|
On June 27 2013 05:48 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 03:41 Shiori wrote:On June 27 2013 03:30 r.Evo wrote:On June 27 2013 02:49 codonbyte wrote:On June 27 2013 02:39 r.Evo wrote:On June 27 2013 02:37 codonbyte wrote:On June 27 2013 02:27 D10 wrote:On June 27 2013 02:01 marvellosity wrote:On June 27 2013 01:51 D10 wrote:On June 27 2013 01:36 RockIronrod wrote:
[quote]
Those slaves looked like they were having so much fun singing and dancing in their fields. Because im obviously talking about slavery. They're both oppression. Do you have to be super-duper oppressed before you care then? No, I simply disagree on what some people consider opression. Imo being unable to get the word marriage attached to your civil union is as far from getting opressed as you can. I disagree. In the USA, being married brings with it over 1000 protections and benefits from the federal government ( source). Civil unions bring none of those protections or benefits. Giving that many protections and benefits to straight couples, while not doing so for gay couples, IS a form of oppression. Granted, it's not anywhere close to as bad as, say, slavery, but it's still oppression. As I've said before, "separate but equal" doesn't work. If we have one word for a legal union between a straight couple and another word for a legal union between a gay couple, then it is possible for a lawmaker to make laws that apply to one but not the other. And since straight people are the majority, guess who's going to get the short end of the stick? Give civil unions the same benefits and duties as a marriage. Let whoever the fuck wants to engage in a civil union, including multiple partners, genders and whatever you can find. Let the religions marry whoever they want to. Done. It's really not that hard. It's easy to say "just give civil unions the same benefits and duties as marriage". However when you consider that there are over 1000 benefits and duties that married couples get that gay couples don't currently get, it becomes more difficult. How are you going to ensure that some law-maker in the future doesn't draft some legislation that has the word "marriage" in it without bothering to also include the word "civil union"? To quote now.org: Every day we fill out forms that ask us whether we are married, single, divorced or widowed. People joined in a civil union do not fit in any of those categories. People with civil unions should be able to identify themselves as a single family unit yet misrepresenting oneself on official documents can be considered fraud and can carry potential serious criminal penalties. You really believe that every lawmaker is ALWAYS going to remember to insert "civil union" wherever they use the word "marriage" in their legislation? You actually believe that everyone who drafts a legal document is going to remember to use "married/in civil union"? If there is a separate term for a union between a gay couple, then gay people are going to have to constantly be fighting tooth and nail to make sure that they continue to get the same rights that straight people get. Edit: included link to the now.org page that I quoted: http://www.now.org/issues/marriage/marriage_unions.html At that point it's up to purely semantics. If you take that out of the picture what I'm asking for is one thing for every single non-religious union between people and a different thing for every religious union between people. I genuinely don't care whether it's civil union + marriage / civil union + religious union etc. pp. ~ My personal belief however is that it's much more sensible to leave the term "marriage" for the religious unions simply because that's what the majority of people who are against non-religous unions are bitching about in the first place. In a nutshell, they can keep the term if I'm allowed to be "married" (without officially calling it this way) with the same legal duties and rights. Throwing "but hurpdurp maybe lawmakers are too stupid to use the terms right" is on a similar level as saying that "they have to use he/she in all possible cirumstances because otherwise a woman/man can be excluced". Over here civil unions between two people are almost there, it can't be that hard to introduce the same concept in the US. Now for polyamorous couples... those still get screwed more than anyone else at the moment, even here. If "civil unions" and "marriages" have the same rights before the law, why should the law distinguish between them? It's not like straight people own the word marriage or something. Hell, even religions don't own the word marriage. Separate but equal is inherently unequal, etc. e.g. Let's give interracial couples all the same rights as others when it comes to marriage, but call the former "interracial marriages" and the latter just "marriages." I can't imagine anyone being happy with such a law. Why do we need to protect the feelings of people who are intolerant of something that literally doesn't affect them at all? In a nutshell this is how the problem was solved over here. We kept the official marriage between men and women, introduced something called "registered partnerships" (=civil union) which everyone (including homosexual or heterosexual couples who don't want to marry for whatever reason) can go for with almost the exact same rights as a "real" marriage. This was back in 2001 when the majority of the population did not support gay marriages. With this small destinction the issue was solved rather easily. People "against gay marriage" were much less opposed to this version because well, we didn't call it marriage and people who wanted gay marriage got something, albeit slightly different, very close to what they wanted. Now, more than 10 years later the majority of the population seems to be pro gay marriage but instead of starting to call our "registered partnerships" "marriages" we simply gave them the same tax benefits. As far as I know joint adoption is the only issue that's still on the table where it differs from a "real" marriage. We basically started with a slightly disadvantaged civil union and then slowly made it closer and closer to marriage. What I'm going at here is that trying to push a "real and equal marriage" past an apparent majority isn't the smartest way to achieve your goal (equal rights and priviliges) in this case. The way Germany went about this whole issue to the population was in retrospect incredibly smart because it is almost impossible to oppose it even from the most conservative point of view since hey, this isn't about gay marriage it's about an alternative to marriage for everyone. =P No one cares about the difference in names because I'd consider it more of a lifestyle choice whether to marry or go for a civil union than anything else. Are homosexual couples getting denied part of that lifestyle choice? Yeah, sure, but most people simply don't care because the difference is so minor. Edit: If you can genuinely say that you're pro-homosexual marriage but against polyamorous marriages and/or equivalents then you should maybe think about what you're actually trying to achieve.
I don't disagree that the German solution is more effective at achieving, in practice, what homosexual people want in a legal sense from marriage in an expedient fashion. That said, what homosexual people actually want is to be treated without prejudice with respect to their orientation. In your pragmatic solution (which is definitely not without merit, don't get me wrong) you sidestep the issue because you're essentially legitimizing the homophobia of the people who can't stomach homosexual "marriage" by saying "Okay, well, we'll use this loophole so that everyone gets what they want! :D" All smiles and rainbows, right?
Wrong. The point here is that the people who can't stomach same sex "marriage" are fucking morons, and society shouldn't cave to them at all. If I write a letter to a couple and address them as "Mr. and Mrs. John Smith," even if it's just because I like the husband's name better than the wife's, that shit isn't going to fly and that couple would have a damn good reason to be offended. Why? Because while everyone has the right to an opinion, opinion's aren't born worthy of respect. People who want creationism taught in science classes are told to fuck off because they're just wrong. We don't tell them "Okay, we'll change the name of religion class to "Religious Sciences" and you can teach your creationism there." Why? Because that would be wrong, and it would be pandering to a group of people who are provably incorrect. We should do things because they are right and/or true, not because they're popular.
As for polyamorous marriages, I'm indifferent. I'm skeptical of whether a system for them could ever really be made egalitarian, and I rather think that it would need to function quite differently than marriage currently does (who, for example, has power of attorney for life decisions when someone has 3 partners? Do they all get to vote? The one who's been spouse the longest? etc. etc.). I don't doubt that solutions to these problems can be worked out, but I doubt they could be done without making polyamorous marriages significantly different from the legal contract we currently hold marriage to be. Simply, it wouldn't make a hell of a lot of sense in light of things we currently have like shared assets, since people would share assets with multiple other people at once...whose own assets would then be shared with the other spouses of their partner because their assets are technically their partner's assets.
Do you see how this is a massive can of worms? Again, my objections are mostly pragmatic. I'm skeptical of whether polyamory lends itself to marriage-like institutions, particularly since a great deal of polyamorous people I've encountered have an informal hierarchy amongst their partners (i.e. one is their "primary" and the others are more temporary/fling in nature; in this case, it's basically just an open marriage).
|
On June 27 2013 06:57 PCloadletter wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 06:38 Plansix wrote:On June 27 2013 06:32 PCloadletter wrote:On June 27 2013 06:20 Plansix wrote:On June 27 2013 06:12 PCloadletter wrote:On June 27 2013 05:46 Klondikebar wrote:On June 27 2013 05:33 karpotoss wrote:On June 26 2013 11:50 LarJarsE wrote:
Quite frankly, if you are against equality & equal rights, you are an asshole. Does it make me an asshole if i oppose equal rights to polygamy? Also this i feel like this article is pretty good: http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.htmlThe Secular Case Against Gay Marriage Adam Kolasinski The debate over whether the state ought to recognize gay marriages has thus far focused on the issue as one of civil rights. Such a treatment is erroneous because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men, and women the right to marry women. Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one’s spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases. Homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing. I do not claim that all of these other types of couples restricted from marrying are equivalent to homosexual couples. I only bring them up to illustrate that marriage is heavily regulated, and for good reason. When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse’s social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse’s health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children. Granted, these restrictions are not absolute. A small minority of married couples are infertile. However, excluding sterile couples from marriage, in all but the most obvious cases such as those of blood relatives, would be costly. Few people who are sterile know it, and fertility tests are too expensive and burdensome to mandate. One might argue that the exclusion of blood relatives from marriage is only necessary to prevent the conception of genetically defective children, but blood relatives cannot marry even if they undergo sterilization. Some couples who marry plan not to have children, but without mind-reading technology, excluding them is impossible. Elderly couples can marry, but such cases are so rare that it is simply not worth the effort to restrict them. The marriage laws, therefore, ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children. Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met. One may argue that lesbians are capable of procreating via artificial insemination, so the state does have an interest in recognizing lesbian marriages, but a lesbian’s sexual relationship, committed or not, has no bearing on her ability to reproduce. Perhaps it may serve a state interest to recognize gay marriages to make it easier for gay couples to adopt. However, there is ample evidence (see, for example, David Popenoe’s Life Without Father) that children need both a male and female parent for proper development. Unfortunately, small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it impossible to draw conclusions from studies that directly examine the effects of gay parenting. However, the empirically verified common wisdom about the importance of a mother and father in a child’s development should give advocates of gay adoption pause. The differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy, so it is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes. Is it wise to have a social policy that encourages family arrangements that deny children such essentials? Gays are not necessarily bad parents, nor will they necessarily make their children gay, but they cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female. Some have compared the prohibition of homosexual marriage to the prohibition of interracial marriage. This analogy fails because fertility does not depend on race, making race irrelevant to the state’s interest in marriage. By contrast, homosexuality is highly relevant because it precludes procreation. Some argue that homosexual marriages serve a state interest because they enable gays to live in committed relationships. However, there is nothing stopping homosexuals from living in such relationships today. Advocates of gay marriage claim gay couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir. There is nothing stopping gay couples from signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly, as many single straight people do with roommates. The only benefits of marriage from which homosexual couples are restricted are those that are costly to the state and society. Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation. The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos. Tl,Dr - marriage is an institution regulated by country to support the fuel of every society- another generations of people In short: Yes In long: Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeessssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss Seriously why the hell are we still trotting out this semantic argument in a thread which has addressed it countless times. Read even the last two pages of a thread before you run your mouth please. You don't seem to understand, you have it backwards. "Equal rights" is the semantic argument. It is an argument based entirely on chosen words and a very limited way of defining them. The people who point out the obvious flaws in the argument are using actual arguments, not semantics. Saying that it could lead to "marital chaos" is not an argument. I don't know what that is, but gay people getting married doesn't cause it. Saying "Marriage should lead to babies" is not an argument, either. Arguing that they get to define the word and then they can decided who is applies to is not an argument either. Well I didn't post that article, somebody else did. I agree, those aren't good arguments. The argument that was responded to was "does it make me an asshole to oppose polygamy?" Starting to wonder if it is possible to say anything without getting shoved into one side and straw manned. That is sort of the point. There haven't been a lot of good arguments, only terrible ones. Citing about polygamy as some sort of reason why gay marriage shouldn't happen is terrible. Its arguing by proxy. You address the issue at hand, not point to something else and say "oh, what about this. Huh, what do you think of that?," My argument has absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage. I never once stated anything about gay marriage. I doubt you can even find the term or any opinion on the matter in any of my posts. Ironic that you use argument by proxy to accuse me of argument by proxy. "Well if you think this is a shitty argument, then what about all these other shitty arguments?! Huh, what do you think of that?"
So your original post was completely out of context and off topic? Shouldn't you be banned or warned?
|
On June 27 2013 06:58 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 06:57 PCloadletter wrote:On June 27 2013 06:38 Plansix wrote:On June 27 2013 06:32 PCloadletter wrote:On June 27 2013 06:20 Plansix wrote:On June 27 2013 06:12 PCloadletter wrote:On June 27 2013 05:46 Klondikebar wrote:On June 27 2013 05:33 karpotoss wrote:On June 26 2013 11:50 LarJarsE wrote:
Quite frankly, if you are against equality & equal rights, you are an asshole. Does it make me an asshole if i oppose equal rights to polygamy? Also this i feel like this article is pretty good: http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.htmlThe Secular Case Against Gay Marriage Adam Kolasinski The debate over whether the state ought to recognize gay marriages has thus far focused on the issue as one of civil rights. Such a treatment is erroneous because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men, and women the right to marry women. Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one’s spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases. Homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing. I do not claim that all of these other types of couples restricted from marrying are equivalent to homosexual couples. I only bring them up to illustrate that marriage is heavily regulated, and for good reason. When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse’s social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse’s health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children. Granted, these restrictions are not absolute. A small minority of married couples are infertile. However, excluding sterile couples from marriage, in all but the most obvious cases such as those of blood relatives, would be costly. Few people who are sterile know it, and fertility tests are too expensive and burdensome to mandate. One might argue that the exclusion of blood relatives from marriage is only necessary to prevent the conception of genetically defective children, but blood relatives cannot marry even if they undergo sterilization. Some couples who marry plan not to have children, but without mind-reading technology, excluding them is impossible. Elderly couples can marry, but such cases are so rare that it is simply not worth the effort to restrict them. The marriage laws, therefore, ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children. Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met. One may argue that lesbians are capable of procreating via artificial insemination, so the state does have an interest in recognizing lesbian marriages, but a lesbian’s sexual relationship, committed or not, has no bearing on her ability to reproduce. Perhaps it may serve a state interest to recognize gay marriages to make it easier for gay couples to adopt. However, there is ample evidence (see, for example, David Popenoe’s Life Without Father) that children need both a male and female parent for proper development. Unfortunately, small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it impossible to draw conclusions from studies that directly examine the effects of gay parenting. However, the empirically verified common wisdom about the importance of a mother and father in a child’s development should give advocates of gay adoption pause. The differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy, so it is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes. Is it wise to have a social policy that encourages family arrangements that deny children such essentials? Gays are not necessarily bad parents, nor will they necessarily make their children gay, but they cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female. Some have compared the prohibition of homosexual marriage to the prohibition of interracial marriage. This analogy fails because fertility does not depend on race, making race irrelevant to the state’s interest in marriage. By contrast, homosexuality is highly relevant because it precludes procreation. Some argue that homosexual marriages serve a state interest because they enable gays to live in committed relationships. However, there is nothing stopping homosexuals from living in such relationships today. Advocates of gay marriage claim gay couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir. There is nothing stopping gay couples from signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly, as many single straight people do with roommates. The only benefits of marriage from which homosexual couples are restricted are those that are costly to the state and society. Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation. The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos. Tl,Dr - marriage is an institution regulated by country to support the fuel of every society- another generations of people In short: Yes In long: Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeessssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss Seriously why the hell are we still trotting out this semantic argument in a thread which has addressed it countless times. Read even the last two pages of a thread before you run your mouth please. You don't seem to understand, you have it backwards. "Equal rights" is the semantic argument. It is an argument based entirely on chosen words and a very limited way of defining them. The people who point out the obvious flaws in the argument are using actual arguments, not semantics. Saying that it could lead to "marital chaos" is not an argument. I don't know what that is, but gay people getting married doesn't cause it. Saying "Marriage should lead to babies" is not an argument, either. Arguing that they get to define the word and then they can decided who is applies to is not an argument either. Well I didn't post that article, somebody else did. I agree, those aren't good arguments. The argument that was responded to was "does it make me an asshole to oppose polygamy?" Starting to wonder if it is possible to say anything without getting shoved into one side and straw manned. That is sort of the point. There haven't been a lot of good arguments, only terrible ones. Citing about polygamy as some sort of reason why gay marriage shouldn't happen is terrible. Its arguing by proxy. You address the issue at hand, not point to something else and say "oh, what about this. Huh, what do you think of that?," My argument has absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage. I never once stated anything about gay marriage. I doubt you can even find the term or any opinion on the matter in any of my posts. Ironic that you use argument by proxy to accuse me of argument by proxy. "Well if you think this is a shitty argument, then what about all these other shitty arguments?! Huh, what do you think of that?" So your original post was completely out of context and off topic? Shouldn't you be banned or warned?
It was neither. You just need to improve your reading comprehension and/or not jump to conclusions.
|
Cool idea with the logo 
|
On June 27 2013 06:58 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 05:48 r.Evo wrote:On June 27 2013 03:41 Shiori wrote:On June 27 2013 03:30 r.Evo wrote:On June 27 2013 02:49 codonbyte wrote:On June 27 2013 02:39 r.Evo wrote:On June 27 2013 02:37 codonbyte wrote:On June 27 2013 02:27 D10 wrote:On June 27 2013 02:01 marvellosity wrote:On June 27 2013 01:51 D10 wrote:
[quote]
Because im obviously talking about slavery. They're both oppression. Do you have to be super-duper oppressed before you care then? No, I simply disagree on what some people consider opression. Imo being unable to get the word marriage attached to your civil union is as far from getting opressed as you can. I disagree. In the USA, being married brings with it over 1000 protections and benefits from the federal government ( source). Civil unions bring none of those protections or benefits. Giving that many protections and benefits to straight couples, while not doing so for gay couples, IS a form of oppression. Granted, it's not anywhere close to as bad as, say, slavery, but it's still oppression. As I've said before, "separate but equal" doesn't work. If we have one word for a legal union between a straight couple and another word for a legal union between a gay couple, then it is possible for a lawmaker to make laws that apply to one but not the other. And since straight people are the majority, guess who's going to get the short end of the stick? Give civil unions the same benefits and duties as a marriage. Let whoever the fuck wants to engage in a civil union, including multiple partners, genders and whatever you can find. Let the religions marry whoever they want to. Done. It's really not that hard. It's easy to say "just give civil unions the same benefits and duties as marriage". However when you consider that there are over 1000 benefits and duties that married couples get that gay couples don't currently get, it becomes more difficult. How are you going to ensure that some law-maker in the future doesn't draft some legislation that has the word "marriage" in it without bothering to also include the word "civil union"? To quote now.org: Every day we fill out forms that ask us whether we are married, single, divorced or widowed. People joined in a civil union do not fit in any of those categories. People with civil unions should be able to identify themselves as a single family unit yet misrepresenting oneself on official documents can be considered fraud and can carry potential serious criminal penalties. You really believe that every lawmaker is ALWAYS going to remember to insert "civil union" wherever they use the word "marriage" in their legislation? You actually believe that everyone who drafts a legal document is going to remember to use "married/in civil union"? If there is a separate term for a union between a gay couple, then gay people are going to have to constantly be fighting tooth and nail to make sure that they continue to get the same rights that straight people get. Edit: included link to the now.org page that I quoted: http://www.now.org/issues/marriage/marriage_unions.html At that point it's up to purely semantics. If you take that out of the picture what I'm asking for is one thing for every single non-religious union between people and a different thing for every religious union between people. I genuinely don't care whether it's civil union + marriage / civil union + religious union etc. pp. ~ My personal belief however is that it's much more sensible to leave the term "marriage" for the religious unions simply because that's what the majority of people who are against non-religous unions are bitching about in the first place. In a nutshell, they can keep the term if I'm allowed to be "married" (without officially calling it this way) with the same legal duties and rights. Throwing "but hurpdurp maybe lawmakers are too stupid to use the terms right" is on a similar level as saying that "they have to use he/she in all possible cirumstances because otherwise a woman/man can be excluced". Over here civil unions between two people are almost there, it can't be that hard to introduce the same concept in the US. Now for polyamorous couples... those still get screwed more than anyone else at the moment, even here. If "civil unions" and "marriages" have the same rights before the law, why should the law distinguish between them? It's not like straight people own the word marriage or something. Hell, even religions don't own the word marriage. Separate but equal is inherently unequal, etc. e.g. Let's give interracial couples all the same rights as others when it comes to marriage, but call the former "interracial marriages" and the latter just "marriages." I can't imagine anyone being happy with such a law. Why do we need to protect the feelings of people who are intolerant of something that literally doesn't affect them at all? In a nutshell this is how the problem was solved over here. We kept the official marriage between men and women, introduced something called "registered partnerships" (=civil union) which everyone (including homosexual or heterosexual couples who don't want to marry for whatever reason) can go for with almost the exact same rights as a "real" marriage. This was back in 2001 when the majority of the population did not support gay marriages. With this small destinction the issue was solved rather easily. People "against gay marriage" were much less opposed to this version because well, we didn't call it marriage and people who wanted gay marriage got something, albeit slightly different, very close to what they wanted. Now, more than 10 years later the majority of the population seems to be pro gay marriage but instead of starting to call our "registered partnerships" "marriages" we simply gave them the same tax benefits. As far as I know joint adoption is the only issue that's still on the table where it differs from a "real" marriage. We basically started with a slightly disadvantaged civil union and then slowly made it closer and closer to marriage. What I'm going at here is that trying to push a "real and equal marriage" past an apparent majority isn't the smartest way to achieve your goal (equal rights and priviliges) in this case. The way Germany went about this whole issue to the population was in retrospect incredibly smart because it is almost impossible to oppose it even from the most conservative point of view since hey, this isn't about gay marriage it's about an alternative to marriage for everyone. =P No one cares about the difference in names because I'd consider it more of a lifestyle choice whether to marry or go for a civil union than anything else. Are homosexual couples getting denied part of that lifestyle choice? Yeah, sure, but most people simply don't care because the difference is so minor. Edit: If you can genuinely say that you're pro-homosexual marriage but against polyamorous marriages and/or equivalents then you should maybe think about what you're actually trying to achieve. I don't disagree that the German solution is more effective at achieving, in practice, what homosexual people want in a legal sense from marriage in an expedient fashion. That said, what homosexual people actually want is to be treated without prejudice with respect to their orientation. In your pragmatic solution (which is definitely not without merit, don't get me wrong) you sidestep the issue because you're essentially legitimizing the homophobia of the people who can't stomach homosexual "marriage" by saying "Okay, well, we'll use this loophole so that everyone gets what they want! :D" All smiles and rainbows, right?
Agree that it's sidestepping the issue in the first place. I'd almost go as far as calling it hypocritical. Among other things however it showed people who were against gay marriage in the first place that... well... the world isn't a worse place if you let homosexual couples get their thing. The people calling themselves in favor of gay marriages rose from ~30% to ~70% in those ten years, I think it's safe to assume that the slow intruduction "around" the issue helped to achieve that.
I mostly mentioned it because the point a lot of people are trying to get across is EQUAL MARRIAGES RITE NAOW, which simply won't fly if a big portion of the population is against it. Correct me if I'm wrong on that count but I'd assume that if the majority of the American population would be pro-gay marriage it wouldn't even be a topic.
When it comes to polyamorous marriages I mostly agree with you. What makes it trickier to manage is mostly about pragmatic things but I assume that those things can be solved with the current systems we have. When it e.g. comes to power of attorney for life decisions we have similar cases when a parent with multiple children but no spouse/other relatives is in a similar situation. In other cases this type of stuff can be solved by contracts, similar to what unmarried people already do on a regular basis.
What irks me about that issue in general is that, even if all parties consentually agree to starting a family as three people there is no law that supports them. At all. It simply isn't legal loving more than one person and wanting to spend your life the same way together as someone who only wants to dedicate himself to one person.
|
On June 27 2013 07:14 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 06:58 Shiori wrote:On June 27 2013 05:48 r.Evo wrote:On June 27 2013 03:41 Shiori wrote:On June 27 2013 03:30 r.Evo wrote:On June 27 2013 02:49 codonbyte wrote:On June 27 2013 02:39 r.Evo wrote:On June 27 2013 02:37 codonbyte wrote:On June 27 2013 02:27 D10 wrote:On June 27 2013 02:01 marvellosity wrote:
[quote]
They're both oppression. Do you have to be super-duper oppressed before you care then? No, I simply disagree on what some people consider opression. Imo being unable to get the word marriage attached to your civil union is as far from getting opressed as you can. I disagree. In the USA, being married brings with it over 1000 protections and benefits from the federal government ( source). Civil unions bring none of those protections or benefits. Giving that many protections and benefits to straight couples, while not doing so for gay couples, IS a form of oppression. Granted, it's not anywhere close to as bad as, say, slavery, but it's still oppression. As I've said before, "separate but equal" doesn't work. If we have one word for a legal union between a straight couple and another word for a legal union between a gay couple, then it is possible for a lawmaker to make laws that apply to one but not the other. And since straight people are the majority, guess who's going to get the short end of the stick? Give civil unions the same benefits and duties as a marriage. Let whoever the fuck wants to engage in a civil union, including multiple partners, genders and whatever you can find. Let the religions marry whoever they want to. Done. It's really not that hard. It's easy to say "just give civil unions the same benefits and duties as marriage". However when you consider that there are over 1000 benefits and duties that married couples get that gay couples don't currently get, it becomes more difficult. How are you going to ensure that some law-maker in the future doesn't draft some legislation that has the word "marriage" in it without bothering to also include the word "civil union"? To quote now.org: Every day we fill out forms that ask us whether we are married, single, divorced or widowed. People joined in a civil union do not fit in any of those categories. People with civil unions should be able to identify themselves as a single family unit yet misrepresenting oneself on official documents can be considered fraud and can carry potential serious criminal penalties. You really believe that every lawmaker is ALWAYS going to remember to insert "civil union" wherever they use the word "marriage" in their legislation? You actually believe that everyone who drafts a legal document is going to remember to use "married/in civil union"? If there is a separate term for a union between a gay couple, then gay people are going to have to constantly be fighting tooth and nail to make sure that they continue to get the same rights that straight people get. Edit: included link to the now.org page that I quoted: http://www.now.org/issues/marriage/marriage_unions.html At that point it's up to purely semantics. If you take that out of the picture what I'm asking for is one thing for every single non-religious union between people and a different thing for every religious union between people. I genuinely don't care whether it's civil union + marriage / civil union + religious union etc. pp. ~ My personal belief however is that it's much more sensible to leave the term "marriage" for the religious unions simply because that's what the majority of people who are against non-religous unions are bitching about in the first place. In a nutshell, they can keep the term if I'm allowed to be "married" (without officially calling it this way) with the same legal duties and rights. Throwing "but hurpdurp maybe lawmakers are too stupid to use the terms right" is on a similar level as saying that "they have to use he/she in all possible cirumstances because otherwise a woman/man can be excluced". Over here civil unions between two people are almost there, it can't be that hard to introduce the same concept in the US. Now for polyamorous couples... those still get screwed more than anyone else at the moment, even here. If "civil unions" and "marriages" have the same rights before the law, why should the law distinguish between them? It's not like straight people own the word marriage or something. Hell, even religions don't own the word marriage. Separate but equal is inherently unequal, etc. e.g. Let's give interracial couples all the same rights as others when it comes to marriage, but call the former "interracial marriages" and the latter just "marriages." I can't imagine anyone being happy with such a law. Why do we need to protect the feelings of people who are intolerant of something that literally doesn't affect them at all? In a nutshell this is how the problem was solved over here. We kept the official marriage between men and women, introduced something called "registered partnerships" (=civil union) which everyone (including homosexual or heterosexual couples who don't want to marry for whatever reason) can go for with almost the exact same rights as a "real" marriage. This was back in 2001 when the majority of the population did not support gay marriages. With this small destinction the issue was solved rather easily. People "against gay marriage" were much less opposed to this version because well, we didn't call it marriage and people who wanted gay marriage got something, albeit slightly different, very close to what they wanted. Now, more than 10 years later the majority of the population seems to be pro gay marriage but instead of starting to call our "registered partnerships" "marriages" we simply gave them the same tax benefits. As far as I know joint adoption is the only issue that's still on the table where it differs from a "real" marriage. We basically started with a slightly disadvantaged civil union and then slowly made it closer and closer to marriage. What I'm going at here is that trying to push a "real and equal marriage" past an apparent majority isn't the smartest way to achieve your goal (equal rights and priviliges) in this case. The way Germany went about this whole issue to the population was in retrospect incredibly smart because it is almost impossible to oppose it even from the most conservative point of view since hey, this isn't about gay marriage it's about an alternative to marriage for everyone. =P No one cares about the difference in names because I'd consider it more of a lifestyle choice whether to marry or go for a civil union than anything else. Are homosexual couples getting denied part of that lifestyle choice? Yeah, sure, but most people simply don't care because the difference is so minor. Edit: If you can genuinely say that you're pro-homosexual marriage but against polyamorous marriages and/or equivalents then you should maybe think about what you're actually trying to achieve. I don't disagree that the German solution is more effective at achieving, in practice, what homosexual people want in a legal sense from marriage in an expedient fashion. That said, what homosexual people actually want is to be treated without prejudice with respect to their orientation. In your pragmatic solution (which is definitely not without merit, don't get me wrong) you sidestep the issue because you're essentially legitimizing the homophobia of the people who can't stomach homosexual "marriage" by saying "Okay, well, we'll use this loophole so that everyone gets what they want! :D" All smiles and rainbows, right? Agree that it's sidestepping the issue in the first place. I'd almost go as far as calling it hypocritical. Among other things however it showed people who were against gay marriage in the first place that... well... the world isn't a worse place if you let homosexual couples get their thing. The people calling themselves in favor of gay marriages rose from ~30% to ~70% in those ten years, I think it's safe to assume that the slow intruduction "around" the issue helped to achieve that. I mostly mentioned it because the point a lot of people are trying to get across is EQUAL MARRIAGES RITE NAOW, which simply won't fly if a big portion of the population is against it. Correct me if I'm wrong on that count but I'd assume that if the majority of the American population would be pro-gay marriage it wouldn't even be a topic. When it comes to polyamorous marriages I mostly agree with you. What makes it trickier to manage is mostly about pragmatic things but I assume that those things can be solved with the current systems we have. When it e.g. comes to power of attorney for life decisions we have similar cases when a parent with multiple children but no spouse/other relatives is in a similar situation. In other cases this type of stuff can be solved by contracts, similar to what unmarried people already do on a regular basis. What irks me about that issue in general is that, even if all parties consentually agree to starting a family as three people there is no law that supports them. At all. It simply isn't legal loving more than one person and wanting to spend your life the same way together as someone who only wants to dedicate himself to one person.
Because marriage is mutual. That's really the key here. It's not enough for one person to love multiple others; they must be able to give their (legal) life to those others. Well, how do you go about giving yourself legally to multiple persons? Better yet, how do multiple persons go about giving themselves to you without also giving themselves by proxy to your other partner. It gets confusing quickly.
I'm unclear as to what support you want for these three people starting a family. Sharing assets mutually between three people kinda contradicts itself.
|
On June 26 2013 18:19 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 18:10 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 17:50 Ahelvin wrote:On June 26 2013 17:43 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 16:48 salle wrote:On June 26 2013 11:28 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 07:25 salle wrote:On June 26 2013 06:15 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 06:06 marvellosity wrote:On June 26 2013 06:05 Gen.Rolly wrote:
[quote]
Can you quote them please? I do not have time to read through 70 pages of thread, sorry. I clicked on the thread to voice my opinion, not to engage in a lengthy discussion about the relationship between politics and esports. Not going to trawl the thread for you, but along the lines of "we're anti-discrimination and for equality, so we're happy to do this, and if you're not happy then tough titties". Paraphrasing a little. Alright thanks. I still feel their position is unnecessary and there is no reason to use their position as TL admins to promote a particular political/moral ideology. If they wanted to offend people, they succeeded. “It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what.” ― Stephen Fry This is a great quote. To be more specific, it appears TL admins are taking advantage of community-generated e-sports content on TL.net to promote a particular political ideology. Since marriage is a political institution, where taxpayer-supported treatment to married couples and their dependents are codified into laws ratified by a democratic government, taking a stance on whether one feels those treatments should extend to homosexual couples is necessarily a political stance. Some may find the TL admins' use of their forum to promote their particular political viewpoint unnecessary, if not unfair because not everyone who contributes to the great community that is TL shares their views. I don't believe marriage is ever mentioned. it's simply a rainbow maned horse logo with the hover text "TL loves ESPORTS, equally." This is simply you extrapolating. But to reply to your post if "each individual and group should be treated equally under law" is a bad political stance then you have some very weird concepts of law and equality. Actually, it does imply the gay marriage debate. Homosexuals, in fact, are treated equally under the law. Marriage, however, is a separate matter. Married couples receive special treatment under the law. As a single person, whether gay or straight, one is not entitled to this treatment. So to speak of equality necessarily implies marriage equality. To recap my separate posts thus far, the U.S. is a democratic society, and the special treatment given to married couples by our government is given by the people, like all of our laws. Therefore, we the people decide who falls within that privileged group. Again, I feel the TL admins are taking advantage of the community-generated e-sports content on TL.net to promote a particular political ideology. Since marriage is a political institution, where taxpayer-supported treatment to married couples and their dependents are codified into laws ratified by a democratic government, taking a stance on whether one feels those treatments should extend to homosexual couples is necessarily a political stance. Some may find the TL admins' use of their forum to promote their particular political viewpoint unnecessary, if not unfair because not everyone who contributes to TL shares their views. Then the people that are contributing to TL and find TL taking a stance on the issue unfair can go to a different community I guess? There are plenty of other ways people can contribute to Esports outside TL (running a YouTube channel for instance). On June 26 2013 17:43 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 16:48 salle wrote:On June 26 2013 11:28 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 07:25 salle wrote:On June 26 2013 06:15 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 06:06 marvellosity wrote:On June 26 2013 06:05 Gen.Rolly wrote:
[quote]
Can you quote them please? I do not have time to read through 70 pages of thread, sorry. I clicked on the thread to voice my opinion, not to engage in a lengthy discussion about the relationship between politics and esports. Not going to trawl the thread for you, but along the lines of "we're anti-discrimination and for equality, so we're happy to do this, and if you're not happy then tough titties". Paraphrasing a little. Alright thanks. I still feel their position is unnecessary and there is no reason to use their position as TL admins to promote a particular political/moral ideology. If they wanted to offend people, they succeeded. “It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what.” ― Stephen Fry This is a great quote. To be more specific, it appears TL admins are taking advantage of community-generated e-sports content on TL.net to promote a particular political ideology. Since marriage is a political institution, where taxpayer-supported treatment to married couples and their dependents are codified into laws ratified by a democratic government, taking a stance on whether one feels those treatments should extend to homosexual couples is necessarily a political stance. Some may find the TL admins' use of their forum to promote their particular political viewpoint unnecessary, if not unfair because not everyone who contributes to the great community that is TL shares their views. I don't believe marriage is ever mentioned. it's simply a rainbow maned horse logo with the hover text "TL loves ESPORTS, equally." This is simply you extrapolating. But to reply to your post if "each individual and group should be treated equally under law" is a bad political stance then you have some very weird concepts of law and equality. Actually, it does imply the gay marriage debate. Homosexuals, in fact, are treated equally under the law. Marriage, however, is a separate matter. Married couples receive special treatment under the law. As a single person, whether gay or straight, one is not entitled to this treatment. So to speak of equality necessarily implies marriage equality. From a pure legal standpoint, this seems wrong. Straight people have the right to marry the person they love, and have this commitment recognized by the state. Gay people do not have this right. What am I missing? Legally speaking, straight people are afforded privileges by the democratic state if and when they marry. These are the benefits gay couples also seek. Were the debate simply about being with the person you love and having that arrangement labeled "marriage", there would be little debate, since gay people are free to be with whomever they will, even if the arrangement does not have a special name. Legal treatments given to marriage are what is at stake here, and since they are granted by a democratic government, the people have a say about who receives them and who does not. Still not seeing the problem with everyone being treated equally though. Your argument that straight married couples receive special treatment and gays do not still boils down to one group not being treated the same as the other 
I do not think the two groups should be treated as equal. I think the legal protections given to straight marriage exist for a reason. Marriage and its natural extension, the family, are fundamental to a society's moral fabric. I, for one, do not believe gay marriage carries the same benefits for society as straight marriage does. For me, the argument boils down to children, who are a nonfactor in debates about equality. Children are the natural product of a mother and a father, and it is in this context that they deserve to be raised. Since marriage and family are closely intertwined, and as a member of a democratic society which decides what constitutes the legal institution of marriage, I cannot support gay marriage.
|
Might be interesting if it hasn't been done already :
Poll: What do you think about the Rainbow TL-Logo?I like it because it sends a message (and it looks awesome / fabulous) (30) 71% I don’t like it because it sends a message (and it looks awful) (5) 12% I don’t like it because it sends a message (but it looks awesome) (2) 5% I like it because it sends a message (but it looks awful) (2) 5% I like it because it looks awesome (1) 2% This is not the regular TL Logo? (1) 2% I’m just here to find out what the words “privilege” and “equality” really mean (1) 2% I don’t like it because it looks awful (0) 0% 42 total votes Your vote: What do you think about the Rainbow TL-Logo? (Vote): I don’t like it because it sends a message (but it looks awesome)
(Vote): I don’t like it because it sends a message (and it looks awful)
(Vote): I don’t like it because it looks awful
(Vote): I like it because it sends a message (and it looks awesome / fabulous)
(Vote): I like it because it sends a message (but it looks awful)
(Vote): I like it because it looks awesome
(Vote): This is not the regular TL Logo?
(Vote): I’m just here to find out what the words “privilege” and “equality” really mean
|
Homosexuality is immoral and I can't give my $moneys$ to any company that supports it.
like starbucks.
in b4 ban
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Sweden5554 Posts
On June 27 2013 07:33 Gen.Rolly wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 18:19 marvellosity wrote:On June 26 2013 18:10 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 17:50 Ahelvin wrote:On June 26 2013 17:43 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 16:48 salle wrote:On June 26 2013 11:28 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 07:25 salle wrote:On June 26 2013 06:15 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 06:06 marvellosity wrote:
[quote]
Not going to trawl the thread for you, but along the lines of "we're anti-discrimination and for equality, so we're happy to do this, and if you're not happy then tough titties". Paraphrasing a little. Alright thanks. I still feel their position is unnecessary and there is no reason to use their position as TL admins to promote a particular political/moral ideology. If they wanted to offend people, they succeeded. “It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what.” ― Stephen Fry This is a great quote. To be more specific, it appears TL admins are taking advantage of community-generated e-sports content on TL.net to promote a particular political ideology. Since marriage is a political institution, where taxpayer-supported treatment to married couples and their dependents are codified into laws ratified by a democratic government, taking a stance on whether one feels those treatments should extend to homosexual couples is necessarily a political stance. Some may find the TL admins' use of their forum to promote their particular political viewpoint unnecessary, if not unfair because not everyone who contributes to the great community that is TL shares their views. I don't believe marriage is ever mentioned. it's simply a rainbow maned horse logo with the hover text "TL loves ESPORTS, equally." This is simply you extrapolating. But to reply to your post if "each individual and group should be treated equally under law" is a bad political stance then you have some very weird concepts of law and equality. Actually, it does imply the gay marriage debate. Homosexuals, in fact, are treated equally under the law. Marriage, however, is a separate matter. Married couples receive special treatment under the law. As a single person, whether gay or straight, one is not entitled to this treatment. So to speak of equality necessarily implies marriage equality. To recap my separate posts thus far, the U.S. is a democratic society, and the special treatment given to married couples by our government is given by the people, like all of our laws. Therefore, we the people decide who falls within that privileged group. Again, I feel the TL admins are taking advantage of the community-generated e-sports content on TL.net to promote a particular political ideology. Since marriage is a political institution, where taxpayer-supported treatment to married couples and their dependents are codified into laws ratified by a democratic government, taking a stance on whether one feels those treatments should extend to homosexual couples is necessarily a political stance. Some may find the TL admins' use of their forum to promote their particular political viewpoint unnecessary, if not unfair because not everyone who contributes to TL shares their views. Then the people that are contributing to TL and find TL taking a stance on the issue unfair can go to a different community I guess? There are plenty of other ways people can contribute to Esports outside TL (running a YouTube channel for instance). On June 26 2013 17:43 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 16:48 salle wrote:On June 26 2013 11:28 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 07:25 salle wrote:On June 26 2013 06:15 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 06:06 marvellosity wrote:
[quote]
Not going to trawl the thread for you, but along the lines of "we're anti-discrimination and for equality, so we're happy to do this, and if you're not happy then tough titties". Paraphrasing a little. Alright thanks. I still feel their position is unnecessary and there is no reason to use their position as TL admins to promote a particular political/moral ideology. If they wanted to offend people, they succeeded. “It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what.” ― Stephen Fry This is a great quote. To be more specific, it appears TL admins are taking advantage of community-generated e-sports content on TL.net to promote a particular political ideology. Since marriage is a political institution, where taxpayer-supported treatment to married couples and their dependents are codified into laws ratified by a democratic government, taking a stance on whether one feels those treatments should extend to homosexual couples is necessarily a political stance. Some may find the TL admins' use of their forum to promote their particular political viewpoint unnecessary, if not unfair because not everyone who contributes to the great community that is TL shares their views. I don't believe marriage is ever mentioned. it's simply a rainbow maned horse logo with the hover text "TL loves ESPORTS, equally." This is simply you extrapolating. But to reply to your post if "each individual and group should be treated equally under law" is a bad political stance then you have some very weird concepts of law and equality. Actually, it does imply the gay marriage debate. Homosexuals, in fact, are treated equally under the law. Marriage, however, is a separate matter. Married couples receive special treatment under the law. As a single person, whether gay or straight, one is not entitled to this treatment. So to speak of equality necessarily implies marriage equality. From a pure legal standpoint, this seems wrong. Straight people have the right to marry the person they love, and have this commitment recognized by the state. Gay people do not have this right. What am I missing? Legally speaking, straight people are afforded privileges by the democratic state if and when they marry. These are the benefits gay couples also seek. Were the debate simply about being with the person you love and having that arrangement labeled "marriage", there would be little debate, since gay people are free to be with whomever they will, even if the arrangement does not have a special name. Legal treatments given to marriage are what is at stake here, and since they are granted by a democratic government, the people have a say about who receives them and who does not. Still not seeing the problem with everyone being treated equally though. Your argument that straight married couples receive special treatment and gays do not still boils down to one group not being treated the same as the other I do not think the two groups should be treated as equal. I think the legal protections given to straight marriage exist for a reason. Marriage and its natural extension, the family, are fundamental to a society's moral fabric. I, for one, do not believe gay marriage carries the same benefits for society as straight marriage does. For me, the argument boils down to children, who are a nonfactor in debates about equality. Children are the natural product of a mother and a father, and it is in this context that they deserve to be raised. Since marriage and family are closely intertwined, and as a member of a democratic society which decides what constitutes the legal institution of marriage, I cannot support gay marriage.
Let's take a look at article 1 point 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
I don't think that leaves much room for what should and shouldn't be a right. Unless you want to try and argue that it semantically means it must be one man and one woman. Something this statement doesn't point out, nor does it point out that it is only 2 people.
And what is to say a same sex couple is not a family unit, lesbians can (and do) have biological children. Two men can adopt, just like infertile heterosexual couples can. These laws would help protect those family units better. Something they should be granted by the state, as stated in the previous quote from the UDHR.
|
On June 27 2013 07:33 Gen.Rolly wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 18:19 marvellosity wrote:On June 26 2013 18:10 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 17:50 Ahelvin wrote:On June 26 2013 17:43 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 16:48 salle wrote:On June 26 2013 11:28 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 07:25 salle wrote:On June 26 2013 06:15 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 06:06 marvellosity wrote:
[quote]
Not going to trawl the thread for you, but along the lines of "we're anti-discrimination and for equality, so we're happy to do this, and if you're not happy then tough titties". Paraphrasing a little. Alright thanks. I still feel their position is unnecessary and there is no reason to use their position as TL admins to promote a particular political/moral ideology. If they wanted to offend people, they succeeded. “It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what.” ― Stephen Fry This is a great quote. To be more specific, it appears TL admins are taking advantage of community-generated e-sports content on TL.net to promote a particular political ideology. Since marriage is a political institution, where taxpayer-supported treatment to married couples and their dependents are codified into laws ratified by a democratic government, taking a stance on whether one feels those treatments should extend to homosexual couples is necessarily a political stance. Some may find the TL admins' use of their forum to promote their particular political viewpoint unnecessary, if not unfair because not everyone who contributes to the great community that is TL shares their views. I don't believe marriage is ever mentioned. it's simply a rainbow maned horse logo with the hover text "TL loves ESPORTS, equally." This is simply you extrapolating. But to reply to your post if "each individual and group should be treated equally under law" is a bad political stance then you have some very weird concepts of law and equality. Actually, it does imply the gay marriage debate. Homosexuals, in fact, are treated equally under the law. Marriage, however, is a separate matter. Married couples receive special treatment under the law. As a single person, whether gay or straight, one is not entitled to this treatment. So to speak of equality necessarily implies marriage equality. To recap my separate posts thus far, the U.S. is a democratic society, and the special treatment given to married couples by our government is given by the people, like all of our laws. Therefore, we the people decide who falls within that privileged group. Again, I feel the TL admins are taking advantage of the community-generated e-sports content on TL.net to promote a particular political ideology. Since marriage is a political institution, where taxpayer-supported treatment to married couples and their dependents are codified into laws ratified by a democratic government, taking a stance on whether one feels those treatments should extend to homosexual couples is necessarily a political stance. Some may find the TL admins' use of their forum to promote their particular political viewpoint unnecessary, if not unfair because not everyone who contributes to TL shares their views. Then the people that are contributing to TL and find TL taking a stance on the issue unfair can go to a different community I guess? There are plenty of other ways people can contribute to Esports outside TL (running a YouTube channel for instance). On June 26 2013 17:43 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 16:48 salle wrote:On June 26 2013 11:28 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 07:25 salle wrote:On June 26 2013 06:15 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 06:06 marvellosity wrote:
[quote]
Not going to trawl the thread for you, but along the lines of "we're anti-discrimination and for equality, so we're happy to do this, and if you're not happy then tough titties". Paraphrasing a little. Alright thanks. I still feel their position is unnecessary and there is no reason to use their position as TL admins to promote a particular political/moral ideology. If they wanted to offend people, they succeeded. “It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what.” ― Stephen Fry This is a great quote. To be more specific, it appears TL admins are taking advantage of community-generated e-sports content on TL.net to promote a particular political ideology. Since marriage is a political institution, where taxpayer-supported treatment to married couples and their dependents are codified into laws ratified by a democratic government, taking a stance on whether one feels those treatments should extend to homosexual couples is necessarily a political stance. Some may find the TL admins' use of their forum to promote their particular political viewpoint unnecessary, if not unfair because not everyone who contributes to the great community that is TL shares their views. I don't believe marriage is ever mentioned. it's simply a rainbow maned horse logo with the hover text "TL loves ESPORTS, equally." This is simply you extrapolating. But to reply to your post if "each individual and group should be treated equally under law" is a bad political stance then you have some very weird concepts of law and equality. Actually, it does imply the gay marriage debate. Homosexuals, in fact, are treated equally under the law. Marriage, however, is a separate matter. Married couples receive special treatment under the law. As a single person, whether gay or straight, one is not entitled to this treatment. So to speak of equality necessarily implies marriage equality. From a pure legal standpoint, this seems wrong. Straight people have the right to marry the person they love, and have this commitment recognized by the state. Gay people do not have this right. What am I missing? Legally speaking, straight people are afforded privileges by the democratic state if and when they marry. These are the benefits gay couples also seek. Were the debate simply about being with the person you love and having that arrangement labeled "marriage", there would be little debate, since gay people are free to be with whomever they will, even if the arrangement does not have a special name. Legal treatments given to marriage are what is at stake here, and since they are granted by a democratic government, the people have a say about who receives them and who does not. Still not seeing the problem with everyone being treated equally though. Your argument that straight married couples receive special treatment and gays do not still boils down to one group not being treated the same as the other I do not think the two groups should be treated as equal. I think the legal protections given to straight marriage exist for a reason. Marriage and its natural extension, the family, are fundamental to a society's moral fabric. I, for one, do not believe gay marriage carries the same benefits for society as straight marriage does. For me, the argument boils down to children, who are a nonfactor in debates about equality. Children are the natural product of a mother and a father, and it is in this context that they deserve to be raised. Since marriage and family are closely intertwined, and as a member of a democratic society which decides what constitutes the legal institution of marriage, I cannot support gay marriage.
Let me point out your fallacies
1. Family is not a natural extension of marriage. The very idea is stupid, considering marriage is a manmade contract, and therefore not natural at all.
2. Marriage and family are vital to society's moral fabric? Whose ass did you pull this out of? Single people without family are immoral now?
3. Children
4. In mammals, children are produced by live birth between two mammals of the opposite gender.
5. Because of 4, children should be raised by a mother and father, nobody else, like gay people. Except for single parents, children with dead parents, children who are in foster care. But those exceptions are fine. Gay parents are bad (despite the lack of evidence).
6. Since marriage and family are intertwined - Ok let's go with this one: Gay people don't deserve family. Aww that's so sweet of you.
Now let's break down exactly why what you said is dumb:
Your basic premise is that gay people shouldn't marry because then they will have children and the children will be bad.
Well the reality is that gay people already have children *gasp* and they're not doing too bad. Maybe we should ignore the argument that has no grounding in reality! Or maybe you're suggesting that following their ability to marry they will start adopting children like they're phone apps. That would be a cool argument but I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that.
|
I did this for gay pride 2011.
![[image loading]](http://i1122.photobucket.com/albums/l523/jarrydesque/Pride2011001.jpg)
You can check the rest of the blog here.
I demand credit for coming up with the TL rainbow homo <3 logo.
Thanks.
|
On June 27 2013 07:55 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 07:33 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 18:19 marvellosity wrote:On June 26 2013 18:10 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 17:50 Ahelvin wrote:On June 26 2013 17:43 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 16:48 salle wrote:On June 26 2013 11:28 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 07:25 salle wrote:On June 26 2013 06:15 Gen.Rolly wrote:
[quote]
Alright thanks. I still feel their position is unnecessary and there is no reason to use their position as TL admins to promote a particular political/moral ideology. If they wanted to offend people, they succeeded.
“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what.” ― Stephen Fry This is a great quote. To be more specific, it appears TL admins are taking advantage of community-generated e-sports content on TL.net to promote a particular political ideology. Since marriage is a political institution, where taxpayer-supported treatment to married couples and their dependents are codified into laws ratified by a democratic government, taking a stance on whether one feels those treatments should extend to homosexual couples is necessarily a political stance. Some may find the TL admins' use of their forum to promote their particular political viewpoint unnecessary, if not unfair because not everyone who contributes to the great community that is TL shares their views. I don't believe marriage is ever mentioned. it's simply a rainbow maned horse logo with the hover text "TL loves ESPORTS, equally." This is simply you extrapolating. But to reply to your post if "each individual and group should be treated equally under law" is a bad political stance then you have some very weird concepts of law and equality. Actually, it does imply the gay marriage debate. Homosexuals, in fact, are treated equally under the law. Marriage, however, is a separate matter. Married couples receive special treatment under the law. As a single person, whether gay or straight, one is not entitled to this treatment. So to speak of equality necessarily implies marriage equality. To recap my separate posts thus far, the U.S. is a democratic society, and the special treatment given to married couples by our government is given by the people, like all of our laws. Therefore, we the people decide who falls within that privileged group. Again, I feel the TL admins are taking advantage of the community-generated e-sports content on TL.net to promote a particular political ideology. Since marriage is a political institution, where taxpayer-supported treatment to married couples and their dependents are codified into laws ratified by a democratic government, taking a stance on whether one feels those treatments should extend to homosexual couples is necessarily a political stance. Some may find the TL admins' use of their forum to promote their particular political viewpoint unnecessary, if not unfair because not everyone who contributes to TL shares their views. Then the people that are contributing to TL and find TL taking a stance on the issue unfair can go to a different community I guess? There are plenty of other ways people can contribute to Esports outside TL (running a YouTube channel for instance). On June 26 2013 17:43 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 16:48 salle wrote:On June 26 2013 11:28 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 07:25 salle wrote:On June 26 2013 06:15 Gen.Rolly wrote:
[quote]
Alright thanks. I still feel their position is unnecessary and there is no reason to use their position as TL admins to promote a particular political/moral ideology. If they wanted to offend people, they succeeded.
“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what.” ― Stephen Fry This is a great quote. To be more specific, it appears TL admins are taking advantage of community-generated e-sports content on TL.net to promote a particular political ideology. Since marriage is a political institution, where taxpayer-supported treatment to married couples and their dependents are codified into laws ratified by a democratic government, taking a stance on whether one feels those treatments should extend to homosexual couples is necessarily a political stance. Some may find the TL admins' use of their forum to promote their particular political viewpoint unnecessary, if not unfair because not everyone who contributes to the great community that is TL shares their views. I don't believe marriage is ever mentioned. it's simply a rainbow maned horse logo with the hover text "TL loves ESPORTS, equally." This is simply you extrapolating. But to reply to your post if "each individual and group should be treated equally under law" is a bad political stance then you have some very weird concepts of law and equality. Actually, it does imply the gay marriage debate. Homosexuals, in fact, are treated equally under the law. Marriage, however, is a separate matter. Married couples receive special treatment under the law. As a single person, whether gay or straight, one is not entitled to this treatment. So to speak of equality necessarily implies marriage equality. From a pure legal standpoint, this seems wrong. Straight people have the right to marry the person they love, and have this commitment recognized by the state. Gay people do not have this right. What am I missing? Legally speaking, straight people are afforded privileges by the democratic state if and when they marry. These are the benefits gay couples also seek. Were the debate simply about being with the person you love and having that arrangement labeled "marriage", there would be little debate, since gay people are free to be with whomever they will, even if the arrangement does not have a special name. Legal treatments given to marriage are what is at stake here, and since they are granted by a democratic government, the people have a say about who receives them and who does not. Still not seeing the problem with everyone being treated equally though. Your argument that straight married couples receive special treatment and gays do not still boils down to one group not being treated the same as the other I do not think the two groups should be treated as equal. I think the legal protections given to straight marriage exist for a reason. Marriage and its natural extension, the family, are fundamental to a society's moral fabric. I, for one, do not believe gay marriage carries the same benefits for society as straight marriage does. For me, the argument boils down to children, who are a nonfactor in debates about equality. Children are the natural product of a mother and a father, and it is in this context that they deserve to be raised. Since marriage and family are closely intertwined, and as a member of a democratic society which decides what constitutes the legal institution of marriage, I cannot support gay marriage. Let me point out your fallacies 1. Family is not a natural extension of marriage. The very idea is stupid, considering marriage is a manmade contract, and therefore not natural at all. 2. Marriage and family are vital to society's moral fabric? Whose ass did you pull this out of? Single people without family are immoral now? 3. Children 4. In mammals, children are produced by live birth between two mammals of the opposite gender. 5. Because of 4, children should be raised by a mother and father, nobody else, like gay people. Except for single parents, children with dead parents, children who are in foster care. But those exceptions are fine. Gay parents are bad (despite the lack of evidence). 6. Since marriage and family are intertwined - Ok let's go with this one: Gay people don't deserve family. Aww that's so sweet of you. Now let's break down exactly why what you said is dumb: Your basic premise is that gay people shouldn't marry because then they will have children and the children will be bad. Well the reality is that gay people already have children *gasp* and they're not doing too bad. Maybe we should ignore the argument that has no grounding in reality! Or maybe you're suggesting that following their ability to marry they will start adopting children like they're phone apps. That would be a cool argument but I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that.
1. Actually, marriage and family are closely intertwined. I am not sure why you consider this idea to be stupid. Marriage may be a manmade contract, but the concept of family flows "naturally" from it, as in children are a natural product of a marriage.
2. Marriage and family are an incubator for society's morals. This does imply "single people without family are immoral."
3, 4, 5. We live in a society where not every child is privileged to grow up in a loving family. However, I feel every child has the right to be raised by a mom and a dad. Feel free to cite the evidence you mention.
6. It is not that gay people do not deserve a family. Rather, children deserve both a mom and a dad. For this reason, I do not support gay adoptions or artificial insemination by gay couples either.
|
On June 27 2013 08:35 Gen.Rolly wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 07:55 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 07:33 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 18:19 marvellosity wrote:On June 26 2013 18:10 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 17:50 Ahelvin wrote:On June 26 2013 17:43 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 16:48 salle wrote:On June 26 2013 11:28 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 07:25 salle wrote:
[quote]
“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what.”
― Stephen Fry This is a great quote. To be more specific, it appears TL admins are taking advantage of community-generated e-sports content on TL.net to promote a particular political ideology. Since marriage is a political institution, where taxpayer-supported treatment to married couples and their dependents are codified into laws ratified by a democratic government, taking a stance on whether one feels those treatments should extend to homosexual couples is necessarily a political stance. Some may find the TL admins' use of their forum to promote their particular political viewpoint unnecessary, if not unfair because not everyone who contributes to the great community that is TL shares their views. I don't believe marriage is ever mentioned. it's simply a rainbow maned horse logo with the hover text "TL loves ESPORTS, equally." This is simply you extrapolating. But to reply to your post if "each individual and group should be treated equally under law" is a bad political stance then you have some very weird concepts of law and equality. Actually, it does imply the gay marriage debate. Homosexuals, in fact, are treated equally under the law. Marriage, however, is a separate matter. Married couples receive special treatment under the law. As a single person, whether gay or straight, one is not entitled to this treatment. So to speak of equality necessarily implies marriage equality. To recap my separate posts thus far, the U.S. is a democratic society, and the special treatment given to married couples by our government is given by the people, like all of our laws. Therefore, we the people decide who falls within that privileged group. Again, I feel the TL admins are taking advantage of the community-generated e-sports content on TL.net to promote a particular political ideology. Since marriage is a political institution, where taxpayer-supported treatment to married couples and their dependents are codified into laws ratified by a democratic government, taking a stance on whether one feels those treatments should extend to homosexual couples is necessarily a political stance. Some may find the TL admins' use of their forum to promote their particular political viewpoint unnecessary, if not unfair because not everyone who contributes to TL shares their views. Then the people that are contributing to TL and find TL taking a stance on the issue unfair can go to a different community I guess? There are plenty of other ways people can contribute to Esports outside TL (running a YouTube channel for instance). On June 26 2013 17:43 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 16:48 salle wrote:On June 26 2013 11:28 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 07:25 salle wrote:
[quote]
“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what.”
― Stephen Fry This is a great quote. To be more specific, it appears TL admins are taking advantage of community-generated e-sports content on TL.net to promote a particular political ideology. Since marriage is a political institution, where taxpayer-supported treatment to married couples and their dependents are codified into laws ratified by a democratic government, taking a stance on whether one feels those treatments should extend to homosexual couples is necessarily a political stance. Some may find the TL admins' use of their forum to promote their particular political viewpoint unnecessary, if not unfair because not everyone who contributes to the great community that is TL shares their views. I don't believe marriage is ever mentioned. it's simply a rainbow maned horse logo with the hover text "TL loves ESPORTS, equally." This is simply you extrapolating. But to reply to your post if "each individual and group should be treated equally under law" is a bad political stance then you have some very weird concepts of law and equality. Actually, it does imply the gay marriage debate. Homosexuals, in fact, are treated equally under the law. Marriage, however, is a separate matter. Married couples receive special treatment under the law. As a single person, whether gay or straight, one is not entitled to this treatment. So to speak of equality necessarily implies marriage equality. From a pure legal standpoint, this seems wrong. Straight people have the right to marry the person they love, and have this commitment recognized by the state. Gay people do not have this right. What am I missing? Legally speaking, straight people are afforded privileges by the democratic state if and when they marry. These are the benefits gay couples also seek. Were the debate simply about being with the person you love and having that arrangement labeled "marriage", there would be little debate, since gay people are free to be with whomever they will, even if the arrangement does not have a special name. Legal treatments given to marriage are what is at stake here, and since they are granted by a democratic government, the people have a say about who receives them and who does not. Still not seeing the problem with everyone being treated equally though. Your argument that straight married couples receive special treatment and gays do not still boils down to one group not being treated the same as the other I do not think the two groups should be treated as equal. I think the legal protections given to straight marriage exist for a reason. Marriage and its natural extension, the family, are fundamental to a society's moral fabric. I, for one, do not believe gay marriage carries the same benefits for society as straight marriage does. For me, the argument boils down to children, who are a nonfactor in debates about equality. Children are the natural product of a mother and a father, and it is in this context that they deserve to be raised. Since marriage and family are closely intertwined, and as a member of a democratic society which decides what constitutes the legal institution of marriage, I cannot support gay marriage. Let me point out your fallacies 1. Family is not a natural extension of marriage. The very idea is stupid, considering marriage is a manmade contract, and therefore not natural at all. 2. Marriage and family are vital to society's moral fabric? Whose ass did you pull this out of? Single people without family are immoral now? 3. Children 4. In mammals, children are produced by live birth between two mammals of the opposite gender. 5. Because of 4, children should be raised by a mother and father, nobody else, like gay people. Except for single parents, children with dead parents, children who are in foster care. But those exceptions are fine. Gay parents are bad (despite the lack of evidence). 6. Since marriage and family are intertwined - Ok let's go with this one: Gay people don't deserve family. Aww that's so sweet of you. Now let's break down exactly why what you said is dumb: Your basic premise is that gay people shouldn't marry because then they will have children and the children will be bad. Well the reality is that gay people already have children *gasp* and they're not doing too bad. Maybe we should ignore the argument that has no grounding in reality! Or maybe you're suggesting that following their ability to marry they will start adopting children like they're phone apps. That would be a cool argument but I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that. 1. Actually, marriage and family are closely intertwined. I am not sure why you consider this idea to be stupid. Marriage may be a manmade contract, but the concept of family flows "naturally" from it, as in children are a natural product of a marriage. 2. Marriage and family are an incubator for society's morals. This does imply "single people without family are immoral." 3, 4, 5. We live in a society where not every child is privileged to grow up in a loving family. However, I feel every child has the right to be raised by a mom and a dad. Feel free to cite the evidence you mention. 6. It is not that gay people do not deserve a family. Rather, children deserve both a mom and a dad. For this reason, I do not support gay adoptions or artificial insemination by gay couples either.
Why can't homosexual couples instil the same values that heterosexual couples can? Plenty of people grow up without a parent of one gender. Also children frequently look to adults besides their biological parents as role-models. I don't think anyone should bother trying to change your mind since it's obviously a waste of time but a person as intelligent as yourself should be able to see the obvious problems with your logic. Even if they can't admit it.
|
On June 27 2013 07:52 salle wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 07:33 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 18:19 marvellosity wrote:On June 26 2013 18:10 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 17:50 Ahelvin wrote:On June 26 2013 17:43 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 16:48 salle wrote:On June 26 2013 11:28 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 07:25 salle wrote:On June 26 2013 06:15 Gen.Rolly wrote:
[quote]
Alright thanks. I still feel their position is unnecessary and there is no reason to use their position as TL admins to promote a particular political/moral ideology. If they wanted to offend people, they succeeded.
“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what.” ― Stephen Fry This is a great quote. To be more specific, it appears TL admins are taking advantage of community-generated e-sports content on TL.net to promote a particular political ideology. Since marriage is a political institution, where taxpayer-supported treatment to married couples and their dependents are codified into laws ratified by a democratic government, taking a stance on whether one feels those treatments should extend to homosexual couples is necessarily a political stance. Some may find the TL admins' use of their forum to promote their particular political viewpoint unnecessary, if not unfair because not everyone who contributes to the great community that is TL shares their views. I don't believe marriage is ever mentioned. it's simply a rainbow maned horse logo with the hover text "TL loves ESPORTS, equally." This is simply you extrapolating. But to reply to your post if "each individual and group should be treated equally under law" is a bad political stance then you have some very weird concepts of law and equality. Actually, it does imply the gay marriage debate. Homosexuals, in fact, are treated equally under the law. Marriage, however, is a separate matter. Married couples receive special treatment under the law. As a single person, whether gay or straight, one is not entitled to this treatment. So to speak of equality necessarily implies marriage equality. To recap my separate posts thus far, the U.S. is a democratic society, and the special treatment given to married couples by our government is given by the people, like all of our laws. Therefore, we the people decide who falls within that privileged group. Again, I feel the TL admins are taking advantage of the community-generated e-sports content on TL.net to promote a particular political ideology. Since marriage is a political institution, where taxpayer-supported treatment to married couples and their dependents are codified into laws ratified by a democratic government, taking a stance on whether one feels those treatments should extend to homosexual couples is necessarily a political stance. Some may find the TL admins' use of their forum to promote their particular political viewpoint unnecessary, if not unfair because not everyone who contributes to TL shares their views. Then the people that are contributing to TL and find TL taking a stance on the issue unfair can go to a different community I guess? There are plenty of other ways people can contribute to Esports outside TL (running a YouTube channel for instance). On June 26 2013 17:43 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 16:48 salle wrote:On June 26 2013 11:28 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 07:25 salle wrote:On June 26 2013 06:15 Gen.Rolly wrote:
[quote]
Alright thanks. I still feel their position is unnecessary and there is no reason to use their position as TL admins to promote a particular political/moral ideology. If they wanted to offend people, they succeeded.
“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what.” ― Stephen Fry This is a great quote. To be more specific, it appears TL admins are taking advantage of community-generated e-sports content on TL.net to promote a particular political ideology. Since marriage is a political institution, where taxpayer-supported treatment to married couples and their dependents are codified into laws ratified by a democratic government, taking a stance on whether one feels those treatments should extend to homosexual couples is necessarily a political stance. Some may find the TL admins' use of their forum to promote their particular political viewpoint unnecessary, if not unfair because not everyone who contributes to the great community that is TL shares their views. I don't believe marriage is ever mentioned. it's simply a rainbow maned horse logo with the hover text "TL loves ESPORTS, equally." This is simply you extrapolating. But to reply to your post if "each individual and group should be treated equally under law" is a bad political stance then you have some very weird concepts of law and equality. Actually, it does imply the gay marriage debate. Homosexuals, in fact, are treated equally under the law. Marriage, however, is a separate matter. Married couples receive special treatment under the law. As a single person, whether gay or straight, one is not entitled to this treatment. So to speak of equality necessarily implies marriage equality. From a pure legal standpoint, this seems wrong. Straight people have the right to marry the person they love, and have this commitment recognized by the state. Gay people do not have this right. What am I missing? Legally speaking, straight people are afforded privileges by the democratic state if and when they marry. These are the benefits gay couples also seek. Were the debate simply about being with the person you love and having that arrangement labeled "marriage", there would be little debate, since gay people are free to be with whomever they will, even if the arrangement does not have a special name. Legal treatments given to marriage are what is at stake here, and since they are granted by a democratic government, the people have a say about who receives them and who does not. Still not seeing the problem with everyone being treated equally though. Your argument that straight married couples receive special treatment and gays do not still boils down to one group not being treated the same as the other I do not think the two groups should be treated as equal. I think the legal protections given to straight marriage exist for a reason. Marriage and its natural extension, the family, are fundamental to a society's moral fabric. I, for one, do not believe gay marriage carries the same benefits for society as straight marriage does. For me, the argument boils down to children, who are a nonfactor in debates about equality. Children are the natural product of a mother and a father, and it is in this context that they deserve to be raised. Since marriage and family are closely intertwined, and as a member of a democratic society which decides what constitutes the legal institution of marriage, I cannot support gay marriage. Let's take a look at article 1 point 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Show nested quote + (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. I don't think that leaves much room for what should and shouldn't be a right. Unless you want to try and argue that it semantically means it must be one man and one woman. Something this statement doesn't point out, nor does it point out that it is only 2 people. And what is to say a same sex couple is not a family unit, lesbians can (and do) have biological children. Two men can adopt, just like infertile heterosexual couples can. These laws would help protect those family units better. Something they should be granted by the state, as stated in the previous quote from the UDHR.
This article does not address gay marriage. Your view of a family is different from mine. I believe every child deserves a father and mother, and it is those families that I want my government to support.
|
On June 27 2013 08:46 Maxd11 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 08:35 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 07:55 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 07:33 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 18:19 marvellosity wrote:On June 26 2013 18:10 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 17:50 Ahelvin wrote:On June 26 2013 17:43 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 16:48 salle wrote:On June 26 2013 11:28 Gen.Rolly wrote:
[quote]
This is a great quote. To be more specific, it appears TL admins are taking advantage of community-generated e-sports content on TL.net to promote a particular political ideology. Since marriage is a political institution, where taxpayer-supported treatment to married couples and their dependents are codified into laws ratified by a democratic government, taking a stance on whether one feels those treatments should extend to homosexual couples is necessarily a political stance. Some may find the TL admins' use of their forum to promote their particular political viewpoint unnecessary, if not unfair because not everyone who contributes to the great community that is TL shares their views.
I don't believe marriage is ever mentioned. it's simply a rainbow maned horse logo with the hover text "TL loves ESPORTS, equally." This is simply you extrapolating. But to reply to your post if "each individual and group should be treated equally under law" is a bad political stance then you have some very weird concepts of law and equality. Actually, it does imply the gay marriage debate. Homosexuals, in fact, are treated equally under the law. Marriage, however, is a separate matter. Married couples receive special treatment under the law. As a single person, whether gay or straight, one is not entitled to this treatment. So to speak of equality necessarily implies marriage equality. To recap my separate posts thus far, the U.S. is a democratic society, and the special treatment given to married couples by our government is given by the people, like all of our laws. Therefore, we the people decide who falls within that privileged group. Again, I feel the TL admins are taking advantage of the community-generated e-sports content on TL.net to promote a particular political ideology. Since marriage is a political institution, where taxpayer-supported treatment to married couples and their dependents are codified into laws ratified by a democratic government, taking a stance on whether one feels those treatments should extend to homosexual couples is necessarily a political stance. Some may find the TL admins' use of their forum to promote their particular political viewpoint unnecessary, if not unfair because not everyone who contributes to TL shares their views. Then the people that are contributing to TL and find TL taking a stance on the issue unfair can go to a different community I guess? There are plenty of other ways people can contribute to Esports outside TL (running a YouTube channel for instance). On June 26 2013 17:43 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 16:48 salle wrote:On June 26 2013 11:28 Gen.Rolly wrote:
[quote]
This is a great quote. To be more specific, it appears TL admins are taking advantage of community-generated e-sports content on TL.net to promote a particular political ideology. Since marriage is a political institution, where taxpayer-supported treatment to married couples and their dependents are codified into laws ratified by a democratic government, taking a stance on whether one feels those treatments should extend to homosexual couples is necessarily a political stance. Some may find the TL admins' use of their forum to promote their particular political viewpoint unnecessary, if not unfair because not everyone who contributes to the great community that is TL shares their views.
I don't believe marriage is ever mentioned. it's simply a rainbow maned horse logo with the hover text "TL loves ESPORTS, equally." This is simply you extrapolating. But to reply to your post if "each individual and group should be treated equally under law" is a bad political stance then you have some very weird concepts of law and equality. Actually, it does imply the gay marriage debate. Homosexuals, in fact, are treated equally under the law. Marriage, however, is a separate matter. Married couples receive special treatment under the law. As a single person, whether gay or straight, one is not entitled to this treatment. So to speak of equality necessarily implies marriage equality. From a pure legal standpoint, this seems wrong. Straight people have the right to marry the person they love, and have this commitment recognized by the state. Gay people do not have this right. What am I missing? Legally speaking, straight people are afforded privileges by the democratic state if and when they marry. These are the benefits gay couples also seek. Were the debate simply about being with the person you love and having that arrangement labeled "marriage", there would be little debate, since gay people are free to be with whomever they will, even if the arrangement does not have a special name. Legal treatments given to marriage are what is at stake here, and since they are granted by a democratic government, the people have a say about who receives them and who does not. Still not seeing the problem with everyone being treated equally though. Your argument that straight married couples receive special treatment and gays do not still boils down to one group not being treated the same as the other I do not think the two groups should be treated as equal. I think the legal protections given to straight marriage exist for a reason. Marriage and its natural extension, the family, are fundamental to a society's moral fabric. I, for one, do not believe gay marriage carries the same benefits for society as straight marriage does. For me, the argument boils down to children, who are a nonfactor in debates about equality. Children are the natural product of a mother and a father, and it is in this context that they deserve to be raised. Since marriage and family are closely intertwined, and as a member of a democratic society which decides what constitutes the legal institution of marriage, I cannot support gay marriage. Let me point out your fallacies 1. Family is not a natural extension of marriage. The very idea is stupid, considering marriage is a manmade contract, and therefore not natural at all. 2. Marriage and family are vital to society's moral fabric? Whose ass did you pull this out of? Single people without family are immoral now? 3. Children 4. In mammals, children are produced by live birth between two mammals of the opposite gender. 5. Because of 4, children should be raised by a mother and father, nobody else, like gay people. Except for single parents, children with dead parents, children who are in foster care. But those exceptions are fine. Gay parents are bad (despite the lack of evidence). 6. Since marriage and family are intertwined - Ok let's go with this one: Gay people don't deserve family. Aww that's so sweet of you. Now let's break down exactly why what you said is dumb: Your basic premise is that gay people shouldn't marry because then they will have children and the children will be bad. Well the reality is that gay people already have children *gasp* and they're not doing too bad. Maybe we should ignore the argument that has no grounding in reality! Or maybe you're suggesting that following their ability to marry they will start adopting children like they're phone apps. That would be a cool argument but I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that. 1. Actually, marriage and family are closely intertwined. I am not sure why you consider this idea to be stupid. Marriage may be a manmade contract, but the concept of family flows "naturally" from it, as in children are a natural product of a marriage. 2. Marriage and family are an incubator for society's morals. This does imply "single people without family are immoral." 3, 4, 5. We live in a society where not every child is privileged to grow up in a loving family. However, I feel every child has the right to be raised by a mom and a dad. Feel free to cite the evidence you mention. 6. It is not that gay people do not deserve a family. Rather, children deserve both a mom and a dad. For this reason, I do not support gay adoptions or artificial insemination by gay couples either. Why can't homosexual couples instil the same values that heterosexual couples can? Plenty of people grow up without a parent of one gender. Also children frequently look to adults besides their biological parents as role-models. I don't think anyone should bother trying to change your mind since it's obviously a waste of time but a person as intelligent as yourself should be able to see the obvious problems with your logic. Even if they can't admit it.
Telling some one they have a problem in their logic is not a real argument. Even "someone as intelligent as yourself" should be able to see that. Maybe homosexual couples can instill the same values that heterosexual couples can. However, children are not asked why kind of parents they would like when they are born or adopted. Since children are the natural product of a father and a mother, I believe that is the best place for them.
|
On June 27 2013 08:35 Gen.Rolly wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 07:55 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 07:33 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 18:19 marvellosity wrote:On June 26 2013 18:10 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 17:50 Ahelvin wrote:On June 26 2013 17:43 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 16:48 salle wrote:On June 26 2013 11:28 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 07:25 salle wrote:
[quote]
“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what.”
― Stephen Fry This is a great quote. To be more specific, it appears TL admins are taking advantage of community-generated e-sports content on TL.net to promote a particular political ideology. Since marriage is a political institution, where taxpayer-supported treatment to married couples and their dependents are codified into laws ratified by a democratic government, taking a stance on whether one feels those treatments should extend to homosexual couples is necessarily a political stance. Some may find the TL admins' use of their forum to promote their particular political viewpoint unnecessary, if not unfair because not everyone who contributes to the great community that is TL shares their views. I don't believe marriage is ever mentioned. it's simply a rainbow maned horse logo with the hover text "TL loves ESPORTS, equally." This is simply you extrapolating. But to reply to your post if "each individual and group should be treated equally under law" is a bad political stance then you have some very weird concepts of law and equality. Actually, it does imply the gay marriage debate. Homosexuals, in fact, are treated equally under the law. Marriage, however, is a separate matter. Married couples receive special treatment under the law. As a single person, whether gay or straight, one is not entitled to this treatment. So to speak of equality necessarily implies marriage equality. To recap my separate posts thus far, the U.S. is a democratic society, and the special treatment given to married couples by our government is given by the people, like all of our laws. Therefore, we the people decide who falls within that privileged group. Again, I feel the TL admins are taking advantage of the community-generated e-sports content on TL.net to promote a particular political ideology. Since marriage is a political institution, where taxpayer-supported treatment to married couples and their dependents are codified into laws ratified by a democratic government, taking a stance on whether one feels those treatments should extend to homosexual couples is necessarily a political stance. Some may find the TL admins' use of their forum to promote their particular political viewpoint unnecessary, if not unfair because not everyone who contributes to TL shares their views. Then the people that are contributing to TL and find TL taking a stance on the issue unfair can go to a different community I guess? There are plenty of other ways people can contribute to Esports outside TL (running a YouTube channel for instance). On June 26 2013 17:43 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 16:48 salle wrote:On June 26 2013 11:28 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 07:25 salle wrote:
[quote]
“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what.”
― Stephen Fry This is a great quote. To be more specific, it appears TL admins are taking advantage of community-generated e-sports content on TL.net to promote a particular political ideology. Since marriage is a political institution, where taxpayer-supported treatment to married couples and their dependents are codified into laws ratified by a democratic government, taking a stance on whether one feels those treatments should extend to homosexual couples is necessarily a political stance. Some may find the TL admins' use of their forum to promote their particular political viewpoint unnecessary, if not unfair because not everyone who contributes to the great community that is TL shares their views. I don't believe marriage is ever mentioned. it's simply a rainbow maned horse logo with the hover text "TL loves ESPORTS, equally." This is simply you extrapolating. But to reply to your post if "each individual and group should be treated equally under law" is a bad political stance then you have some very weird concepts of law and equality. Actually, it does imply the gay marriage debate. Homosexuals, in fact, are treated equally under the law. Marriage, however, is a separate matter. Married couples receive special treatment under the law. As a single person, whether gay or straight, one is not entitled to this treatment. So to speak of equality necessarily implies marriage equality. From a pure legal standpoint, this seems wrong. Straight people have the right to marry the person they love, and have this commitment recognized by the state. Gay people do not have this right. What am I missing? Legally speaking, straight people are afforded privileges by the democratic state if and when they marry. These are the benefits gay couples also seek. Were the debate simply about being with the person you love and having that arrangement labeled "marriage", there would be little debate, since gay people are free to be with whomever they will, even if the arrangement does not have a special name. Legal treatments given to marriage are what is at stake here, and since they are granted by a democratic government, the people have a say about who receives them and who does not. Still not seeing the problem with everyone being treated equally though. Your argument that straight married couples receive special treatment and gays do not still boils down to one group not being treated the same as the other I do not think the two groups should be treated as equal. I think the legal protections given to straight marriage exist for a reason. Marriage and its natural extension, the family, are fundamental to a society's moral fabric. I, for one, do not believe gay marriage carries the same benefits for society as straight marriage does. For me, the argument boils down to children, who are a nonfactor in debates about equality. Children are the natural product of a mother and a father, and it is in this context that they deserve to be raised. Since marriage and family are closely intertwined, and as a member of a democratic society which decides what constitutes the legal institution of marriage, I cannot support gay marriage. Let me point out your fallacies 1. Family is not a natural extension of marriage. The very idea is stupid, considering marriage is a manmade contract, and therefore not natural at all. 2. Marriage and family are vital to society's moral fabric? Whose ass did you pull this out of? Single people without family are immoral now? 3. Children 4. In mammals, children are produced by live birth between two mammals of the opposite gender. 5. Because of 4, children should be raised by a mother and father, nobody else, like gay people. Except for single parents, children with dead parents, children who are in foster care. But those exceptions are fine. Gay parents are bad (despite the lack of evidence). 6. Since marriage and family are intertwined - Ok let's go with this one: Gay people don't deserve family. Aww that's so sweet of you. Now let's break down exactly why what you said is dumb: Your basic premise is that gay people shouldn't marry because then they will have children and the children will be bad. Well the reality is that gay people already have children *gasp* and they're not doing too bad. Maybe we should ignore the argument that has no grounding in reality! Or maybe you're suggesting that following their ability to marry they will start adopting children like they're phone apps. That would be a cool argument but I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that. 1. Actually, marriage and family are closely intertwined. I am not sure why you consider this idea to be stupid. Marriage may be a manmade contract, but the concept of family flows "naturally" from it, as in children are a natural product of a marriage. 2. Marriage and family are an incubator for society's morals. This does imply "single people without family are immoral." 3, 4, 5. We live in a society where not every child is privileged to grow up in a loving family. However, I feel every child has the right to be raised by a mom and a dad. Feel free to cite the evidence you mention. 6. It is not that gay people do not deserve a family. Rather, children deserve both a mom and a dad. For this reason, I do not support gay adoptions or artificial insemination by gay couples either.
+ Show Spoiler +http://cms.bsu.edu/-/media/WWW/DepartmentalContent/CounselingCenter/PDFs/SAFEZONE%20Resources/Children%20of%20gays%20and%20Lesbians.pdf
1. "Children flow forth from marriage" is again, stupid. Can children happen in a marriage? Do they often? Great. That still doesn't establish a causal link. Nor does it really argue your point, considering the child-oriented benefits of marriage are already solely given to couples that have children.
2. This is just wrong. You can learn morality from any source (even the bible!).
345. No, they don't. As I said, you're not consistent in your 'Give every kid a mommy and a daddy!' spiel. Study is first thing in your post.
I started addressing post by post and realized I should just explain the main glaring flaw in your position
You say that gay couples should not be allowed to marry because of the effect that not having a mother and father has on their children. By your argument, children should be taken away from single parents (including gay people). Furthermore your argument basically says that you're doing this for the children, so their lives don't deteriorate. Unfortunately this is earth-is-flat level idiocy. What about the current children of gay couples who cannot receive the benefits that the children of straight couples? It is without reason to say that these children who exist outside of your hypothetical traditional family magic morality equation are less important than the children who you just created in your mind.
|
On June 27 2013 08:52 Gen.Rolly wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 08:46 Maxd11 wrote:On June 27 2013 08:35 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 07:55 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 07:33 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 18:19 marvellosity wrote:On June 26 2013 18:10 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 17:50 Ahelvin wrote:On June 26 2013 17:43 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 16:48 salle wrote:
[quote]
I don't believe marriage is ever mentioned. it's simply a rainbow maned horse logo with the hover text "TL loves ESPORTS, equally."
This is simply you extrapolating.
But to reply to your post if "each individual and group should be treated equally under law" is a bad political stance then you have some very weird concepts of law and equality. Actually, it does imply the gay marriage debate. Homosexuals, in fact, are treated equally under the law. Marriage, however, is a separate matter. Married couples receive special treatment under the law. As a single person, whether gay or straight, one is not entitled to this treatment. So to speak of equality necessarily implies marriage equality. To recap my separate posts thus far, the U.S. is a democratic society, and the special treatment given to married couples by our government is given by the people, like all of our laws. Therefore, we the people decide who falls within that privileged group. Again, I feel the TL admins are taking advantage of the community-generated e-sports content on TL.net to promote a particular political ideology. Since marriage is a political institution, where taxpayer-supported treatment to married couples and their dependents are codified into laws ratified by a democratic government, taking a stance on whether one feels those treatments should extend to homosexual couples is necessarily a political stance. Some may find the TL admins' use of their forum to promote their particular political viewpoint unnecessary, if not unfair because not everyone who contributes to TL shares their views. Then the people that are contributing to TL and find TL taking a stance on the issue unfair can go to a different community I guess? There are plenty of other ways people can contribute to Esports outside TL (running a YouTube channel for instance). On June 26 2013 17:43 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 16:48 salle wrote:
[quote]
I don't believe marriage is ever mentioned. it's simply a rainbow maned horse logo with the hover text "TL loves ESPORTS, equally."
This is simply you extrapolating.
But to reply to your post if "each individual and group should be treated equally under law" is a bad political stance then you have some very weird concepts of law and equality. Actually, it does imply the gay marriage debate. Homosexuals, in fact, are treated equally under the law. Marriage, however, is a separate matter. Married couples receive special treatment under the law. As a single person, whether gay or straight, one is not entitled to this treatment. So to speak of equality necessarily implies marriage equality. From a pure legal standpoint, this seems wrong. Straight people have the right to marry the person they love, and have this commitment recognized by the state. Gay people do not have this right. What am I missing? Legally speaking, straight people are afforded privileges by the democratic state if and when they marry. These are the benefits gay couples also seek. Were the debate simply about being with the person you love and having that arrangement labeled "marriage", there would be little debate, since gay people are free to be with whomever they will, even if the arrangement does not have a special name. Legal treatments given to marriage are what is at stake here, and since they are granted by a democratic government, the people have a say about who receives them and who does not. Still not seeing the problem with everyone being treated equally though. Your argument that straight married couples receive special treatment and gays do not still boils down to one group not being treated the same as the other I do not think the two groups should be treated as equal. I think the legal protections given to straight marriage exist for a reason. Marriage and its natural extension, the family, are fundamental to a society's moral fabric. I, for one, do not believe gay marriage carries the same benefits for society as straight marriage does. For me, the argument boils down to children, who are a nonfactor in debates about equality. Children are the natural product of a mother and a father, and it is in this context that they deserve to be raised. Since marriage and family are closely intertwined, and as a member of a democratic society which decides what constitutes the legal institution of marriage, I cannot support gay marriage. Let me point out your fallacies 1. Family is not a natural extension of marriage. The very idea is stupid, considering marriage is a manmade contract, and therefore not natural at all. 2. Marriage and family are vital to society's moral fabric? Whose ass did you pull this out of? Single people without family are immoral now? 3. Children 4. In mammals, children are produced by live birth between two mammals of the opposite gender. 5. Because of 4, children should be raised by a mother and father, nobody else, like gay people. Except for single parents, children with dead parents, children who are in foster care. But those exceptions are fine. Gay parents are bad (despite the lack of evidence). 6. Since marriage and family are intertwined - Ok let's go with this one: Gay people don't deserve family. Aww that's so sweet of you. Now let's break down exactly why what you said is dumb: Your basic premise is that gay people shouldn't marry because then they will have children and the children will be bad. Well the reality is that gay people already have children *gasp* and they're not doing too bad. Maybe we should ignore the argument that has no grounding in reality! Or maybe you're suggesting that following their ability to marry they will start adopting children like they're phone apps. That would be a cool argument but I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that. 1. Actually, marriage and family are closely intertwined. I am not sure why you consider this idea to be stupid. Marriage may be a manmade contract, but the concept of family flows "naturally" from it, as in children are a natural product of a marriage. 2. Marriage and family are an incubator for society's morals. This does imply "single people without family are immoral." 3, 4, 5. We live in a society where not every child is privileged to grow up in a loving family. However, I feel every child has the right to be raised by a mom and a dad. Feel free to cite the evidence you mention. 6. It is not that gay people do not deserve a family. Rather, children deserve both a mom and a dad. For this reason, I do not support gay adoptions or artificial insemination by gay couples either. Why can't homosexual couples instil the same values that heterosexual couples can? Plenty of people grow up without a parent of one gender. Also children frequently look to adults besides their biological parents as role-models. I don't think anyone should bother trying to change your mind since it's obviously a waste of time but a person as intelligent as yourself should be able to see the obvious problems with your logic. Even if they can't admit it. Telling some one they have a problem in their logic is not a real argument. Even "someone as intelligent as yourself" should be able to see that. Maybe homosexual couples can instill the same values that heterosexual couples can. However, children are not asked why kind of parents they would like when they are born or adopted. Since children are the natural product of a father and a mother, I believe that is the best place for them.
And Homo Sapiens are the natural product of Africa, so that is the best place for them.
No, that's not a fucking argument. We as humans have bent every bit of nature in the world. You know this thing you're using called a computer? It ain't natural. Language? Not natural. Homosexuality? Natural, because it happens in nature.
|
On June 27 2013 08:52 Gen.Rolly wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 08:46 Maxd11 wrote:On June 27 2013 08:35 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 27 2013 07:55 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 07:33 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 18:19 marvellosity wrote:On June 26 2013 18:10 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 17:50 Ahelvin wrote:On June 26 2013 17:43 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 16:48 salle wrote:
[quote]
I don't believe marriage is ever mentioned. it's simply a rainbow maned horse logo with the hover text "TL loves ESPORTS, equally."
This is simply you extrapolating.
But to reply to your post if "each individual and group should be treated equally under law" is a bad political stance then you have some very weird concepts of law and equality. Actually, it does imply the gay marriage debate. Homosexuals, in fact, are treated equally under the law. Marriage, however, is a separate matter. Married couples receive special treatment under the law. As a single person, whether gay or straight, one is not entitled to this treatment. So to speak of equality necessarily implies marriage equality. To recap my separate posts thus far, the U.S. is a democratic society, and the special treatment given to married couples by our government is given by the people, like all of our laws. Therefore, we the people decide who falls within that privileged group. Again, I feel the TL admins are taking advantage of the community-generated e-sports content on TL.net to promote a particular political ideology. Since marriage is a political institution, where taxpayer-supported treatment to married couples and their dependents are codified into laws ratified by a democratic government, taking a stance on whether one feels those treatments should extend to homosexual couples is necessarily a political stance. Some may find the TL admins' use of their forum to promote their particular political viewpoint unnecessary, if not unfair because not everyone who contributes to TL shares their views. Then the people that are contributing to TL and find TL taking a stance on the issue unfair can go to a different community I guess? There are plenty of other ways people can contribute to Esports outside TL (running a YouTube channel for instance). On June 26 2013 17:43 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 16:48 salle wrote:
[quote]
I don't believe marriage is ever mentioned. it's simply a rainbow maned horse logo with the hover text "TL loves ESPORTS, equally."
This is simply you extrapolating.
But to reply to your post if "each individual and group should be treated equally under law" is a bad political stance then you have some very weird concepts of law and equality. Actually, it does imply the gay marriage debate. Homosexuals, in fact, are treated equally under the law. Marriage, however, is a separate matter. Married couples receive special treatment under the law. As a single person, whether gay or straight, one is not entitled to this treatment. So to speak of equality necessarily implies marriage equality. From a pure legal standpoint, this seems wrong. Straight people have the right to marry the person they love, and have this commitment recognized by the state. Gay people do not have this right. What am I missing? Legally speaking, straight people are afforded privileges by the democratic state if and when they marry. These are the benefits gay couples also seek. Were the debate simply about being with the person you love and having that arrangement labeled "marriage", there would be little debate, since gay people are free to be with whomever they will, even if the arrangement does not have a special name. Legal treatments given to marriage are what is at stake here, and since they are granted by a democratic government, the people have a say about who receives them and who does not. Still not seeing the problem with everyone being treated equally though. Your argument that straight married couples receive special treatment and gays do not still boils down to one group not being treated the same as the other I do not think the two groups should be treated as equal. I think the legal protections given to straight marriage exist for a reason. Marriage and its natural extension, the family, are fundamental to a society's moral fabric. I, for one, do not believe gay marriage carries the same benefits for society as straight marriage does. For me, the argument boils down to children, who are a nonfactor in debates about equality. Children are the natural product of a mother and a father, and it is in this context that they deserve to be raised. Since marriage and family are closely intertwined, and as a member of a democratic society which decides what constitutes the legal institution of marriage, I cannot support gay marriage. Let me point out your fallacies 1. Family is not a natural extension of marriage. The very idea is stupid, considering marriage is a manmade contract, and therefore not natural at all. 2. Marriage and family are vital to society's moral fabric? Whose ass did you pull this out of? Single people without family are immoral now? 3. Children 4. In mammals, children are produced by live birth between two mammals of the opposite gender. 5. Because of 4, children should be raised by a mother and father, nobody else, like gay people. Except for single parents, children with dead parents, children who are in foster care. But those exceptions are fine. Gay parents are bad (despite the lack of evidence). 6. Since marriage and family are intertwined - Ok let's go with this one: Gay people don't deserve family. Aww that's so sweet of you. Now let's break down exactly why what you said is dumb: Your basic premise is that gay people shouldn't marry because then they will have children and the children will be bad. Well the reality is that gay people already have children *gasp* and they're not doing too bad. Maybe we should ignore the argument that has no grounding in reality! Or maybe you're suggesting that following their ability to marry they will start adopting children like they're phone apps. That would be a cool argument but I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that. 1. Actually, marriage and family are closely intertwined. I am not sure why you consider this idea to be stupid. Marriage may be a manmade contract, but the concept of family flows "naturally" from it, as in children are a natural product of a marriage. 2. Marriage and family are an incubator for society's morals. This does imply "single people without family are immoral." 3, 4, 5. We live in a society where not every child is privileged to grow up in a loving family. However, I feel every child has the right to be raised by a mom and a dad. Feel free to cite the evidence you mention. 6. It is not that gay people do not deserve a family. Rather, children deserve both a mom and a dad. For this reason, I do not support gay adoptions or artificial insemination by gay couples either. Why can't homosexual couples instil the same values that heterosexual couples can? Plenty of people grow up without a parent of one gender. Also children frequently look to adults besides their biological parents as role-models. I don't think anyone should bother trying to change your mind since it's obviously a waste of time but a person as intelligent as yourself should be able to see the obvious problems with your logic. Even if they can't admit it. Telling some one they have a problem in their logic is not a real argument. Even "someone as intelligent as yourself" should be able to see that. Maybe homosexual couples can instill the same values that heterosexual couples can. However, children are not asked why kind of parents they would like when they are born or adopted. Since children are the natural product of a father and a mother, I believe that is the best place for them.
Studies show that homosexual parents are as good as heterosexual parents and the children does not suffer in any way.
http://www.bu.edu/today/2013/gay-parents-as-good-as-straight-ones/
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/18/peds.2013-0377
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting#Consensus
|
On June 27 2013 08:01 jarrydesque wrote:I did this for gay pride 2011. You can check the rest of the blog here. I demand credit for coming up with the TL rainbow homo <3 logo. Thanks.
hahaha, awesome!
pay the man^
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
