@darji: But your attitude towards adoption perpetuates the negative beliefs that people have towards gay people and their ability to raise kids. This environment of acceptance that you talk about wont exist if you don't try and fight back against bullies and bigots.
First gay couple wed in France, angers anti-gay activists
@red_millennium said:
@darji: But your attitude towards adoption perpetuates the negative beliefs that people have towards gay people and their ability to raise kids. This environment of acceptance that you talk about wont exist if you don't try and fight back against bullies and bigots.
Yeah. Don't submit to bullies, bigots and assholes. And tell your kid not to, as well. Submitting to their nonsense and abuse only gives your silent approval to their actions.
@darji said:
@legion_ said:
@darji said:
@legion_ said:
@darji said:
@extomar said:
@legion_ said:
@darji said:
2. I would never let any couples adopt children which actually could be a reason of being a burden to the kid. This also includes. Couples with a disabled partner ( depends on the disability though) , Single parents, Parents with a not so good financial status, couples with a drinking partner or a drug history (not weed thats kind of harmless but still depends on how much and if he still does it. I am talking about heavy stuff) Parents with some heavy criminal record and yes gay couples etc.
That you include gay people among those examples just says so much about you, and it explains everything.
Pretty much what legion_ wrote.
Here is another blantanly obvious hint that Darji might not have figured out by now: No one checks men and women if they are really qualified for having kids...they just do it. There are some pretty dumb, ditzy, and even scum of the earth people out there having kids where their only qualification for having children is "I've got reproductive organs".
Spare the children suffering indeed.
Oh If I had a say I would check them do not worry. Do you really believe I would give every hetero sexual couple the chance of adopting a child? WRONG. As I said adopting a child which already suffered quite a lot deserves the best possible environment and if even the slightest problem with this I would deny it.
And As I said before. It is not correct to deny people to reproduce themselves. Adopting a child is a total different matter.
There's nothing but your prejudice that indicates that a child wouldn't get the best possible enviroment to grow up in, if adopted by a gay couple. Your argument is so flawed, and you basically admit that in this post.
No it is not. In our society you will have trouble if your are not the norm. And while I think this is very bad and unfortunate I think these kids deserve a perfect environment. If the majority of our society would be more open minded I would have no trouble at all with this topic. Again this is not because i doubt the ability of gay couples to raise a child properly but I doubt the ability of your society.
If you never challenge prejudice and injustice, you never evolve. By your flawed logic, black people should still be slaves.
No if everyone would be open minded in this regard as me I had no problem at all with gay parents.
All the world's problems have been fixed. Just be like this guy.
Sorry for my flippant remark above, just as I hit Post I realized that I should try to add something of substance to the topic.
As a gay guy I don't think that I should just stand by until everyone is "open minded", that will never happen (for 100% of the world I mean)
Perhaps if I work towards equal marriage, parental rights and so on, these things could occur in my lifetime. I don't think sitting down and shutting up, until being gay is just magically cool, is the way to go.
@darji said:
@legion_ said:
@darji said:
@legion_ said:
@darji said:
@extomar said:
@legion_ said:
@darji said:
2. I would never let any couples adopt children which actually could be a reason of being a burden to the kid. This also includes. Couples with a disabled partner ( depends on the disability though) , Single parents, Parents with a not so good financial status, couples with a drinking partner or a drug history (not weed thats kind of harmless but still depends on how much and if he still does it. I am talking about heavy stuff) Parents with some heavy criminal record and yes gay couples etc.
That you include gay people among those examples just says so much about you, and it explains everything.
Pretty much what legion_ wrote.
Here is another blantanly obvious hint that Darji might not have figured out by now: No one checks men and women if they are really qualified for having kids...they just do it. There are some pretty dumb, ditzy, and even scum of the earth people out there having kids where their only qualification for having children is "I've got reproductive organs".
Spare the children suffering indeed.
Oh If I had a say I would check them do not worry. Do you really believe I would give every hetero sexual couple the chance of adopting a child? WRONG. As I said adopting a child which already suffered quite a lot deserves the best possible environment and if even the slightest problem with this I would deny it.
And As I said before. It is not correct to deny people to reproduce themselves. Adopting a child is a total different matter.
There's nothing but your prejudice that indicates that a child wouldn't get the best possible enviroment to grow up in, if adopted by a gay couple. Your argument is so flawed, and you basically admit that in this post.
No it is not. In our society you will have trouble if your are not the norm. And while I think this is very bad and unfortunate I think these kids deserve a perfect environment. If the majority of our society would be more open minded I would have no trouble at all with this topic. Again this is not because i doubt the ability of gay couples to raise a child properly but I doubt the ability of your society.
If you never challenge prejudice and injustice, you never evolve. By your flawed logic, black people should still be slaves.
No if everyone would be open minded in this regard as me I had no problem at all with gay parents.
Again:
By your flawed logic, black people should still be slaves.
@red_millennium said:
@darji: But your attitude towards adoption perpetuates the negative beliefs that people have towards gay people and their ability to raise kids. This environment of acceptance that you talk about wont exist if you don't try and fight back against bullies and bigots.
But it is sadly the truth. I don't want to live in a dream world thinking everything is ok when it is not. And yes we should fight back but we should not let children fight if they have a choice. As I said we are getting there slowly and in 1 or 2 generations we will see a whole different society. A society in which it is normal that gay parents exist. Why? Because most of these old believe people are either dead or almost dead.
Younger people in their 20s are mostly much more open minded and thats why I think it will be most likely ok and gay marriage and parents will be totally common. WE are not in a world anymore in which we need 100 years or dozens of generations to see our society change.
As for your slaves thing: No because these people who fought this war were not children. They decided to fight and I am glad they did. But the moment you involve children you should be way more carefully with your actions.
Again by your flawed logic you would allow or even pressure children fight in wars. See I can use stupid logic as well.
@darji said:
I can use stupid logic.
I know, you do it all the time.
You just don't get it. You don't get that without any movement in the field, it'll never be normal. And I'm sure you can ask children who live in homes with gay parents, if they'd want it any other way. If they are happy because they're in a loving home, or if they're sad because you get bullied by some ignorant redneck kid at school.
