It's not sexual discrimination. Both genders are allowed to marry the opposite sex. Discrimination would be if females could marry females and males but males couldn't do the same.
It's not sexual discrimination. Both genders are allowed to marry the opposite sex. Discrimination would be if females could marry females and males but males couldn't do the same.
Wow. You're reaching new levels of personal attacks here. Before you start insulting me using big words like 'Aryian', at least have the courtesy to learn how to spell them. If you don't want any interference within relationships, then don't cry to me about domestic violence.
After putting some honest thought into it I've came to the conclusion that I've been pretty anti this thread. I don't agree with gay people- personally I think it's sick but if they want to get married I could care less.
-Basically, I don't think the government should call it a marriage license. The government should call it a union license or something for everyone- that way anti's don't have to view others gay relationships as marriage but if their church wants to marry them that's fine- at least it will be a marriage to them. The g/l/tg don't have to view other's marriages as legit either. Then there is absolutely no discrimination going on by the government as everyone is being treated equally- isn't marriage religious anyways? If people who are pro-gay marriage disagree with this then I don't think you'll ever be happy because there will always be people who find fault with what they do.
-Basically, I don't think the government should call it a marriage license. The government should call it a union license or something for everyone- that way anti's don't have to view others gay relationships as marriage but if their church wants to marry them that's fine- at least it will be a marriage to them. The g/l/tg don't have to view other's marriages as legit either. Then there is absolutely no discrimination going on by the government as everyone is being treated equally- isn't marriage religious anyways? If people who are pro-gay marriage disagree with this then I don't think you'll ever be happy because there will always be people who find fault with what they do.
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
My bad, it should have been "Aryian Poster Child". Thanks for the correction Herr CW
Regarding domestic violence, how does that equate with two people who love each other wanting to get married? It seems to me you view everybody from the rarified air of your moral podium. Why do you believe that the morals you believe in should be forced upon others, because your religion says so? If not your relgion then what?
We weren't talking Kinsey, CW, we were talking about they two loving girl chimps. The argument you need to establish is that homosexuality is unnatural. How did homoxesuality in chimps and humans and other animals arise if not naturally? The concept of unnatural, as you use it strikes me an nothing but unfounded and displaced bigotry. You are pursuaded by the argument irrationally because of an underlying and perhaps hidden bias. It seems also that smoking is unnatural too. Is it bad because it's unnatural and should we not allow people who smoke to marry?
It's interfering in a relationship, which you said is not anyone's role. Oh, and it's still not 'Aryian'. Your 'correction' is the same spelling you used originally.Originally posted by: Red Dawn
My bad, it should have been "Aryian Poster Child". Thanks for the correction Herr CW
Regarding domestic violence, how does that equate with two people who love each other wanting to get married? It seems to me you view everybody from the rarified air of your moral podium. Why do you believe that the morals you believe in should be forced upon others, because your religion says so? If not your relgion then what?
OK, let me try to lay this out more clearly. The entire foundation of society is based on the premise that humans can control their own actions - use their faculties of logic to control their instincts. Animals kill without regard, yet we are restricted from doing so by law, despite the fact that our instincts might tell us that it is, in some cases, desirable or even necessary. The arguments for birth control, abortion, homosexual marriage, and other issues in our society today arise out of an attempt to do away with the responsibility inherent in society: you must reign in your instincts if you want to remain part of society. By tossing out personal responsibility in this way, you would discard society as a whole. You pull out the foundation and the building crumbles. Whether you like it or not, personal responsibility and control of impulses is the only thing that separates us from animals, society from anarchy.
At least you are honest about it. I can accept people who say "personally I think it's sick " - you have a right to your opinion - but it is that next step, to try and impose your values on other people, with which I disagree. There are lots of things that I don't agree with but we live in a democracy where people have fundamental rights that cannot be violated because they displease us.
I can't remove my neighbor's Bush/Cheney signs (he has a right to property), I can't outlaw KKK material (freedom of speech), etc. We have to respect other people's rights.
The fact that gay people can only get married in Mass. is irrelevant - the issue is going to go before the Supreme Court and in all likelihood the right will be made universal; just as the right to attend a desegregated school was affirmed by the Court. That the current situation does not permit it is not pertinent - it will be allowed and, in the proud tradition of the United States, yet another target of discrimination will have their rights upheld.
