are so vehemently opposed to and disgusted by homosexual behaviour that they revert to being derogatory towards the homosexual person as a way of expressing their feelings and beliefs. The Scriptural injunction is that we must be totally unaccepting of sin. Unfortunately, this sometimes makes us unaccepting of the person committing the sin.
Jesus still hated the sin, while loving the sinner. He clearly equated loving with admonishing for sin and requiring repentance. He recognised this problem of religious people being judgmental, but He still required repentance. The woman taken in adultery (John 8) is a good example. Jesus dealt with the religious men for condemning her as a person and in v.11 He said "Neither do I condemn thee:go and SIN NO MORE" (my emphasis). He didn't say ' Well I feel sorry for you because you were probably born sexually promiscuous. Just carry on and we'll hope people will accept what you are doing because they should do that'. No, He said, lovingly but authoritatively, "go and sin no more". He wanted the religious people to love her as He did, but the sin had to end - she had to repent.
I do feel compelled however, to look at scripture in the case of homosexuality, and a good place to start is always at the beginning! So, the beginning in relation to the individual, is the question: 'Is a person genetically "wired" to be homosexual or heterosexual?'. This is a popular argument used to support homosexuality. Research doesn't support this, however. For example, research with identical twins has found that despite being genetically absolutely identical, in half the cases where one twin is homosexual, the other is heterosexual. So while there may be a genetic predisposition at best, it is environmental influences that combine with any genetic predisposition to influence orientation. Research also suggests that heredity affects sexual orientation only indirectly by influencing personality factors which in turn may steer young people towards different socialisation experiences and it is those that essentially determine orientation. (The references are available from psycologists I know).
The thing is, we all have genetic predispositions, many of which may be socially unacceptable, immoral etc. I might have, for example, a genetic predisposition to kleptomania and I might even be brought up in, or have life experiences that support that predisposition. But that doesn't mean that there is nothing I can or should do about it and that I have the right to steal what I can.
Therefore, it comes down to the fundamental question of right and wrong. If homosexuality is wrong, then like the kleptomania example, a genetic predisposition and life's experiences don't excuse it. The question of whether something is right or wrong is ultimately a Scriptural one. No Christian can disagree that God is the final arbiter of right and wrong. So, does Scripture say homosexuality is right, wrong, or is it equivocal or silent on the matter?
So, the second beginning is to start at the beginning of the Scriptural record where we see from Genesis 2:18-24 that homosexuality violates the very nature of the sexual relationship that God put in place at creation, to be fulfilled only in the relationship of marriage between a man and a woman.
A fundamental and defining doctrine of Christianity is the doctrine of original sin. That is, any behaviour that violates or seeks to change God's plan and standards is a result of the introduction of sin into God's creation. Some even suggest that God creates homosexuals, but it would be contrary to God's nature to create a person in direct violation of His own blueprint and standards. Homosexuality is a consequence, therefore, of the fallen human nature/sin. We must, therefore, respond to it like any other temptation and sin. The Bible is replete with advice and instructions on how to deal with temptations and sinful behaviours in our lives.
Homosexuality clearly falls into the category of sin, not only because of the plan for human relationships God established at creation, but also because He then explicitly and decisively addressed the problem as it had arisen in Sodom (Genesis 19). Suggestions that this account can be read as not referring to homosexual behaviour are fanciful and contrived at best, but basically evidence a fundamentally unintelligent misunderstanding of both the Hebrew and English languages. The meaning of the Genesis 19 events in terms of homosexuality has been accepted by society in general throughout the ages and is indicated of course, by the etymology of the word "sodomy".
Not only did God deal decisively with the problem at Sodom but He then explicitly outlawed homosexual behaviour and recorded this in Scripture. First, it is recorded in Leviticus 18:22 where it is referred to as an "abomination" (KJV). Interestingly, the next verse condemns bestiality, referring to it as "confusion". Yet while the New Zealand criminal law continues to outlaw and provide severe penalties for the "confusion" of bestiality, it has legalised the "abomination" of homosexuality! It can be argued that the "laws" of Leviticus are not to be strictly observed as absolute law by us living in the Christian era. Certainly, one can point to some of them, such as the mixing of fibres in clothing, as being difficult to understand. My response to this view is that perhaps they are not absolute laws (although just because we don't understand them or think we have progressed beyond them as a society, doesn't necessarily mean that God doesn't know something that is good for us that we don't know. For example, science is now catching up by realising the dangers associated with eating shellfish! After all God's "laws" are actually for our benefit), but they do, at the very least, show us the mind of God.
In the case of homosexuality, God describes it as an abomination or detestable in Leviticus. Indeed, so serious is it in His eyes that in Leviticus 20:13 He said that both partners committing homosexual sex must be put to death. Even if we argue that this law is no longer applicable in terms of penalty, it shows clearly how seriously God views this behaviour. Remember too that God is unchanging. His view of homosexuality has not changed in the three or so millennia that have passed since the writing of Leviticus. He may have relaxed the penalty of death, since Christ has paid that penalty on our behalf (provided we accept that and repent), but He hasn't changed His view of the behaviour as being an abomination. Incidentally, there's a very plain statement in Deuteronomy 23:17 also: "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel" I trust no one would demonstrate their lack of Biblical exegesis by suggesting this applies only to Jewish people.
So, if we still decide to ignore God's views set out in the Old Testament because we think they are no longer applicable, has God dealt with the issue in New Testament times? Clearly, He has. Romans 1:24-27 clearly refers to homosexuality. Indeed, not only does it refer to homosexual acts but also to homosexual desire - "burned in their lust for one another". Interestingly, the last phrase of v.27 is likely a reference to Aids. Then in v.32 God's view of the gravity of this behaviour, along with others, mirrors the view contained in Leviticus 20:13. Note too that those who agree with or condone these behaviours are equally as disappointing to God.
Moving on, we are left totally without excuse when we read 1 Corinthians 6-10. Unrepentant homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Surely a person would have to be blinded by sin or satan not to be concerned by that plain warning from God Himself. Furthermore, like the Old Testament, the New testament consistently refers to homosexuality when listing serious sin. So it is included in the list in 1 Timothy1-10 as well.
I believe in the literal method of Bible interpretation - that is, the understanding of a text that any person of normal intelligence would understand without the help of any special keys, codes, or background knowledge (like culture for example). If one believes the Bible to be the inspired word of a timeless God, then one must believe that it is understandable on the face of it and that just as God "breathed" His inspiration into its writing, He will see to it that if we really want to hear what He has to say through it, we will do so in a clear and unequivocal way.
Isaiah 5:20 says: "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil". When we make or support a law that legalises evil we are sending the message that the legalised behaviour is acceptable. Even if we are doing it out of some liberal type notion that laws restrict peoples' "rights", the psychological effect of laws that legalise a given behaviour is that they legitimise that behaviour and make it into a "good" behaviour in the eyes, particularly, of young and other vulnerable and impressionable people.
Please be careful when you claim that such beliefs cause me to discriminate against minorities, for this is leaning toward an accusation of intentional discrimination which although unfortunately can happen as a side affect of the way in which humans live out the bibles message, is by no means a 'true christian' approach to such matters. Of course I meet people with genuine beliefs that may differ from my own, that is not justification for discrimination, nor is it in my belief justification for judgment; be mindful that the above account is scriptual - if someone was doing wrong I would not say to them "that is wrong" but rather "that is wrong according to the bible". I indeed have homosexual friends myself and do not treat them differently; it is ultimately up to them and the holy spirit should anything change.
Thus I in closing wish to say sincerely that I have not offended any minority in what I have written.
On August 23 2012 08:38 Savio wrote: Can you give me the TL:DR version pls?
TL;DR: Gangnam Style is a Christian bigot, but doesn't want you to call him that. He also believes that marriage is between a man and a woman because the Bible told him so.
On August 23 2012 08:38 Savio wrote: Can you give me the TL:DR version pls?
tl;dr: Homosexuality under the Christian religion is wrong and to challenge that Christianity can be inclusive of homosexuality is theologically unsound.
Edit: Although I disagree with some of his points, it sort of is a nutshell of christian theology when it comes to homosexuality. Sort of. I skimmed through it.
It was actually a fairly interesting read...I've never read a Christian's views on the subject so fleshed out before, and he does it fairly eloquently. I think I can give a slightly better TLDR than sunprince can though
The first thing is he believes in condemning the "sin" that a person commits (i.e. homosexuality) but not the person; he believes all people are worthy of respect and can be saved, but that they can sin/make mistakes.
Then he talks about how there is no evidence from genetics or psychology that people are born homosexual, citing an example of genetically identical twins growing up two have different sexual orientations.
Thirdly he gives several examples from the bible that would show to any Christian that God explicitly thinks homosexuality is an abomination, and in the old testament that gays should be put to death. He reiterates that similar passages are found in the new testament (don't think there's anything about putting them to death though).
I think he's genuinely trying to be a good person, but he holds the bible in such high regard that his views are seen as bigotry. I wouldn't be so harsh on him, you don't help people by being insulting or rude, you generally only entrench them in their views further or give them negative opinions about people who hold different beliefs.
He has a nice closing:
I indeed have homosexual friends myself and do not treat them differently; it is ultimately up to them and the holy spirit should anything change.
I mean he's trying his best, its just the bible explicitly tells him homosexuality is wrong. I think there's a good person underneath all that
Gangnam Style, explain why your religious views should be imposed on others? What gives you the right to impose your religious viewpoints into your law? Because you know that whole "separation of church and state" thing? Yea, this is precisely what it's talking about. One sect imposing it's views on everyone using the law. Not okay.
All you are saying is that YOU shouldn't get gay married. You have not talked about why none of us should be allowed to.
I also am always confused by homophobic people claiming they have homosexual friends. All this says to me is that you're willing to be a complete jackass to your friends. Do your homosexual friends agree with you? Why should I care that you have homosexual friends? Should I be impressed by the fact that you think your own friends don't deserve equal legal rights to you? Because that doesn't impress me. That just sickens me more.
And if you hold the bible in such high esteem, are you as flagrantly sexist as the bible is? You do realize that women do not have the power of consent in the bible, right? Rape is when the father, brother, or husband does not agree. It has nothing to do with the woman. I'm not sure why you hold the bible in such high esteem when it's so flagrantly evil and opposed to human rights.
On August 23 2012 08:38 Savio wrote: Can you give me the TL:DR version pls?
TL;DR: Gangnam Style is a Christian bigot, but doesn't want you to call him that. He also believes that marriage is between a man and a woman because the Bible told him so.
we'll at least he took the time to explain his view point instead of bashing because they're emotionally insecure and butt hurt over the matter. only bigot i see is you and the people who have that same emotional response when someone doesn't agree with them.
It was actually a fairly interesting read...I've never read a Christian's views on the subject so fleshed out before, and he does it fairly eloquently. I think I can give a slightly better TLDR than sunprince can though
The first thing is he believes in condemning the "sin" that a person commits (i.e. homosexuality) but not the person; he believes all people are worthy of respect and can be saved, but that they can sin/make mistakes.
Then he talks about how there is no evidence from genetics or psychology that people are born homosexual, citing an example of genetically identical twins growing up two have different sexual orientations.
Thirdly he gives several examples from the bible that would show to any Christian that God explicitly thinks homosexuality is an abomination, and in the old testament that gays should be put to death. He reiterates that similar passages are found in the new testament (don't think there's anything about putting them to death though).
I think he's genuinely trying to be a good person, but he holds the bible in such high regard that his views are seen as bigotry. I wouldn't be so harsh on him, you don't help people by being insulting or rude, you generally only entrench them in their views further or give them negative opinions about people who hold different beliefs.
He has a nice closing:
I indeed have homosexual friends myself and do not treat them differently; it is ultimately up to them and the holy spirit should anything change.
I mean he's trying his best, its just the bible explicitly tells him homosexuality is wrong. I think there's a good person underneath all that
He shares that view with the majority of non-fundamentalist christians in western countries. The bible explicitly says it was not the intention of God for same-sex relationships to happen, however it also teaches to accept everybody. Just because somebody does or believes something that goes agaist what you believe, doesn't give you a right to judge them or force your beliefs upon them, and the vast majority of christians do not (at least in Australia, maybe the US is different. The bible explicitly says somewhere something along the lines of 'judge others and you will be judged', so the people going around saying that they're better than everyone else clearly missed some main points of the faith.
I was raised in a Christian family, so yeah I've met a lot of people that follow the faith, and none of them (perhaps barring the really old generations, like 65+) act at all rude or judgemental towards anyone of homosexual persuasion. They do however view marriage as defined by the state to be defined as between man and woman, because marriage by the state was based upon christian marriage, perhaps if we redefined it, and separated it from any religious ties, it would go down better?
It was actually a fairly interesting read...I've never read a Christian's views on the subject so fleshed out before, and he does it fairly eloquently. I think I can give a slightly better TLDR than sunprince can though
The first thing is he believes in condemning the "sin" that a person commits (i.e. homosexuality) but not the person; he believes all people are worthy of respect and can be saved, but that they can sin/make mistakes.
Then he talks about how there is no evidence from genetics or psychology that people are born homosexual, citing an example of genetically identical twins growing up two have different sexual orientations.
Thirdly he gives several examples from the bible that would show to any Christian that God explicitly thinks homosexuality is an abomination, and in the old testament that gays should be put to death. He reiterates that similar passages are found in the new testament (don't think there's anything about putting them to death though).
I think he's genuinely trying to be a good person, but he holds the bible in such high regard that his views are seen as bigotry. I wouldn't be so harsh on him, you don't help people by being insulting or rude, you generally only entrench them in their views further or give them negative opinions about people who hold different beliefs.
He has a nice closing:
I indeed have homosexual friends myself and do not treat them differently; it is ultimately up to them and the holy spirit should anything change.
I mean he's trying his best, its just the bible explicitly tells him homosexuality is wrong. I think there's a good person underneath all that
He shares that view with the majority of non-fundamentalist christians in western countries. The bible explicitly says it was not the intention of God for same-sex relationships to happen, however it also teaches to accept everybody. Just because somebody does or believes something that goes agaist what you believe, doesn't give you a right to judge them or force your beliefs upon them, and the vast majority of christians do not (at least in Australia, maybe the US is different. The bible explicitly says somewhere something along the lines of 'judge others and you will be judged', so the people going around saying that they're better than everyone else clearly missed some main points of the faith.
I was raised in a Christian family, so yeah I've met a lot of people that follow the faith, and none of them (perhaps barring the really old generations, like 65+) act at all rude or judgemental towards anyone of homosexual persuasion. They do however view marriage as defined by the state to be defined as between man and woman, because marriage by the state was based upon christian marriage, perhaps if we redefined it, and separated it from any religious ties, it would go down better?
It's already separate from religious ties. Nonchristians get married too, weirdo. Not to mention there are also Christians that believes gays should be allowed to get married as well. It's not like Christians are unanimous in this regard. Not at all.
On August 23 2012 09:33 DoubleReed wrote: Rape is when the father, brother, or husband does not agree. It has nothing to do with the woman. I'm not sure why you hold the bible in such high esteem when it's so flagrantly evil and opposed to human rights.
Um what? I'm fairly sure there are multiple instances where people were put to death for rape (in the old testament), and it had nothing to do with other males. Can you give an example where the bible displays this 'flagrant evil' and 'opposition of human rights', because it sounds like an assumption, not a conclusion based on reading it. Keep in mind that at the time, women in any society probably would have been considered inferior to men, because the majority of the work would have involved physical strength and not required intellect as it does today.
On August 23 2012 08:38 Savio wrote: Can you give me the TL:DR version pls?
TL;DR: Gangnam Style is a Christian bigot, but doesn't want you to call him that. He also believes that marriage is between a man and a woman because the Bible told him so.
Gangnam, what i don't get about your position is why you only talk about gay marriage. From your view any expression of homosexuality is a sin/going against god's plan, yes? So why stop at gay marriage? Gay sex, kissing, being in a relationship, etc should all be outlawed to you, if I'm not mistaken.
Also, how should we punish people who violate our laws? The bible seems pretty keen on stoning to death as punishment, Curious as to how you feel on that. You see the bible as both word of god and something the ordinary man can understand, yeah? I'm pretty ordinary and when i read through deutoronomy it seems pretty darned clear about the stonings.
For the record, I'm a guy that believes our laws should be designed to let people do what they want, so long as it isn't harmful to anyone else. Any arguments I've seen saying gay marriage is harmful usually involve either god (to which i answer with separation of church and state), family (to which I answer there is no evidence that gay couples suck at parenting) or propagation of the species (adoption or sperm/egg donor). Honestly all the arguments that don't come from god seem to me to be grasping at straws. Gay couples do just fine, they should be able to get married. Plenty of churches are ready to accept this and perform the ceremonies.
I believe in the literal method of Bible interpretation - that is, the understanding of a text that any person of normal intelligence would understand without the help of any special keys, codes, or background knowledge (like culture for example). If one believes the Bible to be the inspired word of a timeless God, then one must believe that it is understandable on the face of it and that just as God "breathed" His inspiration into its writing, He will see to it that if we really want to hear what He has to say through it, we will do so in a clear and unequivocal way.
I really respect that, many try to argue hidden meanings and/or parable when the Bible itself says explicitly when it is meant to be read that way. I also mean no offense when I say that it is also the reason I am an athiest and I find it much easier to debate and discuss with fundamentalists than those who cherry-pick scripture. I do find it refreshing that you seem to be at least somewhat tolerant, which differs from most fundamentalists that believe that scripture actually does encourage followers to pass judgement as a form of duty.
As a literalist, I am curious as to how you see the issue of abortion and modern Christianity and how it relates to scripture. More specifically, the "bitter water" as described in Numbers 5:11-31 (aka The Test for an Unfaithful Wife). I quote the NIV since the American versions are much more censored, but same idea.
On August 23 2012 09:33 DoubleReed wrote: Rape is when the father, brother, or husband does not agree. It has nothing to do with the woman. I'm not sure why you hold the bible in such high esteem when it's so flagrantly evil and opposed to human rights.
Um what? I'm fairly sure there are multiple instances where people were put to death for rape (in the old testament), and it had nothing to do with other males. Can you give an example where the bible displays this 'flagrant evil' and 'opposition of human rights', because it sounds like an assumption, not a conclusion based on reading it. Keep in mind that at the time, women in any society probably would have been considered inferior to men, because the majority of the work would have involved physical strength and not required intellect as it does today.
Yes, men were put to death for rape because the woman's father did not approve of it. The woman has to go through her father for consent.
There is no idea of "consent" for women in the bible. It's impossible, for instance, for a woman to raped by her husband, because her husband automatically consents. If, for instance, a father wanted to offer his wife and daughter to spare himself (like in Judges 19), then that's how it works. Women have no power of consent. This is not an assumption. This is how it works in the bible.
And yes, obviously they were considered inferior to men. And yes, that's the kind of bullshit morality we expect of people 4000 years ago. The same bullshit morality condemns homosexuality. Why should anyone care that this awful, hideous morality condemns homosexuality if it has such terrible sexist views as well?
On August 23 2012 09:33 DoubleReed wrote: Rape is when the father, brother, or husband does not agree. It has nothing to do with the woman. I'm not sure why you hold the bible in such high esteem when it's so flagrantly evil and opposed to human rights.
Um what? I'm fairly sure there are multiple instances where people were put to death for rape (in the old testament), and it had nothing to do with other males. Can you give an example where the bible displays this 'flagrant evil' and 'opposition of human rights', because it sounds like an assumption, not a conclusion based on reading it. Keep in mind that at the time, women in any society probably would have been considered inferior to men, because the majority of the work would have involved physical strength and not required intellect as it does today.
Yes, men were put to death for rape because the woman's father did not approve of it. The woman has to go through her father for consent.
There is no idea of "consent" for women in the bible. It's impossible, for instance, for a woman to raped by her husband, because her husband automatically consents. If, for instance, a father wanted to offer his wife and daughter to spare himself (like in Judges 19), then that's how it works. Women have no power of consent. This is not an assumption. This is how it works in the bible.
And yes, obviously they were considered inferior to men. And yes, that's the kind of bullshit morality we expect of people 4000 years ago. The same bullshit morality condemns homosexuality. Why should anyone care that this awful, hideous morality condemns homosexuality if it has such terrible sexist views as well?
I'll skim over those bits and get back to you after uni
On August 23 2012 09:33 DoubleReed wrote: Rape is when the father, brother, or husband does not agree. It has nothing to do with the woman. I'm not sure why you hold the bible in such high esteem when it's so flagrantly evil and opposed to human rights.
Um what? I'm fairly sure there are multiple instances where people were put to death for rape (in the old testament), and it had nothing to do with other males. Can you give an example where the bible displays this 'flagrant evil' and 'opposition of human rights', because it sounds like an assumption, not a conclusion based on reading it. Keep in mind that at the time, women in any society probably would have been considered inferior to men, because the majority of the work would have involved physical strength and not required intellect as it does today.
Yes, men were put to death for rape because the woman's father did not approve of it. The woman has to go through her father for consent.
There is no idea of "consent" for women in the bible. It's impossible, for instance, for a woman to raped by her husband, because her husband automatically consents. If, for instance, a father wanted to offer his wife and daughter to spare himself (like in Judges 19), then that's how it works. Women have no power of consent. This is not an assumption. This is how it works in the bible.
And yes, obviously they were considered inferior to men. And yes, that's the kind of bullshit morality we expect of people 4000 years ago. The same bullshit morality condemns homosexuality. Why should anyone care that this awful, hideous morality condemns homosexuality if it has such terrible sexist views as well?
To be fair, the entire book of Judges is pretty much recorded atrocity after recorded atrocity [stressing the pretty much]. Context is pretty key; the culture at the time meant someone under your roof was under your protection as far as was in your power [and again, the entire culture, not Biblically mandated action]. Note that just because something is in the Bible does not mean it is lauded by it. It's essentially history (whether fictitious or not) that traces Israel back from the beginning.
Men are called to love their wives as Christ loved the church; to literally be willing to die sacrificically for her sake.
On August 23 2012 08:38 Savio wrote: Can you give me the TL:DR version pls?
TL;DR: Gangnam Style is a Christian bigot, but doesn't want you to call him that. He also believes that marriage is between a man and a woman because the Bible told him so.
How does that make him a bigot?
It doesn't. What a terrible tl;dr. This is the problem when two sides argue with no intention of understanding the other which is especially commonplace with religion vs atheism. You can comprehend the other side's perspective without necessarily agreeing. And comprehension =! pidgeonholing somebody else's beliefs in an intolerant and ignorant way (which can be rather ironic when both sides hold the other to be both).
One problem with Gangnam Style and other Christians' debate is that they call on the Bible as an authoritative text and whatnot while atheists and others always argue with the assumption that the Bible is fundamentally without authority, so nobody really gets anywhere of course.
On August 23 2012 08:38 Savio wrote: Can you give me the TL:DR version pls?
TL;DR: Gangnam Style is a Christian bigot, but doesn't want you to call him that. He also believes that marriage is between a man and a woman because the Bible told him so.
How does that make him a bigot?
It doesn't. What a terrible tl;dr. This is the problem when two sides argue with no intention of understanding the other which is especially commonplace with religion vs atheism. You can comprehend the other side's perspective necessarily agreeing. And comprehension =! pidgeonholing somebody else's beliefs in an intolerant and ignorant way (which can be rather ironic when both sides hold the other to be both).
One problem with Gangnam Style and other Christians' debate is that they call on the Bible as an authoritative text and whatnot while atheists and others always argue with the assumption that the Bible is fundamentally without authority, so nobody really gets anywhere of course.
Agreed. It's hard to even respond because every other line is "the bible says" or "god believes..." which is great and all, but There's no way for me to actually argue or debate with it (I'm agnostic). it's like someone telling me spaghetti monster believes x so I should do y. Not really relevant to how I think and live.
Hopefully Christians here can argue from Christian principles rather than authority, so that lay people like myself can actually respond.
On August 23 2012 09:33 DoubleReed wrote: Rape is when the father, brother, or husband does not agree. It has nothing to do with the woman. I'm not sure why you hold the bible in such high esteem when it's so flagrantly evil and opposed to human rights.
Um what? I'm fairly sure there are multiple instances where people were put to death for rape (in the old testament), and it had nothing to do with other males. Can you give an example where the bible displays this 'flagrant evil' and 'opposition of human rights', because it sounds like an assumption, not a conclusion based on reading it. Keep in mind that at the time, women in any society probably would have been considered inferior to men, because the majority of the work would have involved physical strength and not required intellect as it does today.
Yes, men were put to death for rape because the woman's father did not approve of it. The woman has to go through her father for consent.
There is no idea of "consent" for women in the bible. It's impossible, for instance, for a woman to raped by her husband, because her husband automatically consents. If, for instance, a father wanted to offer his wife and daughter to spare himself (like in Judges 19), then that's how it works. Women have no power of consent. This is not an assumption. This is how it works in the bible.
And yes, obviously they were considered inferior to men. And yes, that's the kind of bullshit morality we expect of people 4000 years ago. The same bullshit morality condemns homosexuality. Why should anyone care that this awful, hideous morality condemns homosexuality if it has such terrible sexist views as well?
To be fair, the entire book of Judges is pretty much recorded atrocity after recorded atrocity [stressing the pretty much]. Context is pretty key; the culture at the time meant someone under your roof was under your protection as far as was in your power [and again, the entire culture, not Biblically mandated action]. Note that just because something is in the Bible does not mean it is lauded by it. It's essentially history (whether fictitious or not) that traces Israel back from the beginning.
Men are called to love their wives as Christ loved the church; to literally be willing to die sacrificically for her sake.
Yes they are. And wives are called to obey their husbands. What's your point?
Are you really going to try to argue that the bible isn't terribly sexist? Because I'll be honest, I'm shocked by people who try to argue this. I thought all moderate religious people were perfectly willing to admit that the bible is ridiculously sexist. This isn't like a terribly shocking or controversial fact about the bible. So please tell me your position, because I'd rather not argue against a position you don't have.
We do not automatically sort out contradictions in our head. There are plenty of Christians who believe the following three statements independently, without linking them all together: 1. Morality comes from the bible. 2. The bible is sexist. 3. Sexism is bad.
On July 08 2012 18:36 TirramirooO wrote: Sick of talking about gay people.. Im not Christian, i dont believe in religion but that is totally the ANTICHRIST... With the same sex you cant make children soo is against nature but make people understant that is becoming hard.
Keep going, in the future you all gonna open your EYES.
No, that is not the antichrist lolwtf. THIS is the Phantom ANTICHRIST!
On July 13 2012 17:34 Arunu wrote: I don't get it,
The construct of marriage predates christianity, it is not something christianity invented. the whole issue is moot.
If a religious person does not want to marry a same sex couple, fine.... (i can respect that, well not really but meh)
There should however, since we use a separation of state and church, never be any question whether they should be allowed to marry before the state. It should always be allowed.
Hard to believe people still have issues with this.
I believe the thought process is this:
Christianity has a concept of marriage Christians are God's favorites because Jesus was God and God's son or something like that Therefore, Christians have sole ownership of marriage
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's the logic. I don't agree, but I think that's how they rationalize being the one religion that gets to decide, even though lots of others have different ideas.
For a lot of the Christians who have difficulties understanding the separation of church and state it seems that there is a distinct failure to comprehend that different beliefs are actually possible. They might know that there are different religions, and people have different interpretations of their own religion, but they have not thought through the logical consequences of the co-existence of people with differing beliefs. Often they fail to realise that morality does not stem from religion, though aspects are often guided or encouraged by it. So to them, secularism or indeed any law that goes against some aspect of the behavioural code of their religion are immoral and dangerous. Better religious and philosophical education would be useful in helping people to differentiate between the parts of a religious code that are useful for wider society, and the parts they can live by and let others not live by without allowing harm to happen by saying nothing. By doing so, it would reassure religious people that society can run along secular lines without becoming a nightmare dystopia.
TL; DR: Many Christians in Christian majority areas have difficulty internalising the idea that other beliefs are valid and lack of unbiased education in world religions and philosophy does not help.
On July 09 2012 06:09 Probe1 wrote: I would say instead of how dumb people are, how little they actually have in defense of their bigoted beliefs.
To the opposition of gay marriage: You don't have any legitimate reasons to oppose gay marriage. Homosexuals make you uncomfortable. You're afraid of gay people and you're probably afraid of your own sexuality. So you hide behind the Old Testament and then pervert marriage laws that were never supposed to preserve the sanctity of Christian beliefs.
It's fuckin bigotry. The same arguments were used against Negros. The same shit was said about womens suffrage. It's stupid shit that feels great to say because it costs you nothing. Who cares if a gay man or woman doesn't have rights? It doesn't bother you in the slightest if a gay man or woman is alienated and given unfair or unequal treatment but it's a problem when they want to be given the same rights as a straight person?
I don't want you to live on my planet anymore.
Those are my thoughts.
It is becoming evident to me that the hinge of your focus is around the derogitorisation of homosexuals, and in terms of such discrimination I am in absolute agreement. As Christians we must not despise or be anything other than loving towards homosexuals. I think what happens is people are so vehemently opposed to and disgusted by homosexual behaviour that they revert to being derogatory towards the homosexual person as a way of expressing their feelings and beliefs. The Scriptural injunction is that we must be totally unaccepting of sin. Unfortunately, this sometimes makes us unaccepting of the person committing the sin.
Jesus still hated the sin, while loving the sinner. He clearly equated loving with admonishing for sin and requiring repentance. He recognised this problem of religious people being judgmental, but He still required repentance. The woman taken in adultery (John 8) is a good example. Jesus dealt with the religious men for condemning her as a person and in v.11 He said "Neither do I condemn thee:go and SIN NO MORE" (my emphasis). He didn't say ' Well I feel sorry for you because you were probably born sexually promiscuous. Just carry on and we'll hope people will accept what you are doing because they should do that'. No, He said, lovingly but authoritatively, "go and sin no more". He wanted the religious people to love her as He did, but the sin had to end - she had to repent.
I do feel compelled however, to look at scripture in the case of homosexuality, and a good place to start is always at the beginning! So, the beginning in relation to the individual, is the question: 'Is a person genetically "wired" to be homosexual or heterosexual?'. This is a popular argument used to support homosexuality. Research doesn't support this, however. For example, research with identical twins has found that despite being genetically absolutely identical, in half the cases where one twin is homosexual, the other is heterosexual. So while there may be a genetic predisposition at best, it is environmental influences that combine with any genetic predisposition to influence orientation. Research also suggests that heredity affects sexual orientation only indirectly by influencing personality factors which in turn may steer young people towards different socialisation experiences and it is those that essentially determine orientation. (The references are available from psycologists I know).
The thing is, we all have genetic predispositions, many of which may be socially unacceptable, immoral etc. I might have, for example, a genetic predisposition to kleptomania and I might even be brought up in, or have life experiences that support that predisposition. But that doesn't mean that there is nothing I can or should do about it and that I have the right to steal what I can.
Therefore, it comes down to the fundamental question of right and wrong. If homosexuality is wrong, then like the kleptomania example, a genetic predisposition and life's experiences don't excuse it. The question of whether something is right or wrong is ultimately a Scriptural one. No Christian can disagree that God is the final arbiter of right and wrong. So, does Scripture say homosexuality is right, wrong, or is it equivocal or silent on the matter?
So, the second beginning is to start at the beginning of the Scriptural record where we see from Genesis 2:18-24 that homosexuality violates the very nature of the sexual relationship that God put in place at creation, to be fulfilled only in the relationship of marriage between a man and a woman.
A fundamental and defining doctrine of Christianity is the doctrine of original sin. That is, any behaviour that violates or seeks to change God's plan and standards is a result of the introduction of sin into God's creation. Some even suggest that God creates homosexuals, but it would be contrary to God's nature to create a person in direct violation of His own blueprint and standards. Homosexuality is a consequence, therefore, of the fallen human nature/sin. We must, therefore, respond to it like any other temptation and sin. The Bible is replete with advice and instructions on how to deal with temptations and sinful behaviours in our lives.
Homosexuality clearly falls into the category of sin, not only because of the plan for human relationships God established at creation, but also because He then explicitly and decisively addressed the problem as it had arisen in Sodom (Genesis 19). Suggestions that this account can be read as not referring to homosexual behaviour are fanciful and contrived at best, but basically evidence a fundamentally unintelligent misunderstanding of both the Hebrew and English languages. The meaning of the Genesis 19 events in terms of homosexuality has been accepted by society in general throughout the ages and is indicated of course, by the etymology of the word "sodomy".
Not only did God deal decisively with the problem at Sodom but He then explicitly outlawed homosexual behaviour and recorded this in Scripture. First, it is recorded in Leviticus 18:22 where it is referred to as an "abomination" (KJV). Interestingly, the next verse condemns bestiality, referring to it as "confusion". Yet while the New Zealand criminal law continues to outlaw and provide severe penalties for the "confusion" of bestiality, it has legalised the "abomination" of homosexuality! It can be argued that the "laws" of Leviticus are not to be strictly observed as absolute law by us living in the Christian era. Certainly, one can point to some of them, such as the mixing of fibres in clothing, as being difficult to understand. My response to this view is that perhaps they are not absolute laws (although just because we don't understand them or think we have progressed beyond them as a society, doesn't necessarily mean that God doesn't know something that is good for us that we don't know. For example, science is now catching up by realising the dangers associated with eating shellfish! After all God's "laws" are actually for our benefit), but they do, at the very least, show us the mind of God.
In the case of homosexuality, God describes it as an abomination or detestable in Leviticus. Indeed, so serious is it in His eyes that in Leviticus 20:13 He said that both partners committing homosexual sex must be put to death. Even if we argue that this law is no longer applicable in terms of penalty, it shows clearly how seriously God views this behaviour. Remember too that God is unchanging. His view of homosexuality has not changed in the three or so millennia that have passed since the writing of Leviticus. He may have relaxed the penalty of death, since Christ has paid that penalty on our behalf (provided we accept that and repent), but He hasn't changed His view of the behaviour as being an abomination. Incidentally, there's a very plain statement in Deuteronomy 23:17 also: "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel" I trust no one would demonstrate their lack of Biblical exegesis by suggesting this applies only to Jewish people.
So, if we still decide to ignore God's views set out in the Old Testament because we think they are no longer applicable, has God dealt with the issue in New Testament times? Clearly, He has. Romans 1:24-27 clearly refers to homosexuality. Indeed, not only does it refer to homosexual acts but also to homosexual desire - "burned in their lust for one another". Interestingly, the last phrase of v.27 is likely a reference to Aids. Then in v.32 God's view of the gravity of this behaviour, along with others, mirrors the view contained in Leviticus 20:13. Note too that those who agree with or condone these behaviours are equally as disappointing to God.
Moving on, we are left totally without excuse when we read 1 Corinthians 6-10. Unrepentant homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Surely a person would have to be blinded by sin or satan not to be concerned by that plain warning from God Himself. Furthermore, like the Old Testament, the New testament consistently refers to homosexuality when listing serious sin. So it is included in the list in 1 Timothy1-10 as well.
I believe in the literal method of Bible interpretation - that is, the understanding of a text that any person of normal intelligence would understand without the help of any special keys, codes, or background knowledge (like culture for example). If one believes the Bible to be the inspired word of a timeless God, then one must believe that it is understandable on the face of it and that just as God "breathed" His inspiration into its writing, He will see to it that if we really want to hear what He has to say through it, we will do so in a clear and unequivocal way.
Isaiah 5:20 says: "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil". When we make or support a law that legalises evil we are sending the message that the legalised behaviour is acceptable. Even if we are doing it out of some liberal type notion that laws restrict peoples' "rights", the psychological effect of laws that legalise a given behaviour is that they legitimise that behaviour and make it into a "good" behaviour in the eyes, particularly, of young and other vulnerable and impressionable people.
Please be careful when you claim that such beliefs cause me to discriminate against minorities, for this is leaning toward an accusation of intentional discrimination which although unfortunately can happen as a side affect of the way in which humans live out the bibles message, is by no means a 'true christian' approach to such matters. Of course I meet people with genuine beliefs that may differ from my own, that is not justification for discrimination, nor is it in my belief justification for judgment; be mindful that the above account is scriptual - if someone was doing wrong I would not say to them "that is wrong" but rather "that is wrong according to the bible". I indeed have homosexual friends myself and do not treat them differently; it is ultimately up to them and the holy spirit should anything change.
Thus I in closing wish to say sincerely that I have not offended any minority in what I have written.
I could not have said this any better then what this person has said.
Honestly, they need to add a new amendment to the Constitution on the seperation of church and state. It needs to be extended towards defining and seperating a religious marriage versus a political partnership (gay marriage). The rest of the relgious instutions may come up with their own interpretation, as I know most religious bodies also have their own individual governing bodies (i.e., the Vatican).
Gay people may disagree with this, saying that it isn't a real marriage or whatever, but the truth of the matter is that the government cannot make a law stating that churches have to marry gay people too, otherwises it would be going against the constitution. Anti-gay may disagree that even allowing this kind of partnership is immoral or whatever, but they cannot impede in other people's pursuit of happiness.
This is the only way that this issue will ever progress, with both sides conceding and agreeing on a middle ground.
On August 23 2012 09:33 DoubleReed wrote: Rape is when the father, brother, or husband does not agree. It has nothing to do with the woman. I'm not sure why you hold the bible in such high esteem when it's so flagrantly evil and opposed to human rights.
Um what? I'm fairly sure there are multiple instances where people were put to death for rape (in the old testament), and it had nothing to do with other males. Can you give an example where the bible displays this 'flagrant evil' and 'opposition of human rights', because it sounds like an assumption, not a conclusion based on reading it. Keep in mind that at the time, women in any society probably would have been considered inferior to men, because the majority of the work would have involved physical strength and not required intellect as it does today.
Yes, men were put to death for rape because the woman's father did not approve of it. The woman has to go through her father for consent.
There is no idea of "consent" for women in the bible. It's impossible, for instance, for a woman to raped by her husband, because her husband automatically consents. If, for instance, a father wanted to offer his wife and daughter to spare himself (like in Judges 19), then that's how it works. Women have no power of consent. This is not an assumption. This is how it works in the bible.
And yes, obviously they were considered inferior to men. And yes, that's the kind of bullshit morality we expect of people 4000 years ago. The same bullshit morality condemns homosexuality. Why should anyone care that this awful, hideous morality condemns homosexuality if it has such terrible sexist views as well?
To be fair, the entire book of Judges is pretty much recorded atrocity after recorded atrocity [stressing the pretty much]. Context is pretty key; the culture at the time meant someone under your roof was under your protection as far as was in your power [and again, the entire culture, not Biblically mandated action]. Note that just because something is in the Bible does not mean it is lauded by it. It's essentially history (whether fictitious or not) that traces Israel back from the beginning.
Men are called to love their wives as Christ loved the church; to literally be willing to die sacrificically for her sake.
Yes they are. And wives are called to obey their husbands. What's your point?
Are you really going to try to argue that the bible isn't terribly sexist? Because I'll be honest, I'm shocked by people who try to argue this. I thought all moderate religious people were perfectly willing to admit that the bible is ridiculously sexist. This isn't like a terribly shocking or controversial fact about the bible. So please tell me your position, because I'd rather not argue against a position you don't have.
We do not automatically sort out contradictions in our head. There are plenty of Christians who believe the following three statements independently, without linking them all together: 1. Morality comes from the bible. 2. The bible is sexist. 3. Sexism is bad.
Generally, when someone says sexist I assume that they mean demeaning women and generally viewing them as inferior. Apologies if that isn't what you mean. But either way, love and sacrifice to that degree mentioned places a huge value of that relationship within marriage, which is neither demeaning nor placing women as inferior.
I'd contend that the Bible isn't out and out sexist. If you look up complementarianism [http://www.girlsgonewise.com/complementarianism-for-dummies/ points 4 and 5, mainly.. just a quick search, sorry], then within that framework, the Bible (and I'd say just how things are) makes a lot of sense.
I guess you could just call my general stance evangelical Christianity, though you'd want to sprinkle a dash of Thomism in it.
edit: topic can probably get derailed by this if we both remember to check up and reply regularly, so if you want to PM me a response, then that may be better.
On August 23 2012 11:51 imBLIND wrote: Honestly, they need to add a new amendment to the Constitution on the seperation of church and state. It needs to be extended towards defining and seperating a religious marriage versus a political partnership (gay marriage). The rest of the relgious instutions may come up with their own interpretation, as I know most religious bodies also have their own individual governing bodies (i.e., the Vatican).
Gay people may disagree with this, saying that it isn't a real marriage or whatever, but the truth of the matter is that the government cannot make a law stating that churches have to marry gay people too, otherwises it would be going against the constitution. Anti-gay may disagree that even allowing this kind of partnership is immoral or whatever, but they cannot impede in other people's pursuit of happiness.
This is the only way that this issue will ever progress, with both sides conceding and agreeing on a middle ground.
Uh Sorry to tell you this, but you're completely wrong. The distinction you want to offer already exists. A marriage ceremony in a church is not a marriage by law. It's a ceremony, nothing more. Beforehand you must acquire a marriage license. This is a state document. Both parties sign the document. They are married. This legal contract requires no religious ceremony, no church. The proponents of same sex marriage are trying to give gay people the right to sign a civil marriage contract. Gay people are not fighting for the right to force their marriage ceremony on a church, but the ability to sign a piece of paper.
On August 23 2012 11:51 imBLIND wrote: Honestly, they need to add a new amendment to the Constitution on the seperation of church and state. It needs to be extended towards defining and seperating a religious marriage versus a political partnership (gay marriage). The rest of the relgious instutions may come up with their own interpretation, as I know most religious bodies also have their own individual governing bodies (i.e., the Vatican).
Gay people may disagree with this, saying that it isn't a real marriage or whatever, but the truth of the matter is that the government cannot make a law stating that churches have to marry gay people too, otherwises it would be going against the constitution. Anti-gay may disagree that even allowing this kind of partnership is immoral or whatever, but they cannot impede in other people's pursuit of happiness.
This is the only way that this issue will ever progress, with both sides conceding and agreeing on a middle ground.
Minus, of course, the fact that there are plenty of religious institutions perfectly willing to marry gay couples. Here's where the crux of the matter lies: there is no single religious definition of marriage. Imposing the definition of marriage put forward by the most fundamentalist Christians is, in fact, imposing their religious beliefs on others. Several churches (The United Church of Canada up here, I don't know what their equivalent in America would be but I know they exist) are perfectly willing to define marriage to include homosexual couples.
The use of the fundamentalist definition of marriage by the government is not fulfilling the separation of church and state, as many religions do not adhere to it. Governments either need to get out of the marriage business all together and call everything a 'civil union", or they need to let gay people get married. Otherwise the government is actively putting one set of religious beliefs above another.
You act like Christians are a monolithic group, and that allowing gays to get married will force churches to have to marry them. That's just plain stupid, though. I don't believe churches should be forced to marry people they don't want to, and I doubt most people would disagree. People are allowed to be assholes, as long as they don't impose or force their beliefs on others (and people are allowed to call them on it, as well, but I digress...). Like I said, though, there are plenty of churches willing to marry gay people, and they should be allowed to, and gay people from those religions (or unaffiliated to any religion) deserve to have their marriages recognized by the government in the same way that fundamentalist heterosexual Christians do.
On July 13 2012 17:34 Arunu wrote: I don't get it,
The construct of marriage predates christianity, it is not something christianity invented. the whole issue is moot.
If a religious person does not want to marry a same sex couple, fine.... (i can respect that, well not really but meh)
There should however, since we use a separation of state and church, never be any question whether they should be allowed to marry before the state. It should always be allowed.
Hard to believe people still have issues with this.
I believe the thought process is this:
Christianity has a concept of marriage Christians are God's favorites because Jesus was God and God's son or something like that Therefore, Christians have sole ownership of marriage
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's the logic. I don't agree, but I think that's how they rationalize being the one religion that gets to decide, even though lots of others have different ideas.
For a lot of the Christians who have difficulties understanding the separation of church and state it seems that there is a distinct failure to comprehend that different beliefs are actually possible. They might know that there are different religions, and people have different interpretations of their own religion, but they have not thought through the logical consequences of the co-existence of people with differing beliefs. Often they fail to realise that morality does not stem from religion, though aspects are often guided or encouraged by it. So to them, secularism or indeed any law that goes against some aspect of the behavioural code of their religion are immoral and dangerous. Better religious and philosophical education would be useful in helping people to differentiate between the parts of a religious code that are useful for wider society, and the parts they can live by and let others not live by without allowing harm to happen by saying nothing. By doing so, it would reassure religious people that society can run along secular lines without becoming a nightmare dystopia.
TL; DR: Many Christians in Christian majority areas have difficulty internalising the idea that other beliefs are valid and lack of unbiased education in world religions and philosophy does not help.
On July 09 2012 06:09 Probe1 wrote: I would say instead of how dumb people are, how little they actually have in defense of their bigoted beliefs.
To the opposition of gay marriage: You don't have any legitimate reasons to oppose gay marriage. Homosexuals make you uncomfortable. You're afraid of gay people and you're probably afraid of your own sexuality. So you hide behind the Old Testament and then pervert marriage laws that were never supposed to preserve the sanctity of Christian beliefs.
It's fuckin bigotry. The same arguments were used against Negros. The same shit was said about womens suffrage. It's stupid shit that feels great to say because it costs you nothing. Who cares if a gay man or woman doesn't have rights? It doesn't bother you in the slightest if a gay man or woman is alienated and given unfair or unequal treatment but it's a problem when they want to be given the same rights as a straight person?
I don't want you to live on my planet anymore.
Those are my thoughts.
It is becoming evident to me that the hinge of your focus is around the derogitorisation of homosexuals, and in terms of such discrimination I am in absolute agreement. As Christians we must not despise or be anything other than loving towards homosexuals. I think what happens is people are so vehemently opposed to and disgusted by homosexual behaviour that they revert to being derogatory towards the homosexual person as a way of expressing their feelings and beliefs. The Scriptural injunction is that we must be totally unaccepting of sin. Unfortunately, this sometimes makes us unaccepting of the person committing the sin.
Jesus still hated the sin, while loving the sinner. He clearly equated loving with admonishing for sin and requiring repentance. He recognised this problem of religious people being judgmental, but He still required repentance. The woman taken in adultery (John 8) is a good example. Jesus dealt with the religious men for condemning her as a person and in v.11 He said "Neither do I condemn thee:go and SIN NO MORE" (my emphasis). He didn't say ' Well I feel sorry for you because you were probably born sexually promiscuous. Just carry on and we'll hope people will accept what you are doing because they should do that'. No, He said, lovingly but authoritatively, "go and sin no more". He wanted the religious people to love her as He did, but the sin had to end - she had to repent.
I do feel compelled however, to look at scripture in the case of homosexuality, and a good place to start is always at the beginning! So, the beginning in relation to the individual, is the question: 'Is a person genetically "wired" to be homosexual or heterosexual?'. This is a popular argument used to support homosexuality. Research doesn't support this, however. For example, research with identical twins has found that despite being genetically absolutely identical, in half the cases where one twin is homosexual, the other is heterosexual. So while there may be a genetic predisposition at best, it is environmental influences that combine with any genetic predisposition to influence orientation. Research also suggests that heredity affects sexual orientation only indirectly by influencing personality factors which in turn may steer young people towards different socialisation experiences and it is those that essentially determine orientation. (The references are available from psycologists I know).
The thing is, we all have genetic predispositions, many of which may be socially unacceptable, immoral etc. I might have, for example, a genetic predisposition to kleptomania and I might even be brought up in, or have life experiences that support that predisposition. But that doesn't mean that there is nothing I can or should do about it and that I have the right to steal what I can.
Therefore, it comes down to the fundamental question of right and wrong. If homosexuality is wrong, then like the kleptomania example, a genetic predisposition and life's experiences don't excuse it. The question of whether something is right or wrong is ultimately a Scriptural one. No Christian can disagree that God is the final arbiter of right and wrong. So, does Scripture say homosexuality is right, wrong, or is it equivocal or silent on the matter?
So, the second beginning is to start at the beginning of the Scriptural record where we see from Genesis 2:18-24 that homosexuality violates the very nature of the sexual relationship that God put in place at creation, to be fulfilled only in the relationship of marriage between a man and a woman.
A fundamental and defining doctrine of Christianity is the doctrine of original sin. That is, any behaviour that violates or seeks to change God's plan and standards is a result of the introduction of sin into God's creation. Some even suggest that God creates homosexuals, but it would be contrary to God's nature to create a person in direct violation of His own blueprint and standards. Homosexuality is a consequence, therefore, of the fallen human nature/sin. We must, therefore, respond to it like any other temptation and sin. The Bible is replete with advice and instructions on how to deal with temptations and sinful behaviours in our lives.
Homosexuality clearly falls into the category of sin, not only because of the plan for human relationships God established at creation, but also because He then explicitly and decisively addressed the problem as it had arisen in Sodom (Genesis 19). Suggestions that this account can be read as not referring to homosexual behaviour are fanciful and contrived at best, but basically evidence a fundamentally unintelligent misunderstanding of both the Hebrew and English languages. The meaning of the Genesis 19 events in terms of homosexuality has been accepted by society in general throughout the ages and is indicated of course, by the etymology of the word "sodomy".
Not only did God deal decisively with the problem at Sodom but He then explicitly outlawed homosexual behaviour and recorded this in Scripture. First, it is recorded in Leviticus 18:22 where it is referred to as an "abomination" (KJV). Interestingly, the next verse condemns bestiality, referring to it as "confusion". Yet while the New Zealand criminal law continues to outlaw and provide severe penalties for the "confusion" of bestiality, it has legalised the "abomination" of homosexuality! It can be argued that the "laws" of Leviticus are not to be strictly observed as absolute law by us living in the Christian era. Certainly, one can point to some of them, such as the mixing of fibres in clothing, as being difficult to understand. My response to this view is that perhaps they are not absolute laws (although just because we don't understand them or think we have progressed beyond them as a society, doesn't necessarily mean that God doesn't know something that is good for us that we don't know. For example, science is now catching up by realising the dangers associated with eating shellfish! After all God's "laws" are actually for our benefit), but they do, at the very least, show us the mind of God.
In the case of homosexuality, God describes it as an abomination or detestable in Leviticus. Indeed, so serious is it in His eyes that in Leviticus 20:13 He said that both partners committing homosexual sex must be put to death. Even if we argue that this law is no longer applicable in terms of penalty, it shows clearly how seriously God views this behaviour. Remember too that God is unchanging. His view of homosexuality has not changed in the three or so millennia that have passed since the writing of Leviticus. He may have relaxed the penalty of death, since Christ has paid that penalty on our behalf (provided we accept that and repent), but He hasn't changed His view of the behaviour as being an abomination. Incidentally, there's a very plain statement in Deuteronomy 23:17 also: "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel" I trust no one would demonstrate their lack of Biblical exegesis by suggesting this applies only to Jewish people.
So, if we still decide to ignore God's views set out in the Old Testament because we think they are no longer applicable, has God dealt with the issue in New Testament times? Clearly, He has. Romans 1:24-27 clearly refers to homosexuality. Indeed, not only does it refer to homosexual acts but also to homosexual desire - "burned in their lust for one another". Interestingly, the last phrase of v.27 is likely a reference to Aids. Then in v.32 God's view of the gravity of this behaviour, along with others, mirrors the view contained in Leviticus 20:13. Note too that those who agree with or condone these behaviours are equally as disappointing to God.
Moving on, we are left totally without excuse when we read 1 Corinthians 6-10. Unrepentant homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Surely a person would have to be blinded by sin or satan not to be concerned by that plain warning from God Himself. Furthermore, like the Old Testament, the New testament consistently refers to homosexuality when listing serious sin. So it is included in the list in 1 Timothy1-10 as well.
I believe in the literal method of Bible interpretation - that is, the understanding of a text that any person of normal intelligence would understand without the help of any special keys, codes, or background knowledge (like culture for example). If one believes the Bible to be the inspired word of a timeless God, then one must believe that it is understandable on the face of it and that just as God "breathed" His inspiration into its writing, He will see to it that if we really want to hear what He has to say through it, we will do so in a clear and unequivocal way.
Isaiah 5:20 says: "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil". When we make or support a law that legalises evil we are sending the message that the legalised behaviour is acceptable. Even if we are doing it out of some liberal type notion that laws restrict peoples' "rights", the psychological effect of laws that legalise a given behaviour is that they legitimise that behaviour and make it into a "good" behaviour in the eyes, particularly, of young and other vulnerable and impressionable people.
Please be careful when you claim that such beliefs cause me to discriminate against minorities, for this is leaning toward an accusation of intentional discrimination which although unfortunately can happen as a side affect of the way in which humans live out the bibles message, is by no means a 'true christian' approach to such matters. Of course I meet people with genuine beliefs that may differ from my own, that is not justification for discrimination, nor is it in my belief justification for judgment; be mindful that the above account is scriptual - if someone was doing wrong I would not say to them "that is wrong" but rather "that is wrong according to the bible". I indeed have homosexual friends myself and do not treat them differently; it is ultimately up to them and the holy spirit should anything change.
Thus I in closing wish to say sincerely that I have not offended any minority in what I have written.
I could not have said this any better then what this person has said.
I'm sure you don't care what I consider because you have your Book to tell you everything, but you know what I consider Evil? A society that protects hate and intolerance based on an ancient piece of revealed fiction. Lets quickly scroll through a list of things in the Bible that are called Evil by "God" and count as Sin: Refusal to be Baptized (Luke 7;29) Baptism before Believing in Jesus (Acts 8:36) Not Beating the Child who Disobeys (Pv 13:24) Complaining of Hardships (Num 11:1,11:4-6) Smoking (Ro 12:1; 13:14; 1 Cor 3:16-18; 6:20; 2 Cor 4:10; 1 Pe 1:15; 1 Thes 4:4,5) Arguing (Pv 17:14; 18:6; Titus 3;\ 2 Tim 2:23) Debate (Romans 1:29) Television, the Internet - I guess anything you would call Media (Ps 101:3; Ja 1:27) Thinking about tomorrow, about what to Eat, Drink, or Wear (Mat 6:25) Being Worried (Phili 4:6; Mat 6:25) Offending Others (Mat 13:41,17:27; Ja 3:2)
I'll stop there, though I really don't have to. According to that book, just about everything is Evil. And yet not one thing on this list of Sins is actually illegal in the society we live in today. Why? Because the basis for these moral injunctions are nonsense. And your stance on this issue is just as nonsensical.
You really fear legalizing evil? Then wake up to brutish cultures like yours that have always excused the persecution of women and homosexuals. And please, do keep insisting that you aren't offending anyone by calling their "actions" Evil. I'm sure you covered yourself for offending others by informing them that they are no longer offended by your hateful views. Please take a serious look at exactly how much of this silly text you want invoked on YOURSELF before trying to push it on nonbelievers.
Gays bless you. (Fitting that as the persecuted, it is -yet another- Sin not to Bless the fundamentalists who persecute us.)
Honestly, I'm really tired of all the gay marriage discussion that this election year has brought upon. Not because I'm for or against gay marriage, but the fact that there's this mob mentality that all Christians are the same and absolutely hate gay people. I understand that debate on this topic will continue for awhile now (at least until elections are over), but I'm just tired of my facebook feed flooded with the same gay marriage support items. Maybe I just stop getting on facebook, but I'm only human.
I consider myself Christian, albeit, pretty lax on the whole bible practice. Having said that, I have plenty of gay friends that I behave towards the exact same. But people throw random shit at me just because I say that I'm Christian such as "WOW, GO BACK TO BIBLE SCHOOL". This makes me feel that people are just jumping on the current bandwagons of political trends and start hating. Kinda hypocritical since these people are fighting for equality but then start hating on me because of this generalization the current public has on Christians. In the end, I don't know why I'm saying this because all I have to do is stay out of these discussions. Peace.
On August 23 2012 08:38 Savio wrote: Can you give me the TL:DR version pls?
TL;DR: Gangnam Style is a Christian bigot, but doesn't want you to call him that. He also believes that marriage is between a man and a woman because the Bible told him so.
we'll at least he took the time to explain his view point instead of bashing because they're emotionally insecure and butt hurt over the matter. only bigot i see is you and the people who have that same emotional response when someone doesn't agree with them.
On August 23 2012 08:38 Savio wrote: Can you give me the TL:DR version pls?
TL;DR: Gangnam Style is a Christian bigot, but doesn't want you to call him that. He also believes that marriage is between a man and a woman because the Bible told him so.
How does that make him a bigot?
If a person considers the literal words of the Bible their moral authority, then they agree with and try to live by a wide variety of extremely bigoted beliefs.
On August 23 2012 09:33 DoubleReed wrote: Rape is when the father, brother, or husband does not agree. It has nothing to do with the woman. I'm not sure why you hold the bible in such high esteem when it's so flagrantly evil and opposed to human rights.
Um what? I'm fairly sure there are multiple instances where people were put to death for rape (in the old testament), and it had nothing to do with other males. Can you give an example where the bible displays this 'flagrant evil' and 'opposition of human rights', because it sounds like an assumption, not a conclusion based on reading it. Keep in mind that at the time, women in any society probably would have been considered inferior to men, because the majority of the work would have involved physical strength and not required intellect as it does today.
Yes, men were put to death for rape because the woman's father did not approve of it. The woman has to go through her father for consent.
There is no idea of "consent" for women in the bible. It's impossible, for instance, for a woman to raped by her husband, because her husband automatically consents. If, for instance, a father wanted to offer his wife and daughter to spare himself (like in Judges 19), then that's how it works. Women have no power of consent. This is not an assumption. This is how it works in the bible.
And yes, obviously they were considered inferior to men. And yes, that's the kind of bullshit morality we expect of people 4000 years ago. The same bullshit morality condemns homosexuality. Why should anyone care that this awful, hideous morality condemns homosexuality if it has such terrible sexist views as well?
To be fair, the entire book of Judges is pretty much recorded atrocity after recorded atrocity [stressing the pretty much]. Context is pretty key; the culture at the time meant someone under your roof was under your protection as far as was in your power [and again, the entire culture, not Biblically mandated action]. Note that just because something is in the Bible does not mean it is lauded by it. It's essentially history (whether fictitious or not) that traces Israel back from the beginning.
Men are called to love their wives as Christ loved the church; to literally be willing to die sacrificically for her sake.
Yes they are. And wives are called to obey their husbands. What's your point?
Are you really going to try to argue that the bible isn't terribly sexist? Because I'll be honest, I'm shocked by people who try to argue this. I thought all moderate religious people were perfectly willing to admit that the bible is ridiculously sexist. This isn't like a terribly shocking or controversial fact about the bible. So please tell me your position, because I'd rather not argue against a position you don't have.
We do not automatically sort out contradictions in our head. There are plenty of Christians who believe the following three statements independently, without linking them all together: 1. Morality comes from the bible. 2. The bible is sexist. 3. Sexism is bad.
Generally, when someone says sexist I assume that they mean demeaning women and generally viewing them as inferior. Apologies if that isn't what you mean. But either way, love and sacrifice to that degree mentioned places a huge value of that relationship within marriage, which is neither demeaning nor placing women as inferior.
I'd contend that the Bible isn't out and out sexist. If you look up complementarianism [http://www.girlsgonewise.com/complementarianism-for-dummies/ points 4 and 5, mainly.. just a quick search, sorry], then within that framework, the Bible (and I'd say just how things are) makes a lot of sense.
I guess you could just call my general stance evangelical Christianity, though you'd want to sprinkle a dash of Thomism in it.
edit: topic can probably get derailed by this if we both remember to check up and reply regularly, so if you want to PM me a response, then that may be better.
PM'd with about a dozen verses of sexism in response.
What's so ridiculous is that there are people who fight AGAINST gay marriage, but are totally ok with and never fight against the abolishion of slavery or divorce, even though the bible would tell them otherwise. Slavery is perfectly fine and marriage is supposed to be until death do you part. So why is homosexual love worse, and more worth fighting against? Why do all these "moral men" in their 50s, 60s 70s, have 20 or 30 year old wifes and have been married 5 times?
On August 23 2012 12:54 ANoise wrote: I'm sure you don't care what I consider because you have your Book to tell you everything, but you know what I consider Evil? A society that protects hate and intolerance based on an ancient piece of revealed fiction. Lets quickly scroll through a list of things in the Bible that are called Evil by "God" and count as Sin:
Sure, why not.
Refusal to be Baptized (Luke 7;29)
Nope. Nowhere in the passage does it say anything about refusing baptism, it merely documents the Pharisees (think of them as fundamentalists of the day, the ultra-holier-than-thou kinds of people) rejection of "God's plan" as it says. Nowhere is it even implied there was a punishment for this action, it's merely stated as a historical event. + Show Spoiler +
Luke 7:29-30: When the people, including the tax collectors, heard this, they all agreed that God's teaching was good, having being baptised by by John. But the Pharisees and experts of the law refused to accept God's plan for themselves; they did not let John baptise them.
Baptism before Believing in Jesus (Acts 8:36)
Umm, nope again? This is the story of a man's conversion and immediate baptism (because it was convenient, and "why the fuck not" too). + Show Spoiler +
Acts 8:35-37: Phillip began to speak, and starting with the same scripture, he told the man the good news about Jesus. While they were travelling down the road, they came to some water. The officer said, "Look, here is water. Why shouldn't I be baptised?" Then the officer commanded the chariot to stop. Both Phillip and the officer went down into the water, and Phillip baptised him.
Not Beating the Child who Disobeys (Pv 13:24)
Proverbs is a book of conventional wisdom at the time, it isn't a documentation of the original Jewish law. The verse is saying that rebuking a child and punishing them is borne out of love, and is beneficial. It is by no means a commandment or requirement, just a piece of advice. The book of proverbs is actually an interesting read, it doesn't contain any biblical content, just cool sayings. + Show Spoiler +
Proverbs 13:24: If you do not punish your children, you don't love them, but if you love your children, you will correct them.
Complaining of Hardships (Num 11:1,11:4-6)
Yes, complaining to God and him responding with anger may seem a little excessive. There is some context, namely that He did free them from the Egyptians and they were wandering in the desert for a long while (due to other reasons, namely doubting God would ever give them a new home). They had constantly complained the whole time, if God gave them food, they didn't like it because it was too boring, and similar complaining. Whilst this passage isn't specific, it is important to realise that this was not an isolated incident, and was probably used as an example that bitching and complaining about how God should act isn't the idea. Cbf writing the passage, it's pretty much as he described.
- Romans 12:1 has nothing to do with this topic in the slightest. Typo perhaps? - 1 Corintians 3:16-17 tl;dr: God made you, so don't intentionally abuse your body (his handiwork). Yup, sounds logical to me. - 2 Corinthians 4:10 See Romans 12:1. - 1 Peter 1:15 See Romans 12:1. - Same idea as 1 corinithians 3:16-17.
I really can't be bothered going through the rest of the list, because, welp I'm lazy. I'm not sure where you got this information from, but if you read the passages, the interpretations made by your source makes no sense (barring the Numbers example).
On August 23 2012 12:55 cHaNg-sTa wrote: Honestly, I'm really tired of all the gay marriage discussion that this election year has brought upon. Not because I'm for or against gay marriage, but the fact that there's this mob mentality that all Christians are the same and absolutely hate gay people. I understand that debate on this topic will continue for awhile now (at least until elections are over), but I'm just tired of my facebook feed flooded with the same gay marriage support items. Maybe I just stop getting on facebook, but I'm only human.
I consider myself Christian, albeit, pretty lax on the whole bible practice. Having said that, I have plenty of gay friends that I behave towards the exact same. But people throw random shit at me just because I say that I'm Christian such as "WOW, GO BACK TO BIBLE SCHOOL". This makes me feel that people are just jumping on the current bandwagons of political trends and start hating. Kinda hypocritical since these people are fighting for equality but then start hating on me because of this generalization the current public has on Christians. In the end, I don't know why I'm saying this because all I have to do is stay out of these discussions. Peace.
I really know how you feel. I am gay and a Christian atheist and surprisingly, the people that gave me the most support in live were Christians claimed to be motivated by Christianity. Of course, I have met people who hate gays because of Christianity as well.
However, people have to realize that homophobia is not a religious trait, it is just bigotry because people can be bigoted. Plain and simple. In the atheist Soviet Russia and Communist China, Stalin and Mao persecuted gays because they thought it was too Western.
However, what makes me curious is if you said anything that could provoke them.
And I would like Google to focus on more basic human rights before talking about gay marriage.
On August 23 2012 12:55 cHaNg-sTa wrote: Honestly, I'm really tired of all the gay marriage discussion that this election year has brought upon. Not because I'm for or against gay marriage, but the fact that there's this mob mentality that all Christians are the same and absolutely hate gay people. I understand that debate on this topic will continue for awhile now (at least until elections are over), but I'm just tired of my facebook feed flooded with the same gay marriage support items. Maybe I just stop getting on facebook, but I'm only human.
I consider myself Christian, albeit, pretty lax on the whole bible practice. Having said that, I have plenty of gay friends that I behave towards the exact same. But people throw random shit at me just because I say that I'm Christian such as "WOW, GO BACK TO BIBLE SCHOOL". This makes me feel that people are just jumping on the current bandwagons of political trends and start hating. Kinda hypocritical since these people are fighting for equality but then start hating on me because of this generalization the current public has on Christians. In the end, I don't know why I'm saying this because all I have to do is stay out of these discussions. Peace.
I really know how you feel. I am gay and a Christian atheist and surprisingly, the people that gave me the most support in live were Christians claimed to be motivated by Christianity. Of course, I have met people who hate gays because of Christianity as well.
However, people have to realize that homophobia is not a religious trait, it is just bigotry because people can be bigoted. Plain and simple. In the atheist Soviet Russia and Communist China, Stalin and Mao persecuted gays because they thought it was too Western.
However, what makes me curious is if you said anything that could provoke them.
And I would like Google to focus on more basic human rights before talking about gay marriage.
Just because there were communists that also persecuted gay people does not mean that the religious teachings in the bible aren't wholeheartedly responsible for the pervasive homophobia that resides in America. In countries that are more secular, you find homophobia is be considerably less rare.
This idea that the doctrines of a religion have nothing to do with the behavior of religious people is really quite strange. Perhaps you are simply projecting, because you are a moderate. But not all Christians are moderates. Christianity does actually have a doctrine and that doctrine does explicitly say homophobic things, so it would be perfectly reasonable for Christians who take their faith more seriously to have more homophobic ideas.
Haha, I do not like the term "moderate." I consider myself to be a Christian radical and revisionist. Basically, I treat Christianity as a philosophy rather than a divine dogma which arguably does not make me Christian but that is for another discussion.
In my high school in central PA, most of the homophobes are not homophobic because of religion as seen in their knee jerk responses in health class about the issue but because of maintaining manliness. They view it as disgusting, creepy, and unmanly. However, when talking about lesbians, they made crude comments about two hot girls being in love. I think that it is more sexism than anything. I mean, take a look at coaches, if they want to insult their players, they call them girls and homosexuality is associated with being feminine.
Even if you do not like the word moderate, all I'm saying is don't project your revisionist, radical philosophies on people who don't share them.
On August 23 2012 23:53 Shiragaku wrote: Haha, I do not like the term "moderate." I consider myself to be a Christian radical and revisionist. Basically, I treat Christianity as a philosophy rather than a divine dogma which arguably does not make me Christian but that is for another discussion.
In my high school in central PA, most of the homophobes are not homophobic because of religion as seen in their knee jerk responses in health class about the issue but because of maintaining manliness. They view it as disgusting, creepy, and unmanly. However, when talking about lesbians, they made crude comments about two hot girls being in love. I think that it is more sexism than anything. I mean, take a look at coaches, if they want to insult their players, they call them girls and homosexuality is associated with being feminine.
Yes, there's a lot of sexism mixed in with homophobia, which is why I never got into it, really. I mean, 50% of the people who you hang around with and such find men sexually attractive. That's pretty weird. It's pretty weird to me. So when you tell me that there are some men that also find men sexually attractive, I don't see how that's particularly stranger than straight women finding men attractive.
Edit: I also think it's bullshit that men are arbitrary with machismo. Like a male ballet dancer is considered feminine. Have you seen male ballet dancers? They're fucking ripped. And all they do all day is throw women around. How is that not masculine??
On August 23 2012 23:57 DoubleReed wrote: Even if you do not like the word moderate, all I'm saying is don't project your revisionist, radical philosophies on people who don't share them.
On August 23 2012 23:53 Shiragaku wrote: Haha, I do not like the term "moderate." I consider myself to be a Christian radical and revisionist. Basically, I treat Christianity as a philosophy rather than a divine dogma which arguably does not make me Christian but that is for another discussion.
In my high school in central PA, most of the homophobes are not homophobic because of religion as seen in their knee jerk responses in health class about the issue but because of maintaining manliness. They view it as disgusting, creepy, and unmanly. However, when talking about lesbians, they made crude comments about two hot girls being in love. I think that it is more sexism than anything. I mean, take a look at coaches, if they want to insult their players, they call them girls and homosexuality is associated with being feminine.
Yes, there's a lot of sexism mixed in with homophobia, which is why I never got into it, really. I mean, 50% of the people who you hang around with and such find men sexually attractive. That's pretty weird. It's pretty weird to me. So when you tell me that there are some men that also find men sexually attractive, I don't see how that's particularly stranger than straight women finding men attractive.
One of the first questions many people ask me is about sex. It is clear that when the think of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals, they think about sex. And if sex is the only thing you can think about and cannot relate to them about that, then it is a formula for disaster. I am a big fan of a web series called Extra Credits and when they talked about sexuality in gaming, Persona 4 (great game btw) they said that "Sexuality wasn't used to DEFINE Kanji but rather an aspect of Kanji's life." Once people can realize that homosexuality is just an aspect of our life, then progress can be made.
On August 23 2012 08:38 Savio wrote: Can you give me the TL:DR version pls?
TL;DR: Gangnam Style is a Christian bigot, but doesn't want you to call him that. He also believes that marriage is between a man and a woman because the Bible told him so.
we'll at least he took the time to explain his view point instead of bashing because they're emotionally insecure and butt hurt over the matter. only bigot i see is you and the people who have that same emotional response when someone doesn't agree with them.
On August 23 2012 08:38 Savio wrote: Can you give me the TL:DR version pls?
TL;DR: Gangnam Style is a Christian bigot, but doesn't want you to call him that. He also believes that marriage is between a man and a woman because the Bible told him so.
How does that make him a bigot?
If a person considers the literal words of the Bible their moral authority, then they agree with and try to live by a wide variety of extremely bigoted beliefs.
Thank you for confirming that your morals are the only ones that have any value, I'll keep that in mind when I facetiously quote you next time.
ITT: disagreeing with someone's morals makes you a bigot.
On August 23 2012 08:38 Savio wrote: Can you give me the TL:DR version pls?
TL;DR: Gangnam Style is a Christian bigot, but doesn't want you to call him that. He also believes that marriage is between a man and a woman because the Bible told him so.
we'll at least he took the time to explain his view point instead of bashing because they're emotionally insecure and butt hurt over the matter. only bigot i see is you and the people who have that same emotional response when someone doesn't agree with them.
I don't think you understand what a TL;Dr is.
On August 23 2012 09:51 Bigtony wrote:
On August 23 2012 08:40 sunprince wrote:
On August 23 2012 08:38 Savio wrote: Can you give me the TL:DR version pls?
TL;DR: Gangnam Style is a Christian bigot, but doesn't want you to call him that. He also believes that marriage is between a man and a woman because the Bible told him so.
How does that make him a bigot?
If a person considers the literal words of the Bible their moral authority, then they agree with and try to live by a wide variety of extremely bigoted beliefs.
Thank you for confirming that your morals are the only ones that have any value, I'll keep that in mind when I facetiously quote you next time.
ITT: disagreeing with someone's morals makes you a bigot.
Having bigoted beliefs/morals makes you a bigot. Obviously. What are you talking about?
On July 13 2012 17:34 Arunu wrote: I don't get it,
The construct of marriage predates christianity, it is not something christianity invented. the whole issue is moot.
If a religious person does not want to marry a same sex couple, fine.... (i can respect that, well not really but meh)
There should however, since we use a separation of state and church, never be any question whether they should be allowed to marry before the state. It should always be allowed.
Hard to believe people still have issues with this.
I believe the thought process is this:
Christianity has a concept of marriage Christians are God's favorites because Jesus was God and God's son or something like that Therefore, Christians have sole ownership of marriage
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's the logic. I don't agree, but I think that's how they rationalize being the one religion that gets to decide, even though lots of others have different ideas.
For a lot of the Christians who have difficulties understanding the separation of church and state it seems that there is a distinct failure to comprehend that different beliefs are actually possible. They might know that there are different religions, and people have different interpretations of their own religion, but they have not thought through the logical consequences of the co-existence of people with differing beliefs. Often they fail to realise that morality does not stem from religion, though aspects are often guided or encouraged by it. So to them, secularism or indeed any law that goes against some aspect of the behavioural code of their religion are immoral and dangerous. Better religious and philosophical education would be useful in helping people to differentiate between the parts of a religious code that are useful for wider society, and the parts they can live by and let others not live by without allowing harm to happen by saying nothing. By doing so, it would reassure religious people that society can run along secular lines without becoming a nightmare dystopia.
TL; DR: Many Christians in Christian majority areas have difficulty internalising the idea that other beliefs are valid and lack of unbiased education in world religions and philosophy does not help.
On July 09 2012 06:09 Probe1 wrote: I would say instead of how dumb people are, how little they actually have in defense of their bigoted beliefs.
To the opposition of gay marriage: You don't have any legitimate reasons to oppose gay marriage. Homosexuals make you uncomfortable. You're afraid of gay people and you're probably afraid of your own sexuality. So you hide behind the Old Testament and then pervert marriage laws that were never supposed to preserve the sanctity of Christian beliefs.
It's fuckin bigotry. The same arguments were used against Negros. The same shit was said about womens suffrage. It's stupid shit that feels great to say because it costs you nothing. Who cares if a gay man or woman doesn't have rights? It doesn't bother you in the slightest if a gay man or woman is alienated and given unfair or unequal treatment but it's a problem when they want to be given the same rights as a straight person?
I don't want you to live on my planet anymore.
Those are my thoughts.
It is becoming evident to me that the hinge of your focus is around the derogitorisation of homosexuals, and in terms of such discrimination I am in absolute agreement. As Christians we must not despise or be anything other than loving towards homosexuals. I think what happens is people are so vehemently opposed to and disgusted by homosexual behaviour that they revert to being derogatory towards the homosexual person as a way of expressing their feelings and beliefs. The Scriptural injunction is that we must be totally unaccepting of sin. Unfortunately, this sometimes makes us unaccepting of the person committing the sin.
Jesus still hated the sin, while loving the sinner. He clearly equated loving with admonishing for sin and requiring repentance. He recognised this problem of religious people being judgmental, but He still required repentance. The woman taken in adultery (John 8) is a good example. Jesus dealt with the religious men for condemning her as a person and in v.11 He said "Neither do I condemn thee:go and SIN NO MORE" (my emphasis). He didn't say ' Well I feel sorry for you because you were probably born sexually promiscuous. Just carry on and we'll hope people will accept what you are doing because they should do that'. No, He said, lovingly but authoritatively, "go and sin no more". He wanted the religious people to love her as He did, but the sin had to end - she had to repent.
I do feel compelled however, to look at scripture in the case of homosexuality, and a good place to start is always at the beginning! So, the beginning in relation to the individual, is the question: 'Is a person genetically "wired" to be homosexual or heterosexual?'. This is a popular argument used to support homosexuality. Research doesn't support this, however. For example, research with identical twins has found that despite being genetically absolutely identical, in half the cases where one twin is homosexual, the other is heterosexual. So while there may be a genetic predisposition at best, it is environmental influences that combine with any genetic predisposition to influence orientation. Research also suggests that heredity affects sexual orientation only indirectly by influencing personality factors which in turn may steer young people towards different socialisation experiences and it is those that essentially determine orientation. (The references are available from psycologists I know).
The thing is, we all have genetic predispositions, many of which may be socially unacceptable, immoral etc. I might have, for example, a genetic predisposition to kleptomania and I might even be brought up in, or have life experiences that support that predisposition. But that doesn't mean that there is nothing I can or should do about it and that I have the right to steal what I can.
Therefore, it comes down to the fundamental question of right and wrong. If homosexuality is wrong, then like the kleptomania example, a genetic predisposition and life's experiences don't excuse it. The question of whether something is right or wrong is ultimately a Scriptural one. No Christian can disagree that God is the final arbiter of right and wrong. So, does Scripture say homosexuality is right, wrong, or is it equivocal or silent on the matter?
So, the second beginning is to start at the beginning of the Scriptural record where we see from Genesis 2:18-24 that homosexuality violates the very nature of the sexual relationship that God put in place at creation, to be fulfilled only in the relationship of marriage between a man and a woman.
A fundamental and defining doctrine of Christianity is the doctrine of original sin. That is, any behaviour that violates or seeks to change God's plan and standards is a result of the introduction of sin into God's creation. Some even suggest that God creates homosexuals, but it would be contrary to God's nature to create a person in direct violation of His own blueprint and standards. Homosexuality is a consequence, therefore, of the fallen human nature/sin. We must, therefore, respond to it like any other temptation and sin. The Bible is replete with advice and instructions on how to deal with temptations and sinful behaviours in our lives.
Homosexuality clearly falls into the category of sin, not only because of the plan for human relationships God established at creation, but also because He then explicitly and decisively addressed the problem as it had arisen in Sodom (Genesis 19). Suggestions that this account can be read as not referring to homosexual behaviour are fanciful and contrived at best, but basically evidence a fundamentally unintelligent misunderstanding of both the Hebrew and English languages. The meaning of the Genesis 19 events in terms of homosexuality has been accepted by society in general throughout the ages and is indicated of course, by the etymology of the word "sodomy".
Not only did God deal decisively with the problem at Sodom but He then explicitly outlawed homosexual behaviour and recorded this in Scripture. First, it is recorded in Leviticus 18:22 where it is referred to as an "abomination" (KJV). Interestingly, the next verse condemns bestiality, referring to it as "confusion". Yet while the New Zealand criminal law continues to outlaw and provide severe penalties for the "confusion" of bestiality, it has legalised the "abomination" of homosexuality! It can be argued that the "laws" of Leviticus are not to be strictly observed as absolute law by us living in the Christian era. Certainly, one can point to some of them, such as the mixing of fibres in clothing, as being difficult to understand. My response to this view is that perhaps they are not absolute laws (although just because we don't understand them or think we have progressed beyond them as a society, doesn't necessarily mean that God doesn't know something that is good for us that we don't know. For example, science is now catching up by realising the dangers associated with eating shellfish! After all God's "laws" are actually for our benefit), but they do, at the very least, show us the mind of God.
In the case of homosexuality, God describes it as an abomination or detestable in Leviticus. Indeed, so serious is it in His eyes that in Leviticus 20:13 He said that both partners committing homosexual sex must be put to death. Even if we argue that this law is no longer applicable in terms of penalty, it shows clearly how seriously God views this behaviour. Remember too that God is unchanging. His view of homosexuality has not changed in the three or so millennia that have passed since the writing of Leviticus. He may have relaxed the penalty of death, since Christ has paid that penalty on our behalf (provided we accept that and repent), but He hasn't changed His view of the behaviour as being an abomination. Incidentally, there's a very plain statement in Deuteronomy 23:17 also: "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel" I trust no one would demonstrate their lack of Biblical exegesis by suggesting this applies only to Jewish people.
So, if we still decide to ignore God's views set out in the Old Testament because we think they are no longer applicable, has God dealt with the issue in New Testament times? Clearly, He has. Romans 1:24-27 clearly refers to homosexuality. Indeed, not only does it refer to homosexual acts but also to homosexual desire - "burned in their lust for one another". Interestingly, the last phrase of v.27 is likely a reference to Aids. Then in v.32 God's view of the gravity of this behaviour, along with others, mirrors the view contained in Leviticus 20:13. Note too that those who agree with or condone these behaviours are equally as disappointing to God.
Moving on, we are left totally without excuse when we read 1 Corinthians 6-10. Unrepentant homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Surely a person would have to be blinded by sin or satan not to be concerned by that plain warning from God Himself. Furthermore, like the Old Testament, the New testament consistently refers to homosexuality when listing serious sin. So it is included in the list in 1 Timothy1-10 as well.
I believe in the literal method of Bible interpretation - that is, the understanding of a text that any person of normal intelligence would understand without the help of any special keys, codes, or background knowledge (like culture for example). If one believes the Bible to be the inspired word of a timeless God, then one must believe that it is understandable on the face of it and that just as God "breathed" His inspiration into its writing, He will see to it that if we really want to hear what He has to say through it, we will do so in a clear and unequivocal way.
Isaiah 5:20 says: "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil". When we make or support a law that legalises evil we are sending the message that the legalised behaviour is acceptable. Even if we are doing it out of some liberal type notion that laws restrict peoples' "rights", the psychological effect of laws that legalise a given behaviour is that they legitimise that behaviour and make it into a "good" behaviour in the eyes, particularly, of young and other vulnerable and impressionable people.
Please be careful when you claim that such beliefs cause me to discriminate against minorities, for this is leaning toward an accusation of intentional discrimination which although unfortunately can happen as a side affect of the way in which humans live out the bibles message, is by no means a 'true christian' approach to such matters. Of course I meet people with genuine beliefs that may differ from my own, that is not justification for discrimination, nor is it in my belief justification for judgment; be mindful that the above account is scriptual - if someone was doing wrong I would not say to them "that is wrong" but rather "that is wrong according to the bible". I indeed have homosexual friends myself and do not treat them differently; it is ultimately up to them and the holy spirit should anything change.
Thus I in closing wish to say sincerely that I have not offended any minority in what I have written.
While this is fascinatingly well written, and indeed the stance that any christian should take in my opinion, I respectfully disagree. I also understand that I can never convince you out of your point of view.
My impression of America and it's constitution is that it must rely on reason(propaganda version: "Common sense") to determine it's laws in such a manner as to make everyone equal(defined by the rights granted to an individual as well as protecting the rights of the individual).
The only place for america to go is Civil union everything+Any two human beings of legal age can marry.
On a side note, I believe the only reason gay marriage is not legalized is that America, while holding up the constitution, also leans very much towards the general will. The general will(read:VOTERS) can be stereotype as heterosexual Christians. Thus, while separation of church and state is applied in Government, voters want christian leaders and then who is there to vote for gay marriage when the people who represent us must both abide by the moral codes of the bible and the law.
For the above reason, the only way to get gay marriage legalized is to argue within the frame of the constitution. Not religiously. I don't know about other countries, but am doubtful that countries based of off the Quran will ever have gay marriage legalized.
On July 08 2012 18:49 Noam wrote: In most countries Marriage is an institution that allows two people to get certain benefits from the state. Mostly tax and housing benefits. Any country that doesn't allow two people to get these benefits because they are of the same gender is committing gender discrimination against its citizens.
Marriage should not be tied to religion in any country in the world and this should be the ONLY focus of this campaign.
If some people want to celebrate the first day of their marriage in a religious environment, it should be their right based on religious freedom laws.
Marriage should be more than just an institution that allows two people to get certain benefits from the state. With such a broad definition, what could you possibly exclude? If the sole reason for allowing those two people to get benefits from the state is that they rely on each other emotionally and financially, I could make the argument that a mother should be allowed to marry her son, an uncle should be allowed to marry his niece, and so on. Don't think anything nasty, I don't mean incest. Contemporary notions about marriage would suggest that it is more than just about sex, procreational or otherwise.
Why should it be limited to just a bond between two people to get certain benefits from the state? The idea that marriage should be between only two people is no more intrinsic than the idea that it should be between man and woman. As long as everyone involved is of age and consents, why should they not be allowed to marry?
Let's face it, marriage is a sham in modern society. The whole idea of marriage was to combat survival instincts about killing other mates to ensure that your genes were passed on. Through the legal institution of marriage, primitive societies could prevent their members from killing each other for access to mates by attempting a somewhat equal distribution, punishing adulterers or anyone else who threatened the system and, therefore, the peace. In this advanced day and age of free love and free living, such restrictions are obsolete, as evidenced by the divorce rate. This should be getting pretty obvious by now, and more so with every further exception to the previous norms of marriage that is made.
Therefore, it comes down to the fundamental question of right and wrong. If homosexuality is wrong, then like the kleptomania example, a genetic predisposition and life's experiences don't excuse it. The question of whether something is right or wrong is ultimately a Scriptural one. No Christian can disagree that God is the final arbiter of right and wrong. So, does Scripture say homosexuality is right, wrong, or is it equivocal or silent on the matter?
Your logic seems OK up to this point. If something is wrong, it should not be excused. That's a valid conclusion. But to go further and say that homosexuality is wrong and that the reason is ultimately Scriptural is not a valid conclusion because you state that only Scripture can determine right and wrong without saying why. Scripture alone cannot be accepted as a reason for homosexuality being wrong, even if it is popularly accepted as truth.
On August 23 2012 08:38 Savio wrote: Can you give me the TL:DR version pls?
TL;DR: Gangnam Style is a Christian bigot, but doesn't want you to call him that. He also believes that marriage is between a man and a woman because the Bible told him so.
we'll at least he took the time to explain his view point instead of bashing because they're emotionally insecure and butt hurt over the matter. only bigot i see is you and the people who have that same emotional response when someone doesn't agree with them.
I don't think you understand what a TL;Dr is.
On August 23 2012 09:51 Bigtony wrote:
On August 23 2012 08:40 sunprince wrote:
On August 23 2012 08:38 Savio wrote: Can you give me the TL:DR version pls?
TL;DR: Gangnam Style is a Christian bigot, but doesn't want you to call him that. He also believes that marriage is between a man and a woman because the Bible told him so.
How does that make him a bigot?
If a person considers the literal words of the Bible their moral authority, then they agree with and try to live by a wide variety of extremely bigoted beliefs.
Thank you for confirming that your morals are the only ones that have any value, I'll keep that in mind when I facetiously quote you next time.
ITT: disagreeing with someone's morals makes you a bigot.
EPT![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_BlU5V5BaMjY/SGlIEcCEhrI/AAAAAAAACiU/HZ44buYaI1k/s400/GoogleGayFan1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://lolzombie.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/tWa05UHzPgi588jtC0Fn4ePdo1_500.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.stockphotopro.com/photo-thumbs-2/stockphotopro_73018778KEZ_no_title.jpg)
just so people don't pick you apart based on semantics
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/WFtAs.png)
![[image loading]](http://www.only-apartments.com/images/only-apartments/cannibalism-vienna.jpg)
-10. Unrepentant homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Surely a person would have to be blinded by sin or satan not to be concerned by that plain warning from God Himself. Furthermore, like the Old Testament, the New testament consistently refers to homosexuality when listing serious sin. So it is included in the list in 1 Timothy1
![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_11-nzoYFuQU/S82CyJjJJ_I/AAAAAAAAG4s/UzE6XZMWpwo/s1600/atheist-cartoon.gif)
