Log in with a social network:
Log in with your username or email:
So like I said being born gay is crap and if you wanna say its possible to be born a certain way, be prepared to be open to all possibilities its like believing in God, but pretending the devil doesn`t exist
2) Stop comparing Gay Civil rights to racism its not the same and technically your rights aren`t violated I can`t have gay marriage either so its not discriminatory. Women and minorites were discriminated against. Gay bashing and it`s allowance was very bad, ill give you that.
Now all that aside let them marry whoever they want as long its not me and let them adopt the kids that are being neglected."
Uh, except criminals aren`t born that way. Sure, you can be born a psychopath or sociopath, but usually criminals BECOME criminals because of abuse or neglect during their childhood. Gay people ARE born that way. I`m bisexual and I`ll never be able to change that. Even if I always have relationships with guys I`ll still be attracted to girls.
1) If your gay be gay and be proud of who you are, that whole born gay thing is BS if thats the case lets let criminals do what they want they can`t help it they were born that way!
Now all that aside let them marry whoever they want as long its not me and let them adopt the kids that are being neglected.
That`s as pointless as the rest of your posts, but at least you`re making sense now. Well done!
To the best of my knowledge, heterosexual couples can`t get civil unions. It`s exclusive to same sex couples. Are you thinking of civil marriage, perhaps?
* Overall like many have said, the chart is obviously biased and uses extreme examples for those against and mostly reasonable examples for those for*
Example: So Pork and Homosexuals are parallel according to the pro side of the argument but a quote taken out of context by the con side is a strawman argument. Dumb asses.
- The person has no clue what they`re talking about with civil unions. Obviously they haven`t done their research about how many heterosexual couples engage in such a thing.
- Either way you lean, people are people. You can disagree with them all you like, but hatred for someones point of view will only push them toward the extreme end of their argument.
Why is the word `marriage` a basic right?
Not state recognition of a private relationship, not legal benefits, just the word itself.
Gay marriage has been on the ballot in 31 states now and has lost every single time. From a public policy standpoint, I think the vast majority of Americans really don`t care about same sex partner benefits or for that matter what consenting adults do behind closed doors, but they really and truly oppose the concept of gay marriage.
I personally support the concept of civil unions, but apparently this opinion is very 2007. The one thing I`ll point out that this chart accurately depicts is that the concept of "marriage" is rather murky cultural and religious territory.
yeah this is exactly what i was thinking too, i doubt anyone including me, actually made sense of this black hole of a chart, and angilion i think you understood my main idea, times change, the morals we have now, as liberal as they are, will be viewed with as conservative, women couldnt vote 78 years ago
There`s little or nothing about homosexuality in the new testament. Most of what little there is in the bible about homosexuality is in the old testament.
All of the alleged references to homosexuality are open to dispute, based on literal meaning and context. It might be that the bible as originally written doesn`t condemn homosexuality at all.
What almost everyone means when they talk about the bible is English versions *deliberately modified by the church* and dating back no further than 1611 (the King James Version).
People were executed as heretics for creating accurate translations of the bible into English.
I wouldn`t limit it to two, but apart from that I agree.
[quote]Also, could anyone list some countries that have legalized gay marriage or who have fully functional equivalents?[/quote]
UK has civil partnerships, which are identical to civil marriages. The custom is for marriages to be created by spoken vows and partnerships by signed vows, but that`s just a reflection of changes in literacy levels over the last few thousand years and has no legal status (either spoken or written vows are binding in both).
"home of the free" is just national propaganda, like referring to England as the mother of democracy (which used to happen often). There`s some truth in both, but not much.
"I do not want gay marraige because I do not like gay people. They disturb me on an inexplicable level, and therefore I want to make my environment unpleasant to them so they will exist elsewhere."
Really? How? Where is the ambiguity?
I`ll restate it again.
The word `marriage` has religious connotations. That can`t be changed quickly, if at all. This makes changing marriage a religious issue, which creates much more widespread and much more determined opposition.
