EPTProp 8 Passes/Overturned - California Bans/Unbans Gay Marr…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
| ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
| ||
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
| ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On November 08 2008 01:44 HeadBangaa wrote: Sure. I consider it equivalent to single-parenting (at best). Not ideal, though. Moot point, yes. What asinine rationalization has caused you to believe that it's equivalent to single parenting at best? Because the kid will get made fun of? First of all, kids are assholes and they'll make fun of anyone. Second, who is at greater risk of teasing- A kid with gay parents or a fat kid with glasses? Should we start banning all the hefties with astigmatism from procreating? | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On November 08 2008 04:47 Jibba wrote: What asinine rationalization has caused you to believe that it's equivalent to single parenting at best? Because the kid will get made fun of? First of all, kids are assholes and they'll make fun of anyone. Second, who is at greater risk of teasing- A kid with gay parents or a fat kid with glasses? Should we start banning all the hefties with astigmatism from procreating? Don't worry, that will sort itself out without government intervention. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Suggestion Box
China115 Posts
On November 07 2008 19:50 HeadBangaa wrote: I'm not surprised. Socratic Method isn't used for making friends; it's a process of philosophical elimination. I'm afraid you're not joking, sadly. Disagree. I addressed this concept already a few pages ago, generalizing to the problems plaguing semantic equivocation. Please show me a little more where thanks. Take my arguments at face value instead of trying to psychoanalyze. You're way off base. "Anybody who is against affirmative action hates black people!!!!" ^ Same flavor of wrong. Not really. I don't believe anyone (you included) really cares about the meaning of marriage. I don't know anyone who says they do who doesn't also believe in some nonsense about gays being sick or bad. So convince me otherwise. It's not a far-fetched psychoanalysis, it's pretty much common sense. Then again I'm not even sure what you are saying about gay marriage, other than some slippery slope argument. For all I can tell you are just trolling. Please tell me where you stand, or show me where in this mountain of pages of a thread, to find it. Because reading all of convoluted your side arguments with various people is very time consuming--and there are way too many to justify me reading all of your posts to find what you really think or say you said etc. You can get married even if you can't, won't, or don't want to have kids. We still call this marriage. So I think these points don't matter: -Whether gays can or should adopt or otherwise achieve kids. -Any subsequent points trying to effect the above, such as whether they would be inferior parents to such and such. -That polygamy harms children psychologically. -It's an important question whether we should let gays raise children, but it has nothing to do with gay marriage (see above). You can get married even if you aren't going to have sex. -Say your penis got blown off in 'nam. You can still get married. -Therefore, talking about how unnatural or harmful or whatever you think various ways gays must "make love", don't matter. -BTW you don't have to do anal sex to be gay, and until the 90's it was basically 100% oral sex only, something I think most of you will have a lot less shit to talk shit about. -Maybe it's important for society to have some standards on sexual behavior, some official values, but it doesn't matter for the issue of gay marriage (see above) and may not be currently legal (see below) to do this, per se, except in cases where there is a clear victim of a clearly defined crime (rape, incest, abuse--NOT homosexuality between truly consenting adults per se). The U.S. Government and various states have laws defining marriage and tying legal benefits to it. But: -Take your normal marriage. Say the government started saying you weren't really married, for some technical reason. Would you be married or not? Is it really the government's terminology and benefits that makes your marriage a marriage? -Taking this legal status away from a marriage does not prevent people from having ceremonies, living together, fucking, raising children--even calling themeslves married, being married before god, even having other governments bless and legalize their marriage. -Therefore, does what the government says marriage is, really have anything to do with real marriage, whatever that can be or should be? It seems like it doesn't. It seems like it is the U.S. laws that are equivocating when they say they effect marriage. What they really effect, at best is what we could best call a civil union. And at worst, what they are doing is granting this legal ability of civil union, in a discriminatory way. Marriage is religious for many people--it's sacred. -Your religion says this is a marriage. Mine doesn't. What does it matter? Let's get the government involved? -My religion says your marriage isn't real. Then what? Conclusions -IMO, you personally decide what marriage is or isn't. Like religion, there are different people with different ideas. -Maybe we should legislate various things for the good of society--social structures, esp. re: raising children, or even, having sex. -But in the U.S. you can't treat someone different, grant them different tax breaks or rights or legal abilities, on the basis of sexuality, any more than you can race. We are all equal in the eyes of the law--this is called "equal protection under the law", and if you want to debate against it, debate against it completely, not only in the case of gays. You think we should be able to discriminate against gays, then just say that. Come out of the closet and say it. -Therefore, the way the current law and ideas for the country work, we can't protect marriage by making discriminatory laws--only by taking marriage outside of the realm of law, which seems appropriate given the varying views on it, some of them religious. | ||
|
musiclovr89
United States2 Posts
| ||
|
SpiralArchitect
United States2116 Posts
On November 08 2008 08:39 musiclovr89 wrote: Its part of our constitution that everyone should be created equal and there should be a seperation of church and state. Seriously whats wrong with people Technically their is a separation of church and state right now. But you cant separate citizens from their religion and when put to a vote more people are against gay marriage than for it.  | ||
|
Alizee-
United States845 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
EDIT: Proposition 8 has been overturned by Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, reports CNN. The decision is expected to be appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court, and could reach the Supreme Court if the high court justices agree to review it. | ||
|
UniversalSnip
9871 Posts
| ||
|
Diuqil
United States307 Posts
Aw man.. I'm a strong supporter of Prop 8 | ||
|
synapse
China13814 Posts
| ||
|
Gatsbi
United States1134 Posts
...Why? | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On August 05 2010 06:05 synapse wrote: Proposition 8 should never have passed in the first place. why not? enshrining discrimination into a constitution with nothing more than a simple majority sounds like a great idea! | ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
He believes in the dictatorship of the majority, and think that the minorities desires should be crushed under popular vote, even if they dont directly affect anyones life but theirs | ||
| ||
