|
On August 04 2012 02:30 M4nkind wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2012 01:07 APurpleCow wrote:On August 03 2012 19:16 M4nkind wrote:
Marriage is made for people that can produce children. Marriage of 2 people of the same sex must not exist. It should be called "Companionship" or something like it. They should invent new word and legalize it. If you cannot have normal family you cannot be called in the same names normal people are called. Its hilarious when people try to compare racial minorities and sexual minorities its the same as comparing vegetables with stones. You don't give a shit about whether or not people can have children, you just latch on to any excuse you can find, no matter how stupid or poorly thought-out, and use it to enforce your small-mindedness and hatred. Case in point: when the fuck did you ever care about sterile people getting married? Love how you think your own ignorance is more important than other people's happiness. What happens if you win? You say, "oh, okay...good", and that's that? Honestly, you people don't even really care about homosexuals (why the fuck would you?), you just feel threatened that religion is on the decline and want to fit in with your churches and social groups...so much so that you want to prevent me from marrying the person I love. I'm disgusted. If one does not live standard life why would he want to feel standard? If you are different from others why cant you live a different life. the thing with minorities that sometimes those people become more equal then the others.
Jesus.
So if someone doesn't live a "standard" life (who is defining standard? If your idea of "standard" is the Leave it to Beaver family I'd reckon 99.9999% of people don't live a "standard" life.) they shouldn't want to have equality? Interracial marriages weren't (and according to some people still) considered "standard". Following that logic they shouldn't have wanted to be on equal footing as couples of the same race. That line of reasoning is so stupid and trivial. You're grasping at straws.
Bottom line is marriage needs to be recognized ONLY BY THE STATE across the board. The state can call it anything it wants, the name is a nonfactor, they can just call people "fuck buddies" if they want, doesn't matter. But everyone regardless of any factors (race, religion, gay, straight, bi, trans, etc.) is called the exact same thing at the state level. That means your parent's are "married" or "fuck buddies" or whatever the state wants. The gay couple down the street are "married" or "fuck buddies" or whatever the state decides. Every single couple united in the eyes of the state must be given the same title for their union, across the board 100%. Again, the title doesn't matter.
Then your church can call it whatever the hell it wants. If the state picks the title "marriage" guess what? Tough shit. The point is what your religion wants to call it should have zero bearing on anything. The ONLY thing that matters is that the state calls it. They can't call it 2 different things one for straight couples and one for gay couples. We've done the "Separate but equal" thing before. Remember that whole civil rights movement? Yeah, fuck that.
|
|
|
Big mistake on the part of the Boston, Chicago, and SF mayors. You cannot even hope to ban a company with legal business practices from setting up shop somewhere just because their crazy CEO isn't in tune with the times, and threatening to do so wasn't wise. In fact, they probably made CFA even more popular with their antics, and tbh I'm a bit tired of hearing self-righteous fundies talking about how CFA is so holy and those respective mayors are evil people. Can't people eat some chicken without shitstorms like this?
|
On August 03 2012 19:16 M4nkind wrote:
Marriage is made for people that can produce children. Marriage of 2 people of the same sex must not exist. It should be called "Companionship" or something like it. They should invent new word and legalize it. If you cannot have normal family you cannot be called in the same names normal people are called. Its hilarious when people try to compare racial minorities and sexual minorities its the same as comparing vegetables with stones.
So then a man and a woman can't get married if one of them is sterile? What if they just don't plan on ever having kids, can they still get married? Are you for the states that allow 1st cousins to get married but not gay people? If so why? The bible is also against incest.
|
I actually would like to see a cut between (religious) Marriage and tax advantages.
Just invent the Husbandandwifycation, strap the tax and moneystuff on that, and declare "marriage in a church" as just a religious statement like confirmation. Anyone can get husbandandwifycated, can get the tax-advantages (hetero AND gay), with just one exception. You cant get husbandandwifycated if you are "married under god".