It isn`t necessary to do so if your objective is state recognition of a civil partnership and the resulting legal rights, as opposed to forcing fundamental changes to religion.
People who won`t accept it won`t accept it regardless of what you call it, so even if you manage to eventually win the pointless fight over religion, it won`t make any difference. Except to all the people who had to suffer in the meantime because you advocated a fight instead of rights.
People will tend to call civil partnerships marriages anyway, so even if you only care about the word, this is still the better way.
That`s fine, because I dislike you too. My reason is quite simple - you make crap up and claim I said it. I really don`t like that.
[quote]Giving same-sex couples the 1138 rights right now today isn`t going to happen. Why? Because evidently people don`t like that and vote against it.[/quote]
Wrong - most of them are voting against a word - marriage. Just the word. They`re opposing just the word, in the same way that you are supporting just the word.
Gay marriage wasn`t happening in the UK either. So they changed the name, just the name, and it went through immediately, no problems. Most people refer to it as marriage anyway.
But I was talking about what I advocate, not what I think could be done. It would take some months in reality.
Then why were you advocating a continuous fight? Note that you weren`t advocating the rights, the legal status or any of that - just a continuous fight about a word specifically chosen to provoke entrenched opposition.
Why, thank you. We try, yo!
2- However, they will say otherwise.
3- This site is intended to entertain, and there is nothing more entertainning than stupidity. See "1"
There, that sums up my feelings on this topic!
Again, with due respect, I suspect it`s more of the former than the latter.
We`re a happy family. We`re a happy family. We`re a happy family.
Language barriers can be frustrating. Maybe it is immaturity, but I can live with that.
Why can`t we be friends, why can`t we be friends...
Angilion, to be honest, your argument is pretty ambiguous. I`ve only recently understood it after reading several comments. After all that, though, I`d like to say I agree. Making the fight against religion only makes it much more difficult than it needs to be.
My own opinion is that two consenting adults should be be allowed to be -- let`s called it `paired`. In this day and age, I can`t believe we`re still arguing about it.
Also, could anyone list some countries that have legalized gay marriage or who have fully functional equivalents? I`d like to know where the U.S. stands in all of this. You know, being the home of the free and all, as long as you reach certain arbitrary requirements of being a decent human being in the eyes of the majority.
Regardless of that fact, I want to clear up a few things.
Giving same-sex couples the 1138 rights right now today isn`t going to happen. Why? Because evidently people don`t like that and vote against it. There are some states with unequal civil unions; however, there are some others with completely equal (ish?) civil unions. And still, there are other states that will recognize an out-of-state marriage, but not grant any in state. Other states that will not recognize marriage or unions at all (what the hell is with that?). Perhaps you are unfamiliar with "the system", but these things take time. A lot of time. Getting all of those rights will not happen instantly, and the fact that you think otherwise is amazing.
There is no logical reason why two people of consenting age shouldn`t be allowed to get married.
I am truly scared at the condition of our political system/leaders that this is still a controversial subject.
Excuse me, what?
Btw, I personally don`t believe in gay-marriage, but legally I think they should be allowed to marry.If the church doesn`t allow gay people to get married in a church, or won`t recognize according to the law of God, then so be it. But the United States can recognize it as a legal bond between two people.
Well, it`s my day off work so I can waste some more time explaining things for you to ignore.
I argued in favour of giving formal homosexual relationships all of the 1138 (or however many there are in the USA) rights that marriage has, right now. All of them, today.
You claimed I said that those rights should be worked in one per year over the next 1138 years.
So you`re arguing that 1138 years is one day.
[quote]But regardless, the fight will go on.[/quote]
That`s what you hope.
I`d rather the unfairness was stopped.
That might be the main difference between our views.
[quote]You`ll get over it. Or die. Whatever. It`s going to happen. Cry about it.[/quote]
You really have utterly failed to understand anything.
The people crying about it are those who continue to suffer while people like you enjoy fighting for nothing.
Why not just require every couple, regardless of sexuality, to adopt one child? Or make the adoption process easier for people who actually have a desire to adopt?
I would NEVER force a child, let alone 3, on a person who didn`t want them or couldn`t handle having them. That`s cruel to the children.
Now I`m even more confused. And once again you just restated what you said in your last post. Le sigh. Sorry, but I`m not sifting through your conversations with other people to figure out what you`re trying to say to me. It`s a waste of my time.
And I have NO idea what you`re talking about with thousands of years being equal to a day. So... Yeah.
But regardless, the fight will go on. You`ll get over it. Or die. Whatever. It`s going to happen. Cry about it.
[quote]Just as you and I see marriage as something totally separate from religion, many other people, because of the Bible, see it as something holy.[/quote]
So why do you want to fight against religion when you don`t have to? It just makes the fight far, far harder.
It isn`t working.
It is creating more opposition.
So it`s creating more problems, rather than solving them.
All over a word, just a word. In the meantime, people are suffering because of this futile obsession with a word.
I`ve explained it in simple terms several times. You`re saying something completely different to what I said, claiming it`s what I`ve said and now you say that you fail to see the difference.
You are arguing that 1138 years is the same as one day and you don`t even realise what you`re doing.
I can`t think of a simpler way to explain it to you. I`ve tried multiple 1000-character posts, I`ve tried single sentences, I`ve tried analogy.
But I`m not suggesting witholding any rights, so you`re countering an argument I`m not making.
I think it`s impossible to completely remove all religious connotations from the word `marriage` just by passing a law and that all you gain by trying to do so is enemies. Even if you ram the law through, it won`t actually work for that purpose.
I argue that getting the legal recognition without the word `marriage` (a) is more important (b) is more attainable and (c) will get the word `marriage` more widely used for homosexual partnerships sooner. In other words, that it`s a better approach in every respect.
Or drop the word `marriage` from all state-recognised relationships. Getting tied up in a word just stops the problem bein
[See what I mean? You`ve written something utterly different in every respect to the argument I`ve made in simple terms more than once and you`ve said that`s my argument.]
I have said what you said. You said to fight for the rights that come with marriage, instead of fighting for marriage itself. I fail to see why you think you`re saying something different than I did.
Or...we can just let gays be legally married; that would solve the problem too, along with a few other problems.
So you`d then have;
Civil partnerships - state recognition of a relationship, with all the accompanying legal rights. Hetero or homo, doesn`t matter. Or re-introduce an old word for this sort of thing - wedding, from the O.E. [i]weddian[/i] - to vow, to pledge. So these people are wedded.
Marriage - religious blessing of a relationship. Up to any given religion which relationships they will bless.
The word is not the real point. You could call it wibblebibbleflobble if you like.
I`d argue it`s a little of both. The principle of the matter is inequality and discrimination, both of which surface when one group of people cannot have what another has (like having the title of being married) for various reasons including but not limited to being gay. I`m not saying a civil union is inferior to a marriage in any way, but the effects of withholding the right to an actual "marriage" from gays is detrimental to society because it breeds the narrow-minded patterns of discrimination.
So why do you care so much about trying to ram the word (just the word, remember, not the rights) through now? It won`t make any difference to who uses the word. If instead you deal with the rights and formal legal recognition, the word follows anyway as people change their minds or die.
Just make the formal phrase for it longer than `marriage` and people will tend to use `marriage` instead anyway.
Those who won`t do so wouldn`t do so regardless of the formal name - these are the parallel to those who wouldn`t recognise "inter-racial" marriages and you can`t change their minds that easily.
But that would be a lie, because some discrimination is legal and some is illegal.
The distinction between the two is political, which basically comes down to politicians judging how many votes each side has.
So, for example, polyamorous marriages aren`t allowed. Just because at the current time politicians think (correctly, IMO) that the number of votes they`d gain by supporting the legalisation of polyamorous marriages is less than the number of votes they`d lose for it.
Ditto for homosexual incestuous marriages - there`s no practical reason why, for example, two adult brothers shouldn`t marry. It`s just a matter of votes.
