Homosexual Marriage?

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby Philwelch » Sat Nov 08, 2008 10:50 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:
Philwelch wrote:
Lucrece wrote:1- It admits that the relationships were different. It merely fails to mention the relationships by name because the article's written for a modern audience. It's short and sweet. I was not surprised by it's skipping over the eromenos-erastes dynamics. The goal of the article was to illustrate how same-sex couples had their relationships legitimized by society and government in ancient times. You also focused on the bit about Greek pederasty, and failed to say anything about the stated facts in Rome.


Having a separate social category for gay relationships is not the same as treating gay marriage as equivalent to traditional marriage. I didn't speak much to Rome because the article (which itself didn't cite any sources) wasn't very clear about Rome, either.

Cleverbeans, you can't win this argument by equivocating between political equality and mathematical equality.


That was only for Greece. Read the other article if the specifics on Rome were not enough for you.


I'm not interested in uncited propaganda pieces from biased sources.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby Lucrece » Sat Nov 08, 2008 10:54 pm UTC

cspirou wrote:
Kachi wrote:I'm not addressing this specifically at you, but this kind of attitude, that "it doesn't really matter to me" is a large part of the problem. You're not gay, or just not interested in marriage either way, and so you think it doesn't matter to you. That kind of thinking.

And really that kind of egotistic apathy disgusts me. I'm not gay and really have no intention of ever marrying anyone, but I have the sense of social justice and decency to support gay rights at least at the most minimal level. Is it so much to ask that if the subject you comes up, you at least claim to support the right to gay marriage, rather than dismissing it as too irrelevant to you to have to take a couple of minutes to make up your mind?

I guess what I'm saying is, that I almost appreciate the people, however ignorant they are, who are honest enough to outright express their disapproval for gay marriage than those who just don't seem to think it even matters enough for them to form a firm position.


I'm apathetic but it doesn't come without serious thought. If the issue was about being denied certain rights then there is no issue in my mind. But with the existence of civil unions then it seems like the fight for gay marriage is more of a symbolic one. Gay people can still live in the same house and live their lives without being arrested. It just isn't called marriage. A view that I believe AnotherErraticIntrovert shares as do a large number of people. It's worth taking this angle into account.


Question: What do you think are the social repercussions of having gay people's unions called "civil union", as opposed to straight people's "marriage". How do you think each will be treated and esteemed? NJ already reported that 7/10 of its civil unions face unequal treatment despite stipulations; and because of it, the governor has agreed to introduce a bill to transition the category to marriage. A suit had to be filed against the UPS in NJ for refusing to treat a "civilly united" (you see nothing awkward with that expression?) couples to benefits because civil unions still did not define the members as "spouses", which only marriage did. All these inconveniences, all caused because some prejudiced people believe that being put in an equal footing with gay people will remove their basis for feeling superior.

If you think about it, gay marriage opponents don't oppose it because it devalues the institution (God knows heterosexuals have done that pretty well with their 50% divorce rates); they often assert to their flock that extending marriage to gay people will "normalize" them, and that's their terror. Once you normalize someone in a society, it's often difficult to express a sense of superiority. It's more difficult to say that gay people are "abnormal", "unhealthy", and "promiscuous" (funny, these people often paint gay people at promiscuous, yet they refuse them the one institution that seeks to curb promiscuity).

Philwelch wrote:
I'm not interested in uncited propaganda pieces from biased sources.


How do you respond to the Theodosian Code, and its alteration by Constantius II and Constans? Do you contest that?

Does this strike your fancy? http://www.hnn.us/articles/21319.html
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

cspirou
Posts: 147
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 4:09 pm UTC

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby cspirou » Sat Nov 08, 2008 11:43 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:Question: What do you think are the social repercussions of having gay people's unions called "civil union", as opposed to straight people's "marriage". How do you think each will be treated and esteemed? NJ already reported that 7/10 of its civil unions face unequal treatment despite stipulations; and because of it, the governor has agreed to introduce a bill to transition the category to marriage. A suit had to be filed against the UPS in NJ for refusing to treat a "civilly united" (you see nothing awkward with that expression?) couples to benefits because civil unions still did not define the members as "spouses", which only marriage did. All these inconveniences, all caused because some prejudiced people believe that being put in an equal footing with gay people will remove their basis for feeling superior.

