Gay MarriageThere were two topics pertaining to gay rights in the past. One had a last post from a year ago. The second was about 6 months ago. I think they qualify as "dead" by now.
So here we are. Should gay marriage be legalized? Why or why not? Should gays get any other rights? Is there really a tr...
Gay MarriageThere were two topics pertaining to gay rights in the past. One had a last post from a year ago. The second was about 6 months ago. I think they qualify as "dead" by now.
So here we are. Should gay marriage be legalized? Why or why not? Should gays get any other rights? Is there really a true reason to be for or against gay marriage?
But first, the rules:
1. Spell properly and refrain from excessive swearing. ("u fucking bitch ur just a pussy, u dumbass. go 2 hell" = big no-no.)
2. Refrain from gay "slang" as well. (flamer, faggot, queer, dyke are also big no-nos.)
3. Do not use your religion as an excuse to be against gay marriage.
Example:
Bad -
The bible says that gay marriage is wrong so clearly all gays are an abomination of nature!
Good -
Considering that religion is a big part of why gay marriage is illegal, then...
4. Feel free to voice your
opinion on the subject, keeping in mind that opinions are not facts, and it is impossible to win an argument or debate by acting like your opinion is the only correct one. If you seriously want to get into a debate and try to come out the winner, do your research. You never win a debate by having the "I'm right you're wrong" attitude. You have to prove someone wrong. You have to prove yourself right.
5. No personal attacks unless they are clearly deserved.
6. If two people are getting into a personal conversation, it's best taking to messages or comments if it begins to both (or could bother) others in the thread.
Personally, I am for gay marriage and gay rights. I also believe that gays deserve the right to not be ridiculed or judged (similar to the rights the physically and mentally handicapped have). I've written an essay as to why the religious argument and the "gays are this and that so they don't deserve rights" argument both fail. You can read it
here.
OR you could end up in the SkyNet future.
Here's my version:
Do you think homosexuality is sinful?
\/
Yes
\/
Why?
\/
Common in the old testament, common in the new testament, common today, but nowhere in the bible does is say homosexuality is allowed.
\/
Will you judge homosexuals?
\/
No.
\/
Why not?
\/
It is not a human's place to pass judgement on another.
That chart up there is biased. Basically it says if you don't think homosexuality is okay, you are uncivil. Just like the Chik Fil A mess, pro-gays are on the attack, NEVER neutral. At least a portion of the pro-traditional is neutral and non-judgmental.
lol
I'm sure there is a ton of shit the bible does not go out of its way to allow.
Trial by jury isn't mentioned in the bible either, but we still use that.
Granted, the Puritans did away with them for a while because of that, but those guys were a bunch of fucking imbeciles.
I see a typo there, allow me to fix it.
At least a portion of the anti-gay is neutral and non-judgmental.
Seriously, pro-tradition and non-judgemental?
Those two are mutually exclusive.
If you are pro-traditional then you are being highly judgemental.
Post edited 8/09/12 3:35PM
There's nothing wrong with being pro-traditional. Who doesn't like the old traditions like slavery, not allowing women to be seen as equals, human sacrifice, foot binding, arranged marriages, stoning adulterers, stoning homosexuals, throwing Christians to lions, crucifixion, public flogging, having concubines, having eunuchs.
All great traditions that are being crushed by those pro-gays on the attack.
Don't anyone come get me this time. Later.
"Right. If they didn't want to be harassed and tortured they should stop being attracted to the same sex. It's. Just. That. Simple."
Way to defend your opinion. One post, people don't agree, "Screw you guys, I'm going home". Good discussion.
Because your arguments for keeping marriage as is are not based on any logical train of thought and we call you out on it? Meh, to each his own.
Put yourself in this situation, just for some food for though. We live in a society where a large majority of the population is Hindu. The Hindu Right wing says marriage is clearly defined in the Baghavad Gita and the Vedas as marriage between two Hindus. Christians do not have the right to marry, but they say they should have the right to because it does not affect Hindus in the slightest and it is a right to marry whom you want to. The Hindus say they won't allow it because it is sinful and an abomination to let Christians be Christians, let alone marry one another, but they don't hate Christians because it's not their place to judge according to the Hindu text. They just want to restrict the freedoms of Christians at every turn. That's all; they don't hate you.
Does this sound reasonable at all?
Post edited 8/09/12 4:34PM
"My point is that in a purely logical universe the government could call legal, civil marriage "Contract 215," conferring all the legal rights it currently does, and religious marriage could be called something else (e.g. "A threeway with God,") and the word marriage could be erased from existence forever.
To get the legal benefits, you'd get a Contract 215. To have rice thrown at you in a place of worship, you book an appointment at your favorite religious house for a Threeway with God. They're separate things, and the word marriage could be removed from both of them.
But people know what marriage means. We've built up all these cultural institutions and romantic notions and semantic sugar that surrounds the word itself. So, yes. That word should be available to be applied to its most general, most inclusive original meaning, and anyone should be able to legally marry anyone they want to."
In reply to Chi_Mangetsu, #3069:
In reply to DoNothing69, #3070:
Oh come on now, you guys... ease up a little, I'm sure Miles has a very valid reason for wanting to leave this forum... well, if not valid, at least a reason. My take was that he was interested in expressing not all Christians "hate gays" but don't support gay marriage. It's the same as I don't hate Christians, but don't support Christianity... so I think we need to legislate against Christianity. You can be free to be Christian, but you're not allowed to have the same rights as us non-Christians. It's not natural to be Christian, after all.. nobody is "born Christian," it's a lifestyle choice. Isn't that right?
Most states in this country still make a "Threeway with God" illegal, even if God, the church providing the location, the congregation of the church who accept the people in it and the couple all want to have this "Threeway with God". Laws have been written to not just make same-sex marriage illegal but to ensure civil unions are not legal and they are often highly popular with the people in those states. Some have even changed their constitutions to that end.
I don't think trying to change the name to seperate the issue will fix anything.
Although if it had always been this way, I see how your scenario would work. But then, if we have the power to imagine this alternate reality, we can imagine people not being bigots and just allowing same-sex marriage in the first place.
This is one of the (few) good things about living in the UK. If I find a guy who I want to spend the rest of my life with; we will be able to get married. I just don't understand why other countries, particularly the US* don't allow gay marriage.
*I know some states do, but I'm talking about the US as a whole.
So what if it's not "Legally binding"? If you need a fucking piece of paper to tell when you're in love with someone or the rest of existence needs said piece of paper to believe how much you love someone, then something is fucked up about the system for ANY sexual orientation.
And besides, if any of us DO want to get married and the bigots want to keep being goddamn assholes, then fuck 'em. We'll just go somewhere where we CAN get married. Just because you throw a little tantrum and ban it in your area doesn't mean the rest of the world will follow suit.
I like this person. Can we keep her?
I've been in this thread for about 5+ pages already, lol
I agree with your sentiment, but when government agencies and policy deny you rights reserved for hetero couples that just is not right
I understand that and I understand why it's upsetting, but I say once again that you don't NEED those things to love someone as much as you already do.
Part of it is just the principle of it, but part is also the legal rights that get denied to same sex couples. There are tons of cases where a person who spent years in a committed relationship were then denied things like hospital visitation rights just because they couldn't legally be married.
We had a Prime Minister that slept with men.
Yeah, Margaret Thatcher.
I assumed you meant a male prime minister who slept with men...
I did.
Or her daughter.
First time I saw her I thought she had a son who went for a sex change.