Off the marriage topic - affirmative action. There`s an example of discrimination which is legally required, exactly the opposite of being illegal
I was hoping that restating it in a different way would help people understand it. But obviously not, as you`re talking about something completely different and labelling it my argument:
[quote]Do you propose that fighting for individual rights (1138ish) is a better idea? This year, we`ll fight for combined tax returns. Next year, we`ll fight to see our partner in the hospital. The year after that, we`ll conquer custody. The year after that... [/quote]
See what I mean? You`ve written something utterly different in every respect to the argument I`ve made in simple terms more than once and you`ve said that`s my argument. That`s really irritating. You`re a parallel to the people who say that those in favour of gay marriage are in favour of trying to make everyone gay, especially children.
How bloody simple do I have to make it? It`s not even a complicated argument.
Legally, the two are the same.
Officially (i.e. government forms, etc), the two are the same.
Socially, the two are not going to be the same to everyone regardless of what name you attach to them.
Practically, one method works and the other doesn`t.
It comes down to whether the point is rights and status or a word. I say it`s rights and status, you say it`s a word.
A word that people tend to use anyway - you`ll find people over here referring to civil partnerships as marriages. So this method brings the word you`re arguing for before your method does, too. All you gain with your route is enemies and a lack of rights.
Are you kidding me? I can`t think of what to say about how stupid that person must be,
Are you saying that because a civil union (or civil partnership as you put it) gives the same benefits as a marriage, gays have no reason to complain? That it`s okay to separate two peoples legally as long as it is equal? Try saying that to civil rights leaders during the 50s and 60s when they fought that same "separate but equal" view of society. The fact that heterosexual marriages and homosexual unions are separated legally makes them inherently unequal.
You mostly just re-stated everything you previously said. Do you propose that fighting for individual rights (1138ish) is a better idea? This year, we`ll fight for combined tax returns. Next year, we`ll fight to see our partner in the hospital. The year after that, we`ll conquer custody. The year after that... The year after that... This is assuming that we tackle one a year, and it takes only a year - then maybe we`ll be equal some one-thousand years from now.
Also, those people who "won`t use the word" will die one day. If that sounds morbid, sorry. But there were people who wouldn`t use the word marriage to describe interracial marriages. Most of them are dead now, and the rest of the country (mostly) has moved on intellectually and morally.
Because people are NOT fighting for rights. They are fighting for a word. Only the word. The rights are just an add-on that comes free with the word, not the thing they`re fighting for.
It`s utterly futile even if they win, because people who won`t use the word `marriage` to refer to homosexual couples still won`t. All they gain by fighting for the word instead of the rights is more enemies and less chance of success.
No, you`re fine. You`ve got three decent arguments you can make:
i) The essence of Christianity is the teaching of Jesus the Christ, so the important thing is what he said about homosexuality. Which is nothing, according to the Christian bible. If it was of no importance to Jesus, the essence of Christianity should be that it doesn`t matter.
ii) You disagree with the usual inaccurate translations of the biblical passages allegedly referring to homosexuality. This is a valid position - every one of them is very dubious.
iii) You do not regard the bible as inerrant or church tradition as inerrant - both tenable Christian positions. As long as you believe in the Abrahamic god and believe that Jesus was the Messiah, you`ve got the fundamentals covered.
Civil marriage guarantees both partners 1138 rights by means of a contractual agreement. So yes, fighting for marriage is fighting for rights. I`m not sure why you think otherwise.
That said, I don`t believe in marriage. I don`t want one. I don`t regard married people as special. But because marriage yields so many rights/conveniences, among the annoyances and pain, I imagine it`s in my best interest to get one.
Same here. Some of the writing is tiny.Anyone else with the same problem:1) Right-click the flow chart that isn`t a flow chart.2) Click "View Image".3) Click on the bits you can`t read to zoom in.
You don`t gain legal rights, which isn`t surprising as you`re not fighting for them.
Oh, I know what you gain. You gain more enemies - all the people who wouldn`t object to pair-bonded homosexual couples having the same legal rights as married heterosexual couples, but who object to the word `marriage`.
I know what you gain, but I don`t see why you want to gain it.
Things would be much easier if you just ignored the contentious word `marriage`. Christians have stolen it and rebranded it - that`s a done deal. You can fight them for it or you can just ignore it.
Even if you fight them and win (unlikely), it will make no difference. People who don`t regard formally recognised homosexual relationships as valid still won`t - they won`t call you married, ever. People who regard it as valid will do so regardless of what it`s called. So why argue over a completely pointless word and only that word?
The whole issue just disappeared in the UK by having exactly the same thing with a different name. Civil partnerships are exactly the same as civil marriages, as is dissolution (divorce)...and many people refer to them as marriages anyway.
You are allowed to turn down marriage proposals.
I totally get why they think it needs to be included. I`m just saying that, currently, our society marries people, without religion being involved. So, it`s already being done. Why can`t the religious folks just let the gays get married at city hall. Then it`s not a religious marriage, but a legal one. Really, there shouldn`t be any broken eggs in that situation...
I agree with you, but the reason religion needs to be considered in an argument about marriage is because the Bible, as you put it, hijacked the institution for its own. Just as you and I see marriage as something totally separate from religion, many other people, because of the Bible, see it as something holy.
If I can be married, without "God", why can`t a gay couple? (Although I think they should have the right to declare their love in a church if they wanted too, but just for sake of argument, why does the church have anything to do with this?)
Well, I can`t really argue on the basis of the Bible`s indoctrination of marriage, but I do know that marriage can be traced back to ancient Mesopotamia, which means marriage surfaced before any of the monotheistic religions. Of course we don`t view marriage in the same light as the ancients because of how religion has changed its purpose and meaning, however, I still see that as evidence that marriage is not something exclusive to religion, nor should it be bound by religious doctrine.
No no, i know that the actual organised religion of Christianity wasn`t formed until after Jesus` death, but i was saying that Christians believe marriage to be a religious ceremony because of the Bible. It says that God made marriage a holy Union, so, it may not have started as a "Christian" ceremony, but a "Godly" ceremony.
Tis true. "seperation of church and state" is extremely condensed.
So you`re saying it`s not a generally accepted fact that before Jesus there were no Christians? I don`t know how anyone, even the most devout Christians, can come to the conclusion that Christianity existed before Christ. It seems obvious to me (His name is even in the title), and I`m pretty sure most people would agree. With that said, it just goes back to my initial argument that marriage as an institution was not created by Christians and therefore should not be labeled as a Christian right or ceremony.
(yes i can.)
but that chart was NOT easy to read as the caption said. my eye hurts now.
It`s hard to tell a Christian that and say you have any evidence. Someone who does not beleive in religion can say Christians adopted ceremonies such as marriage, but a Christian would look to the Bible, which is taken as fact, and say that marriage is based on religion.
I`m not arguing just to argue. Just making a point that no matter what anyone says, it`s almost impossible to prove a point between someone who does beleive in God and someone who doesn`t.
I see your point, but I meant there was no such thing as Christians when marriage first came about, and like patchouly said, now they`ve kind of adopted it as a religious thing like most ceremonies we have today.
I completely disagree with the first part of your statement and do not understand at all the second part.
Care to elaborate?
"Marriage existed before Christianity or Catholicism, so objecting to gay marriage on religious grounds makes no sense"
From a Christian`s point of view, Christianity (though not "real" Christianity, because technically that started after Jesus died.) started when God created everything, so a Christian`s view would be that Christianity has been around just as long as anything else has.
It is about two people who love each other, making a commitment. Also, it covers the legal right of the married couple. Rights that are being denied.
The religious folks (not all of them of course) seem to have hijacked "marriage" and won`t let anyone else use the term. Ok...We`ll call it a "love pairing"...Who cares what it`s called. As long as EVERONE is given the same rights.
This argument is annoying!
Just let anyone marry and shut the hell up! If you want to go after them later, fine. You two can duke it out in quiet until one of you successfully kills the other... or you just both pass out from exhaustion, either way.
just kidding people
People should not try and force their own beliefs upon religions just because it suits them and religions should not try and force their beliefs on people.
In order to fight for change, they shouldn`t fight for such an artificial one; gaining entrance into something useless isn`t going to make a difference. Fight the idea of marriage, which is bounded by tradition, and embrace a new, more liberal idea. I`ve had enough of people seeing marriage as the be-all-end-all of life, when it`s just a religious ritual. If we can get past marriage, we will no longer need to worry about such traditions as opposite sexes and the like. Break from your chains fully people, not just partially!
You`re gay, are7era? With that avatar pic, I never woulda guessed!
Two consenting of age adults who are in love.
About the polygamy, I personally think that if the people in the relationship are all of age and rightful consent then they should be allowed to practice their relationship without any question. But I do not think the relationships should have legality, frankly, because that would be a buttload of paperwork.
Just out of interest though, does anyone know approximately what % of the population is gay?
im for gay marriage and poligamy. im not gay, nor do i want to marry more than one person.
but if both people (or more than one person) think it`s fine, and they don`t have a problem with it, why not? its not effecting you.
Polygamists are polygamists because they choose to be. It is a "lifestyle choice" and therefor not something you have to support under a "human rights" tent.
Gays are no different than you, with the exception of their sexual preference. They have no choice in who they are attracted to. Therefor it becomes a basic human right for them to be allowed marriage. Telling them that they can`t marry is telling them that they are not allowed to participate in something everyone else is participating in, simply because they were born different. It`s no different than discrimination against Blacks. It`s a disgusting position to uphold and I have no respect at all for a person who would deny another person their basic human rights.
It`s was a very sad day indeed when gay marriages were disallowed in all States. It has set your country back, years.
exactly how i feel. i love my girlfriend with every fiber of my being. it`s pathetic that in the 21st century we`re still talking about this.
And if one day our country gets to a point when that is necessary, then so be it. Times change.
Slippery slope, eh? Exactly the logic they used to vote against interracial marriage, to withhold women from their divorcing rights in marriage, to even allow nothing but white marriage, to do many things we would find despicable today.
If I were to start a family in 5 years with my girlfriend via invitro-fertilization, to the government even though she will raise our child the exact same amount as me, my girlfriend will have absolutely no legal relationship to our child. I`m sorry, but who the f*ck are you to tell me my family is not a family?
I see what you did tharr.
i think that`s it
yea... see what i did there?
...who cares? what if it makes them happy? you`d want to take that away from them because maybe you don`t want to see a man sitting with two women when he goes out to dinner? isn`t a man and two women like, 95 percent of porn?
I agree that gays are people who have rights, but I`m not so sure I`m "for" gay marriage. I don`t see anything wrong with two people, regardless of gender, who are in a committed relationship getting married. If, however, we allow gay marriage, the next group will be polygamists. When you move the line currently drawn in the sand, you have to be willing to move it for more than just one group. I don`t think I want to move the line that far, so I choose not to move the line at all. Perhaps a bad argument, but that`s mine.
The most epic flow-chart ever, full of dead ends, with no good answer. Stick a dick up your ass, religious bigots. "love the comment, love the chartno on prop 8(and no i`m not gay)
Ok, now I`m really done ranting.
Any argument against gay marriage tends to infuriate me. I don`t understand how everyone doesn`t just see this as another case of straight up discrimination, just like women not being allowed to vote or blacks being considered less then human. By not allowing these people the same rights as straight people, we`re de humanizing them, and telling them they`re not as good as us just because they`re gay. How does it effect any of us, anyway? It doesn`t. It`s not like gay parent`s will adopt and turn their children gay, or artificially inseminate and raise them gay. It doesn`t work like that.
The most epic flow-chart ever, full of dead ends, with no good answer. Stick a dick up your ass, religious bigots.