CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Pssttt.... libs like craig321 get to decide what is ok and not ok - thus not agreeing with them makes you a close minded bigot. Didn't you get the memo?
frostedflakes
Diamond Member
- Mar 1, 2005
- 7,925
- 1
- 81
Separate but equal? :laugh:
You're 50 years behind the times, our court system decided long ago that separate is inherently not equal.
sunzt
Diamond Member
- Nov 27, 2003
- 3,076
- 3
- 81
Gay marriage is the defining civil rights issue of our generation. In the future, people will wonder why this has been such a divisive issue similar to how people today view segregation policies between blacks and whites in the past.
It is abhorrent to believe that gay love is any less deserving of marriage than heterosexual love. No one has the right to say that someone's love for another person is less meaningful and deserves any less respect just because they are of the same sex. Everyone has the right to pursue happiness and should be able to express their love for another in marriage regardless of sexual orientation. To tell someone that they should just be happy being together and never be able to marry is not only akin to telling blacks they should be happy just using the 'color' water fountain, but also insults the very concept and ideal of love itself.
It is abhorrent to believe that gay love is any less deserving of marriage than heterosexual love. No one has the right to say that someone's love for another person is less meaningful and deserves any less respect just because they are of the same sex. Everyone has the right to pursue happiness and should be able to express their love for another in marriage regardless of sexual orientation. To tell someone that they should just be happy being together and never be able to marry is not only akin to telling blacks they should be happy just using the 'color' water fountain, but also insults the very concept and ideal of love itself.
You're an idiot. You can't make any coherent argument and so you post utter crap. You have no sense of morality and so you attack those who do.
You are the same kind of person who used to say 'n***** lover' to the whites who were freedom riders for civil rights. You post immoral crap - it gets called immoral crap.
I repeat, you argue like a child. Lacking any understanding of moral issues, you parrot out of resentment.
How is giving Gay marriage a different term a civil right issue? You are calling gay/homosexual people a different term already anyway.
It is a civil ight issue if we deny gay people to enter into a union and enjoy the same benefits as married couple. But it's just stupid political correctness to call gay marriage a "marriage" when it is certain different from marriage in traditional sense since gay couple cannot reproduce and cannot raise a traditional family. Not saying there is anything wrong with that, it is just different and should have a different term.
sunzt
Diamond Member
- Nov 27, 2003
- 3,076
- 3
- 81
Being politically correct would actually be separating the term marriage into two categories.
Marriage does not require or necessarily lead to reproducing and raising a traditional family. Marriage is committing one's devotion, love, and life to another person in a monogamous relationship till death. You are describing sex and raising a family which are independent of Marriage. And what makes a traditional heterosexual family that adopts its kids different than a gay one?
The issue is not the term, it is eliminating the idea that 'separate, but equal' mentality is acceptable. The US tried that with the black/white segregation and it turned into a huge mistake that most people today wished never would have happened
Oh BTW, you are only allowed to use computers specially set aside as 'yellow avatar only' call yelluters, but there's nothing to worry about because they have the same software as regular computers. You just can't taint traditional computers with your yellow avataredness.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Wow now there was some "coherent" "crap"...
Done with your little hissy fit? Or am I going to get another PM saying how I shouldn't respond to your posts since you'll ignore them.... oh wait...Get a clue craig321 - you just aren't as progressive as you think you are. Clearly your bigotry has led you astray and closed your mind....
I don't get your separate but equal argument. Are we disallow guy couple to go to certain restaurant with normal couple, go on a bus with normal couple, go to the same school with normal couple? or use any facility with normal couple?
How is having a different term but enjoy the exact same benefit the same as segregation?
What is guy couple not allowed to use? other than this established terminology that means something different?
You guys always get so convoluted, the issue here is that traditionally, yes for the past few centuries, marriage has been between 1 male 1 female, and traditionally, they get married to enter into a long term relationship that almost always results in them raising a traditional family. The argument that this is the logical fallacy of "appeal to tradition" is invalid here because we're not evaluating logic and fact here, we're evaluating morality, emotion, practicality, and most of all, walah, tradition.
You people who are arbitrarily drawing the line at "2 people, regardless of gender" and saying "200 years from now they'll wonder why the gay issue was so big just like racism," well maybe 400 years from now they'll be saying "any people, regardless of anything" and saying "the more the better, telling me I can only marry 1 person at a time is worse than telling me I can only marry females."
Of course I'm not really making any sort of argument that would stand up to extensive criticism, but that's the point. Any change in marriage that doesn't have to do with legality is by default, arbitrarily changing it. There's no model for what a marriage should be, except for what's been traditional. You can't ever make any argument for gay marriage, at least marriage as we think of heterosexual marriage, without destroying what marriage (almost) always has been. It's not about what's legal or whatnot, but if gay marriage is the norm, and we start seeing gay couples raising children, then that's completely against the spirit of traditional marriage. I don't think anyone could disagree. Of course there needs to be some sort of legal answer to the problem, but trying to put gay couples or triples or whatever, into the state, the union, that we call marriage, completely changes it, and tbh, I see no reason to change it at all.
You people who are arbitrarily drawing the line at "2 people, regardless of gender" and saying "200 years from now they'll wonder why the gay issue was so big just like racism," well maybe 400 years from now they'll be saying "any people, regardless of anything" and saying "the more the better, telling me I can only marry 1 person at a time is worse than telling me I can only marry females."
Of course I'm not really making any sort of argument that would stand up to extensive criticism, but that's the point. Any change in marriage that doesn't have to do with legality is by default, arbitrarily changing it. There's no model for what a marriage should be, except for what's been traditional. You can't ever make any argument for gay marriage, at least marriage as we think of heterosexual marriage, without destroying what marriage (almost) always has been. It's not about what's legal or whatnot, but if gay marriage is the norm, and we start seeing gay couples raising children, then that's completely against the spirit of traditional marriage. I don't think anyone could disagree. Of course there needs to be some sort of legal answer to the problem, but trying to put gay couples or triples or whatever, into the state, the union, that we call marriage, completely changes it, and tbh, I see no reason to change it at all.
How is gay people raising kids against the spirit of traditional marriage? I thought the spirit of traditional marriage was about love and companionship. I didn't know it was to reinforce heterosexuality. So yes, I can most certainly disagree. Traditional marriage was also for centuries (many, many centuries) only between those of the same race. You only see the gender issue now because it's what you've known your whole life. Back in the 1960's interracial marriage was just as big a deal, if not bigger.
As far as what is important, the fallacy of the appeal to tradition most certainly applies. Laws in the United States are not supposed to be based on the idea of 'well we've always done it this way'. They are supposed to be based upon objective evaluations of merit. To make something illegal based upon the fact that that's how we did it in the past is simply nuts.
JEDIYoda
Lifer
- Jul 13, 2005
- 33,986
- 3,321
- 126
The Supreme Court of the United States determined that if legislation makes distinctions based on race, but does not deprive anyone of rights or privileges, it is constitutional. The Court seemed to believe that the common practice of separation was an inconvenience, not something that abridged the rights of African Americans. The Court also presumed that legislation was powerless to do away with racial instincts or to abolish distinctions based on physical differences.
It is really hard unless you are gay or have quite a few gay friends to understand why this concept is totally wrong!
You are claiming that the words "Marriage" and "civil union" are the samew because they both have the same rights attributed to them.
But what this does is it still is IMO racist and descriminatory because in reality they are NOT the same thing!
Don't be daft, only in recent times has marriage stressed love and companionship more than practicality and 1 male/1 female. I'm not appealing to your sense of what marriage traditionally is, I'm telling you that historically, marriage has been around for people to get married, have kids, and raise them. Find me some figure from the 19th century that thought that marriage was only about love and companionship, and that gay people raising kids would fit into their model of a "traditional" marriage.
When you say that marriage is about love and companionship, I'd agree, but I happen to think that in the interest of keeping the traditional spirit of marriage alive (long term relationship, raising a family) that we should continue to draw the line at 1 man and 1 woman. It's only very recently that any country has tried to change that. Most cultures that accept anything different do so for religious reasons.
You say the fallacy of appeal to tradition applies because we're talking about the legality of marriage. No. The government has nothing to do with the meaning of marriage, it's rather unfortunate that they're involved at all, though I suppose it is necessary. Still though, the government should be able to see that if today it's gay couples, 100 years from now it will be a man and his dog, or a dude and 10 of his crack whores or whatever. From a legal standpoint, you can safely assume that the traditional marriage is the setting that most families will be raised in, because it's also been proven to be the best setting for children to be raised in. The government is only in this because it makes it easy to keep tracking of who is responsible for who, for monetary/insurance/crime/etc. reasons.
But I'm not even making that argument. The idea of marriage is so fundamental to our society, in fact our society in many ways hinges on it, and most other societies are even more dependant on it. When you meet someone, eventually you're going to ask, are they married, do they have children, what do their parents do, etc. When you get vacation time for Christmas/Thanksgiving/summer/Veteran's Day or whatever, most people are going to spend it with their biological families, if it's at all possible. The idea of everyone having a mom and a dad is so ingrained in every culture around the world, even American culture, that I think it would be a mistake to destroy that. Allowing gays to marry would not simply destroy it no, but it would start the degrading of it, over time.
You say how is gay people raising kids against the spirit of traditional marriage? I ask you where in your family tree do you see a John and Bill adopting your great grandmother from an adoption agency, or Sue and Wendy raising your dad after being impregnated from a sperm bank. Does that sound like traditional marriage?
When you say that marriage is about love and companionship, I'd agree, but I happen to think that in the interest of keeping the traditional spirit of marriage alive (long term relationship, raising a family) that we should continue to draw the line at 1 man and 1 woman. It's only very recently that any country has tried to change that. Most cultures that accept anything different do so for religious reasons.
You say the fallacy of appeal to tradition applies because we're talking about the legality of marriage. No. The government has nothing to do with the meaning of marriage, it's rather unfortunate that they're involved at all, though I suppose it is necessary. Still though, the government should be able to see that if today it's gay couples, 100 years from now it will be a man and his dog, or a dude and 10 of his crack whores or whatever. From a legal standpoint, you can safely assume that the traditional marriage is the setting that most families will be raised in, because it's also been proven to be the best setting for children to be raised in. The government is only in this because it makes it easy to keep tracking of who is responsible for who, for monetary/insurance/crime/etc. reasons.
But I'm not even making that argument. The idea of marriage is so fundamental to our society, in fact our society in many ways hinges on it, and most other societies are even more dependant on it. When you meet someone, eventually you're going to ask, are they married, do they have children, what do their parents do, etc. When you get vacation time for Christmas/Thanksgiving/summer/Veteran's Day or whatever, most people are going to spend it with their biological families, if it's at all possible. The idea of everyone having a mom and a dad is so ingrained in every culture around the world, even American culture, that I think it would be a mistake to destroy that. Allowing gays to marry would not simply destroy it no, but it would start the degrading of it, over time.
You say how is gay people raising kids against the spirit of traditional marriage? I ask you where in your family tree do you see a John and Bill adopting your great grandmother from an adoption agency, or Sue and Wendy raising your dad after being impregnated from a sperm bank. Does that sound like traditional marriage?
of course, modern nation-state has only been around 250 years or so. I would say there is plenty of precedent and reasonableness to the state being in the marriage business.
n yusef
Platinum Member
- Feb 20, 2005
- 2,158
- 1
- 0
I think you undermine your own argument when you bring up 19th century sentiments about marriage. In that time, marriage was oppressive to women. They could not own anything, or have any accounts in their own names. Married women could not be employed until very recently. Men were allowed by law to rape their wives.
Marriage has a really terrible past. I don't know how you can claim "tradition" with a straight face.
The point isn't that marriage was such a huge benefit to women, I already admitted that marriage used to not be about what we think about as most important. Yes, women were oppressed, but I can't place all the blame on the men, and it's not even really oppression, because the women accepted it as readily as the men. I don't want to get into that though, the point was that today, our idea of a traditional marriage in no way includes gay couples. Whether 19th century marriages were oppressive or otherwise, that's the way it is.
edit: A little OT, but I do find it funny that as progressive as we are today, Afghanistan, the country we supposedly brought democracy to, is passing some law that makes it illegal for women to refuse sex to their husbands. Your post just reminded me of it
edit: A little OT, but I do find it funny that as progressive as we are today, Afghanistan, the country we supposedly brought democracy to, is passing some law that makes it illegal for women to refuse sex to their husbands. Your post just reminded me of it
n yusef
Platinum Member
- Feb 20, 2005
- 2,158
- 1
- 0
LOL @ the bolded.
My point is, of course gay marriage isn't traditional. And that's a good thing. Traditional marriage is oppressive. We have moved away from traditional marriage for heterosexuals, so there's no reason why we ought to stick to tradition with homosexuals.
Finally, traditional marriage often involved multiple wives. Many biblical figures were polygamists. Surely Abraham is traditional.
Does it hurt anybody? It's possible for some people to be in-love with more than one person and for all those involved to have no problem accepting it. There's nothing wrong with that if they're all happy.
Of course, people's happiness doesn't really matter to people like you, does it..? If that's the case, who should give a shit what you think?
Of course, people's happiness doesn't really matter to people like you, does it..? If that's the case, who should give a shit what you think?
I think if you went back in time to ask 19th century wives if they felt oppressed, most would say no. Again, I don't want to get into this, alot of things we think of as oppressive and bad in general, were accepted as life back then. I'm not talking about rape, that's definitely bad, but the vast majority of women weren't raped by their husbands, believe it or not. But I disagree that traditional marriage is oppressive. In any case, today, the marriages that people base off their suppositions of "traditional marriages," are not oppressive. It's not the 19th century marriage I want to keep alive, you're missing the point.
edit: manowar, I really have no idea what you're talking about, or who you're talking to... But I don't think people's happiness has much of a place in an argument here, I think alot of Americans would tell you they were happier before they were married, whether they're straight or gay.
n yusef
Platinum Member
- Feb 20, 2005
- 2,158
- 1
- 0
If you grow up constantly being told that you are property, then it is possible that you will not realize that you are being oppressed. You are simply wrong if you cannot find oppression in not being able to own anything. Whether women were brainwashed by Patriarchy or not means nothing. If a slave proclaims her freedom, she's still a slave.
I am not missing your point at all. I just think it's wrong. I do not reminisce traditional marriage. I do not care for the Nuclear Family. I am not in love with 1950's heteronormativity. I like nontraditional marriage, the kind where both partners are equal. Gay marriage is a segment of that, as is polyamorous marriage (not polygamy, which is an oppressive institution; google it).
Fuck tradition; I want the future yesterday.
why should a man and a woman be able to marry? because your 'god' told you so?
is the concept of consenting adult humans such a difficult thing to understand?
is the concept of consenting adult humans such a difficult thing to understand?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter