-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Solution to gay marriage
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Not under the current definition. I am not saying it cant change but pick your battles and win them... Much better to shoot for equal rights now something that I am sure they could win with support from many... Four years from now perceptions can change and it may be time for a new battle...
Well for Chris sakes, Christ, what many gays want is what other people of faith want, to declare and swear their true and abiding love for each other before God and all Men. It is the love in marriage that brings joy and in the land of the free where everybody is guaranteed the pursuit of happiness by the highest law in the land, gays should be free to seek that happiness too.
Gunslinger08
Lifer
We can't allow gay marraige because of all the money that Merriam Webster would lose reprinting mar*riage in every dictionary.
The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
Ahh the slippery slope argument. Gay marriages lead to incestual marriage to polygamy, and so on. I'm interested in why you picked gay marriages as the beggining to your slippery slope, because you could just as easily say that heterosexual marriages lead to gay marriages to incestual marriages and so on. Or is your argument that no one should get married, and that government shouldn't sanction special rights to one class people at all?
happyhelper
Senior member
I just realized that I am baffled by people who oppose gay-marriage. Most will say gay-marriage is wrong, then I'll say "well I don't see anything wrong with it" and then they'll say "if you say a gay couple can get married, then what's to stop any two people from getting married, like brothers, or a brother and sister, or father and daughter?" And I say, "true, what it is to stop them from doing that? Is it wrong for two brothers to get married?" And they act like I'm crazy! And I think he's crazy.
To me, what some view as a "slippery slope..." of actually letting people who want to marry each other do so is not a slippery slope at all. Why in a "land of liberty" - a "home for the free" are there jerks trying to restrict the liberty, the freedom, of other people about something that doesn't concern or effect the jerks in any way?
I guess because it grosses you out, you don't think people should be able to do it. I guess we should outlaw escargot because it makes some people nauseous to think about eating snails. You know what grosses me out? Huge fat people that walk out of a church on sunday morning - what grosses me out even more is the thought those huge disgusting fat people have sexual relations with other huge disgusting fat people. But you don't see me trying to say they shouldn't be allowed to have their huge disgusting fat people fun? Do you? I just think it's gross, try not to think about it and GO ON ABOUT MY OWN FVCKIN BUSINESS.
But then I walk in the mall and see some big fat disgusting fat person trying on shoes - it's like that person is out there revealing feet - just trying to PARADE the fatness to make other people like me KNOW that big fat people are doing it. It's just not right, but do you see me crying for an ammendment to outlaw fat marriages??? Nope, going about my own damn business.
Then I go visit my parents and those indecent disgusting parents of mine hug each other - right in front of me!!! Can you believe it??? It's SO NASTY!!!! And it reminds of that gruesome thought that once every few months or so, they PROBABLY DOOOO IT!!! OMFG!!! But do I say, "Hey that is so damn disgusting you two just shouldn't be allowed... well there oughta be a fvckin law against...." OH BARF!!!!
AMMEND THAT CONSTITUTION !!!! People that I don't find attractive, and the thought of them having intercourse or sexual relations of any kind just makes my stomach turn, well they just CAN'T be married!!!! From now on, all marriages must be approved by HappyHelper, Inc. I'll make a little company, $100 fee per marriage application - if you and your intended partner don't make me feel ill... you can get married under the law of the land. All those in favor of HappyHelper Marriage Ammendment, say AYE. We can no longer stand for disgusting people defacing and destroying our most precious and hallowed institution - marriage.
Vic
Elite Member
What baffles me are people who think this is the most important issue facing our nation at this time.
Can you say, "Distraction?"
No... wait. That's all the sheep know how to do, create distractions...
In the end, this issue could be the Achilles Heel for the Democratic party in November. They pin their whole election on this whole distraction issue, thinking that all the "enlightened people" will knee-jerk along against the "bigots", only to find out that the "bigots" outnumber them and we end up with 4 more year of Der Furher. I won't be happy at the Dem liberal extremists over that. Learn to open your mind. Just because something is oh so obvious to you does not mean that everyone MUST agree with you or ELSE.
And Moonie... the irony and hypocracy of your statements about "bigots" is simply amazing. I expect a higher level of thinking from you, and this ain't it. For one thing, do you always stereotype your bigots like that? Shall we categorize, generalize, and dehumanize them some more? :roll:
Can you say, "Distraction?"
No... wait. That's all the sheep know how to do, create distractions...
In the end, this issue could be the Achilles Heel for the Democratic party in November. They pin their whole election on this whole distraction issue, thinking that all the "enlightened people" will knee-jerk along against the "bigots", only to find out that the "bigots" outnumber them and we end up with 4 more year of Der Furher. I won't be happy at the Dem liberal extremists over that. Learn to open your mind. Just because something is oh so obvious to you does not mean that everyone MUST agree with you or ELSE.
And Moonie... the irony and hypocracy of your statements about "bigots" is simply amazing. I expect a higher level of thinking from you, and this ain't it. For one thing, do you always stereotype your bigots like that? Shall we categorize, generalize, and dehumanize them some more? :roll:
There seems to be a bit of a confusion of what the difference between a Civil Union and a Marriage. I'm a Canadian, and we just went through an election, and it was a big issue.
A civil union is a contract that confers all the legal rights and privileges of a marriage on a couple. In a sense, we already have this here, because common-law couples have all the same legal rights as married couples, and awhile ago common-law same-sex couples were recognized by the courts as being identical to hetero-sexual couples.
Now, several Provincial Supreme Court decisions have ruled that our marriage laws are discriminatory. If you think about it they kinda are, you go to City Hall, and get denied a licence because you are gay. That is discriminatory, though there are some arguments that say it's a justified discrimination. I'm not gonna get into that argument.
The Prime Minister, suggested Civil Unions as a compromise, where same-sex couples could apply for a Civil Union licence, and that would be legally IDENTICAL to marriage. But we've had rumblings from the court that that doesn't cut the mustard, because the same-sex couple would still be discriminated against if they applied for a mariage licence. It just dodges the issue.
So one idea that has been proposed, which I kinda like 'cause it pisses off everyone, is to remove all legal meaning from the word "marriage." So, both same-sex and heterosexual couples would apply for a civil union licence, which confers all tax, pension etc. rights that a marriage does now. Then, if they want a religious ceremony, they could have it, but it would have no more legal status than a Christening. Except when they sit down at the little table to sign the peice of paper. The religious aspect would be completely separate from the legal aspect. This probably won't happen, 'cause it makes marriage less special and that pisses people off, but it would be a very effective separation of Church and State.
A civil union is a contract that confers all the legal rights and privileges of a marriage on a couple. In a sense, we already have this here, because common-law couples have all the same legal rights as married couples, and awhile ago common-law same-sex couples were recognized by the courts as being identical to hetero-sexual couples.
Now, several Provincial Supreme Court decisions have ruled that our marriage laws are discriminatory. If you think about it they kinda are, you go to City Hall, and get denied a licence because you are gay. That is discriminatory, though there are some arguments that say it's a justified discrimination. I'm not gonna get into that argument.
The Prime Minister, suggested Civil Unions as a compromise, where same-sex couples could apply for a Civil Union licence, and that would be legally IDENTICAL to marriage. But we've had rumblings from the court that that doesn't cut the mustard, because the same-sex couple would still be discriminated against if they applied for a mariage licence. It just dodges the issue.
So one idea that has been proposed, which I kinda like 'cause it pisses off everyone, is to remove all legal meaning from the word "marriage." So, both same-sex and heterosexual couples would apply for a civil union licence, which confers all tax, pension etc. rights that a marriage does now. Then, if they want a religious ceremony, they could have it, but it would have no more legal status than a Christening. Except when they sit down at the little table to sign the peice of paper. The religious aspect would be completely separate from the legal aspect. This probably won't happen, 'cause it makes marriage less special and that pisses people off, but it would be a very effective separation of Church and State.
Did you read what I said and are you sure that your assumptions about my categorizations and generalizations are not projections of your own? Did you see this post:
"I gots ta treat bigots light hearted and nice like in case I ever discover I'm one about something or other. That way, having a friendly attitude and all, I maybe won't have to go into instant denial. Nobody likes to discover they are what they don't like."
Perhaps you could be more specific in your criticism. And where do you get the notion that liberal extremists are behind this furor. I thought that what brought the issue to head was the call for a constitutional amendment. I have heard that the gay community neither wanted nor sought to push this issue at this time and for the reasons of danger you mentioned. Also, have you carefully followed the evolution of this issue on this board? We are a ways down the road for a preamble where I set out to summarize and balance my views. I have specifically addressed a few salient and recurrent features that pop up over and over again. I know just which way the bunny will hop.
Vic
Elite Member
Moonie, you must have forgotten that I live in Multnomah county, Oregon. This issue began heating up to its current state earlier this year right here when the gay community pressured our county commissioners to meet behind closed doors and allow gay marriages based on a technicality of punctuation in our state constitution. From here it spread across the country. Prior to that point, I was moderately favorable on the issue, but the complete disregard for democratic due process in my very hometown led me to rethink my position.
Have I followed this whole issue here in P&N? Are you kidding? P&N is just the AT lock-up for political extremists who can't see past their noses, much less their individual views. I drop by occasionally when I get sick of the kiddies in OT, but I don't usually stay long as I had a low tolerance for ignorance, prejudice, trolling, spamming, flaming, and just good ol' fashioned stupidity.
Nothing to do with slippery slopes. I'll once again present the argument,, but I doubt anyone will provide a valid logical counter-argument.
Heterosexuals represent roughly 90+% of the population. Gays <10%. Pedophiles, Incestuous, Polygamists probably represent a smaller fraction, but a fraction none the less.
Now, we have 2 arguments for gays. 1) they chose to be gay. 2) they are born gay (personally I suspect it is some combination of both). Either way, they say they deserve the same rights as heterosexuals.
Pedophiles, polygamists, and incestous (what is the the plural word?) can make the same arguments as gays. Now we can argue that we have laws against pedophilia, because it infringes on the rights of the children, as they are not determined to be an adult. But what about the rest? So, why doesn't any deviant sexual behavior deserve the same rights, if they are willing to enter a legal and lifelong comittment? Answer me why they don't have the same rights? If they don't, this is bigotry.
Or, is the argument that "Government must tolerate all shades of morality/immorality, until government determines said behavior is considered too immoral"? All that is is instead of drawing the line at 90% like we do now, it's drawing it at 97%.
Trolls like moonbeam need not respond. I'd really like Don_Vito to respond 🙂 Don, you around?
Edit to change > to < 😉
Alchemize, your argument would be a lot better without the pedophilia-homosexuality comparison. Pedophiia causes harm to a non-consenting child. Homosexuality is between consenting adults. As for causing harm I think you would agree the harm caused to a child by pedophilia is overwhelmingly more then any harm possibly caused by homosexuality.
Incest, and polagamy are both tougher aruments. In the case of incest where a child could be born, there is a good argument for causing harm (genetic defects). That leaves polagamy and non-child bearing incestous relationships. I think the key difference is CHOICE.
Homo/heterosexuality are most likely determined at birth, and the person born does not have a choice. A person isnt born with having an inclination to having an incestual relationships, they choose it. Similiarly a person chooses to be in a polygamous relationship.
So my 3 factors that separate homosexuality from pedophilia, incest and polygamy are consent, does it cause harm, and choice.
Oh and back to draw moral lines it wasn't too long ago that interacial marriage was considered immoral. Yet our country eventually decided to allow it. I guess that could be considered the start of the slippery slope by some. But I wouldn't using my three factors, consent, yes, harm, no, does a person choose to be a different race, no. Back to homosexual marriages and my three factors, consent, yes, harm, no, does a person choose to be homosexual, no.
Matrix of your three lifestyles:
Pedophilia: consent:NO!!, harm:YES!!!, choice: no
Incest: consent:yes, harm:maybe, choice: yes
Polygamay: consent:yes, harm:no, choice:yes
LordMagnusKain
Banned
It?s all about what we, as a society, should consider the 'norm';
I think that making mirage a matter for the church and civil unions *grandfathering in all formerly married people* is the best solution.
But civil unions shouldn't be limited by anything but being of-age.
I think that making mirage a matter for the church and civil unions *grandfathering in all formerly married people* is the best solution.
But civil unions shouldn't be limited by anything but being of-age.
It's all about what people like you and alsurmise consider normal and deviant as bigots infected with a certainty of religious truth. Notice how al had to slip in that word deviant? The deviance is in his head and guts where it was lodged preconsciously by cultural prejudice.
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: 25K
-
-
-