Sounds fair to me, especially considering all the fuss about marriage being a thing between man and god, and not the financial department. Should not be that much of a problem for the religious guys, should it?
|
On August 04 2012 08:30 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2012 19:16 M4nkind wrote:
Marriage is made for people that can produce children. Marriage of 2 people of the same sex must not exist. It should be called "Companionship" or something like it. They should invent new word and legalize it. If you cannot have normal family you cannot be called in the same names normal people are called. Its hilarious when people try to compare racial minorities and sexual minorities its the same as comparing vegetables with stones. So then a man and a woman can't get married if one of them is sterile? What if they just don't plan on ever having kids, can they still get married? Are you for the states that allow 1st cousins to get married but not gay people? If so why? The bible is also against incest.
Maybe I forced my opinion too strongly here. I myself see no point in getting married if you don't plan on having children or adopting them and making a family. I really can't imagine 2 people of the same sex doing it. And I believe its not only me who can hardly imagine that. Maybe in time things will change but why are they rushing things so much? They are getting their rights little by little, but they want everything at the same time. This modern way of life does not make us any better. The "family" thing should be valued more. All the good old values are lost in modern times.
|
On August 04 2012 13:07 M4nkind wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2012 08:30 hunts wrote:On August 03 2012 19:16 M4nkind wrote:
Marriage is made for people that can produce children. Marriage of 2 people of the same sex must not exist. It should be called "Companionship" or something like it. They should invent new word and legalize it. If you cannot have normal family you cannot be called in the same names normal people are called. Its hilarious when people try to compare racial minorities and sexual minorities its the same as comparing vegetables with stones. So then a man and a woman can't get married if one of them is sterile? What if they just don't plan on ever having kids, can they still get married? Are you for the states that allow 1st cousins to get married but not gay people? If so why? The bible is also against incest. Maybe I forced my opinion too strongly here. I myself see no point in getting married if you don't plan on having children or adopting them and making a family. I really can't imagine 2 people of the same sex doing it. And I believe its not only me who can hardly imagine that. Maybe in time things will change but why are they rushing things so much? They are getting their rights little by little, but they want everything at the same time. This modern way of life does not make us any better. The "family" thing should be valued more. All the good old values are lost in modern times.
What "good old values" are lost? I'm not gay so this wouldn't directly effect me, I just can't see why other straight people would want to deny them the right to get married when it literally will never in any way shape or form directly effect any straight person out there.
|
On August 04 2012 10:13 m4inbrain wrote:
I actually would like to see a cut between (religious) Marriage and tax advantages.
Just invent the Husbandandwifycation, strap the tax and moneystuff on that, and declare "marriage in a church" as just a religious statement like confirmation. Anyone can get husbandandwifycated, can get the tax-advantages (hetero AND gay), with just one exception. You cant get husbandandwifycated if you are "married under god".
Sounds fair to me, especially considering all the fuss about marriage being a thing between man and god, and not the financial department. Should not be that much of a problem for the religious guys, should it?
I know there are other differences between straight and gay couples when it comes to benefits and all, but with regards to taxes, what if the tax system were reformed to recognize people more equally? By fixing the tax code to be more equal (even a flat tax for individuals would suffice, though I think there are better options), you "kill two birds with one stone" as this would solve the issue of tax differences between marriages and civil unions.
I realize it sounds like a red herring, but I'm really trying to resolve two problems with one common solution. What do you think?
|
You can't attempt to ban a fast food chain because it doesn't like gays. That's immeasurably stupid and the politicians attempting this can't possibly stupid enough to think that it will work. It does, however, bring in votes from homosexuals and homosexual sympathizers. So I guess it's immeasurably stupid and also smart. But if I lost my waffle fries and chicken for no good reason I'd probably be pretty pissed about it, so I guess we will see.
|
I am a bit concerned though because it's not like the people of Boston got a say in this matter and I'm not sure if I'm comfortable knowing a city can just stop a company from doing business with it because of something that's completely separate from business.
That's the rub. Speak all you want as a mayor, I say. But use your office for political activism and you cross the line. Owners of a private company speaking for themselves can take controversial stances, donate money to whatever nonprofits they want, and preach their views. For a mayor or governor to say, "You can't open business here because of your religious and political beliefs" that's cutting past their proper exercise of powers. I'm for structural limitations on powers and leave the political beliefs to protestors, encouragement of boycotts, high ranking individuals criticizing their beliefs.
But they are forced by law to hire gays, lesbians, bisexual, and transgender workers. They are also currently serving GLBT customers their chicken. The mayor does not allege that Chick Fil A violates law in its hiring practices or its customer service. But if I think Gay Marriage is a great idea, I can open a fast food joint in Boston, no problem. In 2004 our current president said he thinksmarriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman . Am I to believe the mayors of Chicago and Boston would have prevented Barack Obama from opening a restaurant in either city back then? (His views have since changed).
I'm for colorblind, deaf regulations. If your business passes health codes, labor codes, zoning codes, what have you ... it doesn't matter if you support the death penalty, banning books, or public nudity and speak about it. You get your business license and exercise your free speech in separate realms. I say again, there are laws on the books on discriminative hiring practices and refusal of service ... and you obey or are prosecuted/fined. Lose your license.
As a side note, brought up by columnist Mark Steyn, Mayor Melino had no problem giving 1.8$ million dollars of municipal land to the new mosque of the Islamic Society of Boston. Trustees of this society have openly called for the killing of gays ... one of the trustees even was quoted as saying,
Some say we should throw them from a high place
Some say we should burn them, and so on . No problem.
It would seem tolerance only applies to one ideological line. Shut your mouth now, or I will use my offices to deny you the permission to run your business in my city, period.
I'll leave you with a paragraph from the Steyn article:
But political winds shift. Once upon a time, Massachusetts burned witches. Now it grills chicken-sandwich homophobes. One day it'll be something else. Already in Europe, in previously gay-friendly cities like Amsterdam, demographically surging Muslim populations have muted politicians' commitment to gay rights, feminism and much else.
It's easy to cheer on the thugs when they're thuggish in your name. What happens when Emanuel's political needs change?
|
On August 04 2012 13:07 M4nkind wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2012 08:30 hunts wrote:On August 03 2012 19:16 M4nkind wrote:
Marriage is made for people that can produce children. Marriage of 2 people of the same sex must not exist. It should be called "Companionship" or something like it. They should invent new word and legalize it. If you cannot have normal family you cannot be called in the same names normal people are called. Its hilarious when people try to compare racial minorities and sexual minorities its the same as comparing vegetables with stones. So then a man and a woman can't get married if one of them is sterile? What if they just don't plan on ever having kids, can they still get married? Are you for the states that allow 1st cousins to get married but not gay people? If so why? The bible is also against incest. Maybe I forced my opinion too strongly here. I myself see no point in getting married if you don't plan on having children or adopting them and making a family. I really can't imagine 2 people of the same sex doing it. And I believe its not only me who can hardly imagine that. Maybe in time things will change but why are they rushing things so much? They are getting their rights little by little, but they want everything at the same time. This modern way of life does not make us any better. The "family" thing should be valued more. All the good old values are lost in modern times.
Lol there are plenty of gay people who love each other and want to adopt children and in fact have. Just look at Neil Patrick Harris for example. You can personally not agree with it. in fact i'm not gay and i find the idea of 2 guys doing it disgusting. However I will defend their rights to choose to be married to the person they love. Because that is their freedom of choice, not mine. This has nothing to do with religion or your own personal view of the world and its institutions. This is about humans rights and freedoms
|
On August 04 2012 14:08 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote + I am a bit concerned though because it's not like the people of Boston got a say in this matter and I'm not sure if I'm comfortable knowing a city can just stop a company from doing business with it because of something that's completely separate from business. That's the rub. Speak all you want as a mayor, I say. But use your office for political activism and you cross the line. Owners of a private company speaking for themselves can take controversial stances, donate money to whatever nonprofits they want, and preach their views. For a mayor or governor to say, "You can't open business here because of your religious and political beliefs" that's cutting past their proper exercise of powers. I'm for structural limitations on powers and leave the political beliefs to protestors, encouragement of boycotts, high ranking individuals criticizing their beliefs. But they are forced by law to hire gays, lesbians, bisexual, and transgender workers. They are also currently serving GLBT customers their chicken. The mayor does not allege that Chick Fil A violates law in its hiring practices or its customer service. But if I think Gay Marriage is a great idea, I can open a fast food joint in Boston, no problem. In 2004 our current president said he thinks . Am I to believe the mayors of Chicago and Boston would have prevented Barack Obama from opening a restaurant in either city back then? (His views have since changed). I'm for colorblind, deaf regulations. If your business passes health codes, labor codes, zoning codes, what have you ... it doesn't matter if you support the death penalty, banning books, or public nudity and speak about it. You get your business license and exercise your free speech in separate realms. I say again, there are laws on the books on discriminative hiring practices and refusal of service ... and you obey or are prosecuted/fined. Lose your license. As a side note, brought up by columnist Mark Steyn, Mayor Melino had no problem giving 1.8$ million dollars of municipal land to the new mosque of the Islamic Society of Boston. Trustees of this society have openly called for the killing of gays ... one of the trustees even was quoted as saying, Show nested quote +Some say we should throw them from a high place
Some say we should burn them, and so on . No problem. It would seem tolerance only applies to one ideological line. Shut your mouth now, or I will use my offices to deny you the permission to run your business in my city, period. I'll leave you with a paragraph from the Steyn article: Show nested quote +But political winds shift. Once upon a time, Massachusetts burned witches. Now it grills chicken-sandwich homophobes. One day it'll be something else. Already in Europe, in previously gay-friendly cities like Amsterdam, demographically surging Muslim populations have muted politicians' commitment to gay rights, feminism and much else.
It's easy to cheer on the thugs when they're thuggish in your name. What happens when Emanuel's political needs change?
Ehh maybe nitpicking but that paragraph in the article isn't true. Amsterdam is still gay friendly and there's a gay pride going on thereright t now with a 0 tolerance policy against anyone causing trouble. I agree with the rest of your post though.
|
Meh, I have a lot more respect for people who say they don't especially like gay people but support their rights on the grounds of equality and human rights than those who are againt their rights but insist they're totally not homophobic or talk about having 'gay friends.'
Just as an example, and not to derail the thread, but I personally find prostitution disgusting and problematic, and I would personally not want to be friends with someone who openly participated in and enjoyed such things. And it's in my complete and utter right to have this opinion and preference. On the other hand, regardless of my personal feelings of repulsion about the practice, I still fully recognize that what business transactions happen between two consenting adults, so long as those actions do not harm anyone unwilling, are none of my fucking business, and I support legalization of prostitution because I realize I'm not the only person on this earth and I can't demand that people outlaw things because I happen to think they're icky, because my holy book says so, or on any grounds of morality. I have my morals, I recognize that other people have their own.
So I have a lot more respect for all those who admit they're uncomfortable with gay people and would rather not be closely acquainted with any and yet have compassion where it matters rather any than those who cry about how tolerant and loving they are (hate the sins, not the sinners, etc), and yet try to deny them the rights that they objectively very much deserve. I don't get why some people keep lying to themselves about how loving and Christ-like they are while working against equality when I'm rather sure that most gay people would rather have their rights than anyone's hypocritical love.
|
On August 03 2012 22:11 M4nkind wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2012 19:33 Tobberoth wrote:On August 03 2012 19:16 M4nkind wrote:
Marriage is made for people that can produce children. Marriage of 2 people of the same sex must not exist. It should be called "Companionship" or something like it. They should invent new word and legalize it. If you cannot have normal family you cannot be called in the same names normal people are called. Its hilarious when people try to compare racial minorities and sexual minorities its the same as comparing vegetables with stones. Um, who decided that Marriage is made for people that can produce children? Thats a complete BS statement and I have no idea where you got such a ridiculous idea. Are you basically saying that infertile men and women can't get married? Or that women have to divorce once they hit 45+? Marriage IS companionship, you don't need a new term at all, you just need close minded people to realize that marriage is a broader term than they think. "Marriage" is religious where "companionship" could be the wide term. It would make everyone happy and all would have equal rights instead of going at "normal" people throats. Not everyone can accept homosexuals why don't they just understand and live with it instead of trying to convert whole world? Compromise with system is as good as win over system.
marriage isnt religious
underlined the funny bits ;D
On August 04 2012 13:33 ampson wrote:
You can't attempt to ban a fast food chain because it doesn't like gays. That's immeasurably stupid and the politicians attempting this can't possibly stupid enough to think that it will work. It does, however, bring in votes from homosexuals and homosexual sympathizers. So I guess it's immeasurably stupid and also smart. But if I lost my waffle fries and chicken for no good reason I'd probably be pretty pissed about it, so I guess we will see.
for a long time the american right has either ignored the rules or changed them to cheat the system, the american left has looked weak for being the 'good guys'. as much as i dislike that they have stopped taking the high road, the senate leader being a tool and now the chick fil a hate, the lack of americans calling the gop on their bullshit leads directly to this.
you dont hate that the liberals are being dicks, you hate that they are playing the same game as the right
On August 04 2012 10:13 m4inbrain wrote:
I actually would like to see a cut between (religious) Marriage and tax advantages.
Just invent the Husbandandwifycation, strap the tax and moneystuff on that, and declare "marriage in a church" as just a religious statement like confirmation. Anyone can get husbandandwifycated, can get the tax-advantages (hetero AND gay), with just one exception. You cant get husbandandwifycated if you are "married under god".
Sounds fair to me, especially considering all the fuss about marriage being a thing between man and god, and not the financial department. Should not be that much of a problem for the religious guys, should it?
this is already the case in most countries. they are both still called marriage, but you can easily get married without a church to be legally binded and have all the rights and advantages of that, you could just as easily have a ceremony in a church that would be completely meaningless in the legal sense.
i have no idea about how the US deals with this kind of thing though
|
On August 04 2012 21:43 turdburgler wrote:
this is already the case in most countries. they are both still called marriage, but you can easily get married without a church to be legally binded and have all the rights and advantages of that, you could just as easily have a ceremony in a church that would be completely meaningless in the legal sense.
i have no idea about how the US deals with this kind of thing though
Not American, but I'm pretty sure that it's the case in the US as well (separation of church and state and all, at least in theory). A wedding ceremony in a church means jackshit if you don't also obtain your legally-binding wedding license. (On that note, think of how funny it would be if it weren't the case, and any wedding ceremony in a church in which a couple said 'I do' in front of an audience were legally-binding. Some actors who have filmed a wedding scene for a movie/TV show could claim now being legally marriedto their co-star if they were crazy enough, lol).
That's one reason why the whole 'but marriage is a religious concept' argument is so asinine; some people seem to have a lot of trouble grasping what separation of church and state is all about, and that 'freedom of religion' also means (or should mean) 'freedom FROM religion.'
|
On August 04 2012 13:07 M4nkind wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2012 08:30 hunts wrote:On August 03 2012 19:16 M4nkind wrote:
Marriage is made for people that can produce children. Marriage of 2 people of the same sex must not exist. It should be called "Companionship" or something like it. They should invent new word and legalize it. If you cannot have normal family you cannot be called in the same names normal people are called. Its hilarious when people try to compare racial minorities and sexual minorities its the same as comparing vegetables with stones. So then a man and a woman can't get married if one of them is sterile? What if they just don't plan on ever having kids, can they still get married? Are you for the states that allow 1st cousins to get married but not gay people? If so why? The bible is also against incest. Maybe I forced my opinion too strongly here. I myself see no point in getting married if you don't plan on having children or adopting them and making a family.
Straight people marry for the purpose of tax breaks all the time. Should they be prevented from marrying?
|
lol at thinking I would read an intelligent discussion on this topic :D
|
On August 04 2012 08:30 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2012 19:16 M4nkind wrote:
Marriage is made for people that can produce children. Marriage of 2 people of the same sex must not exist. It should be called "Companionship" or something like it. They should invent new word and legalize it. If you cannot have normal family you cannot be called in the same names normal people are called. Its hilarious when people try to compare racial minorities and sexual minorities its the same as comparing vegetables with stones. So then a man and a woman can't get married if one of them is sterile? What if they just don't plan on ever having kids, can they still get married? Are you for the states that allow 1st cousins to get married but not gay people? If so why? The bible is also against incest.
Also women above 45ish can't get married then.
|
|
|
I really don't see the difference between this and a conservative vowing to ban gay marriage in his or her city or state.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