Bigotry will not be a part of our law because the vast majority of people disagree with it and it is against our customs. It simply doesn't matter how many bigoted laws the Southern states churn out - they will repeatedly be ruled un-Constitutional.
I highly recommend that you re-read my analysis of the issue but I have reprinted a part of dealing with your "civil union" suggestion.
This is wrong. The reason for the name is to preserve tradition.
Seperate but equal in the 60s implied physical seperation. This "venerating" is only in your mind.
CW: OK, let me try to lay this out more clearly. The entire foundation of society is based on the premise that humans can control their own actions - use their faculties of logic to control their instincts. Animals kill without regard, yet we are restricted from doing so by law, despite the fact that our instincts might tell us that it is, in some cases, desirable or even necessary.
M: I think the whole idea of society is that there is strength in numbers and wisdom in spreading tasks across different capacities. And in order to function a society needs rules against single minded selfishness. It is that which society seeks to control. Breathing is instinctual and nobody wants to control that. Instinct allows us to survive. I think you are confusing negative emotion, the urge to kill out of some emotional hurt, with our innate capacity to love. We are instinctively good, not evil. It is pain and put downs that turns the mind inward to feed and feed on endless unsatisfied need, the need for unconditional love that was our birth right. And animals do not kill without regard almost universally.
CW: The arguments for birth control, abortion, homosexual marriage, and other issues in our society today arise out of an attempt to do away with the responsibility inherent in society: you must reign in your instincts if you want to remain part of society.
M: I do not see this at all. We must attempt to not act each of us exclusively in his own interests without regard to the interests of others, it seems to me, in order to survive. That which we do selfishly or instinctively or even debauchedly in our own interests are fine so long as we harm no one else.
CW: By tossing out personal responsibility in this way, you would discard society as a whole. You pull out the foundation and the building crumbles. Whether you like it or not, personal responsibility and control of impulses is the only thing that separates us from animals, society from anarchy.
M: I see no logic in reigning in instinct. I see no loss of responsibility. I do not get your point. And society is in a constant state of controlled anarchy with people doing whatever they want. It depends on the numbers and quantity, but I think you are confused as to what lies at the root of our ills. I think our instincts are fine. We have been perverted by other perverts. We are all born into a sick society and we all catch the illness.
M: I think the whole idea of society is that there is strength in numbers and wisdom in spreading tasks across different capacities. And in order to function a society needs rules against single minded selfishness. It is that which society seeks to control. Breathing is instinctual and nobody wants to control that. Instinct allows us to survive. I think you are confusing negative emotion, the urge to kill out of some emotional hurt, with our innate capacity to love. We are instinctively good, not evil. It is pain and put downs that turns the mind inward to feed and feed on endless unsatisfied need, the need for unconditional love that was our birth right. And animals do not kill without regard almost universally.
CW: The arguments for birth control, abortion, homosexual marriage, and other issues in our society today arise out of an attempt to do away with the responsibility inherent in society: you must reign in your instincts if you want to remain part of society.
M: I do not see this at all. We must attempt to not act each of us exclusively in his own interests without regard to the interests of others, it seems to me, in order to survive. That which we do selfishly or instinctively or even debauchedly in our own interests are fine so long as we harm no one else.
CW: By tossing out personal responsibility in this way, you would discard society as a whole. You pull out the foundation and the building crumbles. Whether you like it or not, personal responsibility and control of impulses is the only thing that separates us from animals, society from anarchy.
M: I see no logic in reigning in instinct. I see no loss of responsibility. I do not get your point. And society is in a constant state of controlled anarchy with people doing whatever they want. It depends on the numbers and quantity, but I think you are confused as to what lies at the root of our ills. I think our instincts are fine. We have been perverted by other perverts. We are all born into a sick society and we all catch the illness.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This idea is against our basic ideas, as wrong in 1954 as it is now. By creating two distinct classes of marriage you are ridiculing one class as somehow inferior. For those who argue in favor of civil unions you must answer why, in fact, you are for everything except the name. The answer is apparent: it is in order to establish civil unions as something fundamentally different, which betrays the very "equality" of which you speak.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is wrong. The reason for the name is to preserve tradition.
Seperate but equal in the 60s implied physical seperation. This "venerating" is only in your mind.
==============
This cannot be possible because the SC overthrew the traditions of slavery and segregation and discrimination against women. Throughout all of masculine monotheism women have been discriminated against. It is one of our most ancient traditions alive, like homosexual bigotry, today. As we advance we throw out the rotten past and preserve the essential good. We will preserve the sanctity of marriage but not the old definition. The notion that marriage is harmed comes form the bigoted opinion that homosexuality is bad. That opinion is only in your mind.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This idea is against our basic ideas, as wrong in 1954 as it is now. By creating two distinct classes of marriage you are ridiculing one class as somehow inferior. For those who argue in favor of civil unions you must answer why, in fact, you are for everything except the name. The answer is apparent: it is in order to establish civil unions as something fundamentally different, which betrays the very "equality" of which you speak.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is wrong. The reason for the name is to preserve tradition.
Seperate but equal in the 60s implied physical seperation. This "venerating" is only in your mind.
==============
This cannot be possible because the SC overthrew the traditions of slavery and segregation and discrimination against women. Throughout all of masculine monotheism women have been discriminated against. It is one of our most ancient traditions alive, like homosexual bigotry, today. As we advance we throw out the rotten past and preserve the essential good. We will preserve the sanctity of marriage but not the old definition. The notion that marriage is harmed comes form the bigoted opinion that homosexuality is bad. That opinion is only in your mind.
Simply wrong. The defense of segregation - and all remnants of slavery - were based on "tradition" and referred to slavery as that "peculiar institution" of the South. It was a dual thrust of state's rights (what we do to our people is none of your business) and tradition (blacks have known their place and don't even really want desegregation).
The basis for it was totally and completely bigotry and racism. And the vast, vast majority of the empowered Southern whites voted and acted to keep the system in place. It wasn't that they were merely physically separated but a completely different group of people unworthy of the rights of the Southern Gentile.
Segregation existed so that "separate but equal" would mean anything but - one was clearly the real thing while the other was an attempt to deny people their due rights without appearing to do so.
This is very similar to the situation today. And it is just as wrong now as it was then, and will be overruled just as surely now as it was then, and no amount of votes will ever deprive American citizens of their rights.
We do not enact or enfore laws based on bigotry. Deal with it. You may not like it, you may think it is wrong, you may think homosexuality is sinful and evil, but they have the same rights as any other American and you cannot interfere in their life because you disagree with their choices.
It is only a matter of time before the Supreme Court lays another smackdown on you Southern bigots like they did in 1954.
Simply because it's old doesn't mean it has to stay the same.
Simply because it's old doesn't mean it's good.
Your logic flows along nicely...up until the following statement:
That is a non-argument, you are simply stating a belief with no backing at all. That entire paragraph I quoted above makes an argument entirely out of "Homosexual marriage=doing away with responsibility". The rest is fluff telling us all why doing away with responsibility is bad. Yes, we know that. But you fail to show why homosexual marriage is doing away with responsibility.
You seem to be saying that following your instincts is bad, yet there are many times when people should, many times when they have to. Obviously what makes our society work is knowing when to fight our instincts for the good of everyone else. That doesn't mean we NEVER follow our instincts, or have you never been in love? So we're back to the initial argument...why is homosexual marriage the same as doing away with social responsibility in such a way that society will "crumble"?
This discrimination and segregation was negative because it harmed women and did not allow them to pursue life, liberty, and happiness as they see fit. How does a legal term harm gay people?
And they are getting the same rights, whereas in 1950s they were not.
I don't live in the south. I can only hope that this does not happen within my lifetime.
Like I said before, nobody cares about rights. They just want to promote homosexuality and are no better than religious preachers.
Oh, how about the liberty to marry whom they choose, and the happiness of cementing their love before God and State?
Just off the top of my head...
And, by the way, why are you avoiding all of my prior responses. It's like you post something silly, have it debunked, ignore the response, then post something else silly. C'mon, at least try to intelligently argue your position.
I post all over this thread.
And no, you are not - you are endorsing laws and acts that prevent a man from marrying whom he wishes to marry if that other person also happens to be a man; the same for two women who would like to be married.
How is this "being allowed to do so" - and, more to the point, why should they need anybody's permission?
I, as a heterosexual American male, can marry any girl who agrees to marry me - she doesn't even have to be American. And no amount of protest can stop it, no amount of votes, nothing but her or my refusal. That is what it means to have the right to be married.
And that is what will happen with homosexual marriage. Just last year the Supreme Court made homosexual sex legal everywhere in the United States (because homosexuals have a right to privacy regardless of how many people feel "icky" about homosexual sex).
You are trying to oppress people and deny them their rights - interfere in their lives - because you dislike their choices or behavior. That is un-American. And un-Constitutional.
It is only a matter of time.
Oh, and by the way, the people who supported segregation also hoped that it wouldn't happen in their lifetime. But it did - you can't stop the march of rights. It's a shame it took us 200 years to recognize the rights of women, 250 to recognize the rights of blacks, and even more the rights of homosexuals.
Maybe one day we will actually live up to the ideal from which you quote:
That is how your quote is really meant - it is a defense of rights, like the right to marry. Self-evident means so obvious that it is beyond argument, created equal means that you cannot discriminate against certain groups, and unalienable means that they cannot be revoked or denied simply because you would like to - they are permanent and inviolate.
And by the way - my post is right above yours. And I have posted extensively in this thread. Including a long analysis of gay marriage that undercuts every argument made against it.
You misread what I posted. I didn't say they should have civil unions for gays only....I said they should have civil unions for EVERYONE. If people want to call it marriage that's up to them. That way straight people who find fault with gay unions can tell themselves the gay's marriages aren't legit- as I would agree with. However, the goverment would be equally recognizing all parties both straight and gay in a civil union and leave marriage to religion.
I apologize, I did mis-read what you wrote.
Actually I think that is a damn good suggestion - one process whereby a couple is recognized by the state (some kind of union paper thing) and one process for God (with the church).
The problem is that our system has connected to two so thoroughly during the process of marriage that it is like trying to separate conjoined twins who share vital organs. Do you think that people who are against gay marriage would be willing to give up the "marriage" and instead be civilly joined? Our laws grant so many rights and privileges to married couples that it would be really difficult to implement your plan.
But as an idea I think it has merit.
Then I'll argue social contract theory - a well accepted philosophical theory. You give up certain rights to live in a society to gain protection for those rights which you hold to be more important. Thus, it is the strength in numbers of society which dictates what rights shall be held while others are stripped. The common good is placed ahead of the good of one. If the one doesn't like it, then he can exempt himself by leaving the society. The society is not beholden to accomodate the one. However, the one has other recourse - he can attempt to convince society why his right to X is more important than society's right to Y. If successful, then the social contract is altered to accomodate this shift in policy.
But when you act this way, you are harming others, whether you realize it or not. Selfishness is the root of evil - seeking only what is good for yourself will inherently inflict harm on others, though you may not be able to directly perceive this harm. For example, you might have sex with a condom, thinking no one else will be harmed. Unfortunately, right away you're making several huge mistakes: you or your partner could contract an STD, or the female might become pregnant. This also might lead to an abortion. These consequences cannot be removed from sexuality, therefore the potential to harm others is inherent in the actions taken out of the context of marriage. To be willing to risk harming others is to be willing to harm others - the famous presumption argument.
pq]M: I see no logic in reigning in instinct. I see no loss of responsibility. I do not get your point. And society is in a constant state of controlled anarchy with people doing whatever they want. It depends on the numbers and quantity, but I think you are confused as to what lies at the root of our ills. I think our instincts are fine. We have been perverted by other perverts. We are all born into a sick society and we all catch the illness.[/quote]
The call of logic is to rise above these perversions. Giving in to them is to let your animal instinct take control of that which makes you human. Certain instincts are necessary, but these are controlled by your body without your conscious thought - breathing, heartbeat. Others, sexual urges, are able to be mastered. We are born into a society which is as we allow it to be - the sickness that persists is only allowed to persist by those who condone it.
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 Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter