2009-10-16, 22:45 | Link #21 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
|
Quote:
But given that we do have marriage laws, especially those that have financial implications, then we should have them be applied equally. If conservatives want to reserve the word "marriage" to be between a man and woman, fine. Then simply use "union" for homosexual couples. But apply the same law. Quote:
The outcome of the vote came as a result of a massive misinformation campaign from the right that shifted the issue from being simply about equal rights (I mean how much simpler can the idea of issuing marriage certificates to a gay couple get?) to promoting gay values. They came out with false ads claiming that the proposition would require teachers to teach about homosexuality, etc. |
||
2009-10-16, 23:00 | Link #22 | ||
Lost.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Bay Area, California
Age: 33
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
2009-10-16, 23:02 | Link #23 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
|
Quote:
here's how it went down last year in california... check out the correlation between prez vote and the initiative vote. and just this week Prop 8 got totally watered down All you gotta do is just go to Iowa (where gay marriage was legalized this summer), get married and then come back home (CA), then your marriage is recognized in your home state. Prop 8 starting next week is nothing more than outlawing the wedding on California soil. |
|
2009-10-16, 23:15 | Link #24 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
|
The vote asks a simple question, and I gave the obvious answer: yes.
To make thing more simple, take away all the privileges granted to "correct" marriages. This will shut up most of the current whining... and hopefully, others will adapt. PS: I happens to believe that if we don't promote righteousness, there would be no evil. |
2009-10-17, 02:20 | Link #25 |
Senior Member
Artist
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: In your mom's pants
|
I don't understand why anyone would think that gay people shouldn't have the same rights as every other human being on the planet. Being gay isn't a choice, its the way some people are born. It doesn't really appeal to me but that doesn't mean that I think that gays should be treated as sub-humans.
It's like saying that if somebody doesn't like the same kind of food that you do, they shouldn't have rights. And a question for those who live in countries were sodomy is banned: Does that apply for heterosexuals as well? And how exactly does the government enforce such a ban?
__________________
|
2009-10-17, 02:32 | Link #26 |
Chicken or Beef?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Seattle
Age: 42
|
At the same time, why not just have a private ceremony and not care about getting legalize documents? I mean back in the old days, people who were forbidden to be together would just marry in secret and live together.
At the end of the day its all about the money, its why they're fighting so hard for that piece of paper.
__________________
|
2009-10-17, 02:41 | Link #27 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: East Cupcake
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
2009-10-17, 03:05 | Link #28 | ||||
Senior Member
Artist
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: In your mom's pants
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
||||
2009-10-17, 03:19 | Link #29 | ||
Senior Guest
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Athens (GMT+2)
Age: 35
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
2009-10-17, 03:26 | Link #30 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: East Cupcake
|
^Marriage has exsisted without religion (potentially even before religion...if there is such a thing ) for quite awhile, so just defining marriage as a religious institute is false...hell, within the context of history, same-sex marriage has been around for 1000s of years (back to Roman times, etc).
Consequently, it matters not what any religion may say on the matter, only what the government wishes to acknowledge as marriage. (Additionally, religion, if it needs to be, can be changed. There are several versions of Christiantiy that support homosexuality (and if it ever turns out to be genetic, then even the Catholic church would have to support homosexuals and offer them the sacrement of marriage), and all it takes is a schism to create a new branch that would sanctify same sex marriage.) Quote:
That being said, a person's taste buds constantly change throughout their life, so no, comparing a "favourite food" to the choice (or lack of choice) of being a homosexual are not analogous... Trust me, Texas has many other equally embarrassing laws (then again, most states and countries do ). Last edited by james0246; 2009-10-17 at 03:54. |
|
2009-10-17, 03:32 | Link #31 |
Senior Member
Artist
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: In your mom's pants
|
That's the thing, marriage is traditionally a religious ceremony, and most religions reject homosexuality, which is within their rights. But in today's world, marriage is to show that you love someone enough to want to spend the rest of your life with them, (that was probably true of marriages back then as well) but it doesn't have to be a religious ceremony. So if atheists can be married, then why can't gays?
Legalizing gay marriage wouldn't force churches too have gay weddings, it would just give gay people equal rights as human beings.
__________________
|
2009-10-17, 04:28 | Link #32 | |||
Senior Guest
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Athens (GMT+2)
Age: 35
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Kafriel; 2009-10-17 at 07:37. |
|||
2009-10-17, 06:42 | Link #34 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2004
|
Quote:
Personally, I oppose gay marriages and hate it when they parade at the street, waving their rainbow flags. |
|
2009-10-17, 10:04 | Link #35 | |
Deadpan Snarker
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: The Neverlands
Age: 47
|
Quote:
but whenever I here the term "Gay community/marriage/whatever" it's about throwing the homosexuals and lesbians on one big heap hell even when we use the expression "Homo-huwelijk" here (huwelijk lit. transl. 'marriage') there isn't even a presumption that they are males by definition Taking that in account, isn't it ironic when there is a reference to "gays" you immediatly see a male stereotype image?
__________________
|
|
2009-10-17, 11:23 | Link #37 |
I asked for this
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Winterfell
Age: 35
|
I don't really see the appeal in marriages in any kinda form, but yes, everybody should have the right to marry their beloved ones, no matter what their sex may be. However, I don't see how one would even want to marry in a, let's say Christian Church, if their belief regards them as "sinful"? It's kinda meaningless to change such a seclusive group, even more to actually bother with it. But fear not, they will change it themselves..when people start leaving their Church and stop giving donations..
There are other problems like adoption and the possible disapproval of particular individuals that would oppose that with their meaningless arguments. Two women or two men can bring up a child just fine. Think of single parents, are they discriminated too? No, they are not. Two parents of the same sex can fuck up a child just as much as a hetero pairing would, no more or less.
__________________
|
2009-10-17, 12:58 | Link #38 | |
Chicken or Beef?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Seattle
Age: 42
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2009-10-17, 13:59 | Link #39 | |
I asked for this
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Winterfell
Age: 35
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2009-10-17, 15:08 | Link #40 | |
Senior Member
|
Quote:
I don't see why child custody couldn't be linked to the biological parents, with the child's desire added in like it already is. After all, they handle that for divorced couples, which are by definition not married. Perhaps a document like a will could be created for unconscious medical decisions. I remember reading something about a pregnant women's baby hurting her health and then having a pro-life group challenge the husband's decision to get an abortion to potentially save her life. That’s nonsense--it could be the default for a civil union’s significant other even. We are already seeing companies as mentioned here a few times, given medical and other benefits to any partner. What’s the stretch in making the rest of the business/governmental world conform to this? It really wouldn’t rock the boat too much to make these changes. Most things would be minor cosmetic changes, but they solve the problem in a way that makes most people happy. What it boils down to me again is, marriage is a religious institution. At least in the United States, church and state are separated. Thus, the government has no business even getting involved in marriage. Why not move government towards a more ideal state? That’s why the process of Amendments were added in the first place--they knew the Constitution wasn’t a perfect document--thus it evolves with the needs of the time. There’s nothing Libertarian about it in my motivations--it is a “win” situation for everyone involved. Everyone can join their own church and get married according to its rules. The legal language follows the separate of church and state better, which is a Constitutional ideal. As for the part about society eye's, my argument makes everyone united the same way in the government's eyes--equality. All the laws and decrees of Congresses and Kings can't change society's perspective--only time and education perhaps will assist in that task. |
|
Tags |
discussion, homosexuality, human rights |
|
|