06-26-2006, 06:27 AM | #41 (permalink) |
will always be an Alyson Hanniganite
Location: In the dust of the archives
|
Interesting.
I see an awful lot of argument and debate in this thread. What I do not see, is anyone (with the exception of one "Devil's Advocate") take the stated position that Homosexuals should not be permitted to marry. Which...is fine. I, like so many others, also believe that homosexuals should be allowed legal marriage, but that churches should not be forced to marry them. So...what then is the problem? To whom are we arguing our stated point?
__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony "Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt. |
06-26-2006, 06:34 AM | #42 (permalink) | |
Getting it.
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
|
Quote:
The actual equivalent would be having a discussion about racism and asking a racist to chime in with an opinion. She *did not* equate (in that post at least) homophobia with *all* who are against same-sex marriage. It was you who made that leap.
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke |
|
06-26-2006, 06:36 AM | #43 (permalink) | ||
Junkie
Location: Lake Mary, FL
|
Quote:
Quote:
The notion that citizens are equal under the law-- While noble-- Is a load of horse dung. There are many social inequalities present in our every day society, which are not questioned and accepted as common practice (For example, in the United States, we deny criminals the right to vote, we deny minors the right to enter into contracts, you can't legally drink if you're under the age of 21 etc.). If you're going to argue on the basis that denying homosexuals the privilege of marriage is violating the notion that citizens are equal under the law, then you'd better start to challenege all inequalities. Last edited by Infinite_Loser; 06-26-2006 at 06:39 AM.. |
||
06-26-2006, 06:41 AM | #44 (permalink) |
Junkie
Moderator Emeritus
Location: Chicago
|
Looks like I'm going to have to speed up my plot for world dominiation, well at least domestic domination...
I stand by my original statement that I don't think anyone should get married, that all marriage is, is just a piece of paper... but... if the tax status were gotten rid of, and people were smart enough to have wills and powers of attorney and that other stuff (which every adult should have anyhow) What does it matter who marries who? What right does any government have to legalize or illegalize marriage? A person could marry their freakin' dog for all I care... the government has no place saying that it's either legal or illegal.
__________________
Free your heart from hatred. Free your mind from worries. Live simply. Give more. Expect less.
|
06-26-2006, 06:51 AM | #45 (permalink) |
Getting it.
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
|
Infinite_Loser: I wasn't addressing you, or anyone in particular, with my comments about religion. It was simply arguing to remove religion from this debate as it has no place in a discussion of law in a secular society.
Yes, there is a a lot of inequity in the world. So, by you suggestion, unless we can solve all inequity we shouldn't solve any? Wow. (I won't even get into the fact that the examples you have provided included criminals and minors). The issue is, again... equality before the law for adult citizens. A marriage is a marriage. There is no reason (other than bigotry) to deny these rights.
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke |
06-26-2006, 07:06 AM | #46 (permalink) | ||
Junkie
Location: Lake Mary, FL
|
Quote:
And my examples were simply to show that there are a great deal of social inequalities in our societies (Whether you agree with the examples given or not). They were simply the first to come to mind. Quote:
Last edited by Infinite_Loser; 06-26-2006 at 07:11 AM.. |
||
06-26-2006, 07:11 AM | #47 (permalink) | ||
Getting it.
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
|
Quote:
Progress is not instantaneous... it usually happens one fight at a time. Quote:
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke |
||
06-26-2006, 07:13 AM | #48 (permalink) | |
Lover - Protector - Teacher
Location: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
It's the same things.
__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel |
|
06-26-2006, 07:20 AM | #49 (permalink) | ||
Junkie
Location: Lake Mary, FL
|
Quote:
Quote:
Edit: But, you see, we have an accepted status quo which is the result of thousands of years of practice. Unfortunately for many homosexuals, the prevailing attitude throughout many, many cultures is that homosexuality is a gigantic "No no". Even in the United States, when votes are taken on the issue of legalizing gay marriages, you usually receive a resounding "No" vote. It might not be "Fair" but, then again, many things in life rarely are. Last edited by Infinite_Loser; 06-26-2006 at 07:27 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
||
06-26-2006, 07:39 AM | #50 (permalink) | |
Devoted
Donor
Location: New England
|
Quote:
__________________
I can't read your signature. Sorry. |
|
06-26-2006, 07:43 AM | #51 (permalink) | ||
Lover - Protector - Teacher
Location: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel |
||
06-26-2006, 07:51 AM | #52 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Lake Mary, FL
|
Quote:
Meh... A slightly cynical view, I know, but still true nevertheless. |
|
06-26-2006, 07:59 AM | #53 (permalink) | |
has all her shots.
Location: Florida
|
Quote:
Just my opinion... |
|
06-26-2006, 07:59 AM | #54 (permalink) | ||
Getting it.
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
|
Quote:
It wasn't fair that blacks were discriminated against. They should have just learned that their status as second class citizens was just life not being fair. "If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." Quote:
There is no sound reason to limit someone's rights in this manner in a secular society.
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke |
||
06-26-2006, 08:11 AM | #55 (permalink) | ||
Junkie
Location: Lake Mary, FL
|
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Infinite_Loser; 06-26-2006 at 08:12 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
||
06-26-2006, 08:23 AM | #56 (permalink) | |
Lover - Protector - Teacher
Location: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
And you don't see how that's bigoted? It's not cynical, it might be evasive and dismissive, but it's definitely bigoted. "Hey look -- an underpriveleged class. Let's not give them equality, beacuse .. well,... uhh.. they don't have it now so they don't know what they're missin!"
__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel |
|
06-26-2006, 08:29 AM | #57 (permalink) |
©
Location: Colorado
|
I'm apathetic as hell to gay marriage, it's a non-issue to me. You get it on a ballot, I'll vote for it; but it doesn't make my "top 10 list" of social issues that I feel a need to do something about.
What I find hard to understand is the insistance on the use of the word "marriage". Why not use a term that doesn't carry the same political / religious baggage. Legislation that allowed the same rights, but was labeled as a civil union, would stand a much greater chance of passage. From a strictly tactical perspective, I'd compromise the wording to get the rights. |
06-26-2006, 08:33 AM | #58 (permalink) |
Asshole
Administrator
Location: Chicago
|
Examples of other "status quo" practices that are now no longer accepted by the majority of the Western world:
Slavery Blood feuds Duels Arranged marriages I'll also point out that there are biblical approval for all of these as well as widespread acceptance of them. Cultures change. Ours probably will accept homosexual marriage, although it may not be in our lifetimes (then again it might). Since I'm not gay, it won't directly affect me regardless of the outcome. However, it does affect my friends and family and I don't want to see them struggle with issues like Gilda's. If you're against gay marriage, my opinion is that you're ignoring the realities of life. If you're willing to grant all the rights that a married couple has but unwilling to call it a marriage, then that's fine with me as long as you recognize my right to call it what it really is.
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo |
06-26-2006, 08:41 AM | #59 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Lake Mary, FL
|
Quote:
If you remember, the Tenth Ammendment states that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." In a nutshell, a state can deny anyone basic privileges as long as the people agree to it. In this case, the states have voted (Overwhelmingly, I might add) for the non-legalization of gay marriages. That is what I agree with. If that makes me bigotted, then so be it. |
|
06-26-2006, 08:56 AM | #60 (permalink) | |
has all her shots.
Location: Florida
|
Quote:
To address the question in the title of this thread, I contend that more prevalent than religious bias against homosexuality is the simple "ick" bias. And the ick-sters are loathe to be associated with the haters and the religious objectors. So they come up with these vague arguments regarding priveleges and the status quo that seem dismissive and evasive. Because they are. Tell us why you agree with denying people priveleges? On what basis? Did you feel this way before gay marriage became an issue? |
|
06-26-2006, 08:59 AM | #61 (permalink) | ||
Lover - Protector - Teacher
Location: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
Quote:
If you're going to quote the Constitution, remember that the same document can be taken two ways.
__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel |
||
06-26-2006, 09:01 AM | #62 (permalink) | |
Getting it.
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
|
Quote:
The majority once agreed that blacks should not be allowed to drink from the same water fountain as whites. Heck, if the majority of people agree that this is OK then it *must* be OK. Drinking at a water fountain isn't a right, it's a privilige... besides, we've provided them with their own water fountain. It's just as nice, really. This has nothing to do with who has the right to make a law. It has everything to do with inequity before the law.
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke |
|
06-26-2006, 09:06 AM | #63 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: Don't worry about it.
|
I have no problem with gay marriages.. It's unnatural and IMO disgusting, but it's someone elses life and sexual preference, not mine. With that said, this is America, the so called land of the free, so more power to them.
What I DO have a problem with, is gay marriages mainly gay men having the ability to adopt children. That is not a postive thing for any child in any form. Could you imagine the hell this kid would go through in a public school system when people found out? Talk about an extreme case of a social misfit. Potentially creating another social disaster and a kid that mentally is just not together. Besides removing a child from some sort of foster care or adoption center, I just cannot thing of one positive thing about gay marriages adopting children. Again, just my opinion. But, I'm very strong about it. (P.S. Sorry for the edit, but formatting on my laptop is hell for some reason. Drives me crazy.) Last edited by Kurant; 06-26-2006 at 09:11 AM.. |
06-26-2006, 09:09 AM | #64 (permalink) | |
Getting it.
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
|
Quote:
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke |
|
06-26-2006, 09:23 AM | #65 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Lake Mary, FL
|
Quote:
I haven't kept up too much with recent activities, but unless those laws were revoked, then doesn't that show that states can indeed pass bans on gay marriage? |
|
06-26-2006, 09:27 AM | #66 (permalink) |
Getting it.
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
|
Yes. It does show that they can pass laws banning same sex marriage. It doesn't make it right. It also doesn't mean it is permanent. Laws can be struck down in the court of law.
The law in Canada was changed to allow same sex marriage when the courts said that denying the right to marriage ran contrary to our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. A charter that protects against the tyranny of the majority.
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke |
06-26-2006, 10:17 AM | #68 (permalink) | |
Tilted
Location: Rhode Island
|
Quote:
I am not married so maybe my view is naive, but to me it is very romantic. And that too me is the basis of why anyone should be allowed to marry whomever they like. |
|
06-26-2006, 10:25 AM | #69 (permalink) | ||
Getting it.
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
|
Quote:
Quote:
My wife and I were married just over 13 years ago. We had a ceremony with about 100 people in attendence. We didn't sign any license. We didn't take any vows before a deity. Nonetheless, we consider ourselves in every way but the legal or religious definition, married. The ceremony of marriage. The decision to commit yourself to another *is* a big decision. What the government has to do with was and continues to be, beyond me. I don't understand it. We both felt that it was enough to tell our friends and family that we were married and to have a celebration to commemorate that committment. (interestingly, my wife and I are getting married at city hall this Friday. Because we immigrating to Singapore and Singapore doesn't recognize common-law marriage we need documentation to show we are married. The neccessity of this action annoys the hell out of me...)
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke Last edited by Charlatan; 06-26-2006 at 10:33 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
||
06-26-2006, 11:43 AM | #70 (permalink) | |||||
32 flavors and then some
Location: Out on a wire.
|
Quote:
Oh, and many Native American tribes followed a practice labled by anthropologists as berdache. Most nations prefer the term two spirit. It allowed, and even celebrated the practice of a male dressing and acting the role of a female even marrying another male. The argument can be made, I suppose, that this represents an early form of transsexualism, but given what I've read on the subject I think it covers both male homosexuality and transsexuality depending on the degree to which the two-spirited person identified as masculine or feminine. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Non human animals engage in pretty much every sexual behavior that humans do. Quote:
Gilda |
|||||
06-26-2006, 01:56 PM | #71 (permalink) | |
Walking is Still Honest
Location: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
I can only chalk up your experience to a lack or experience, a lack of diverse experience, or an inability/unwillingness to understand the non-bigoted opposition. Take your pick or supply me with your own explanation, because it's been more like 75/25 for me. A minority, to be sure, but sizable and - contrary to your implied assessment - existent. If you're to argue that 100% of them are wrong, I agree. But whether they fall into the definition fallacy, the "correlation = causation" Scandinavian fallacy, the slippery slope fallacy, or what have you, I've met quite a few same-sex marriage opponents that avoid any noticeable kind of bigotry. That don't show intolerance of homosexuals. That treat homosexuals as equals and friends. That even sometimes- believe it or not - aren't against completely equal rights for homosexuals. (It sometimes amazes me how much stock people on both sides put in a mere word.) They aren't bigoted in any meaningful way. You might as well label everyone you disagree with bigoted - it will dilute the word just the same. While we're riding on the theme of people being able to believe whatever they want, I believe that people who assume bigotry in this context are on the same level as people who assume a hatred for America on the part of anti-war folk. The same careless and unimaginative level.
__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome. |
|
06-26-2006, 01:57 PM | #72 (permalink) | ||||
32 flavors and then some
Location: Out on a wire.
|
Quote:
Eight months ago I drove my car into a ditch, ending up with a severe concussion, cerebral edema, and a mangled left arm. I was unconcious for three days. My wife Grace was at the hospital within 12 hours. She is a nurse with a master's degree in emergency medicine, and has worked both as a paramedic and in the ER. She had with her my living will naming her as the person I wanted making my medical decisions, and there was a number of them to be made, for example, whether to try to save my arm or to amputate. Even though she had a living will in hand, she wasn't permitted to make those decisions. She was not permitted to visit me in ICU during a crucial period of time when it was unsure whether I would survive. They attempted to contact my parents, the last people I'd want making decisions for me, which is in my living will, to do that. My wife was forced to get a lawyer and a court order to get those privileges. In the interim, my sister was determined by the hospital to be my next of kin. Until the court order arrived, the doctors involved would explain the choices to my sister, Grace would tell them what she wanted done (in every case making the same choice I would have for myself, I might add) and Sissy would tell them "Do what she said." Once the court order arrived, she was treated like my wife rather than an unrelated friend. What required a living will and a court order would have been automatic had we been legally married. That's just one. There are dozens, probably hundreds, and all come automatically with marriage, without having to make other arrangements. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Gilda Last edited by Gilda; 06-26-2006 at 02:11 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
||||
06-26-2006, 04:24 PM | #73 (permalink) | ||||
Junkie
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
|
Quote:
Quote:
I would love to understand the nonbigoted opposition. I have tried and ultimately what it comes down to is that every argument i've heard that seeks to justify the marignalization of gays and gay rights is based on flawed logic, tyranny of the majority, or outright dishonesty. I would love to understand an argument that completely justifies the denial of the right of marriage between two men or two women. I would. Just because I feel like in doing so i would be seeing some sort of mythical creature. Like a unicorn. Quote:
Help me out. Explain to me a nonbigoted justification for opposing same sex marriage. You may not see such rationales as bigoted. In my mind they are perhaps bigoted by definition. I used the numbers that i did because i have yet to hear a well reasoned, consistent, nonarbitrary reasoning for opposing gay marriage. Quote:
I should also mention that i don't hate bigots. They have every right to believe what they want. Last edited by filtherton; 06-26-2006 at 04:32 PM.. |
||||
06-26-2006, 04:33 PM | #74 (permalink) |
Tilted
Location: Los Angeles
|
i think that when two people love eachother, they should be able to do as they want. if they want to get married, they should! whether it's heterosexual or homosexual.. it shouldn't matter. love is love.
__________________
Once bitten, Twice shy. |
06-26-2006, 04:36 PM | #75 (permalink) | |
Walking is Still Honest
Location: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
I just don't see how you conclude that every argument indicates bigotry on the part of the arguer. Either you're making a leap, or I'm missing a step.
__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome. |
|
06-26-2006, 05:09 PM | #76 (permalink) | |
Getting it.
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
|
Quote:
Thanks.
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke |
|
06-26-2006, 05:48 PM | #77 (permalink) | |
Walking is Still Honest
Location: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
This study from Scandinavia shows that same-sex marriage led to the deterioration of their institution of marriage. Marriage requires procreation. Three off the top of my head. Keep in mind that I'm not submitting them as good arguments; they are, in fact, seriously flawed arguments. But now you get to explain why anyone who makes these arguments must be a bigot, as opposed to merely mistaken.
__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome. |
|
06-26-2006, 06:08 PM | #78 (permalink) | |||
32 flavors and then some
Location: Out on a wire.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Gilda |
|||
06-26-2006, 06:44 PM | #79 (permalink) | |
Winter is Coming
Location: The North
|
Quote:
I expect all of those people would be fairly upset if you told them that their either lack of desire or lack of ability to procreate renders them not married. The "study from Sacndinavia" argument is hilarious. Correlation does not equal causation and statistics are easily manipulated. If I had the link, I'd refer you to the Fark cliche which clearly shows that global warming is linked to a decrease in the number of pirates in the world. Last edited by Frosstbyte; 06-26-2006 at 06:50 PM.. |
|
06-26-2006, 07:31 PM | #80 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
|
Quote:
People who opppose gay rights are bigots because generally the particular line of reasoning that they employ isn't relevant to their position. They are bigots because the level of commitment they have with respect to any argument against homosexuality is directly related to their ability to convince others of that argument's veracity. Once a particular line of reasoning is discredited they move on to another one. Their preexisting disdain for homosexuality necessitates some sort of rationalization, the specifics of which aren't important. I feel very comfortable labelling all who oppose homosexuality bigots, because the vast vast vast majority of them are. On the off chance that they are "just mistaken", well, they shouldn't feel so bad, i was "just mistaken" too. |
|
Tags |
gay, marriage, people, upsets |
|
|