If you think about it, gay marriage opponents don't oppose it because it devalues the institution (God knows heterosexuals have done that pretty well with their 50% divorce rates); they often assert to their flock that extending marriage to gay people will "normalize" them, and that's their terror. Once you normalize someone in a society, it's often difficult to express a sense of superiority. It's more difficult to say that gay people are "abnormal", "unhealthy", and "promiscuous" (funny, these people often paint gay people at promiscuous, yet they refuse them the one institution that seeks to curb promiscuity).



I don't argue with it. But the assumption to be apathetic is that there is no difference other then in name. You have to convince people that there is like you have just now.

I have also addressed this in my post before the one where I responded to you. Tell me if you disagree with that.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby Lucrece » Sun Nov 09, 2008 12:03 am UTC

cspirou wrote:
Lucrece wrote:Question: What do you think are the social repercussions of having gay people's unions called "civil union", as opposed to straight people's "marriage". How do you think each will be treated and esteemed? NJ already reported that 7/10 of its civil unions face unequal treatment despite stipulations; and because of it, the governor has agreed to introduce a bill to transition the category to marriage. A suit had to be filed against the UPS in NJ for refusing to treat a "civilly united" (you see nothing awkward with that expression?) couples to benefits because civil unions still did not define the members as "spouses", which only marriage did. All these inconveniences, all caused because some prejudiced people believe that being put in an equal footing with gay people will remove their basis for feeling superior.

If you think about it, gay marriage opponents don't oppose it because it devalues the institution (God knows heterosexuals have done that pretty well with their 50% divorce rates); they often assert to their flock that extending marriage to gay people will "normalize" them, and that's their terror. Once you normalize someone in a society, it's often difficult to express a sense of superiority. It's more difficult to say that gay people are "abnormal", "unhealthy", and "promiscuous" (funny, these people often paint gay people at promiscuous, yet they refuse them the one institution that seeks to curb promiscuity).



I don't argue with it. But the assumption to be apathetic is that there is no difference other then in name. You have to convince people that there is like you have just now.

I have also addressed this in my post before the one where I responded to you. Tell me if you disagree with that.


I actually found it very sensible. In many Spanish-speaking countries-- Venezuela, my country of origin-- they use "union civil". It's still interchangeable, since even people who get an "union civil" say "casados" (Spanish for "married").

The problem, though, would be to get people to agree to the changing of the word. Heck, to get people to alter their vocabulary. What would be the equivalent to saying "we're married"? Would it be like in Venezuela, where you still use "married" after getting a civil union? The only issue I see would be the loss of universal meaning. When you go to any English-speaking place, and say "I'm married", it's pretty clear what you mean. When you say "I'm civilly united", it seems to me like people could end up misunderstanding.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

Kachi
Publicly Posts Private Messages
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:53 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere except SB.

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby Kachi » Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:01 am UTC

Sure, I'm ok with civil unions, and I think the government should no longer recognize marriage, only civil unions. Then it will be equal.

cspirou
Posts: 147
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 4:09 pm UTC

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby cspirou » Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:07 am UTC

Lucrece wrote:
I actually found it very sensible. In many Spanish-speaking countries-- Venezuela, my country of origin-- they use "union civil". It's still interchangeable, since even people who get an "union civil" say "casados" (Spanish for "married").

The problem, though, would be to get people to agree to the changing of the word. Heck, to get people to alter their vocabulary. What would be the equivalent to saying "we're married"? Would it be like in Venezuela, where you still use "married" after getting a civil union? The only issue I see would be the loss of universal meaning. When you go to any English-speaking place, and say "I'm married", it's pretty clear what you mean. When you say "I'm civilly united", it seems to me like people could end up misunderstanding.


Publicly you are still married and there is no issue in saying "We're married". It's only the government that recognizes it as a civil union. If you want to call it marriage, fine. If you want to call it a civil union then that's ok too. The only awkwardness I can think of arising is in a court case when you would have to refer to it as a civil union instead of marriage. I don't think you need to get the popular support because there is no change for them. Imagine it like a bank merger but your branch retains the same name. From your point of view there is no difference and hence no reason to object, it is what is behind the name that has changed.

I'm just thinking about the separation of church and state. Civil unions are for the government and marriages if you want to do it through a church or some other organization.

Kachi
Publicly Posts Private Messages
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:53 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere except SB.

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby Kachi » Sun Nov 09, 2008 4:04 am UTC

If there's no difference, they're synonymous, and so the words mean the same thing, right? So being in a civil union is being married, and vice versa.

The issue here is that there is definitely a difference. People are deliberately trying to keep the terms from being interchangeable, meaning the same thing-- generally, being equal.

Christopher
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 3:57 am UTC

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby Christopher » Sun Nov 09, 2008 8:23 am UTC

I think gay marriage (I'll note, in case no one else has done so yet that most gay people don't like the term homosexual because sex isn't the only thing being gay is about) is just as right or wrong as straight marriage. Why, I think, is a hard question to answer. Why do you think straight marriage is right or wrong? What is the purpose of marriage?

sxiz
Posts: 34
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 10:28 pm UTC
Location: the internets
Contact:

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby sxiz » Sun Nov 09, 2008 12:40 pm UTC

Civil unions are for the government and marriages if you want to do it through a church or some other organization.


Then why does the government recognize anything as a marriage at all?
skine wrote:
diotimajsh wrote:Oh, Don Quixote, of course. Now I feel like an idiot for not getting it.


It's okay, the comic was a bit quixotic.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5944
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby Angua » Sun Nov 09, 2008 12:57 pm UTC

Probably because marriage was the most convenient term at the time. What we need now is to change what the government recognises as marriage to civil unions, and then if you want a church ceremony that should be up to the individual churches to decide who they want to marry. This has already been said in previous posts, but it seems that we need to reiterate it over and over again.
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby Malice » Sun Nov 09, 2008 3:54 pm UTC

Angua wrote:Probably because marriage was the most convenient term at the time. What we need now is to change what the government recognises as marriage to civil unions, and then if you want a church ceremony that should be up to the individual churches to decide who they want to marry. This has already been said in previous posts, but it seems that we need to reiterate it over and over again.


Yeah, well, we can all stand in a room in the internet telling each other how clever we are for thinking of the perfect solution to everybody's problems. Only it's one that's about as likely to come about as the 4th term of King the Ronpaul the Great. To paraphrase Calvin and Hobbes, like the best compromises, this leaves everybody unhappy. Religious nutters are mad because they've been thrust out of government in a big way; gays are mad because they still have to walk around saying "Yes, we were civilly united last week"... in fact. Hey. In practice, this is exactly the same as the "separate but equal" solution; it just means the difference gets pushed back to religion, so that the discrimination is no longer governmental, but still just as bad socially. Because straight people will still get married in a church and say "Oh, I was married last week," and most gays won't be able to get married, and will only have civil unions...

Man, fuck that.
Image

psyck0
Posts: 1651
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:58 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby psyck0 » Sun Nov 09, 2008 4:33 pm UTC

Are you suggesting that the government should force churches to marry gay people? That seems worse. I don't see what gays would really have to complain about- legally, they're on the same standing in the eyes of the government, it's just the churches being bigots now- and I really don't care what the religious idiots think, they don't belong in government anyway.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5944
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby Angua » Sun Nov 09, 2008 4:41 pm UTC

Malice wrote:Because straight people will still get married in a church and say "Oh, I was married last week," and most gays won't be able to get married, and will only have civil unions...


I don't think that there is any way to force churches to hold marriage ceremonies for gays if they don't want to, I'm not saying that it's right for them to discriminate. However, some churches will probably be willing to carry out marriage ceremonies for gays, and that's all they'll be, ceremonies. Today couples have to get a marriage certificate from the government regardless where they get married, my parents were married by a judge, and if it was called a civil union on paper they'd probably still say that they were married. If we change the government to call heterosexual and homosexual marriages civil unions, people will still be able to have beautiful ceremonies, as the paper that gives them the rights to visit in hospitals, inheritances, etc. is the important bit as far as the government is concerned.
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby Malice » Sun Nov 09, 2008 5:24 pm UTC

psyck0 wrote:Are you suggesting that the government should force churches to marry gay people? That seems worse. I don't see what gays would really have to complain about- legally, they're on the same standing in the eyes of the government, it's just the churches being bigots now- and I really don't care what the religious idiots think, they don't belong in government anyway.


I agree with all of this. Which is why I'd prefer that the government stay in the marriage business, and just make it equal.
Image

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby Princess Marzipan » Sun Nov 09, 2008 6:41 pm UTC

I don't think anybody arguing in favor of gay marriage actually thinks that churches should be legally forced to conduct same-sex marriage ceremonies. It's just another strawman that the homophobes toss up.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

cspirou
Posts: 147
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 4:09 pm UTC

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby cspirou » Sun Nov 09, 2008 7:17 pm UTC

Nougatrocity wrote:I don't think anybody arguing in favor of gay marriage actually thinks that churches should be legally forced to conduct same-sex marriage ceremonies. It's just another strawman that the homophobes toss up.


No one arguing for gay marriage thinks that. But people that argue against it certainly do.

But about churches not conducting ceremonies. While you can't make a specific church do it there does exist churches that will conduct gay marriages and have done so. So that argument is moot unless you absolutely have to be married in the southern baptist church you grew up in.

Kachi
Publicly Posts Private Messages
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:53 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere except SB.

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby Kachi » Sun Nov 09, 2008 11:03 pm UTC

Yeah, churches will already marry gay couples. It's the government that won't. I think most gay people would be pretty content with it being the other way around.

As long as it's equal, I don't care what they call it. The government does marriage, do it for everyone. The government does civil unions, do it for everyone.

Anyone can get married by a church and say that they're married already. There's already a distinction between social marriage and legal marriage.

User avatar
Ami
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2008 10:21 pm UTC

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby Ami » Mon Nov 10, 2008 9:08 am UTC

I would just like to point out that:

Refering to religious nutjobs is the same as using racial or sexuality based slurs, and reveals you as a hipocritical biggot. The point here is to try and be sensitive if not tolerant.

Discrimination is not a dirty word it is the process of distinguishing how two things differ from one another. If we didnt have discrimination, we wouldn't be able to describe anything.

The churches have been around for a long time and have had the greatest effect upon what marriage is. Many people believe is it disrespectful to change traditions rather than to create your own.

Why should homosexual unions try to conform and be the same as heterosexual ones? If they arent the same, why should they be called the same? Why do we have terms form homosexuals and heterosexuals? Aren't we really just people?

Kachi
Publicly Posts Private Messages
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:53 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere except SB.

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby Kachi » Mon Nov 10, 2008 9:15 am UTC

Those are all very nice sentiments, but they do nothing for an oppressed group of minorities who simply want equal rights, if not to be accepted for who they are.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby Malice » Mon Nov 10, 2008 10:10 am UTC

Ami wrote:I would just like to point out that:

Refering to religious nutjobs is the same as using racial or sexuality based slurs, and reveals you as a hipocritical biggot. The point here is to try and be sensitive if not tolerant.


I will be exactly as sensitive and tolerant of them as they are of me. Similarly, I will not refrain from saying things like "those KKK nutjobs" or "those terrorist assholes."

Referring to religious nutjobs is NOT the same as using racially or sexually based slurs. It might not be polite, but it isn't motivated by prejudice either.

The churches have been around for a long time and have had the greatest effect upon what marriage is. Many people believe is it disrespectful to change traditions rather than to create your own.


Perhaps the church should have thought of that before they forced their tradition on everybody else--socially, so that even people who don't belong to the church want to get "married", and politically, which means that the tradition is now subject to government standards of equal treatment (which, by the way, they helped establish).

Why should homosexual unions try to conform and be the same as heterosexual ones? If they arent the same, why should they be called the same?


Because they are the same. Fundamentally. Emotionally. Economically. Aside from the genitals involved, they're identical. The differences between homosexual and heterosexual unions are no more significant than the difference between black and white unions, and deserve separate names just as much. Ie., not at fucking all.

Why do we have terms form homosexuals and heterosexuals? Aren't we really just people?


Ah, but terms are just a form of discrimination, right? Without them we couldn't describe people, right?
Image

Kachi
Publicly Posts Private Messages
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:53 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere except SB.

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby Kachi » Mon Nov 10, 2008 10:18 am UTC

I think it would be great if all gay couples everywhere just started to get married ceremonially and tell people that they're married. If anyone asks if they're married legally, they respond with, "Well it's not illegal, so yeah, it's legal."

Voile, legal marriage for gays. :P

At least it might acclimate some dumbasses to the idea that it's not the end of their precious marriage as they know it.

User avatar
Jessica
Jessica, you're a ...
Posts: 8337
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:57 pm UTC
Location: Soviet Canuckistan

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby Jessica » Mon Nov 10, 2008 7:51 pm UTC

As I said before: gays and lesbians are getting married now. It's not a matter of allowing them, but recognizing it. You can say all you want that gays and lesbians aren't allowed to get married, but they are doing it anyway.
doogly wrote:On a scale of Mr Rogers to Fascism, how mean do you think we're being?
Belial wrote:My goal is to be the best brain infection any of you have ever had.

User avatar
VannA
White
Posts: 1446
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 1:57 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby VannA » Tue Nov 11, 2008 5:15 am UTC

Nougatrocity wrote:
Coffee Sex Pancake wrote:Why two? No, seriously, why only two?


From a pragmatic standpoint - there's already a framework for only two. And if we want gay marriage to be accepted, pushing for polygamy at the same time is a good way to make sure it doesn't happen any time soon.

I'm all for polygamy, myself - but that is not today's battle. It is a battle that cannot be won before the other. And it is a battle requiring considerably more forethought, since that actually would change the structure and meaning of marriage in a secular sense.


Polygamist stepping in >.>

There are also pre-existing legal entities much, much better suited, in many ways. (Co-operatives, Legal Partnerships)But they don't cover many 'civil' benefits.. which I don't really understand, in the states.
Jealousy is a disease, love is a healthy condition. The immature mind often mistakes one for the other, or assumes that the greater the love, the greater the jealousy.

User avatar
Ami
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2008 10:21 pm UTC

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby Ami » Tue Nov 11, 2008 8:25 am UTC

Malice, I think that you have yet again misunderstood my point. Calling it Gay Marriage rather than just marriage is using a different term, for the purpose of description. So why is it so much more offensive to talk about a civil union? To say that homosexuals are exactly like hetrosexuals is not showing due respect to either. Its like saying that Japanese and Chinese people are the same, it diminishes their cultural identity.

Clearly you do not understand civil rights. You can hardly expect to be taken seriously if you are asking for tolerance and acceptance without being tolerant and accepting. The 'they started it' excuse is something we would expect from children. Your opinions help propogate a system of intolerance and ignorance. Certainy not as much as your average KKK member, but enough that you are part of the problem not the solution.

Identifying a belief, orientation, or skin colour in someone and assuming that is all you need to know about them is prejudice. Yes some religious beliefs are unpopular, and some beliefs if acted upon infringe upon people's rights. If you treat them as they treat you rather than treating them as you think people should be treated you are normalizing their behavior and making it appear more acceptable. You are becoming more like they are.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

This is what your post would look like if you refrained from pedantry, insults, being patronizing and off-topic.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby Malice » Tue Nov 11, 2008 8:46 am UTC

Ami wrote:Malice, you have yet again misunderstood. Calling it Gay Marriage rather than just marriage is using a different term, for the purpose of description. So why is it so much more offensive to talk about a civil union? To say that homosexuals are exactly like hetrosexuals is not showing due respect to either. Its like saying that Japanese and Chinese people are the same, it diminishes their cultural identity.


Ah. Then you would support calling certain marriages "Chinese marriages" and "Japanese marriages"? Give me a break. Cultural identity? I don't want a cultural identity that constantly sets me up as the Other, as different, as inferior, as wrong. My sexuality is the most unimportant thing about me.

Ask some homosexuals what they'd prefer.

Clearly you do not understand civil rights. You can hardly expect to be taken seriously if you are asking for tolerance and acceptance without being tolerant and accepting. The 'they started it' excuse is something we would expect from children. Your opinions help propogate a system of intolerance and ignorance. Certainy not as much as your average KKK member, but enough that you are part of the problem not the solution.


My point was that I will, by no means, be tolerant of intolerance. I will, in fact, call people out for being bigots. I am totally accepting of their right to think and even to say that I'm an abomination who will burn in hell; I am totally unaccepting of their attempts to create legislation based on this notion.

Identifying a belief, orientation, or skin colour in someone and assuming that is all you need to know about them is prejudice.


Sometimes a determination is accurate and contained. We're talking about beliefs here. If somebody believes that I'm a sinner, and as such, need to be denied fundamental human rights, that belief makes them a nutjob. I'm not dismissing them; I'm describing them accurately. This is the same situation as if somebody believed that they were Napoleon. That belief would make them insane. I would not presume to know everything about them based on that one thing; but that one thing, does, in fact, change my perception of them into that of a clearly defined category.

Yes some religious beliefs are unpopular, and some beliefs if acted upon infringe upon people's rights. If you treat them as they treat you rather than treating them as you think people should be treated you are normalizing their behavior and making it appear more acceptable. You are becoming more like they are.


On the contrary, I treat them exactly as I would have them treat me--with verbal remonstration. We all have the right to speak our minds. I am fully in favor of allowing religious nutjobs to retain those rights. They can even marry each other if they want.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.


Non-sequitor.
Image

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby Princess Marzipan » Tue Nov 11, 2008 2:33 pm UTC

Ami wrote:Malice, you have yet again misunderstood. Calling it Gay Marriage rather than just marriage is using a different term, for the purpose of description. So why is it so much more offensive to talk about a civil union? To say that homosexuals are exactly like hetrosexuals is not showing due respect to either. Its like saying that Japanese and Chinese people are the same, it diminishes their cultural identity.


Calling it 'gay marriage' illustrates that you are talking about the commonly known institution of marriage being entered into by a pair of homosexuals, the same way 'inter-racial marriage' fifty years ago meant the same with a pair of people from separate races. Nowadays, you don't hear much about 'inter-racial marriage,' because it's part of the norm. NOW, it is just marriage. I'm sure that in fifty years from now, 'gay marriage' will be a similarly archaic term, but for now there is a need for a term that indicates we are talking about this subset and that we want it to become the norm.

I get the feeling you're being overly pedantic and antagonistic, and it'd be great if you'd stop that. (Phrases like "you yet again misunderstand" and calling up a non-sequitor quote from Ghandi are what make it appear you're arguing from atop a very tall horse.)
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
Ami
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2008 10:21 pm UTC

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby Ami » Sat Nov 15, 2008 8:16 am UTC

Nougatrocity wrote:I get the feeling you're being overly pedantic and antagonistic, and it'd be great if you'd stop that. (Phrases like "you yet again misunderstand" and calling up a non-sequitor quote from Ghandi are what make it appear you're arguing from atop a very tall horse.)


Upon reflection I agree that the post is guilty of being antagonistic and pedantic.

All I really meant to say was that I believe that treating others as they treat you merely exacerbates conflict when it arises, and that tolerance and patience will get you a more satisfying, if slower result.

I appreciate the manner in which you responded. Thank you for showing maturity when I did not.

*edit* Also to respond to malice, I do differ between marriages where the practices terms or traditions are different. Sure we let it slide often enough when no one objects to refering to them as the same, but if someone objects then certainly I admit there are differences that are considered important by that person and recognize that they are differnent out of respect for their identity.

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby Princess Marzipan » Sat Nov 15, 2008 6:53 pm UTC

I cannot for the life of me see how "an eye for an eye" is remotely like anything else you're talking about - hence that it's quite a non-sequitor. Gay marriage proponents are arguing the Golden Rule - treat others how you wish to be treated. That's entirely different from an eye for an eye.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

Menagerie
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:16 pm UTC

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby Menagerie » Tue Nov 18, 2008 8:15 am UTC

I'm all for it. I might be biased, being bisexual (or as I like to define my sexuality: "yes".), and having a husband who lives in another country (which, to be fair, I could immigrate to), but can't bring here. By and large because some people think that a book written a few thousand years ago by sheep herders has more in it about human psychology and sexuality than science can offer. (Many never once thinking that yes, it makes perfect sense in an agrarian society to demand children, lest there be fewer hands to work crops).

The fact that I haven't seen an argument that doesn't rely on either religion, bad appeals to tradition, or intellectual dishonesty doesn't help matters any though.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby Malice » Tue Nov 18, 2008 8:30 am UTC

Arguably, in a society with widespread education and a focus on high-end service jobs, every extra child is worth much more than each child in a purely agrarian culture.
Image

User avatar
Rinsaikeru
Pawn, soon to be a Queen
Posts: 2166
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 5:26 am UTC
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby Rinsaikeru » Tue Nov 18, 2008 2:43 pm UTC

The child may be worth more to society--to an individual family however the child is more deficit than profit. (speaking strictly financially)
Rice Puddin.

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby Philwelch » Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:56 pm UTC

Rinsaikeru wrote:The child may be worth more to society--to an individual family however the child is more deficit than profit. (speaking strictly financially)


Only because we socialize the financial gains of having children. If it wasn't for social security and medicare, and went back to the social expectation of children having to individually care for their own parents, having children would be very cost-effective.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby Malice » Tue Nov 18, 2008 10:38 pm UTC

Rinsaikeru wrote:The child may be worth more to society--to an individual family however the child is more deficit than profit. (speaking strictly financially)


Marriage as a civil institution is meant to benefit society, not individual families. For society, the more (well-raised and highly educated) children, the better.
Image

User avatar
Rinsaikeru
Pawn, soon to be a Queen
Posts: 2166
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 5:26 am UTC
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby Rinsaikeru » Tue Nov 18, 2008 11:38 pm UTC

Yes but in a society that is highly urbanized--the need for child labour around the house/farm diminishes (and they can no longer work in factories). Children remain dependent for far longer (up until College in the model here presented) and are a financial burden throughout. The financial benefits of civil union are there in order to help balance this. There still isn't any incentive to have many children (or even to have enough to replace the current population).

One of the marks of developed nations is that the birthrate sharply decreases. Society has to offer incentives (or increase immigration) to keep population up.
Rice Puddin.

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby Philwelch » Tue Nov 18, 2008 11:48 pm UTC

Rinsaikeru wrote:There still isn't any incentive to have many children (or even to have enough to replace the current population).


As I said before: Historically, an incentive to have children was so someone would care for you in your old age. Now the welfare state does that.

You're not accounting for the whole picture here.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby Malice » Tue Nov 18, 2008 11:58 pm UTC

Rinsaikeru wrote:Yes but in a society that is highly urbanized--the need for child labour around the house/farm diminishes (and they can no longer work in factories). Children remain dependent for far longer (up until College in the model here presented) and are a financial burden throughout. The financial benefits of civil union are there in order to help balance this. There still isn't any incentive to have many children (or even to have enough to replace the current population).

One of the marks of developed nations is that the birthrate sharply decreases. Society has to offer incentives (or increase immigration) to keep population up.


...Society has to offer incentives, like marriage benefits.

In other words, you're making my argument for me.
Image

User avatar
Rinsaikeru
Pawn, soon to be a Queen
Posts: 2166
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 5:26 am UTC
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby Rinsaikeru » Wed Nov 19, 2008 12:02 am UTC

If they aren't supporting their parents in old age now, how am I not accounting for the whole picture?

If you have or adopt a child you don't currently do it because you expect some particular benefit from it. You don't have kids so you can keep the old farm afloat with free labour.

Historically marriage is an institution designed to create an ideal situation for child bearing/rearing. Now marriage is a useful social custom that makes having children somewhat less of a burden--that is not the only purpose marriage serves. There are several reasons people who have no intention of having any children get married (like companionship, mutual support)--Gay marriage, to me, is just another of these 'not intending to produce biological offspring' unions. (Though there are plenty of gay couples who adopt or attempt it that would make great parents.)

I didn't realize we were disagreeing Malice. :?
Rice Puddin.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby Malice » Wed Nov 19, 2008 12:04 am UTC

Rinsaikeru wrote:I didn't realize we were disagreeing Malice. :?


My apologies. The "yes, but" at the top of your post confused me.
Image

DougP
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 6:03 am UTC

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby DougP » Fri Nov 28, 2008 5:06 am UTC

Bottom line: Why should 2 people NOT be able to enter into a legal contract that 2 other people are?

No further questions, I don't care what you think about morality, logistics, nomenclature, or anything else, because they are all 100% totally irrelevant.

This is a debate including all the things you claim not to care about. If you're that indifferent, you shouldn't be in a place designed to test your opinions against facts and reason.

~CM

User avatar
Azure_Twilight
Posts: 42
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 3:19 pm UTC

Re: Homosexual Marriage?

Postby Azure_Twilight » Sat Nov 29, 2008 1:53 am UTC

DougP wrote:Bottom line: Why should 2 people NOT be able to enter into a legal contract that 2 other people are?

No further questions, I don't care what you think about morality, logistics, nomenclature, or anything else, because they are all 100% totally irrelevant.

This is a debate including all the things you claim not to care about. If you're that indifferent, you shouldn't be in a place designed to test your opinions against facts and reason.

~CM


Excellent question, why do people have the right to vote on whether other people have the right to get married? No one needed to vote for heterosexual marriage to be approved.
Frankly I am all for homosexual marriage because the way I see it is that religion or morality shouldn't play a part in it. You can't force other to accept your religion or morales.
Answer: There's no logical reason I've seen for two people to not be allowed to marry if they are the same sex. (Though if someone can post a good one I've always had a love of good debating)
"Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain." - Asimov
"There was never yet an uninteresting life. Such a thing is an impossibility. Inside of the dullest exterior there is a drama, a comedy, and a tragedy." - Twain


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests