|
On July 31 2012 02:11 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 01:42 m4inbrain wrote:On July 31 2012 01:26 naastyOne wrote:On July 31 2012 01:12 Elsid wrote:On July 31 2012 01:09 naastyOne wrote:
I lowe the american pro gay fascism.
It is perfectly fine to have hatefull speach towards the people that do not share your stance. It is perfectly fine to openly call the the stupd, bigoted lesser people.
Wait a little more, and gas poisoning of people that are anti-gay would ba absolutely fine agenda. So essentially what you're saying is it's okay for a man to say that homosexuals don't deserve the rights afforded to heterosexuals even though they're two consenting adults, but on the contrary it's not okay to say that said opinion is stupid and bigoted? Also nice ridiculous use of the slippery slope argument  Also you jump on the assumption that that kind of oppinion is stupid and bugoted by default, which it is not. Especially considering that most of the world is openly anti-gay. Well, no. Most of the religious world is openly anti-gay. Thats true. Muslims, christians, etc. Theres quite a difference. Your statement is not true for "most of the non-religeous" world. They're actually quite tolerant, except, of course, the US (20% of hatecrimes against homosexuals, well what do you know..). PS: in germany homosexuals can't marry because of the "CDU/CSU", and only because of them (one of the biggest political parties in germany, christian democratic union and christian social union, get it?). You forgot that China, India, Africa, Eastern europe and Russia= most of the world. The US, Canada and Western europe are pretty much the only places where gay marriage is an a vievable option. And, you know, US is on the fence.
He said "most of the non-religious world". Look at the percentage of religious people in the "majority" areas (africa/russia/china/arab states), and then look at their average educational level. I'm pretty sure you'd find that there's a correlation.
The countries that promote gay rights are the countries with the least religious interference, some of the highest living standards, and best educational levels.
|
United States7483 Posts
On July 31 2012 03:07 karpo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 02:11 naastyOne wrote:On July 31 2012 01:42 m4inbrain wrote:On July 31 2012 01:26 naastyOne wrote:On July 31 2012 01:12 Elsid wrote:On July 31 2012 01:09 naastyOne wrote:
I lowe the american pro gay fascism.
It is perfectly fine to have hatefull speach towards the people that do not share your stance. It is perfectly fine to openly call the the stupd, bigoted lesser people.
Wait a little more, and gas poisoning of people that are anti-gay would ba absolutely fine agenda. So essentially what you're saying is it's okay for a man to say that homosexuals don't deserve the rights afforded to heterosexuals even though they're two consenting adults, but on the contrary it's not okay to say that said opinion is stupid and bigoted? Also nice ridiculous use of the slippery slope argument Also you jump on the assumption that that kind of oppinion is stupid and bugoted by default, which it is not. Especially considering that most of the world is openly anti-gay. Well, no. Most of the religious world is openly anti-gay. Thats true. Muslims, christians, etc. Theres quite a difference. Your statement is not true for "most of the non-religeous" world. They're actually quite tolerant, except, of course, the US (20% of hatecrimes against homosexuals, well what do you know..). PS: in germany homosexuals can't marry because of the "CDU/CSU", and only because of them (one of the biggest political parties in germany, christian democratic union and christian social union, get it?). You forgot that China, India, Africa, Eastern europe and Russia= most of the world. The US, Canada and Western europe are pretty much the only places where gay marriage is an a vievable option. And, you know, US is on the fence. He said "most of the non-religious world". Look at the percentage of religious people in the "majority" areas (africa/russia/china/arab states), and then look at their average educational level. I'm pretty sure you'd find that there's a correlation. The countries that promote gay rights are the countries with the least religious interference, some of the highest living standards, and best educational levels.
Like Sweden, you lucky bastard =p.
|
On July 30 2012 06:32 Rannasha wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2012 06:18 The Final Boss wrote:On July 30 2012 05:14 Pleiades wrote:
I'd still go to a Chick Fil A for fast food. I'm not against their stance on gay-mariage or gay people in general. They have their opinions, so do we, and I respect that. The only thing I don't understand about their logic or other anti-gays, is why they have such an emphasis on using the biblical definition of marriage, when there are heterosexual couples that are non-christians getting legally married as well. Those couples wouldn't really care for a biblical definition. Too bad most democrat politicians aren't bold enough to make a stance on gay marriage or declare themselves non-christian. Frankly if you want to have a truly "secular state," then people should not be married in court rooms. Marriage is a term that has it's roots and has survived because of religion. It is so closely connected with religion that a truly secular state should stay away from using that specific word. They should use the term civil union for everybody because it does not step on any toes, it functions in a very similar way, and very specifically it puts a divide between the church and the state. People who are in favor of gay marriage but against the idea that they cannot get married in place of a civil union--that legally is the exact same thing by everything other than it's name--are just bigots who are determined to stomp all over anybody who is religious. If a couple wants to get married in addition to obtaining a civil union, then they can go to a church or similar place of worship and get married. The whole "marriage is a religious thing" business has come up many times before and it is simply not true. Marriage existed before christianity existed, marriage exists in cultures that have never been christian. Read up on the history of the concept on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MarriageIt's true that there was a time where church and state were the same thing (during the Dark Ages), so the civil concept of marriage was merged with the religious interpretation of the term. But these days church and state are being separated again (and rightfully so) and the concept of marriage is again being separated from what the church makes of it. I can get married without ever setting foot in a church (in fact, I did). The same is true in the US. Marriage is already a civil matter. The fact that you can have a religious ceremony as well is an afterthought. The religious marriage doesn't have any value in society as a whole, only in the subset of society that follows the same religion. And this is how it should be. And with this in mind, there is no reason to not extend the same rights to gays and lesbians. What the different religions do with their ceremonies is up to them to decide, but the marriage that counts for everyone should be available to everyone.
I never specified that marriage is inherently intertwined with Christianity, I said religion. Yes, marriage existed before Christianity, but religion existed before Christianity as well. Marriage is an institution that has for literally thousands of years been based around religion. It was created because of religion. It was kept because of religion. So if you want the secular state that many people call for, then why is it that they are so devoted on clinging to something that is in nature highly religious. Why are certain ceremonies and institutions that are thousands of years old no longer kept going by the government? Simply because they are religious and it has been decided that religion and state should be seperated.
The point that I am making is that marriage is the ceremony in the church, temple, or whatever else that has been going on for thousands of years--not two people in a court room. Of course, different religions have different forms of marriage, and all those are perfectly alright, but that is what marriage is. An institution that has been around and has been directly connected with religion for thousands of years should not be giving legal benefits in a secular state. Change the name to civil unions and if you want to get married then go find a church or some place that offers a marriage.
|
On July 31 2012 03:26 The Final Boss wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2012 06:32 Rannasha wrote:On July 30 2012 06:18 The Final Boss wrote:On July 30 2012 05:14 Pleiades wrote:
I'd still go to a Chick Fil A for fast food. I'm not against their stance on gay-mariage or gay people in general. They have their opinions, so do we, and I respect that. The only thing I don't understand about their logic or other anti-gays, is why they have such an emphasis on using the biblical definition of marriage, when there are heterosexual couples that are non-christians getting legally married as well. Those couples wouldn't really care for a biblical definition. Too bad most democrat politicians aren't bold enough to make a stance on gay marriage or declare themselves non-christian. Frankly if you want to have a truly "secular state," then people should not be married in court rooms. Marriage is a term that has it's roots and has survived because of religion. It is so closely connected with religion that a truly secular state should stay away from using that specific word. They should use the term civil union for everybody because it does not step on any toes, it functions in a very similar way, and very specifically it puts a divide between the church and the state. People who are in favor of gay marriage but against the idea that they cannot get married in place of a civil union--that legally is the exact same thing by everything other than it's name--are just bigots who are determined to stomp all over anybody who is religious. If a couple wants to get married in addition to obtaining a civil union, then they can go to a church or similar place of worship and get married. The whole "marriage is a religious thing" business has come up many times before and it is simply not true. Marriage existed before christianity existed, marriage exists in cultures that have never been christian. Read up on the history of the concept on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MarriageIt's true that there was a time where church and state were the same thing (during the Dark Ages), so the civil concept of marriage was merged with the religious interpretation of the term. But these days church and state are being separated again (and rightfully so) and the concept of marriage is again being separated from what the church makes of it. I can get married without ever setting foot in a church (in fact, I did). The same is true in the US. Marriage is already a civil matter. The fact that you can have a religious ceremony as well is an afterthought. The religious marriage doesn't have any value in society as a whole, only in the subset of society that follows the same religion. And this is how it should be. And with this in mind, there is no reason to not extend the same rights to gays and lesbians. What the different religions do with their ceremonies is up to them to decide, but the marriage that counts for everyone should be available to everyone. I never specified that marriage is inherently intertwined with Christianity, I said religion. Yes, marriage existed before Christianity, but religion existed before Christianity as well. Marriage is an institution that has for literally thousands of years been based around religion. It was created because of religion. It was kept because of religion. So if you want the secular state that many people call for, then why is it that they are so devoted on clinging to something that is in nature highly religious. Why are certain ceremonies and institutions that are thousands of years old no longer kept going by the government? Simply because they are religious and it has been decided that religion and state should be seperated. The point that I am making is that marriage is the ceremony in the church, temple, or whatever else that has been going on for thousands of years--not two people in a court room. Of course, different religions have different forms of marriage, and all those are perfectly alright, but that is what marriage is. An institution that has been around and has been directly connected with religion for thousands of years should not be giving legal benefits in a secular state. Change the name to civil unions and if you want to get married then go find a church or some place that offers a marriage.
You actually know that there are major religions (or better, were) that allowed gays to marry, right? Its not like "marriage is the thing between man, woman and god". It maybe was for the most part, but not in general. non-orthodox Jews, Hindus.. Look it up.
Hinduism predates "the church" by nearly 2000 years. Its religion. They've allowed gays (and btw, just to be complete here, bisexuals and transvestites) to "marry". They actually had a "thing" called: the third gender. But, i let you look it up, thats easier.
|
On July 31 2012 03:07 karpo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 02:11 naastyOne wrote:On July 31 2012 01:42 m4inbrain wrote:On July 31 2012 01:26 naastyOne wrote:On July 31 2012 01:12 Elsid wrote:On July 31 2012 01:09 naastyOne wrote:
I lowe the american pro gay fascism.
It is perfectly fine to have hatefull speach towards the people that do not share your stance. It is perfectly fine to openly call the the stupd, bigoted lesser people.
Wait a little more, and gas poisoning of people that are anti-gay would ba absolutely fine agenda. So essentially what you're saying is it's okay for a man to say that homosexuals don't deserve the rights afforded to heterosexuals even though they're two consenting adults, but on the contrary it's not okay to say that said opinion is stupid and bigoted? Also nice ridiculous use of the slippery slope argument Also you jump on the assumption that that kind of oppinion is stupid and bugoted by default, which it is not. Especially considering that most of the world is openly anti-gay. Well, no. Most of the religious world is openly anti-gay. Thats true. Muslims, christians, etc. Theres quite a difference. Your statement is not true for "most of the non-religeous" world. They're actually quite tolerant, except, of course, the US (20% of hatecrimes against homosexuals, well what do you know..). PS: in germany homosexuals can't marry because of the "CDU/CSU", and only because of them (one of the biggest political parties in germany, christian democratic union and christian social union, get it?). You forgot that China, India, Africa, Eastern europe and Russia= most of the world. The US, Canada and Western europe are pretty much the only places where gay marriage is an a vievable option. And, you know, US is on the fence. He said "most of the non-religious world". Look at the percentage of religious people in the "majority" areas (africa/russia/china/arab states), and then look at their average educational level. I'm pretty sure you'd find that there's a correlation. The countries that promote gay rights are the countries with the least religious interference, some of the highest living standards, and best educational levels.
Actualy Your view is simplified to say the least, Poland for example has significantly higher tertiary education ratios than Sweden yet majority of Poland's population is against gay marriages. The issue is much more complex than that.
Edit: source: http://www.uis.unesco.org/Library/Documents/ged06-en.pdf
|
On July 31 2012 03:54 Silvanel wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 03:07 karpo wrote:On July 31 2012 02:11 naastyOne wrote:On July 31 2012 01:42 m4inbrain wrote:On July 31 2012 01:26 naastyOne wrote:On July 31 2012 01:12 Elsid wrote:On July 31 2012 01:09 naastyOne wrote:
I lowe the american pro gay fascism.
It is perfectly fine to have hatefull speach towards the people that do not share your stance. It is perfectly fine to openly call the the stupd, bigoted lesser people.
Wait a little more, and gas poisoning of people that are anti-gay would ba absolutely fine agenda. So essentially what you're saying is it's okay for a man to say that homosexuals don't deserve the rights afforded to heterosexuals even though they're two consenting adults, but on the contrary it's not okay to say that said opinion is stupid and bigoted? Also nice ridiculous use of the slippery slope argument Also you jump on the assumption that that kind of oppinion is stupid and bugoted by default, which it is not. Especially considering that most of the world is openly anti-gay. Well, no. Most of the religious world is openly anti-gay. Thats true. Muslims, christians, etc. Theres quite a difference. Your statement is not true for "most of the non-religeous" world. They're actually quite tolerant, except, of course, the US (20% of hatecrimes against homosexuals, well what do you know..). PS: in germany homosexuals can't marry because of the "CDU/CSU", and only because of them (one of the biggest political parties in germany, christian democratic union and christian social union, get it?). You forgot that China, India, Africa, Eastern europe and Russia= most of the world. The US, Canada and Western europe are pretty much the only places where gay marriage is an a vievable option. And, you know, US is on the fence. He said "most of the non-religious world". Look at the percentage of religious people in the "majority" areas (africa/russia/china/arab states), and then look at their average educational level. I'm pretty sure you'd find that there's a correlation. The countries that promote gay rights are the countries with the least religious interference, some of the highest living standards, and best educational levels. Actualy Your view is simplified to say the least, Poland for example has significantly higher tertiary education ratios than Sweden yet majority of Poland's population is against gay marriages. The issue is much more complex than that. Edit: source: http://www.uis.unesco.org/Library/Documents/ged06-en.pdf
I wrote:
The countries that promote gay rights are the countries with the least religious interference , some of the highest living standards, and best educational levels.
From Wiki:
94% of Poles claim "they believe in God",
So again, the countries least affected by religious interference (coupled with higher education/living standard) are the ones that promote equal rights for all.
|
On July 31 2012 03:54 Silvanel wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 03:07 karpo wrote:On July 31 2012 02:11 naastyOne wrote:On July 31 2012 01:42 m4inbrain wrote:On July 31 2012 01:26 naastyOne wrote:On July 31 2012 01:12 Elsid wrote:On July 31 2012 01:09 naastyOne wrote:
I lowe the american pro gay fascism.
It is perfectly fine to have hatefull speach towards the people that do not share your stance. It is perfectly fine to openly call the the stupd, bigoted lesser people.
Wait a little more, and gas poisoning of people that are anti-gay would ba absolutely fine agenda. So essentially what you're saying is it's okay for a man to say that homosexuals don't deserve the rights afforded to heterosexuals even though they're two consenting adults, but on the contrary it's not okay to say that said opinion is stupid and bigoted? Also nice ridiculous use of the slippery slope argument Also you jump on the assumption that that kind of oppinion is stupid and bugoted by default, which it is not. Especially considering that most of the world is openly anti-gay. Well, no. Most of the religious world is openly anti-gay. Thats true. Muslims, christians, etc. Theres quite a difference. Your statement is not true for "most of the non-religeous" world. They're actually quite tolerant, except, of course, the US (20% of hatecrimes against homosexuals, well what do you know..). PS: in germany homosexuals can't marry because of the "CDU/CSU", and only because of them (one of the biggest political parties in germany, christian democratic union and christian social union, get it?). You forgot that China, India, Africa, Eastern europe and Russia= most of the world. The US, Canada and Western europe are pretty much the only places where gay marriage is an a vievable option. And, you know, US is on the fence. He said "most of the non-religious world". Look at the percentage of religious people in the "majority" areas (africa/russia/china/arab states), and then look at their average educational level. I'm pretty sure you'd find that there's a correlation. The countries that promote gay rights are the countries with the least religious interference, some of the highest living standards, and best educational levels. Actualy Your view is simplified to say the least, Poland for example has significantly higher tertiary education ratios than Sweden yet majority of Poland's population is against gay marriages. The issue is much more complex than that. Edit: source: http://www.uis.unesco.org/Library/Documents/ged06-en.pdf
The majority of poland also practise their faith (catholic, actually 95%[!!] of the polish people are catholic). Coincidence?
Edit: damn, beat me to it -.-
|
|
|
On July 31 2012 03:26 The Final Boss wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2012 06:32 Rannasha wrote:On July 30 2012 06:18 The Final Boss wrote:On July 30 2012 05:14 Pleiades wrote:
I'd still go to a Chick Fil A for fast food. I'm not against their stance on gay-mariage or gay people in general. They have their opinions, so do we, and I respect that. The only thing I don't understand about their logic or other anti-gays, is why they have such an emphasis on using the biblical definition of marriage, when there are heterosexual couples that are non-christians getting legally married as well. Those couples wouldn't really care for a biblical definition. Too bad most democrat politicians aren't bold enough to make a stance on gay marriage or declare themselves non-christian. Frankly if you want to have a truly "secular state," then people should not be married in court rooms. Marriage is a term that has it's roots and has survived because of religion. It is so closely connected with religion that a truly secular state should stay away from using that specific word. They should use the term civil union for everybody because it does not step on any toes, it functions in a very similar way, and very specifically it puts a divide between the church and the state. People who are in favor of gay marriage but against the idea that they cannot get married in place of a civil union--that legally is the exact same thing by everything other than it's name--are just bigots who are determined to stomp all over anybody who is religious. If a couple wants to get married in addition to obtaining a civil union, then they can go to a church or similar place of worship and get married. The whole "marriage is a religious thing" business has come up many times before and it is simply not true. Marriage existed before christianity existed, marriage exists in cultures that have never been christian. Read up on the history of the concept on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MarriageIt's true that there was a time where church and state were the same thing (during the Dark Ages), so the civil concept of marriage was merged with the religious interpretation of the term. But these days church and state are being separated again (and rightfully so) and the concept of marriage is again being separated from what the church makes of it. I can get married without ever setting foot in a church (in fact, I did). The same is true in the US. Marriage is already a civil matter. The fact that you can have a religious ceremony as well is an afterthought. The religious marriage doesn't have any value in society as a whole, only in the subset of society that follows the same religion. And this is how it should be. And with this in mind, there is no reason to not extend the same rights to gays and lesbians. What the different religions do with their ceremonies is up to them to decide, but the marriage that counts for everyone should be available to everyone. I never specified that marriage is inherently intertwined with Christianity, I said religion. Yes, marriage existed before Christianity, but religion existed before Christianity as well. Marriage is an institution that has for literally thousands of years been based around religion. It was created because of religion. It was kept because of religion. So if you want the secular state that many people call for, then why is it that they are so devoted on clinging to something that is in nature highly religious. Why are certain ceremonies and institutions that are thousands of years old no longer kept going by the government? Simply because they are religious and it has been decided that religion and state should be seperated. The point that I am making is that marriage is the ceremony in the church, temple, or whatever else that has been going on for thousands of years--not two people in a court room. Of course, different religions have different forms of marriage, and all those are perfectly alright, but that is what marriage is. An institution that has been around and has been directly connected with religion for thousands of years should not be giving legal benefits in a secular state. Change the name to civil unions and if you want to get married then go find a church or some place that offers a marriage.
If you prefer civil unions, then you better support equal rights for civil unions. Currently there are many cases of where civil unions are not equal to marriage.
|
Again. I said well educated, with good living standards. The anti gay european countries were all under the iron curtain until the late 80's. I wouldn't call what they got back then as either good education or good living standards compared to the other european countries.
|
On July 31 2012 01:49 Uracil wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 01:36 ayaz2810 wrote:
Why do people seem to think that opinions can't be wrong? If you're anti-gay, you ARE wrong. The only real argument against homosexuality is a religious one. And that is stupid considering that no religion has ever had a scrap of evidence supporting it. The very basis of your argument is already invalidated by that very important fact. You can bring up all the "scientific" evidence you want that homosexuality is wrong, but none of it is valid. I used to think that homosexuality was a genetic defect that had no benefits as far as survival of a species. Of course, I was uneducated. The simple fact is that homosexuality has occurred naturally throughout history, and exists in the animal kingdom. Why does it occur? There are many theories, but none of them has been proven conclusively true. Just because you don't understand why it happens, doesn't mean it's an abomination or unnatural. To think so is very narrow minded and ridiculous.
There are two types of people I can't stand in this world: the overtly religious, and anyone who discriminates against another group of people for a difference they were born with. It's a fucking shame that those two traits exist in the same person so frequently. Does not matter at all in this case. The only 2 questions that matter are. Is it illegal in the USA to openly speek against gay marriage and is it illegal to donate to anti gay marriage groups. I don't think that's the case. And when a company doesn't act against the law you can't just forbid them to open a restaurant.
This post here is what this current issue should be reduced to.
Hate the man if you dislike his views/beliefs but until there has been a law broken, cities/mayors denying that business for exercising their freedom of speech are shitting on the Constitution.
|
No, its actually pretty easy, but you just cant read facts. Let me quote some stuff for you.
"A Eurobarometer survey published on December 2006 showed that 21% of Estonians surveyed support same-sex marriage and 14% recognise same-sex couple's right to adopt (EU-wide average 44% and 33%).
A poll conducted in June 2009 showed that 32% of Estonians believe that same-sex couples should have the same legal rights as opposite-sex couples. Support was 40% among young people, but only 6% among older people."
Are you getting the problem? You see (i guess you know, but for some reason you neglect that fact - guess it would negate your "argument" asap, thats why you dismiss it), there are alot of est..s (what are they called oO) which lived under the soviet union. As you clearly can see, 6% from "older people", 40% amongst youngsters - guess what. It kinda explaines itself if you think about the fact that under stalin you could go 5 years into forced work in the mines if you touch a dick with the wrong intend. Now remember the fact that the average age in estland is ~40, and then remember when the soviet union went away.
.. again, it speaks for itself, of course they dont support gays, most of the citizens of estland are used to punish people for being gay. Great.
|
On July 31 2012 04:16 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 03:26 The Final Boss wrote:On July 30 2012 06:32 Rannasha wrote:On July 30 2012 06:18 The Final Boss wrote:On July 30 2012 05:14 Pleiades wrote:
I'd still go to a Chick Fil A for fast food. I'm not against their stance on gay-mariage or gay people in general. They have their opinions, so do we, and I respect that. The only thing I don't understand about their logic or other anti-gays, is why they have such an emphasis on using the biblical definition of marriage, when there are heterosexual couples that are non-christians getting legally married as well. Those couples wouldn't really care for a biblical definition. Too bad most democrat politicians aren't bold enough to make a stance on gay marriage or declare themselves non-christian. Frankly if you want to have a truly "secular state," then people should not be married in court rooms. Marriage is a term that has it's roots and has survived because of religion. It is so closely connected with religion that a truly secular state should stay away from using that specific word. They should use the term civil union for everybody because it does not step on any toes, it functions in a very similar way, and very specifically it puts a divide between the church and the state. People who are in favor of gay marriage but against the idea that they cannot get married in place of a civil union--that legally is the exact same thing by everything other than it's name--are just bigots who are determined to stomp all over anybody who is religious. If a couple wants to get married in addition to obtaining a civil union, then they can go to a church or similar place of worship and get married. The whole "marriage is a religious thing" business has come up many times before and it is simply not true. Marriage existed before christianity existed, marriage exists in cultures that have never been christian. Read up on the history of the concept on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MarriageIt's true that there was a time where church and state were the same thing (during the Dark Ages), so the civil concept of marriage was merged with the religious interpretation of the term. But these days church and state are being separated again (and rightfully so) and the concept of marriage is again being separated from what the church makes of it. I can get married without ever setting foot in a church (in fact, I did). The same is true in the US. Marriage is already a civil matter. The fact that you can have a religious ceremony as well is an afterthought. The religious marriage doesn't have any value in society as a whole, only in the subset of society that follows the same religion. And this is how it should be. And with this in mind, there is no reason to not extend the same rights to gays and lesbians. What the different religions do with their ceremonies is up to them to decide, but the marriage that counts for everyone should be available to everyone. I never specified that marriage is inherently intertwined with Christianity, I said religion. Yes, marriage existed before Christianity, but religion existed before Christianity as well. Marriage is an institution that has for literally thousands of years been based around religion. It was created because of religion. It was kept because of religion. So if you want the secular state that many people call for, then why is it that they are so devoted on clinging to something that is in nature highly religious. Why are certain ceremonies and institutions that are thousands of years old no longer kept going by the government? Simply because they are religious and it has been decided that religion and state should be seperated. The point that I am making is that marriage is the ceremony in the church, temple, or whatever else that has been going on for thousands of years--not two people in a court room. Of course, different religions have different forms of marriage, and all those are perfectly alright, but that is what marriage is. An institution that has been around and has been directly connected with religion for thousands of years should not be giving legal benefits in a secular state. Change the name to civil unions and if you want to get married then go find a church or some place that offers a marriage. If you prefer civil unions, then you better support equal rights for civil unions. Currently there are many cases of where civil unions are not equal to marriage.
There's an additional problem with civil unions. They're usually not that easily transferable across country borders. Marriage is a rather international concept and while the precise rights and obligations may vary slightly from country to country, the basic premise is universally accepted.
If I were to move from the Netherlands to the US, I could tell people that I am married and have the marriage registered legally after which I would get the legal and socioeconomic benefits of marriage in the US. If I were to tell people that I am in a civil union, I would have to define exactly what that means, hope that I end up in a state that even has a civil union in the same way. It's all messy.
In my country, you have 2 kinds of marriage. Civil marriage and religious marriage. If someone wants to get married, they have to get a civil marriage. Once that's done, they're legally married with all the rights and obligations that come with it. Afterwards, if people want to get a religious marriage, that's up to them to do afterwards (it has to be in that order, first civil then religious). And with that, everyone is happy. Straight and gay couples, regardless of religion, can get the marriage that actually counts in society and religious institutions can have their ceremony and execute it however they see fit, excluding whoever they want for whatever reason.
|
On July 31 2012 03:07 karpo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 02:11 naastyOne wrote:On July 31 2012 01:42 m4inbrain wrote:On July 31 2012 01:26 naastyOne wrote:On July 31 2012 01:12 Elsid wrote:On July 31 2012 01:09 naastyOne wrote:
I lowe the american pro gay fascism.
It is perfectly fine to have hatefull speach towards the people that do not share your stance. It is perfectly fine to openly call the the stupd, bigoted lesser people.
Wait a little more, and gas poisoning of people that are anti-gay would ba absolutely fine agenda. So essentially what you're saying is it's okay for a man to say that homosexuals don't deserve the rights afforded to heterosexuals even though they're two consenting adults, but on the contrary it's not okay to say that said opinion is stupid and bigoted? Also nice ridiculous use of the slippery slope argument Also you jump on the assumption that that kind of oppinion is stupid and bugoted by default, which it is not. Especially considering that most of the world is openly anti-gay. Well, no. Most of the religious world is openly anti-gay. Thats true. Muslims, christians, etc. Theres quite a difference. Your statement is not true for "most of the non-religeous" world. They're actually quite tolerant, except, of course, the US (20% of hatecrimes against homosexuals, well what do you know..). PS: in germany homosexuals can't marry because of the "CDU/CSU", and only because of them (one of the biggest political parties in germany, christian democratic union and christian social union, get it?). You forgot that China, India, Africa, Eastern europe and Russia= most of the world. The US, Canada and Western europe are pretty much the only places where gay marriage is an a vievable option. And, you know, US is on the fence. He said "most of the non-religious world". Look at the percentage of religious people in the "majority" areas (africa/russia/china/arab states), and then look at their average educational level. I'm pretty sure you'd find that there's a correlation. The countries that promote gay rights are the countries with the least religious interference, some of the highest living standards, and best educational levels.
This isn't necessarily true, as if the strength of religion over a nation's culture really was the defining characteristic to how accepting it is to homosexuality, then much of East Asia would be very open to same-sex relations and marriage as a whole. But this isn't the case.
|
On July 31 2012 04:16 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 03:26 The Final Boss wrote:On July 30 2012 06:32 Rannasha wrote:On July 30 2012 06:18 The Final Boss wrote:On July 30 2012 05:14 Pleiades wrote:
I'd still go to a Chick Fil A for fast food. I'm not against their stance on gay-mariage or gay people in general. They have their opinions, so do we, and I respect that. The only thing I don't understand about their logic or other anti-gays, is why they have such an emphasis on using the biblical definition of marriage, when there are heterosexual couples that are non-christians getting legally married as well. Those couples wouldn't really care for a biblical definition. Too bad most democrat politicians aren't bold enough to make a stance on gay marriage or declare themselves non-christian. Frankly if you want to have a truly "secular state," then people should not be married in court rooms. Marriage is a term that has it's roots and has survived because of religion. It is so closely connected with religion that a truly secular state should stay away from using that specific word. They should use the term civil union for everybody because it does not step on any toes, it functions in a very similar way, and very specifically it puts a divide between the church and the state. People who are in favor of gay marriage but against the idea that they cannot get married in place of a civil union--that legally is the exact same thing by everything other than it's name--are just bigots who are determined to stomp all over anybody who is religious. If a couple wants to get married in addition to obtaining a civil union, then they can go to a church or similar place of worship and get married. The whole "marriage is a religious thing" business has come up many times before and it is simply not true. Marriage existed before christianity existed, marriage exists in cultures that have never been christian. Read up on the history of the concept on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MarriageIt's true that there was a time where church and state were the same thing (during the Dark Ages), so the civil concept of marriage was merged with the religious interpretation of the term. But these days church and state are being separated again (and rightfully so) and the concept of marriage is again being separated from what the church makes of it. I can get married without ever setting foot in a church (in fact, I did). The same is true in the US. Marriage is already a civil matter. The fact that you can have a religious ceremony as well is an afterthought. The religious marriage doesn't have any value in society as a whole, only in the subset of society that follows the same religion. And this is how it should be. And with this in mind, there is no reason to not extend the same rights to gays and lesbians. What the different religions do with their ceremonies is up to them to decide, but the marriage that counts for everyone should be available to everyone. I never specified that marriage is inherently intertwined with Christianity, I said religion. Yes, marriage existed before Christianity, but religion existed before Christianity as well. Marriage is an institution that has for literally thousands of years been based around religion. It was created because of religion. It was kept because of religion. So if you want the secular state that many people call for, then why is it that they are so devoted on clinging to something that is in nature highly religious. Why are certain ceremonies and institutions that are thousands of years old no longer kept going by the government? Simply because they are religious and it has been decided that religion and state should be seperated. The point that I am making is that marriage is the ceremony in the church, temple, or whatever else that has been going on for thousands of years--not two people in a court room. Of course, different religions have different forms of marriage, and all those are perfectly alright, but that is what marriage is. An institution that has been around and has been directly connected with religion for thousands of years should not be giving legal benefits in a secular state. Change the name to civil unions and if you want to get married then go find a church or some place that offers a marriage. If you prefer civil unions, then you better support equal rights for civil unions. Currently there are many cases of where civil unions are not equal to marriage.
I'm saying take what we call marriage, change it's name to civil unions, and give it to whoever wants it.
|
On July 31 2012 04:28 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 03:07 karpo wrote:On July 31 2012 02:11 naastyOne wrote:On July 31 2012 01:42 m4inbrain wrote:On July 31 2012 01:26 naastyOne wrote:On July 31 2012 01:12 Elsid wrote:On July 31 2012 01:09 naastyOne wrote:
I lowe the american pro gay fascism.
It is perfectly fine to have hatefull speach towards the people that do not share your stance. It is perfectly fine to openly call the the stupd, bigoted lesser people.
Wait a little more, and gas poisoning of people that are anti-gay would ba absolutely fine agenda. So essentially what you're saying is it's okay for a man to say that homosexuals don't deserve the rights afforded to heterosexuals even though they're two consenting adults, but on the contrary it's not okay to say that said opinion is stupid and bigoted? Also nice ridiculous use of the slippery slope argument Also you jump on the assumption that that kind of oppinion is stupid and bugoted by default, which it is not. Especially considering that most of the world is openly anti-gay. Well, no. Most of the religious world is openly anti-gay. Thats true. Muslims, christians, etc. Theres quite a difference. Your statement is not true for "most of the non-religeous" world. They're actually quite tolerant, except, of course, the US (20% of hatecrimes against homosexuals, well what do you know..). PS: in germany homosexuals can't marry because of the "CDU/CSU", and only because of them (one of the biggest political parties in germany, christian democratic union and christian social union, get it?). You forgot that China, India, Africa, Eastern europe and Russia= most of the world. The US, Canada and Western europe are pretty much the only places where gay marriage is an a vievable option. And, you know, US is on the fence. He said "most of the non-religious world". Look at the percentage of religious people in the "majority" areas (africa/russia/china/arab states), and then look at their average educational level. I'm pretty sure you'd find that there's a correlation. The countries that promote gay rights are the countries with the least religious interference, some of the highest living standards, and best educational levels. This isn't necessarily true, as if the strength of religion over a nation's culture really was the defining characteristic to how accepting it is to homosexuality, then much of East Asia would be very open to same-sex relations and marriage as a whole. But this isn't the case.
It was.
"Homosexuality in China historically was regarded as a normal facet of life and the existence of homosexuality in China has been well documented since ancient times. Many early Chinese emperors are speculated to have had homosexual relationships, accompanied by heterosexual ones. Opposition to homosexuality and the rise of homophobia did not become firmly established in China until the 19th and 20th centuries, through the Westernization efforts of the late Qing Dynasty and early Republic of China."
I blatantly use wiki to quote, because english isnt my primary language and its alot easier for me.
As you can see, it WAS normal, until "we" came. And i bet, the same goes for the rest. I dont know the laws in japan, but they have something called "shonen ai", which at least let me think that they're pretty liberal.
Edit: just to be clear here. You can twist as much as you want, its a fact that "homophobia" is/was created by (western) religion. Nothing else. A "normal" non-religious person has absolutely no reason to hate on gays. None at all. I can tell you that because i could not care less about god, im heterosexual, im about to marry (not in a church, you dont need to marry in churches over here, called civil marriage) - and i could again not care less if a gay marries the love of his life. I wish them the best.
The only "institutions" where i actually heard stuff against gays, were in churches. Or in church-related institutions, nowhere else.
|
On July 31 2012 04:28 Rannasha wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 04:16 JinDesu wrote:On July 31 2012 03:26 The Final Boss wrote:On July 30 2012 06:32 Rannasha wrote:On July 30 2012 06:18 The Final Boss wrote:On July 30 2012 05:14 Pleiades wrote:
I'd still go to a Chick Fil A for fast food. I'm not against their stance on gay-mariage or gay people in general. They have their opinions, so do we, and I respect that. The only thing I don't understand about their logic or other anti-gays, is why they have such an emphasis on using the biblical definition of marriage, when there are heterosexual couples that are non-christians getting legally married as well. Those couples wouldn't really care for a biblical definition. Too bad most democrat politicians aren't bold enough to make a stance on gay marriage or declare themselves non-christian. Frankly if you want to have a truly "secular state," then people should not be married in court rooms. Marriage is a term that has it's roots and has survived because of religion. It is so closely connected with religion that a truly secular state should stay away from using that specific word. They should use the term civil union for everybody because it does not step on any toes, it functions in a very similar way, and very specifically it puts a divide between the church and the state. People who are in favor of gay marriage but against the idea that they cannot get married in place of a civil union--that legally is the exact same thing by everything other than it's name--are just bigots who are determined to stomp all over anybody who is religious. If a couple wants to get married in addition to obtaining a civil union, then they can go to a church or similar place of worship and get married. The whole "marriage is a religious thing" business has come up many times before and it is simply not true. Marriage existed before christianity existed, marriage exists in cultures that have never been christian. Read up on the history of the concept on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MarriageIt's true that there was a time where church and state were the same thing (during the Dark Ages), so the civil concept of marriage was merged with the religious interpretation of the term. But these days church and state are being separated again (and rightfully so) and the concept of marriage is again being separated from what the church makes of it. I can get married without ever setting foot in a church (in fact, I did). The same is true in the US. Marriage is already a civil matter. The fact that you can have a religious ceremony as well is an afterthought. The religious marriage doesn't have any value in society as a whole, only in the subset of society that follows the same religion. And this is how it should be. And with this in mind, there is no reason to not extend the same rights to gays and lesbians. What the different religions do with their ceremonies is up to them to decide, but the marriage that counts for everyone should be available to everyone. I never specified that marriage is inherently intertwined with Christianity, I said religion. Yes, marriage existed before Christianity, but religion existed before Christianity as well. Marriage is an institution that has for literally thousands of years been based around religion. It was created because of religion. It was kept because of religion. So if you want the secular state that many people call for, then why is it that they are so devoted on clinging to something that is in nature highly religious. Why are certain ceremonies and institutions that are thousands of years old no longer kept going by the government? Simply because they are religious and it has been decided that religion and state should be seperated. The point that I am making is that marriage is the ceremony in the church, temple, or whatever else that has been going on for thousands of years--not two people in a court room. Of course, different religions have different forms of marriage, and all those are perfectly alright, but that is what marriage is. An institution that has been around and has been directly connected with religion for thousands of years should not be giving legal benefits in a secular state. Change the name to civil unions and if you want to get married then go find a church or some place that offers a marriage. If you prefer civil unions, then you better support equal rights for civil unions. Currently there are many cases of where civil unions are not equal to marriage. There's an additional problem with civil unions. They're usually not that easily transferable across country borders. Marriage is a rather international concept and while the precise rights and obligations may vary slightly from country to country, the basic premise is universally accepted. If I were to move from the Netherlands to the US, I could tell people that I am married and have the marriage registered legally after which I would get the legal and socioeconomic benefits of marriage in the US. If I were to tell people that I am in a civil union, I would have to define exactly what that means, hope that I end up in a state that even has a civil union in the same way. It's all messy. In my country, you have 2 kinds of marriage. Civil marriage and religious marriage. If someone wants to get married, they have to get a civil marriage. Once that's done, they're legally married with all the rights and obligations that come with it. Afterwards, if people want to get a religious marriage, that's up to them to do afterwards (it has to be in that order, first civil then religious). And with that, everyone is happy. Straight and gay couples, regardless of religion, can get the marriage that actually counts in society and religious institutions can have their ceremony and execute it however they see fit, excluding whoever they want for whatever reason.