There is no reason at all to not allow gay parents to adopt a child. You're arguments over several pages is proof of that. It's the most flawed, small-minded and stupid argument I've seen in a long, long while.
@legion_ said:
@darji said:
I can use stupid logic.
I know, you do it all the time.
You just don't get it. You don't get that without any movement in the field, it'll never be normal. And I'm sure you can ask children who live in homes with gay parents, if they'd want it any other way. If they are happy because they're in a loving home, or if they're sad because you get bullied by some ignorant redneck kid at school.
There is no reason at all to not allow gay parents to adopt a child. You're arguments over several pages is proof of that. It's the most flawed, small-minded and stupid argument I've seen in a long, long while.
No you do not get it. You should fight for your rights but you should not involve children in it. Like the story from back than when someone told us how his dead got beaten the shit out of them just because he was in the "wrong" school. And while some people maybe can endure that a lot of people can not endure this suffering.
Even if you are in a loving family being bullied for stupid reason is hell because you have to endure it every fucking day in school for example. It becomes so terrible that you do not even want to leave your room or house anymore. You will be marked for the rest of your live like not trusting people at all having nightmares each day getting sick every time you have to think about school. And so on. And no loving family can help you with this suffering. All you can do is endure this torture day for day.
And I do believe that if this child has a higher chance and a choice that this will not happen to them we should do the most possible for that.
Also another important point you are forgetting. If you are getting bullied for this exact reason that you parents are gay. This child will be forced into the believe that being gay or in a gay relationship is bad and wrong and that your parents are doing something bad and wrongfully as well. If you realy think that this is the way of fighting I really pity you.
@darji said:
@legion_ said:
@darji said:
I can use stupid logic.
I know, you do it all the time.
You just don't get it. You don't get that without any movement in the field, it'll never be normal. And I'm sure you can ask children who live in homes with gay parents, if they'd want it any other way. If they are happy because they're in a loving home, or if they're sad because you get bullied by some ignorant redneck kid at school.
There is no reason at all to not allow gay parents to adopt a child. You're arguments over several pages is proof of that. It's the most flawed, small-minded and stupid argument I've seen in a long, long while.
No you do not get it. You should fight for your rights but you should not involve children in it. Like the story from back than when someone told us how his dead got beaten the shit out of them just because he was in the "wrong" school. And while some people maybe can endure that a lot of people can not endure this suffering.
Even if you are in a loving family being bullied for stupid reason is hell because you have to endure it every fucking day in school for example. It becomes so terrible that you do not even want to leave your room or house anymore. You will be marked for the rest of your live like not trusting people at all having nightmares each day getting sick every time you have to think about school. And so on. And no loving family can help you with this suffering. All you can do is endure this torture day for day.
And I do believe that if this child has a higher chance and a choice that this will not happen to them we should do the most possible for that.
Also another important point you are forgetting. If you are getting bullied for this exact reason that you parents are gay. This child will be forced into the believe that being gay or in a gay relationship is bad and wrong and that your parents are doing something bad and wrongfully as well. If you realy think that this is the way of fighting I really pity you.
You're just part of the problem. The sooner you realize that, the better. There is absolutely no sane reason that a gay couple should not be allowed to adopt. Not one. And especially your argument of juvanile bullies is the worst I've ever heard. And yif you truly believe that no loving family can help you when you get bullied, you're just so fucking wrong. Let's just say I feel sorry for you, because that can only come from a bad personal experience.
I knew a gay guy in college and he was a total asshole.
My cousin is lesbian and she's a bit of a jerk but I love her.
I went to my fiance's brother's wedding last year and it was a same sex marriage and he's pretty cool.
Neil Patrick Harris is awesome!
Gays are just people. Don't see why we gotta be hatin'.
@legion_: I don't agree with gay marriage, but I certainly don't consider myself homophobic, or the opposition to gay marriage as homophobic, and I think it's fairly presumptive to say so. I fully agree with equality between homosexual and heterosexual couples (even in regards to adoption, which was the issue in France), I just don't think that homosexual couples should have 'marriages', and instead we simply make civil unions identical to marriage in everything but name and we leave it at that, like they've done in the UK.
I also think you can't simply dismiss the views of the major religions, in fact I'd argue that the world's major religions have more of a right to say what defines a marriage than the gay community does, simply because while I don't think they established the institution, the modern incarnation of marriage was basically defined by them, and they have been guiding and administering the institution of marriage for over a 1000 years.
@inkerman: well, considering the UK is now going ahead with gay marriage instead, maybe the UK is not the best way to make your point.
and all the civil union thing is is separate but equal, like we had in America a long while back...
also, what religions exactly? There are plenty of 'religions' that support gay marriage. even the church of latter day saints is sensing the way the winds are changing, just like when they started accepting black people in the 70's.
@animasta said:
@inkerman: well, considering the UK is now going ahead with gay marriage instead, maybe the UK is not the best way to make your point.
and all the civil union thing is is separate but equal, like we had in America a long while back...
also, what religions exactly? There are plenty of 'religions' that support gay marriage. even the church of latter day saints is sensing the way the winds are changing, just like when they started accepting black people in the 70's.
My point was that I support the way the UK handled the gay marriage issue, I don't support them changing the law. And no, 'separate but equal' was bullshit because it wasn't actually equal and I resent the implication.
As to religions my point still stands, a gay rights activist can't hold up a smaller church which practices gay marriage as a great example and then say the Catholic Church should butt out of the marriage debate entirely. Religions, particularly the major ones like the Catholic Church, have a say in the debate, but that's not to say I support what they have to say or their reasoning.
@inkerman said:
@legion_: I don't agree with gay marriage, but I certainly don't consider myself homophobic, or the opposition to gay marriage as homophobic, and I think it's fairly presumptive to say so. I fully agree with equality between homosexual and heterosexual couples (even in regards to adoption, which was the issue in France), I just don't think that homosexual couples should have 'marriages', and instead we simply make civil unions identical to marriage in everything but name and we leave it at that, like they've done in the UK.
I also think you can't simply dismiss the views of the major religions, in fact I'd argue that the world's major religions have more of a right to say what defines a marriage than the gay community does, simply because while I don't think they established the institution, the modern incarnation of marriage was basically defined by them, and they have been guiding and administering the institution of marriage for over a 1000 years.
In the UK a bill that will legalise same sex marriage will be read by the House of Lords in June (it already passed the House of Commons). By years end the United Kingdom will almost certainly have legalised same sex mariage. The major religions have no right to define what marriage is and is not. Marriage at the end of the day is a legal, not a religous instiutution and in Liberal Democratic countries there is a clear seperation between church and state.
@inkerman said:
@animasta said:
@inkerman: well, considering the UK is now going ahead with gay marriage instead, maybe the UK is not the best way to make your point.
and all the civil union thing is is separate but equal, like we had in America a long while back...
also, what religions exactly? There are plenty of 'religions' that support gay marriage. even the church of latter day saints is sensing the way the winds are changing, just like when they started accepting black people in the 70's.
My point was that I support the way the UK handled the gay marriage issue, I don't support them changing the law. And no, 'separate but equal' was bullshit because it wasn't actually equal and I resent the implication.
Then why don't you want it to be called "Marriage" when it comes to 2 homosexuals? Cause that is exactly what calling it something different is. There is absolutely no reason to call it something different when it is the same thing..
Also yes, it is homophobic to be against Marriage for homosexuals considering the only reason to be against it would be because of sexuality. Homosexuals aren't asking for Marriage to be changed in any sort of way, it is just asking for equality.
@hidys said:
@inkerman said:
@legion_: I don't agree with gay marriage, but I certainly don't consider myself homophobic, or the opposition to gay marriage as homophobic, and I think it's fairly presumptive to say so. I fully agree with equality between homosexual and heterosexual couples (even in regards to adoption, which was the issue in France), I just don't think that homosexual couples should have 'marriages', and instead we simply make civil unions identical to marriage in everything but name and we leave it at that, like they've done in the UK.
I also think you can't simply dismiss the views of the major religions, in fact I'd argue that the world's major religions have more of a right to say what defines a marriage than the gay community does, simply because while I don't think they established the institution, the modern incarnation of marriage was basically defined by them, and they have been guiding and administering the institution of marriage for over a 1000 years.
In the UK a bill that will legalise same sex marriage will be read by the House of Lords in June (it already passed the House of Commons). By years end the United Kingdom will almost certainly have legalised same sex mariage. The major religions have no right to define what marriage is and is not. Marriage at the end of the day is a legal, not a religous instiutution and in Liberal Democratic countries there is a clear seperation between church and state.
Amen! Well said @hidys. There is no sane reason why gay couples should be denied the right to marriage. Calling it something else diminishes the institution all togheter. What @inkerman is saying is that we're all equal, but some are more equal than others, and that's a bullshit view.
Again, there is not a single good reason why gay couples should not be allowed to wed, and I can't for the love of fuck understand why some people think it's any of their business. We're living in the 21st century, better start acting like that. It's infuriating how simple minded a huge part of the population still is.
@mcghee said:
@spankingaddict said:
I'm against gay marriage and being gay , and I hate the fact that GB(the place I love the most) are with it . It's a sin , fact .Just saying ...
Whatevs ...
Funny from a guy calling himself "spankingaddict."
HA!
@vantesla said:
@marcsman said:
@spankingaddict said:
I'm against gay marriage and being gay , and I hate the fact that GB(the place I love the most) are with it . It's a sin , fact .Just saying ...
Whatevs ...
Out of pure curiosity is the same sex couple a sin or is it the sodomy?
In the Bible it is Sodomy that is consider a sin. Nowhere in the Bible does it say same sex couple or love is a sin unless they well practice sodomy... Also the big joke is most christian practice sodomy aka oral and anal sex at least once in their life so yeah... Just a bunch of bigoted hypocrites that where raised to hate anything that that society is consider wrong even if there is little justification for it. Oh fun fact is that sodomy was consider a sin/bad for the fact it caused people to become sick, infections, disease, and die for way back most people where not as cleanly so it was in a way for medical reasons, but made into more a religious sin for people take that law more serious then.
Oh shit. Guess I'm in a little trouble. But come on now, who hasn't tread down the dirt path a couple of times? ( strictly with women)
@sanious said:
@inkerman said:
My point was that I support the way the UK handled the gay marriage issue, I don't support them changing the law. And no, 'separate but equal' was bullshit because it wasn't actually equal and I resent the implication.
Then why don't you want it to be called "Marriage" when it comes to 2 homosexuals? Cause that is exactly what calling it something different is. There is absolutely no reason to call it something different when it is the same thing..
Also yes, it is homophobic to be against Marriage for homosexuals considering the only reason to be against it would be because of sexuality. Homosexuals aren't asking for Marriage to be changed in any sort of way, it is just asking for equality.
If they just want equality, then why is there a push to change the law in the UK? Civil Unions in the UK are equal to marriage. That is my objection. I actually support equal treatment for homosexual couples and heterosexual ones, I don't support labelling them the same, which is what calling their partnerships 'marriage' will do. I disagree with the term 'separate but equal', because it has (obviously) other connotations, but, yeah I support 'different but equal' treatment on this issue. Homosexual couples are not the same as heterosexual ones on a quite fundamental level (child bearing), and to label them as such is erroneous. And yeah, it does actually fly in the face of thousands of years of tradition, so there's also that.
@legion_ said:
@hidys said:
In the UK a bill that will legalise same sex marriage will be read by the House of Lords in June (it already passed the House of Commons). By years end the United Kingdom will almost certainly have legalised same sex mariage. The major religions have no right to define what marriage is and is not. Marriage at the end of the day is a legal, not a religous instiutution and in Liberal Democratic countries there is a clear seperation between church and state.
Amen! Well said @hidys. There is no sane reason why gay couples should be denied the right to marriage. Calling it something else diminishes the institution all togheter. What @inkerman is saying is that we're all equal, but some are more equal than others, and that's a bullshit view.
Again, there is not a single good reason why gay couples should not be allowed to wed, and I can't for the love of fuck understand why some people think it's any of their business. We're living in the 21st century, better start acting like that. It's infuriating how simple minded a huge part of the population still is.
No, what I'm saying is we're all equal, but we're also different, and that should be acknowledged.
@inkerman said:
@sanious said:
@inkerman said:
My point was that I support the way the UK handled the gay marriage issue, I don't support them changing the law. And no, 'separate but equal' was bullshit because it wasn't actually equal and I resent the implication.
Then why don't you want it to be called "Marriage" when it comes to 2 homosexuals? Cause that is exactly what calling it something different is. There is absolutely no reason to call it something different when it is the same thing..
Also yes, it is homophobic to be against Marriage for homosexuals considering the only reason to be against it would be because of sexuality. Homosexuals aren't asking for Marriage to be changed in any sort of way, it is just asking for equality.
If they just want equality, then why is there a push to change the law in the UK? Civil Unions in the UK are equal to marriage. That is my objection. I actually support equal treatment for homosexual couples and heterosexual ones, I don't support labelling them the same, which is what calling their partnerships 'marriage' will do. I disagree with the term 'separate but equal', because it has (obviously) other connotations, but, yeah I support 'different but equal' treatment on this issue. Homosexual couples are not the same as heterosexual ones on a quite fundamental level (child bearing), and to label them as such is erroneous. And yeah, it does actually fly in the face of thousands of years of tradition, so there's also that.
@legion_ said:
@hidys said:
In the UK a bill that will legalise same sex marriage will be read by the House of Lords in June (it already passed the House of Commons). By years end the United Kingdom will almost certainly have legalised same sex mariage. The major religions have no right to define what marriage is and is not. Marriage at the end of the day is a legal, not a religous instiutution and in Liberal Democratic countries there is a clear seperation between church and state.
Amen! Well said @hidys. There is no sane reason why gay couples should be denied the right to marriage. Calling it something else diminishes the institution all togheter. What @inkerman is saying is that we're all equal, but some are more equal than others, and that's a bullshit view.
Again, there is not a single good reason why gay couples should not be allowed to wed, and I can't for the love of fuck understand why some people think it's any of their business. We're living in the 21st century, better start acting like that. It's infuriating how simple minded a huge part of the population still is.
No, what I'm saying is we're all equal, but we're also different, and that should be acknowledged.
well you know slavery was a tradition for many years
also any churches that don't want to marry teh gayz don't have to, so I really don't see what the churches have to do with anything.
Threads like this remind me that giantbomb isn't as mature and level headed as I often assume it is, and that's a darn shame.
@inkerman said:
@sanious said:
@inkerman said:
My point was that I support the way the UK handled the gay marriage issue, I don't support them changing the law. And no, 'separate but equal' was bullshit because it wasn't actually equal and I resent the implication.
Then why don't you want it to be called "Marriage" when it comes to 2 homosexuals? Cause that is exactly what calling it something different is. There is absolutely no reason to call it something different when it is the same thing..
Also yes, it is homophobic to be against Marriage for homosexuals considering the only reason to be against it would be because of sexuality. Homosexuals aren't asking for Marriage to be changed in any sort of way, it is just asking for equality.
If they just want equality, then why is there a push to change the law in the UK? Civil Unions in the UK are equal to marriage. That is my objection. I actually support equal treatment for homosexual couples and heterosexual ones, I don't support labelling them the same, which is what calling their partnerships 'marriage' will do. I disagree with the term 'separate but equal', because it has (obviously) other connotations, but, yeah I support 'different but equal' treatment on this issue. Homosexual couples are not the same as heterosexual ones on a quite fundamental level (child bearing), and to label them as such is erroneous. And yeah, it does actually fly in the face of thousands of years of tradition, so there's also that.
Because it isn't equal, why do we have to treat someone not equal because they are "different"? They are differences in many people but that doesn't make them any less human or give us to reason to treat them less. Isn't having a different color skin "different"?
Child bearing has nothing to do with Marriage and "not being the same" is not a good enough excuse as to why homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to be Married or be labeled as such. There are a lot of things that fly in the face of "thousands of years of tradition", but guess what? A lot of those "traditions" were pretty fucking terrible and you seem to be neglecting these notions when people bring them up.
@osaladin said:
This thread has essentially been about four people saying the exact same thing for five pages. And the levels of hypocrisy and contradiction are astounding.
Sadly this is how arguments on Giant Bomb work.
Yeah.This has become a flame war. I'm usually against locking threads, but this one has run it's course.
@inkerman said:
@sanious said:
@inkerman said:
My point was that I support the way the UK handled the gay marriage issue, I don't support them changing the law. And no, 'separate but equal' was bullshit because it wasn't actually equal and I resent the implication.
Then why don't you want it to be called "Marriage" when it comes to 2 homosexuals? Cause that is exactly what calling it something different is. There is absolutely no reason to call it something different when it is the same thing..
Also yes, it is homophobic to be against Marriage for homosexuals considering the only reason to be against it would be because of sexuality. Homosexuals aren't asking for Marriage to be changed in any sort of way, it is just asking for equality.
If they just want equality, then why is there a push to change the law in the UK? Civil Unions in the UK are equal to marriage. That is my objection. I actually support equal treatment for homosexual couples and heterosexual ones, I don't support labelling them the same, which is what calling their partnerships 'marriage' will do. I disagree with the term 'separate but equal', because it has (obviously) other connotations, but, yeah I support 'different but equal' treatment on this issue. Homosexual couples are not the same as heterosexual ones on a quite fundamental level (child bearing), and to label them as such is erroneous. And yeah, it does actually fly in the face of thousands of years of tradition, so there's also that.
@legion_ said:
@hidys said:
In the UK a bill that will legalise same sex marriage will be read by the House of Lords in June (it already passed the House of Commons). By years end the United Kingdom will almost certainly have legalised same sex mariage. The major religions have no right to define what marriage is and is not. Marriage at the end of the day is a legal, not a religous instiutution and in Liberal Democratic countries there is a clear seperation between church and state.
Amen! Well said @hidys. There is no sane reason why gay couples should be denied the right to marriage. Calling it something else diminishes the institution all togheter. What @inkerman is saying is that we're all equal, but some are more equal than others, and that's a bullshit view.
Again, there is not a single good reason why gay couples should not be allowed to wed, and I can't for the love of fuck understand why some people think it's any of their business. We're living in the 21st century, better start acting like that. It's infuriating how simple minded a huge part of the population still is.
No, what I'm saying is we're all equal, but we're also different, and that should be acknowledged.
What's the difference between a gay man and a straight man, other than the fact that one likes women and the other likes men? You do realize that by calling it something else than marriage, you belittle it? You're only going halfway. There is no reason at all that a gay couple should not be wed. We're all equal, and then we should have equal rights, and one of those rights is to marry the person you love.
@animasta said:
@inkerman said:
If they just want equality, then why is there a push to change the law in the UK? Civil Unions in the UK are equal to marriage. That is my objection. I actually support equal treatment for homosexual couples and heterosexual ones, I don't support labelling them the same, which is what calling their partnerships 'marriage' will do. I disagree with the term 'separate but equal', because it has (obviously) other connotations, but, yeah I support 'different but equal' treatment on this issue. Homosexual couples are not the same as heterosexual ones on a quite fundamental level (child bearing), and to label them as such is erroneous. And yeah, it does actually fly in the face of thousands of years of tradition, so there's also that.
well you know slavery was a tradition for many years
also any churches that don't want to marry teh gayz don't have to, so I really don't see what the churches have to do with anything.
Oh so you're gonna equate my strictly semantic objection to gay marriage with slavery? Nice to see we can have a mature debate.
My point in regards to the religious component to this debate is that many people in favour of gay marriage dismiss any and all religious based objections out of hand (as we've seen on this forum), and I disagree with this. Call me crazy, but I think the institutions that have administered and continue to administer this institution for over 1000 years probably deserve to have a voice in this debate, even if their arguments are unreasonable. Yes, I think being opposed to homosexuality based on what a thousand year old religious text says is stupid, but when a Cardinal or other major religious leader gets up and has objections to gay marriage, gay activists can't simply respond with "Oh well your objections are religious based so they don't count". I also object to the assumption that because someone objects to gay marriage, they must be doing so on a religious basis, because an atheist couldn't possibly be against gay marriage.
@inkerman: uh, no, that's exactly why they shouldn't have a voice in it... and you forget that they do? The only reason prop 8 failed/succeeded was because the mormon church spent a shitload of their tithe money on it.
again, religious based objects are baked into it. If a church doesn't wish to marriage gay people that is their prerogative, and why the fuck would they even want to get married by a bigot anyway, but you would suggest that even the ones that wanted to couldn't because they're not actually called marriage.
the Catholic church is big in Portugal, Spain, Argentina... but they've passed those laws already, so I don't see your point.
@animasta said:
@inkerman: uh, no, that's exactly why they shouldn't have a voice in it... and you forget that they do? The only reason prop 8 failed/succeeded was because the mormon church spent a shitload of their tithe money on it.
again, religious based objects are baked into it. If a church doesn't wish to marriage gay people that is their prerogative, and why the fuck would they even want to get married by a bigot anyway, but you would suggest that even the ones that wanted to couldn't because they're not actually called marriage.
the Catholic church is big in Portugal, Spain, Argentina... but they've passed those laws already, so I don't see your point.
My point is that religion has a place in this debate, that is all. If a church wants to marry gay couples, fine, if one doesn't, that's also fine (although in 10 years time I'll be interested to see if they'll be forced to), but they have a voice in this debate (from the perspective of legislator considering gay marriage).
@sanious said:
@inkerman said:
If they just want equality, then why is there a push to change the law in the UK? Civil Unions in the UK are equal to marriage. That is my objection. I actually support equal treatment for homosexual couples and heterosexual ones, I don't support labelling them the same, which is what calling their partnerships 'marriage' will do. I disagree with the term 'separate but equal', because it has (obviously) other connotations, but, yeah I support 'different but equal' treatment on this issue. Homosexual couples are not the same as heterosexual ones on a quite fundamental level (child bearing), and to label them as such is erroneous. And yeah, it does actually fly in the face of thousands of years of tradition, so there's also that.
Because it isn't equal, why do we have to treat someone not equal because they are "different"? They are differences in many people but that doesn't make them any less human or give us to reason to treat them less. Isn't having a different color skin "different"?
Child bearing has nothing to do with Marriage and "not being the same" is not a good enough excuse as to why homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to be Married or be labeled as such. There are a lot of things that fly in the face of "thousands of years of tradition", but guess what? A lot of those "traditions" were pretty fucking terrible and you seem to be neglecting these notions when people bring them up.
Legally speaking, in regards to tax, inheritance, insurance, etc, I believe Civil Unions and Marriage in the UK were equal, as I believe they were in France except for adoption laws. So yes, that's exactly what 'equality' is. And yeah, having different skin colours is being different, that's why people are labelled as 'White', 'Black', 'Hispanic', etc. Just words, but they acknowledge a difference of ethnicity.
And yeah, child bearing has everything to do with marriage. What the hell do you think the most basic construction of marriage is? It's society's way of recognising the base mating pair of the human species.
@legion_ said:
@inkerman said:
If they just want equality, then why is there a push to change the law in the UK? Civil Unions in the UK are equal to marriage. That is my objection. I actually support equal treatment for homosexual couples and heterosexual ones, I don't support labelling them the same, which is what calling their partnerships 'marriage' will do. I disagree with the term 'separate but equal', because it has (obviously) other connotations, but, yeah I support 'different but equal' treatment on this issue. Homosexual couples are not the same as heterosexual ones on a quite fundamental level (child bearing), and to label them as such is erroneous. And yeah, it does actually fly in the face of thousands of years of tradition, so there's also that.
No, what I'm saying is we're all equal, but we're also different, and that should be acknowledged.
What's the difference between a gay man and a straight man, other than the fact that one likes women and the other likes men? You do realize that by calling it something else than marriage, you belittle it? You're only going halfway. There is no reason at all that a gay couple should not be wed. We're all equal, and then we should have equal rights, and one of those rights is to marry the person you love.
First of all, there is no right to marry the person you love. Marriage as an institution doesn't have anything to do with love. Love being a major (let alone primary) factor in determining marriage partners has only been a reality in the Western World for less than 150 years (it's turned up in fiction, sure, but in reality? Not really), and in much of the world today it is not the primary factor in marriages. Love was basically tacked on to what was a political and economic arrangement, which itself was tacked onto the basic Man + Woman = Child, which is the key difference between your gay man and straight man, the straight man will probably be able to have children with his partner naturally, a gay man will not. When you label a gay coupling as the same as a heterosexual coupling, what you are effectively saying is "These things are the same". IMO it's quite a dangerous thing when you're talking about the very coupling which ensures the continuation of our species. Homosexual and heterosexual couplings are not the same, do not label them as the same. Otherwise I don't have a problem.
@inkerman: not one of these churches is even suggesting civil unions though. They don't want any recognition, and many churches deride civil unions for being too close to marriages already.
also lol are you trying to say that homosexual marriages would lead to us dying out? we're overpopulated as it is dude.
I wasn't married in a church, the ceremony wasn't presided over by a member of the clergy, and I had to get a marriage licence from the state.
Marriage stopped having anything to do with religion a long time ago.
I am a pansexual genderqueer trans* and am personally against marriage altogether, but if it makes people happy; but if two people are happy together and think they can continue that happiness with each other forever than so be it. It isn't my place to say what two consenting, sane adults can do, nor do I think it should be anyone's. I understand that everyone comes from different backgrounds and all have things that they think are disgusting, but it isn't there place to say that someone else cannot do something if it brings no harm to anyone else.
Edit: for anyone who needs any sort of elaboration or explaination of who I identify as I apologise.
Pansexual- basically love is love regardless of genitalia.
Genderqueer-not fitting into the gender binary. A whole range of identities in here. From feeling like you are genderless, to having a third gender. I am an androgyn leaning towards femme.
Trans- I was born as a man and am undergoing transition to be a female so my physical self matches my inner identity..
@inkerman: The reason people complain about "different but equal" not being truly equitable is more than just a problem of definition; If homesexuals' right to legally recognised partnerships is enshrined in a Civil Union ghetto, it only makes it easier for those rights to be taken away in the future - if you have a nice hedge, it's easier to remove the weeds near it than the ones growing inside it, if you see my point. Even if it never actually happened, under the current system that has to always be a fear. I'm not positive about this, but I think that would apply retroactively as well, so couples currently living in a civil partnership might worry that one day the institution that safeguards a whole bevy of important rights (being allowed to make medical decisions for your partner in hospital or even being allowed to visit them being the most emotionally resonant problem, I suppose) will be removed from them with very little recourse. This would be harder, I think, to do with something with the name marriage.
Edit: I just saw what you were saying about people ignoring the religious foundation of marriage. I was particularly interested by the way you phrased it: "the institutions that have administered [marriage] for thousands of years." For many years, probably a couple of centuries at least, by this point, the church hasn't "adminsitered" marriage, governments have. The symbolic meaning of the institution is at least matched in importance by it's legal foundations. If the church wants to claim any ownership over the legal aspects of it, that would be a violation of the separation of church and state. Or, if they want to claim ownership of the word, then I think they'd have to accept that the legal foundations of "marriage" would need to be taken away - that is to say, legally there would be no marriage, only civil partnerships. Which I suppose could be an acceptable solution for me, but I'm not gay or christian.
Also, with regards to the situation in the UK, the House of Commons has passed a gay marriage bill but there's a reasonable chance it will be blocked by the Lords, I believe.
Also, someone said something along the lines of "churches won't have to marry gay couples if they don't want to" and I just wanted to muse aloud about whether or not that's true. Certainly at the moment churches reserve the right not to marry people for a variety of reasons (I think most of them require couples to go through a marriage preparation course and similar things), but at the same time I don't know whether legal challenge has ever been made about this, probably because not many people feel it's a fight worth having - if you're religious those stipulations aren't an issue, and if you are, why would you want to force it and have to make the process of planning a wedding that much harder than it already is.
But we do have laws about discrimination that have resulted in high-profile cases around similar "semi-public" spaces, most notaly the Bed and Breakfast who were sued for not allowing a gay couple to stay with them. I reckon it would be an interesting thing to see, it could have some interesting ramifications with regards to the status of our churches and cathedrals and whether Christian institutions have "exclusive" rights to them - which as an atheist lover of churches I feel might be a good thing. Then again, maybe they are "private" enough for it to not be an issue, legally. Who knows!
@legion_ said:
@jayeh said:
Just because you don't agree with gay marriage, doesn't make you a homophob.
I see it as homophobic. You are denying a group of people a right that everyone else has, for no other reason than them being gay. They discriminate based on sexual orientation, and that's basically the definition of homophobia.
I'm gay, and I dont believe in gay 'marriage' either. That doesn't make me a homophobe.
My reason is far far more semantic than that, and doesn't come from a place of hate, religious beliefs (I have none) or segregation of any kind. It just doesn't fit the dictionary definition of the term, and that alone is enough for me to avoid using it.
I can totally understand why anyone with faith would want to keep the word 'marriage' (by its very definition) to themselves, and not try to have it have it subverted in some way by just sticking a 'gay' prefix on it. It changes the definition so drastically for these people, that they're not prepared to tolerate it; especially given the whole 'sanctity' argument that these people hold very dear to them. I'm not saying I agree with that either, but it is what it is.
To say these people 'are wrong' to protest their feelings publicly is intolerant in and of itself. Of course, this should never lead to violence, which is always saddening.
I'm all for 'civil partnerships' because they're exactly the same thing for all intents and purposes in a legal sense, and they're still a celebration of love and devotion to each other. They just don't bring God into the equation. I've never been able to wrap my head around why two gay people would want to get God involved, whomever He (or She) may be (or not), but I guess that's another matter entirely.
'Civil Partnership' is a shitty name though. I just wish there was a better name for it for it that would cause no offense to any religion, but is just as snappily effective and acceptable as the word 'marriage' itself.
Though of course, if the moral of this thread is simply bigots are bad. Then yes, I totally agree.
@inkerman said:
@sanious said:
@inkerman said:
My point was that I support the way the UK handled the gay marriage issue, I don't support them changing the law. And no, 'separate but equal' was bullshit because it wasn't actually equal and I resent the implication.
Then why don't you want it to be called "Marriage" when it comes to 2 homosexuals? Cause that is exactly what calling it something different is. There is absolutely no reason to call it something different when it is the same thing..
Also yes, it is homophobic to be against Marriage for homosexuals considering the only reason to be against it would be because of sexuality. Homosexuals aren't asking for Marriage to be changed in any sort of way, it is just asking for equality.
If they just want equality, then why is there a push to change the law in the UK? Civil Unions in the UK are equal to marriage. That is my objection. I actually support equal treatment for homosexual couples and heterosexual ones, I don't support labelling them the same, which is what calling their partnerships 'marriage' will do. I disagree with the term 'separate but equal', because it has (obviously) other connotations, but, yeah I support 'different but equal' treatment on this issue. Homosexual couples are not the same as heterosexual ones on a quite fundamental level (child bearing), and to label them as such is erroneous. And yeah, it does actually fly in the face of thousands of years of tradition, so there's also that.
@legion_ said:
@hidys said:
In the UK a bill that will legalise same sex marriage will be read by the House of Lords in June (it already passed the House of Commons). By years end the United Kingdom will almost certainly have legalised same sex mariage. The major religions have no right to define what marriage is and is not. Marriage at the end of the day is a legal, not a religous instiutution and in Liberal Democratic countries there is a clear seperation between church and state.
Amen! Well said @hidys. There is no sane reason why gay couples should be denied the right to marriage. Calling it something else diminishes the institution all togheter. What @inkerman is saying is that we're all equal, but some are more equal than others, and that's a bullshit view.
Again, there is not a single good reason why gay couples should not be allowed to wed, and I can't for the love of fuck understand why some people think it's any of their business. We're living in the 21st century, better start acting like that. It's infuriating how simple minded a huge part of the population still is.
No, what I'm saying is we're all equal, but we're also different, and that should be acknowledged.
In what way are same-sex couples and heterosexual couples "different"other than on gender lines. Both have equal capacity to contribute to society and both have the capacity to form families (adoption, IVF). Your argument comes off as nothing more than very thinly veiled bigotry and homophobic.
@razoredraspberry said:
I am a pansexual genderqueer trans* and am personally against marriage altogether, but if it makes people happy; but if two people are happy together and think they can continue that happiness with each other forever than so be it. It isn't my place to say what two consenting, sane adults can do, nor do I think it should be anyone's. I understand that everyone comes from different backgrounds and all have things that they think are disgusting, but it isn't there place to say that someone else cannot do something if it brings no harm to anyone else.
but what about the gays ruining america and pushing their gay agenda
how do we explain that to the children
@inkerman: Opposition to gay marriage may not necessarily make you a homophobe, but it easily does make you a proponent of legal inequality. Homophobia remains to be seen, but attempting to establish that heterosexuals are entitled to rights that do not extend to homosexuals is the definition of inequality.
Speaking of marriage and religion's 'right' to define it; that would be true under a theocracy. All Western constitutional democracies establish within those constitutions the existence of the state as a completely secular entity (with the one odd-ball outlier in the UK). As such, you are left with two options as regards marriage; either accept it as a completely secular process as defined within the constitution of the state, or that it exists as a religious process conpletely outside of that constitution, and thus can afford no special benefits or responsibilities. The former requires homosexual marriage in all countries that have something similar to the American Fourteenth Amendment, specifically the equal protection clause. The latter causes a host of issues, as there are something like 2100 specific rights, privileges and protections afforded to married couples, especially when it comes to children.
And if your big breaking point is the word, let me assure you the word has no religious etymological origins, and it's practice within various religions has never been as rigid as you may believe. Hell, Christianity didn't even demand monogamy until past the time of Charlemagne.
@alekss: Actually, no, not in any way, shape or form. People who practice BDSM are legally entitled to be married under secular law, along with those who do not, and all the benefits and prvileges that go with it. The same is not true for homosexual couples compared to heterosexual couples.
I'm sure you thought you had a point, but I'm afraid to say you do not.
@alekss said:
I wonder how long until we will see people that are into BDSM go into streets protesting they don't have equal rights even though they do that in their bedroom and normal people don't go out talking about their sex life? This is what gay people are.
you don't know anything about BDSM or gay people. hope this helps
@artemesia: I hope you are being ironic :3 Well if not, there isn't much point in arguing it because whether you like it or not LGBTQ practices will devour all of your family and loved ones and soon enough everything will soon be engulfed by everything gay. You will be gay. Your children will be gay. EVEN YOUR DOG WILL BE GAY! There is no escaping us. Soon enough everything will be gay and all tradition will be tarnished forever. <3 Happy Gaypocalypse
@inkerman said:
First of all, there is no right to marry the person you love. Marriage as an institution doesn't have anything to do with love. Love being a major (let alone primary) factor in determining marriage partners has only been a reality in the Western World for less than 150 years (it's turned up in fiction, sure, but in reality? Not really), and in much of the world today it is not the primary factor in marriages. Love was basically tacked on to what was a political and economic arrangement, which itself was tacked onto the basic Man + Woman = Child, which is the key difference between your gay man and straight man, the straight man will probably be able to have children with his partner naturally, a gay man will not. When you label a gay coupling as the same as a heterosexual coupling, what you are effectively saying is "These things are the same". IMO it's quite a dangerous thing when you're talking about the very coupling which ensures the continuation of our species. Homosexual and heterosexual couplings are not the same, do not label them as the same. Otherwise I don't have a problem.
Thing is, we live in 2013, not 1863. And as you yourself say, marriage is today a testamente of love, certainly in our neck of the woods. And hey, I'll just say it again, there is absolutely no difference between a straight couple and a gay couple, other than the fact that one prefer the opposite, and the other prefer the same gender. Seriously, you're afraid that people will think that two men can have a child? That shows how desperate your argument is.
Once upon a time, marriage was supposed to last until "death do you part". That sure as hell doesn't apply anymore. Marriage - like everything else - has evolved. There is no reason a gay couple should not be allowed to wed. Are we really going to live our lives after morals that are 2000 years old? If so, here are a couple of other things the bible says:
- You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard.
- You shall not eat of their flesh nor touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you. (Pigs)
- Do not turn to mediums or spiritists; do not seek them out to be defiled by them. I am the Lord your God.
- Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother's wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother. But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord; so He took his life also. (basically, no pulling out during sex)
- You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the Lord.
- You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together.
- What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate. (no divorce)
- A man whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off may never join the assembly of the Lord. (Got testicle cancer and had to remove a nut? Tough fucking luck)
- Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments.
- But whatever is in the seas and in the rivers that does not have fins and scales among all the teeming life of the water, and among all the living creatures that are in the water, they are detestable things to you. (No shellfish)
- If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity. (If a woman hits her husbands attacker in the nuts, you're gonna have to chop that hand off to show your graditute)
So, let's just say that we won't live by the aniquated parts of the holy book, shall we?
@alekss said:
I wonder how long until we will see people that are into BDSM go into streets protesting they don't have equal rights even though they do that in their bedroom and normal people don't go out talking about their sex life? This is what gay people are.
Wow, what a depressingly and astoundingly uninformed and gross thing to say. BDSM is not a sexual orientation nor is it something you're born into (unlike homosexuality) and people who practice BDSM are legally entitled to be married. Unless they also happen to be gay. In which case, no dice.
@darson said:
"But if we let gays marry then our children will want to marry animals like goats! It will start a never-ending chain reaction of new generations wanting to marry everything! Science!"
That's the only non-religious based argument I've heard.
Yep. Good ol' Rick Santorum!
Nothing against religion in general but the way it's being used in this argument is shameful (on both sides, to an extent. Mostly one side, however.)
@inkerman said:
Legally speaking, in regards to tax, inheritance, insurance, etc, I believe Civil Unions and Marriage in the UK were equal, as I believe they were in France except for adoption laws. So yes, that's exactly what 'equality' is. And yeah, having different skin colours is being different, that's why people are labelled as 'White', 'Black', 'Hispanic', etc. Just words, but they acknowledge a difference of ethnicity.
And yeah, child bearing has everything to do with marriage. What the hell do you think the most basic construction of marriage is? It's society's way of recognising the base mating pair of the human species.
Equality would be homosexuals being able to Marry and it being called Marriage. Calling it something else is not equal, it is separate. It really is that simple but If you want to be willfully ignorant about the point I am trying to make that is on you.
And for the "different" point, you said that Homosexuals are not the same as Heterosexuals (which is not true*), so since they aren't the same they can't get married? So if people who are different color aren't the same, should they not be able to Marry either? Also if there were a woman who could not bear a child for any medical reason, they're not allowed/shouldn't Marry either? Your definition of Marriage sounds completely out dated.
*People are the same regardless of sexual orientation. Whether you are Homosexual or Heterosexual it is a sexual orientation and everyone has one. We're all humans, we have feelings, have different tastes, etc. None of that should be a reason to treat someone un-equal based on a personal moral high ground that people think should be "right" and obsolete.
@tehpickle said:
I'm all for 'civil partnerships' because they're exactly the same thing for all intents and purposes in a legal sense, and they're still a celebration of love and devotion to each other. They just don't bring God into the equation. I've never been able to wrap my head around why two gay people would want to get God involved, whomever He (or She) may be (or not), but I guess that's another matter entirely.
Gay people can believe in Religion? I am not personally, but my boyfriend is and the day he wanted to get Married Id say yes in a heart beat. I think the option of Civil Unions and Marriage would be best for the people who don't and do want to be recognized by Religion. If someone wants that then they it should be available to them regardless of what I or anyone else thinks.
@legion_: As far as I can see, he made no reference to the bible in the post you quoted.
@inkermanSurely you have to acknowledge that the cultural meaning of marriage can and has changed? An argument from tradition is still flawed even if you are appealing to the tradition of instinct. More to the point, why is the construct which we place on the "base pair" of humanity allowed to accrue extra significations (the economic and legal ones) but you are suddenly suspicious of the emotional significations?
The relationship of marriage to reproduction, I think, is a bit of a red herring anyway; nothing about reproduction is fundamentally linked to the institution of marriage, and marriage itself is far more fundamentally linked to those aspects of it which we might call contractual, as in your schema it arises to govern the economics of reproduction. The reproduction governed itself pretty well without that.
Given that we now no longer view marriage as a transaction of ownership, that economic transaction is far more linked to the economics of love than it is to the economics of reproduction. Or at least that is true in as much as it is a purely economic institution; regardless of what it used to be, or what you are saying here, I think the majority of people you asked would say marriage is a commitment of love, and as it is a construct, there is nothing intrinsic to marriage that makes this untrue.
@sanious said:
Gay people can believe in Religion? I am not personally, but my boyfriend is and the day he wanted to get Married Id say yes in a heart beat. I think the option of Civil Unions and Marriage would be best for the people who don't and do want to be recognized by Religion. If someone wants that then they it should be available to them regardless of what I or anyone else thinks.
In an ideal world, I would totally agree. I just don't think that the church is quite ready for it. A lot has changed in the past 50 years or so, and I don't think they've caught up just yet. I'm sure in anoher 50 years or so, this will become a moot argument.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment