It depends on your point of view. It's good for you because no woman who could marry me would marry you.
It depends on your point of view. It's good for you because no woman who could marry me would marry you.
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
It depends on your point of view. It's good for you because no woman who could marry me would marry you.
Can you answer the question?
The issue of polygamy is not the same as the issue of gay marriage. You can support both, or only one.
Go start your own thread on polygamy, as this one is about the immorality of the bigotry of those who prohibit equality by outlawing gay marriage.
Ifyou want to make a gay marriage argument about something in common between the two topics, make the argument, rather than posting a thread derail one-liner.
No it is directly related. Polygamy is an aspect of marriage that government has regulated, and said no to. Even though it actually has a history in our country AND their are people how still practice it and go to jail.
Same sex marriage is a change that some people are requesting now that the government reconize. Notice I said change, somethign different. Currently the law is being applied EQUALLY to all, there are no restrictions on sexual orenation in marriage. Pick up a lincease from any county court house - it doesn't ask about your sexual prefernce.
It does ask about your gender.
How can you on one hand say, this type of marriage(same-sex) should be allowed and not the other(multiple partners)? The later at least has had a history in our country.
Oh my gosh, I was just having a discusssion with some of my supporters this morning on this.
Not only is it part of my platform to stop the discrimination of Gay marriage but also if multiple women want to marry one man, then fine and vice versa, if multiple men want to marry one woman or multiple gay spouses.
Since Government wants to be in the marriage business then it has to deal with it all.
Shrumpage, you clearly did not get my previous post. Read the following 20 times, please, until you do. Mix "inter-racial" and "same-sex" as you read it.
Do I need to make it even clearer? How about the definition of marriage being that people who have never used 'Shrumpage' as a board name can get married.
Then, when you complain, I say you are asking for special treatment, it's a *change* to the law that you want.
The law doesn't discriminate against you; everyone is treated equally, if they use a handle 'Shrumpage', they can't get married.
That's the same as your argument that letting 'anyone' marry the opposite sex only is not discriminatory - the definition is inherently discrminatory.
The question is whether the discrimination is justified. Same sex, first cousins, father-daughter, inter-racial, adult and minor, cross-religion, each has its own issues.
Consenting gay persons who wish to be married = okay.
Consenting persons who volunteer to be exposed to second-hand smoke on private businesses = not okay.
I don't prefer that double-standard.
Last time i checked the difference's between races were very insignificant, while the difference between the genders are very apperant. Differnces that are reconized from the basic biological level, through society, and even in our court systems. Supporting that dichotomy is what marriage has been for thousands of years.
Originally posted by: Stunt
The problem is not gays or religious groups...
The problem is our government started getting into the business of 'marriage', at the time there were no gays who wanted to wed. These days the state is in the wrong calling 'relationships'; 'marriage'. We need to eliminate the term marriage from all government offices; allow unions or long-term relationships for all people with spousal rights. Everyone is caught up on the term marriage...so get rid of it!
Social conservatives and conservatives in general tend to think marriage is a valuable social institution - that it has benefits to society as a whole, by promoting stable relationships and stable families - and therefore conservatives tend to want the government and the laws to support or promote marriage. The most obvious way of promoting marriage and making it the default option for relationships is to have the government recognise marriage. People like you will never achieve your aim of "getting the government out of marriage" because to get into power, you need the help of the more traditional conservatives and christians. They would never tolerate your plans.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
I think part of what we are missing is the fear of social change--take the white American vs. the Afro American---while a few can pass in either camp--you can tell the players apart by in large---and as long as the white American in the majority could exalt in his superior social status---they could pass and enforce Jim Crow laws---and when black in small groups got uppity, a few judious lynchings were reminders to the rest. Which lasted for years, until blacks organised in large numbers---which scared the hell out of the white supremists---and it was partly the tactics of the white supremists that repulsed the rest of us into passing equal rights laws.---someone like Bull Conners and the montgomery church bombings did more for the cause than almost any civil rights leader---but it was a long process spiced with violence---and as long as humans are Xenophobic--it will never be complete
But the gay straight divide is much more complex---you can't always tell the sides apart---and gays are in a distinct minority---maybe 4% but I have never seen decent statistics on the question because of the strong social taboos against it---but society seems to prefer a don't ask don't tell---but as soon as it becomes apparent---said person often is on the receiving end of some sort of discrimination---and we as a society often consider it our moral duty to punish them----but 4% of 300 million is a huge number---1.2 million to be exact.
Which is a group larger than all but a handful of US cities---and when they organise it strikes that same raw fear---and the fearful rush to pass laws that punish any such attempts to organise.---and the knee jerk reaction is in the area of gay marriage---and since the homophobe agenda largely lacks a visible Bull Conner type in support---and seldom bombs such gatherings as the white supremists types did---there is nothing to stampede the apathetic towards siding with the gay agenda in a quest for equal rights.
But this country is just starting to confront this issue---and we as a nation probably have a long path forward to reform the various laws---its just important to note the rate of progress is now negative---those defending the staus quo are organised and using their political influence---most other countries have come to grips with the issue and are far less excited or morally certain----but Americans are always different.---we may have not invented the puritan---but we do cultivate the myths as a social ideal.---a simple Bubba type who does not need to do any complex thinking to tell right from wrong.
But the gay straight divide is much more complex---you can't always tell the sides apart---and gays are in a distinct minority---maybe 4% but I have never seen decent statistics on the question because of the strong social taboos against it---but society seems to prefer a don't ask don't tell---but as soon as it becomes apparent---said person often is on the receiving end of some sort of discrimination---and we as a society often consider it our moral duty to punish them----but 4% of 300 million is a huge number---1.2 million to be exact.
Which is a group larger than all but a handful of US cities---and when they organise it strikes that same raw fear---and the fearful rush to pass laws that punish any such attempts to organise.---and the knee jerk reaction is in the area of gay marriage---and since the homophobe agenda largely lacks a visible Bull Conner type in support---and seldom bombs such gatherings as the white supremists types did---there is nothing to stampede the apathetic towards siding with the gay agenda in a quest for equal rights.
But this country is just starting to confront this issue---and we as a nation probably have a long path forward to reform the various laws---its just important to note the rate of progress is now negative---those defending the staus quo are organised and using their political influence---most other countries have come to grips with the issue and are far less excited or morally certain----but Americans are always different.---we may have not invented the puritan---but we do cultivate the myths as a social ideal.---a simple Bubba type who does not need to do any complex thinking to tell right from wrong.
They weren't insignificant to millions of Americans who fought hard to prevent integration.
It's all relative toyour bias, isn't it? If I put a black man next to a white man, you can see the difference; a straight man next to a gay man, you may not.
(Though I hear some claim to have a well developed "gaydar" detector).
You have two mature, adult human beings who feel the same type of biological urges of attraction, sexual desire, and who fall in love.
Aren't the similarities between those two people a lot more similar, gay or not, than they are different?
Let's face it: you are now going to not ask the question honestly, by drawing a conclusion from the facts. You are going to start with the conclusion that there is some difference between the two justifying discrimination and frantically try to identify it to justify bigotry. You see this a lot when people respond to this by saying "but a man and a woman can have children, and a man and a man cannot! That's the reason!"
You then point out that a man and a woman who cannot have children - hysterectomy, elderly, etc. - can still get married.
Darn, they say, that's right, and they race off to look for the next difference to use to justify bigotry, without noticing what they're doing - looking for reasons to justify a conclusion, not forming a conclusion based on the facts. And they don't even realize it themselves, but they are motivated by bigotry. Otherwise, when 'the' reason about having children is rebutted, they'd say "oh, ya you're right, ok I'm changing my position". That's not what you see. The position is for darker reasons.
What are those darker reasons? For many, it's just a visceral reaction against gays, because the idea of gay sex is so repulsive; not a rational opinion about human rights.
It's also that many have decided that *they* are moral by rejecting gay rights, and to allow gay rights would be like allowing rape - they would feel they had become 'evil'.
It's emotional, not rational - in their battle to be 'moral' they have chosen the immoral view.
Do you agree or not there are significat differences between the two genders? Even the chromosomes are noticably different XX vs XY. It is a very basic seperation.
Wel be defination they would be more same then two people of the oppsite gender. But that is also going back to the basic dictomy of marriage. It is two different genders coming togather to for a single enitity. As noted early the differnces are extremely basic, done to the chromsome.
You do get a lot of exercise jumping to conclusions.....
Its very simple i believe is the basic dichotomy of marrige that has been reinforced by millions of years of biology and thousands of years of society, and should be continued supported by the government.
Again, you need to make your argument, not ask irrelevant one-liner questions.
I laid out the similarities of gay and straight couples, and it's up to you to show a difference that's more important *and relevant to marriage*.
What is the relevance of two people with more similar chromosones and the same genitals, rather than more difference chromosones and genitals, to marital rights?
Again, you need to remember that some people are naturally straight and some are naturally gay, and you need to justify any discrimination you make over that.
You do get a lot of exercise jumping to conclusions.....
Its very simple i believe is the basic dichotomy of marrige that has been reinforced by millions of years of biology and thousands of years of society, and should be continued supported by the government.
[/quote]
Millions of years of biology have led to about 5% of the human race being naturally gay. You are *opposing* nature by trying to force your ideology on top of nature.
As for thousands of years of human society, ending slavery is a very recent phenomenon, after thousands of years of tradition. Same for women's political power.
You need to learn to distinguish between progress, and things that have been that way a long time for a good reason.
You are utterly unable to defend your bigotry on any rational basis, and you simply spout irrelevant 'facts' like 'it's been that way thousands of years'.
Takes more to justify bigotry.
No offense, but this line of thinking is why the human race is in the tanker.
We (man) are attempting to fight mother nature and a wise man knows not to fight her. There is a reason why gays cannot produce offspring. It's basically darwin at work.
If you are referring to your own post, I agree.
Mother nature made the people gay. I'm pretty sure you are not informed enough to know, either, the biological complexities of the issue, such as that the rate of homosexuality is far too high not to have been bred out of the species, if Darwin, who you so casually cite, were the only issue.
So, you're saying that those jerk people who are born impotent and cannot reproduce should not be allowed to marry. It's Darwin at work.
Millions of years of biology have led to about 5% of the human race being naturally gay. You are *opposing* nature by trying to force your ideology on top of nature.
[/quote]
Thats odd. I didn't say people couldn't be gay. I'm not proposing punishment or prison for being gay. I'll i've said is that marriage should be follow the same dichotomy it has for thousands of years.
And where do you get the 5% number? its much less then that - 1.5%.
Ya know millions of years have led canablism to occur in both humans and animals, yet i oppose that.
oh and millions of years have led society to be based men having as many wives as they can afford - but i oppose that too. Still practiced in parts of the world, and people, ask Mr. Green (google utah, wives, green)- want to be practice in this country.
*sigh* name calling.
My views on marriage have nothing to do with gay people - just like it has nothing to with people who want to practice polygamy. It goess back the Yin-Yang, or dichotomy of two differences coming togather and forming a single unit. Beyond that i don't care if some one wants to live with three women, three men, or just one man. They can do what they want.
Right. The same way someone who supports limiting marriage to white people's views have nothing to do with blacks.
You're completely lacking in any argument, throwing out irrelevant side issues, with only the following gobbledygook to try to articulate denying rights to fellow citizens:
They are two human beings, who are made differently than you by falling in love with their own gender, who have the same needs for love, compansionship, etc.
You are so blinded by ideology that you are wanting to deny them the same basic right you have to marry.
You can't even see how absurd you sound with the attempt to address this extraordinarily serious issue with 'Yin-Yang' pulled freshly out of *your* orafice.
And there was no name calling. Name-calling is without substance. Calling Nixon an abuser of power, calling Clinton a cheater - these are not 'name-calling'.
Calling people who demanded 'seperate but equal', who demanded 'white and black' drinking fountains, is not name-calling.
And calling someone who denies equal rights to a group for no reason other than an irrational view of that group a bigot is not name-calling, either.
Yes, the word bigot can be name-calling. Saying that if you oppose reperations you're automatically a bigot, if the thought of gay sex digsusts you you're a bigot - name-calling.
Those are not the case with your immoral harming of other people who are gay.
Stunt
Diamond Member
- Jul 17, 2002
- 9,717
- 2
- 0
There's always going to be a few people who will refuse to accept a good idea. What I advocate will make 90% of people somewhat happy and that's all that matters.Originally posted by: aidanjm
Social conservatives and conservatives in general tend to think marriage is a valuable social institution - that it has benefits to society as a whole, by promoting stable relationships and stable families - and therefore conservatives tend to want the government and the laws to support or promote marriage. The most obvious way of promoting marriage and making it the default option for relationships is to have the government recognise marriage. People like you will never achieve your aim of "getting the government out of marriage" because to get into power, you need the help of the more traditional conservatives and christians. They would never tolerate your plans.Originally posted by: Stunt
The problem is not gays or religious groups...
The problem is our government started getting into the business of 'marriage', at the time there were no gays who wanted to wed. These days the state is in the wrong calling 'relationships'; 'marriage'. We need to eliminate the term marriage from all government offices; allow unions or long-term relationships for all people with spousal rights. Everyone is caught up on the term marriage...so get rid of it!
Originally posted by: Stunt
If you re-read my post i said "our government" meaning my government...that's right Dave...we have the same problems with this issue as your country
Get over yourself.
Canadians hate and discriminate against gays too?
You hate and discriminate against them?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 12K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Facebook
Twitter