|
On March 01 2013 19:10 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 19:07 Zeo wrote:On March 01 2013 18:54 pbjsandwich wrote:On March 01 2013 18:49 jalstar wrote:On March 01 2013 18:46 pbjsandwich wrote:
It matters
Maybe it's not so much about the word marriage but the fact that if the Supreme Court does not overturn prop 8 then that is a stance of the Federal Government to discriminate against Gays.
This is a fight for Gays to not be seen as different or unnatural but to be seen as a normal regular relationship.
In California the difference between a civil union and a marriage is the word used. It's not discrimination to give people the same rights but call it a different word. This is a social issue and goes beyond what is just allowed in the eyes of the government Why do homosexuals have to been seen in a different light at all. Why must they be subjected to a Civil Union rather than a Marriage? IS the government saying that they are not equal or the same? Why do homosexuals have to be called homosexuals, lets call everything 'people'. In the end, all 'people' are getting screwed over by Obama. While he talks about useless bottomless pit subjects that affect 1% of the population, things that affect 100% of you are swept under the rug. Good job, you are bringing a tear of joy to criminals faces Well if you have to talk about Gay marriage or the gigantic, ever increasing debt, the still weak economy, the large number of people on foodstamps, or the projection that your landmark healthcare bill actually WILL add to the debt, which would you choose?
All this is just showing that you're more focused on party politics rather than an objective solution to a problem.
On March 01 2013 19:12 karpotoss wrote:
Personally i think that marriage should stay within two people of opposite sex. Reason why is that homosexual people can't have babies, so they are not contributing in "creating" next generations. Homosexual people would like to have "equal rights", but without the duties.
I can't believe this is an actual post.
Like how much thought actually went into this lmao
Gay people can't adopt? Non Gay couples all have kids? Kids are contributing to the next generation when we are having an overpopulation issue?
Come on
|
On March 01 2013 19:03 pbjsandwich wrote:
IDK if It's like this in Sweden but here a lot of people describe themselves as like "social + economic conservative"
separating the 2
Sweden is a lot more socially liberal and the democrats probably lean more to the right than our most right-wing party. So ofc things are different.
I can understand that you believe in a different set of morals and so forth, what I find odd is that people are so hypocritical they actually end up using an argument for one part of what they believe in, even though they're entirely against the very same argument in other areas. Either you think its fine that there are laws regarding lifestyles or you dont, it is silly to chose that only your lifestyle should be unaffected.
Edit:
On March 01 2013 19:12 karpotoss wrote:
Personally i think that marriage should stay within two people of opposite sex. Reason why is that homosexual people can't have babies, so they are not contributing in "creating" next generations. Homosexual people would like to have "equal rights", but without the duties.
Thats not true, there are many homosexual couples who want to adopt children as well and "contribute". While they may not actually give birth to the child (with two women one of them actually could but anyway), they would still have the same "duties".
|
There really isn't much logic to either sides of America's 2 parties
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
back in the days when societal approval meant a forceful intervention into the lives of everyone, marriage as a "social institution" would have made sense. but it only made sense within that kind of society. there is no sanctity being offended if no sanctimonious hand wants to reach into gay people's affairs.
the social approval argument is a rather straightforward resurrection of social tyranny. would be nice for its supporters to accept it as such.
|
On March 01 2013 19:10 pbjsandwich wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 19:03 Introvert wrote:On March 01 2013 18:52 pbjsandwich wrote:
So what you're saying is that your religion
If not for Justice Black's "idiocy" would be the reigning religion? You see the problem there? Not even the founding fathers were devout christians. I don't see why you have asuch ahuge problem with Justice Black's landmark decision that is widely respected and modern.
In CA and other states they allowed gay MARRIAGE. Then it became an issue for the right wing. It was allowed now it's being disallowed. Gays were happily married for YEARS until recently where they were forced to revoke their status.
Why? Honestly. Why. Would you be ok with it if the government said that Marriage can be between 2 men or 2 women? Because that seems tobe what your argument is standing on. Most of the founding fathers held some sort of Church based education. Most of them were undeniably religious, and based much of what they did and said on it. ( I am aware they were not saints. Very few are!) Do I really have to go this far back? No matter, don't have the time. (for example, Congress used used to hold Sunday Church sessions! Fancy that happening now, huh?) the entire Constitution is a restriction on government, not the people. It was to avoid setting up an official Church (Like in England, from where many of the colonists left for that reason). The states even continued to have state funded Churches AFTER the Constitution's ratification! They clearly meant NOTHING similar to what the Court did in Everson. Those are just two examples. My point, the "religious right" didn't start this. The gays just got angry that some of the religious refused to recognize or accommodate it. It is still a huge societal shift because it was rather rare before, and now it is front and center, with it occurring more often. I'm not saying that gay marriage never happened up until now, obviously. Sorry for some bad grammar and things of the sort, I really do need sleep. (but I always find ONE more thing to respond to.) Again, I don't know why so many act as if all of morality and the like was primitive or simply non-existent before they deiced to use their own brilliant mind to think about it. The lack of Constitutional knowledge in this thread alone proof enough no one knows jack. That's all irrelevant? The separation of church and state existed before the Justice decided toset a precedent for it but this idea was based on the writings of John Locke who heavily influenced the framework for our country. Yes, our early government (and population) were all religious and held their beliefs strongly the idea of the seperation of church and state still existed (obviously, considering no politician back then would even try and get a law passed on the word of God) but we have progressed to a country that holds many different types of people with different types of religions and I thought as a nation most people has recognized this. There's nothing about your religion that makes it better than mines or anyone else's. So why must the right (who hold power solely due to this broken political system and it's history) feel like their ideas (based on 1 religion) must be right? This whole ideology is so bad that we can't even get a Jewish president elected.
The basis of our Constitution is the founders, who used Locke. we do not interpret the document using Locke directly.
You are right, there are many of them, so they get to decide, no? So when an Evangelical says NO and you say YES you are both equal. But then you would throw in Civil rights, and they would use morality. Because people have different views on something does not mean we take the non-moral view by default. I am simply amazed that you dismiss such a large portion of the population because you disagree. This is amazing. "Everyone is different, so we should choose my way!" is not a good reason. The right holds the house because they were elected (by the same majority who elected Obama.) You really think there are so many more liberals that they only reason the Republicans are around is because of a bad system? Three branches and two houses is MINORITY protection, something the left LOVES to talk about.
I really am going to bed now, but just think about what you said. "There are many different views, thus we should take mine."
|
I am not saying that at all. I am not dismissing a part of the country (like you are)
but there is nothing to your argument against gay marriage other than it does not go with your beliefs
When there is nothing different about a homosexual than your belief that they are somehow different than me and you.
I asked this question before. If the federal government said that marriage was suddenly ok between same sexes would you be ok with it? And if so then why not?
This is marriage as a government institution because no matter how much you argue about it there is a seperation of church and state and your church beliefs have no ground in this situation.
EDIT: Let me also add that there is an objective moral view in this situation and it is spelled out in the constitution. We are all created equal buddy.
|
On March 01 2013 19:14 pbjsandwich wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 19:10 Introvert wrote:On March 01 2013 19:07 Zeo wrote:On March 01 2013 18:54 pbjsandwich wrote:On March 01 2013 18:49 jalstar wrote:On March 01 2013 18:46 pbjsandwich wrote:
It matters
Maybe it's not so much about the word marriage but the fact that if the Supreme Court does not overturn prop 8 then that is a stance of the Federal Government to discriminate against Gays.
This is a fight for Gays to not be seen as different or unnatural but to be seen as a normal regular relationship.
In California the difference between a civil union and a marriage is the word used. It's not discrimination to give people the same rights but call it a different word. This is a social issue and goes beyond what is just allowed in the eyes of the government Why do homosexuals have to been seen in a different light at all. Why must they be subjected to a Civil Union rather than a Marriage? IS the government saying that they are not equal or the same? Why do homosexuals have to be called homosexuals, lets call everything 'people'. In the end, all 'people' are getting screwed over by Obama. While he talks about useless bottomless pit subjects that affect 1% of the population, things that affect 100% of you are swept under the rug. Good job, you are bringing a tear of joy to criminals faces Well if you have to talk about Gay marriage or the gigantic, ever increasing debt, the still weak economy, the large number of people on foodstamps, or the projection that your landmark healthcare bill actually WILL add to the debt, which would you choose? All this is just showing that you're more focused on party politics rather than an objective solution to a problem.
I suppose you are right. if I point out the failure of the president, it's because I'm partisan. I remember the democrats screaming at the top of their lungs about 10 trillion. Now? Nope! Our debt is now worth more than the ENTIRE country produces in a year. It's not like 17 TRILLION dollars is such a big deal now, huh? I don't trust the man who continues to make the problem worse after promising to make it better. Especially when he acts like the sky is falling if a 2% reduction (his idea) is actually implemented. He wants to be "balanced" but can't cut 2%? But this is off topic.
|
You see how that's absolutely terrible?
People throughout the country like you are deciding and arguing against the fate of innocent people who are just trying to get married because of the anger stirred up through meaningless politics.
|
Netherlands6142 Posts
On March 01 2013 18:49 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 18:46 pbjsandwich wrote:
It matters
Maybe it's not so much about the word marriage but the fact that if the Supreme Court does not overturn prop 8 then that is a stance of the Federal Government to discriminate against Gays.
This is a fight for Gays to not be seen as different or unnatural but to be seen as a normal regular relationship.
In California the difference between a civil union and a marriage is the word used. It's not discrimination to give people the same rights but call it a different word.
It's not discrimination to call certain people certain words? Really?
|
On March 01 2013 19:26 Pholon wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 18:49 jalstar wrote:On March 01 2013 18:46 pbjsandwich wrote:
It matters
Maybe it's not so much about the word marriage but the fact that if the Supreme Court does not overturn prop 8 then that is a stance of the Federal Government to discriminate against Gays.
This is a fight for Gays to not be seen as different or unnatural but to be seen as a normal regular relationship.
In California the difference between a civil union and a marriage is the word used. It's not discrimination to give people the same rights but call it a different word. It's not discrimination to call certain people certain words? Really?
"separate but equal" am I right?
|
On March 01 2013 19:23 pbjsandwich wrote:
I am not saying that at all. I am not dismissing a part of the country (like you are)
but there is nothing to your argument against gay marriage other than it does not go with your beliefs
When there is nothing different about a homosexual than your belief that they are somehow different than me and you.
I asked this question before. If the federal government said that marriage was suddenly ok between same sexes would you be ok with it? And if so then why not?
This is marriage as a government institution because no matter how much you argue about it there is a seperation of church and state and your church beliefs have no ground in this situation.
EDIT: Let me also add that there is an objective moral view in this situation and it is spelled out in the constitution. We are all created equal buddy.
First, it differs from quite a few people's beliefs. (Hell, even in CA over half the voters agreed with "my beliefs!") I am saying the people get to choose, not the government.
btw, "all created equal" is in the Declaration, but the Constitution is based on the Declaration, so I get your point (be careful though, the Declaration mentions God!) But it's not spelled out in the Con. even murderers (for lack of a FAR less extreme example) are equal, but they aren't allowed to go around murdering. (I know it's different, but my point is, some things that equal people do are wrong. In fact, that's all of human history.)
Ok, the level of ignorance on the Constitution and American history is too.. well, you know the rest.
And on that note, I'm going to get some rest.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
well when you make a passing reference to equality for murderers in a discussion about same sex people wanting to get married, you do need to take a break and calm down.
|
On the note of a very weak argument
Like what are you even trying to say? You'll fight for the doctrine that says that marriage is between a man and a women but suddenly when this doesn't go your way you'll argue against it?
You're killing me here. Maybe you should rethink your stance
EDIT: I really have to say it's quite amazing how strongly someone can feel about something with such flimsy reasoning
Hey if you're a homophobe just admit it rather than dancing around trying to hide behind politics. Most of the republicans have basically come out as such.
|
On March 01 2013 19:34 oneofthem wrote:
well when you make a passing reference to equality for murderers in a discussion about same sex people wanting to get married, you do need to take a break and calm down.
I am in a hurry to sleep, so I picked one. It's hard coming up with things less extreme than that that all people would agree is wrong. Obviously homosexuals ARE NOT IN ANY WAY LIKE OR ON THE LEVEL OF MURDERERS. gn
|
You are right, there are many of them, so they get to decide, no? So when an Evangelical says NO and you say YES you are both equal. But then you would throw in Civil rights, and they would use morality. Because people have different views on something does not mean we take the non-moral view by default. I am simply amazed that you dismiss such a large portion of the population because you disagree. This is amazing. "Everyone is different, so we should choose my way!" is not a good reason. The right holds the house because they were elected (by the same majority who elected Obama.) You really think there are so many more liberals that they only reason the Republicans are around is because of a bad system? Three branches and two houses is MINORITY protection, something the left LOVES to talk about.
This is not quite true. The belief that opinions are by definition equal is wishful thinking, at best. More often than not, someone is right and someone else is wrong. Reality doesn't care about opinions, and not all of them are worth considering. And frankly, the reality is that civil rights should not be a subject of debate to begin with.
Even more ironic is that the staunchest opponents of gay marriage are the hardcore right-wingers who constantly cry wolf about the government sticking its nose in their business. Hypocrisy is a wonderful thing.
"separate but equal" am I right?
Maybe homosexuals could be considered three fifths of a married couple?
|
On March 01 2013 19:36 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 19:34 oneofthem wrote:
well when you make a passing reference to equality for murderers in a discussion about same sex people wanting to get married, you do need to take a break and calm down. I am in a hurry to sleep, so I picked one. It's hard coming up with things less extreme than that that all people would agree is wrong. Obviously homosexuals ARE NOT IN ANY WAY LIKE OR ON THE LEVEL OF MURDERERS. gn
That's cause your argument is terrible and it has zero point at all
You would not have found any example that would have changed anyones minds
|
Oh thats another thing actually, perhaps someone could explain to me why history and the constitution are seemingly so sacred to americans? While history defines all of us, letting it shape who we are today is a grave mistake.
I wont be the first to say that you are supposed to learn from the mistakes of the past, not repeat them.
|
On March 01 2013 19:35 pbjsandwich wrote:
On the note of a very weak argument
Like what are you even trying to say? You'll fight for the doctrine that says that marriage is between a man and a women but suddenly when this doesn't go your way you'll argue against it?
You're killing me here. Maybe you should rethink your stance
EDIT: I really have to say it's quite amazing how strongly someone can feel about something with such flimsy reasoning
Hey if you're a homophobe just admit it rather than dancing around trying to hide behind politics. Most of the republicans have basically come out as such.
I will always argue that marriage is only one thing. I'm not "hating" on them. I wish peopel on the left knew how to phrase thigns without making it sound like a personal attack based on deep rage. I would say that it should be viewed as objectively immoral, and thus laws based on it are ok. However, it is a societal decision. I will always fight, but I have no choice but to acknowledge the opposition as reasonable. something the far left won't do nowadays, unfortunately. once and for all, gn
Pm if you really want to know more.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
hating on homosexuality is a purity breach, something akin to revulsion against rotten food, a moral gag reflex.
it doesn't have much rational thought behind it.
edit: okay, not saying revulsion against rotten food is irrational. liane young has more for the inquiring mind
|
Because it's completely unreasonable to believe that gay marriage is immoral
There really is no reasoning behind it at all
Not even gay marriage but gay relationships.
EDIT: get out of my head oneofthem
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
