|
On November 05 2008 18:41 KaasZerg wrote:
There are mariages outside the church. Couples only maried by law. Over here it happens all the time. Mariage is not a religious thing anymore.
someone else brought this up earlier.
marriage is of course perfectly plausible now without religion. but viewed as an aggregate whole with all marriages -- good or bad, religious or nonreligious -- added up, then we find that religion still plays a huge role in marriages.
with such deep religious ties, it'll be impossible to impose any sort of interpretation of marriage upon a population without infringing on freedom of religion rights. at least, that's what i'm trying to argue in the OP.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
as for those who question why i'm against gay marriage, i really don't think there's a way to win/lose this argument. you can try to make qualitative arguments on who's a better parent and claim gays are somehow insufficient parents, but that's too far too subjective to be a real argument. of course, the countless failures-as-heterosexual-parents that exist today would serve to self-sabotage any sort of argument in favor of heterosexual parents before it got an inch off the ground.
you can claim divorce rate of gays vs heteroes but really the sample size of gay marriages is too small. and to imply any sort of financial or psychological savings due to banning/unbanning gay marriage is an argument that can never be won for either side.
as for the necessity of biologically procreative intent, this argument is easily countered by heteroes who are incapable of having children, or by illegitimate child-bearing practices.
ultimately, my stance against gay marriage stems from the Bible, which is my moral code. Marriage is defined as between man and woman in the Bible and I agree with that definition. Homosexual activity is defined as sodomy in the Bible and I also agree with that definition. This means those who are homosexuals are sinners. But you know, everyone's a sinner and it's not my place to judge who's a better sinner or not, and this is why I'm not anti-gay. And I am tolerant of gay marriage in that I don't believe I can enforce my religious beliefs over others. But that does not mean I approve of it.
Now, I understand there are those who are biologically predisposed to find greater pleasure in being homosexual. I also understand that getting your dick sucked will probably feel the same whether it's from man or woman, and that there are plenty of nerve endings in the anus to constitute a pleasurable feeling whether you're straight or gay. But whether there are physiological explanations for a leaning towards being gay, the ultimate decision to "be gay" is the choice of that person. In all aspects of life, you are never forced in making a choice.
I believe that choice is wrong.
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
Okay, one LAST thing to add to my 2nd-last post.
I'd just like to re-iterate that the vote we're talking about is going to be "close" to evenly-split. Obviously if the vote were largely one-sided, then not following it would have different implications. But in many of the small issues that never get voted on directly by the people, the outcome would probably be "close" to evenly-split as well, randomly siding with or against the decision made by the gov't. The situation here with Prop 8 is really no different, aside from us knowing the actual vote counts, and knowing they are close to evenly-split as opposed to just assuming they would be.
I don't see how it's a bigger "breach of democracy" than the many decisions that are made by the gov't without ever counting the people's votes.
|
On November 05 2008 18:53 MYM.Testie wrote:
By shedding off illogical and irrational feelings and begin to accept your fellow men and women for who they are. By treating them like equals. You cannot treat them like equals when you see them as lesser beings. If you did not see them in that way, you would recognize that love should be celebrated in a marriage. Not the gender. In 2008 it's become accepted, gay people exist.
The fact you are against your brethren from obtaining the same rights and liberties you have, that you did nothing to attain, that I would not doubt you take for granted, and that they willingly fight for and desperately want.
I am accusing you of being prejudiced and hiding it. You, who have done nothing to attain the rights you have, are denying those who would fight for them. You have no say in what two consenting adults are allowed to do, and you are only delaying the inevitable, because they will be allowed to get married as society progresses in the future and does away with stale mindsets like your own.
So I ask you, why do you think less of gays? You don't think it is in their genes? You think guys really just like cock instead of tits? Because seriously, cock and man ass vs tits?
Because what it really boils down to is people really saying, "... ewww we don't really like you. But ok we can't stop you do what you want to do. But don't call it marriage. Do something like marriage, just not marriage."
Don't feed me bullshit about how it's all sacred and between a man and a woman, because we're adults here. Old traditions are fading fast, and they aren't worth clinging onto. Welcome aboard your brothers and sisters and treat them with respect.
I myself think man sex is gross. I think the sex itself is gross. But woman sex is hot. That's because i'm not attracted to men. And while if I saw men kissing in public, I'd have a reaction, but it'd be one of not being used to seeing it rather than an actual prejudice. There would be no judgment, and I wouldn't tell them they couldn't celebrate their love with marriage. You should be happy that more people want to get married and experience it in all its grandeur.
Instead you are just putting up another barrier that will eventually be torn down as your old way of thinking is replaced with newer, more rational thought.
So yes, I am accusing you of being prejudiced. On what scale, I do not know.
well of course i'm prejudiced.
i don't think homosexuality is anything new when viewed in the macro aspect of world history. homosexuality always reaches peaks and troughs in terms of public popularity. this is not a comparison of "old traditional thought" verses some kind of new and advanced thought. Gay acceptance is just following a cycle.
There were prominent gays in athenian, greek, roman, egyptian, japanese and european cultures. For some, it was just a fad. But in others, the gay way of life was actually viewed to be more logical, a more advanced type of love. Our current impression of gays will also follow this cycle. This is not a build-up of repressed civil rights reaching critical mass. This is about public opinion regarding gays and whether it's an immoral act or a moral one.
|
d_so, there is nothing bad into giving gays the right to marriage, your church doesnt need to marry them, but let the guys marry for god sake, enough with division already.
Its stupid that we are this far into existance and society still feels that religion and tradition should be legislated, if anything, there should be less legislative mechanisms as way of upholding tradition, it does nothing other than slow down social progress, equality, and a better life for all of us.
Gays can have civil union but not marriage ? even if its not a religious marriage ? thats ridiculous.
And this "cycle" you mentioned, is only half valid, because every once in a while an angry mob gathered and destroyed the rights of few for the will of many.
|
god, i hope this stupid thing fails.
hey, if you already got married in cali and this does pass, does that mean your marraige is annulled?
|
=[ doesn't look go although we will never stop protesting it. Face it as long as there are homosexuals there will be homosexuals that want to be married.
SO FUCK IT JUST GIVE IT TO THEM ALREADY. It's not like you stop them from being gay in public or something. T_T
|
what a fuckin waste of time and resources to debate the issue... like it actually matters.
there are millions of people who want the government to recognize that they are life partners; give them what they want so they shut up and i stop hearing about it.
|
United States22883 Posts
On November 05 2008 19:15 d_so wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2008 18:53 MYM.Testie wrote:
By shedding off illogical and irrational feelings and begin to accept your fellow men and women for who they are. By treating them like equals. You cannot treat them like equals when you see them as lesser beings. If you did not see them in that way, you would recognize that love should be celebrated in a marriage. Not the gender. In 2008 it's become accepted, gay people exist.
The fact you are against your brethren from obtaining the same rights and liberties you have, that you did nothing to attain, that I would not doubt you take for granted, and that they willingly fight for and desperately want.
I am accusing you of being prejudiced and hiding it. You, who have done nothing to attain the rights you have, are denying those who would fight for them. You have no say in what two consenting adults are allowed to do, and you are only delaying the inevitable, because they will be allowed to get married as society progresses in the future and does away with stale mindsets like your own.
So I ask you, why do you think less of gays? You don't think it is in their genes? You think guys really just like cock instead of tits? Because seriously, cock and man ass vs tits?
Because what it really boils down to is people really saying, "... ewww we don't really like you. But ok we can't stop you do what you want to do. But don't call it marriage. Do something like marriage, just not marriage."
Don't feed me bullshit about how it's all sacred and between a man and a woman, because we're adults here. Old traditions are fading fast, and they aren't worth clinging onto. Welcome aboard your brothers and sisters and treat them with respect.
I myself think man sex is gross. I think the sex itself is gross. But woman sex is hot. That's because i'm not attracted to men. And while if I saw men kissing in public, I'd have a reaction, but it'd be one of not being used to seeing it rather than an actual prejudice. There would be no judgment, and I wouldn't tell them they couldn't celebrate their love with marriage. You should be happy that more people want to get married and experience it in all its grandeur.
Instead you are just putting up another barrier that will eventually be torn down as your old way of thinking is replaced with newer, more rational thought.
So yes, I am accusing you of being prejudiced. On what scale, I do not know. well of course i'm prejudiced. i don't think homosexuality is anything new when viewed in the macro aspect of world history. homosexuality always reaches peaks and troughs in terms of public popularity. this is not a comparison of "old traditional thought" verses some kind of new and advanced thought. Gay acceptance is just following a cycle. There were prominent gays in athenian, greek, roman, egyptian, japanese and european cultures. For some, it was just a fad. But in others, the gay way of life was actually viewed to be more logical, a more advanced type of love. Our current impression of gays will also follow this cycle. This is not a build-up of repressed civil rights reaching critical mass. This is about public opinion regarding gays and whether it's an immoral act or a moral one.
What the fuck is with this cultural analysis? It's biological makeup.
Honestly, prop 8 failing might end up being a good thing. CA people are going to get married in MA instead, and if Arnie tries to deny them marriage privileges then they appeal to MA, MA sues CA and we finally get the Supreme Court to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act. Unfortunately it has to be challenged and can't just be repealed on its own.
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
|
Yeah it is surprising, you really think California had their head out of their ass because they were such a big blue state.
But nope, the head is firmly lodged.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
only bay area, southern california is not all that 'blue'. look at the splits in la or san diego when it comes to prop 8 and the president
|
god fucking damnit.
no one answered before, what happens to gays who are already married in CA?
|
Grandfathered or anulled?!
|
I voted, "No." I believe everyone should be allowed be married. I personally would rather see a man, and a woman getting married. But, I also feel like gay people should experience the same rights that heterosexual Americans feel. Many people would argue these views with religious ideals. But, in order to make progress the Government should be more secular.
I don't understand why a child would be confused that he has two daddy's, or two mommys. He'd question it with school, and wonder if its ok. But, I don't think a child would turn out gay because their parents were. I could be wrong, but whatever.
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
I just heard on NBC that the old marriages are going to be valid (the ones that were rushed through).
52%-48% btw. Narrow defeat.
|
the attorney general of CA said that there's no plan to annul any of the marriages that took place already
|
If people like Michael Jackson can get married, then gay people should have the right to do so too.
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
On November 06 2008 03:21 CommanderFluffy wrote:
If people like Michael Jackson can get married, then gay people should have the right to do so too.
California says that you are wrong lol.
|
one big step forwards for the country, one step backwards for our state.
Amazing, the people that live in our society. sigh.
|
You and me i was talking to all my friends in their areas none of them voted for 8 T_T must be the dam Vally people
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