You can marry for the church without a civil marriage but you won't be registered as married by the state and won't have the benefits it gives. It's still possible though rest of your post is excellent.
|
On July 31 2012 04:25 m4inbrain wrote:No, its actually pretty easy, but you just cant read facts. Let me quote some stuff for you. "A Eurobarometer survey published on December 2006 showed that 21% of Estonians surveyed support same-sex marriage and 14% recognise same-sex couple's right to adopt (EU-wide average 44% and 33%). A poll conducted in June 2009 showed that 32% of Estonians believe that same-sex couples should have the same legal rights as opposite-sex couples. Support was 40% among young people, but only 6% among older people." Are you getting the problem? You see (i guess you know, but for some reason you neglect that fact - guess it would negate your "argument" asap, thats why you dismiss it), there are alot of est..s (what are they called oO) which lived under the soviet union. As you clearly can see, 6% from "older people", 40% amongst youngsters - guess what. It kinda explaines itself if you think about the fact that under stalin you could go 5 years into forced work in the mines if you touch a dick with the wrong intend. Now remember the fact that the average age in estland is ~40, and then remember when the soviet union went away. .. again, it speaks for itself, of course they dont support gays, most of the citizens of estland are used to punish people for being gay. Great.
Arguing over internet....once again i am getting this lesson.....
My last post here:
1) You know how much 40% is? As its not majority? 40% support gay marriages---->60% does not.
2)You are trying to show it like the only poor undecated religious fantics are against gay marriages. Thats not the case. Even if somehow all poor and below university degree and relgious people disappered from face of the earth, the majority of what left would still be against gay marriages. I myself know a lot of well situeted, not religious people with higher degree who are against it. As i was saying from the begining the issue is much more complex than that.
Ps. For the record: i am all for granting homesexual couples all sorts of different legal rights and priviliages.
|
It is not a complex issue. Lots of people on Earth are homophobes. Some of them hide behind the veil of religion, some are just okay with being homophobes. It's not that complex.
I would agree that saying "only religious or uneducated people oppose gay rights" is wrong. But it's not like this is rocket science. Fucking Thomas Jefferson was a deist and he owned slaves. Bigotry and discrimination are not exclusive to religion but that doesn't stop it from being bigotry and discrimination.
|
On July 31 2012 05:01 Silvanel wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 04:25 m4inbrain wrote:No, its actually pretty easy, but you just cant read facts. Let me quote some stuff for you. "A Eurobarometer survey published on December 2006 showed that 21% of Estonians surveyed support same-sex marriage and 14% recognise same-sex couple's right to adopt (EU-wide average 44% and 33%). A poll conducted in June 2009 showed that 32% of Estonians believe that same-sex couples should have the same legal rights as opposite-sex couples. Support was 40% among young people, but only 6% among older people." Are you getting the problem? You see (i guess you know, but for some reason you neglect that fact - guess it would negate your "argument" asap, thats why you dismiss it), there are alot of est..s (what are they called oO) which lived under the soviet union. As you clearly can see, 6% from "older people", 40% amongst youngsters - guess what. It kinda explaines itself if you think about the fact that under stalin you could go 5 years into forced work in the mines if you touch a dick with the wrong intend. Now remember the fact that the average age in estland is ~40, and then remember when the soviet union went away. .. again, it speaks for itself, of course they dont support gays, most of the citizens of estland are used to punish people for being gay. Great. Arguing over internet....once again i am getting this lesson..... My last post here: 1) You know how much 40% is? As its not majority? 40% support gay marriages---->60% does not. 2)You are trying to show it like the only poor undecated religious fantics are against gay marriages. Thats not the case. Even if somehow all poor and below university degree and relgious people disappered from face of the earth, the majority of what left would still be against gay marriages. I myself know a lot of well situeted, not religious people with higher degree who are against it. As i was saying from the begining the issue is much more complex than that. Ps. For the record: i am all for granting homesexual couples all sorts of different legal rights and priviliages.
And i've had educated, smart friends that are quite racist. Personal experiences aren't valid as proof of anything, it's about the big picture.
I've already responded to you about Estonia. They were opressed for ages and i wouldn't consider the education and quality of life to be on par with the "rest" of europe, especially if you look at average across total population. There's also the fact that the younger generation is more open to it yet still alot of this stuff trickles down from older generations.
It's not only about religion but religion plays a major role, maybe even the biggest role in this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
