You would.I like my definition better.Wrong definition of gay. ;)YAOI!I'm in one! :D>.>
<.<
Gay marriage.
Of course ^_^.
Homosexual marriage is an oxymoron.Well now, that depends on how you define marriage, doesn't it?
Or homosexual, I guess, but we all agree on what that word means at least.
I like your style! ; )
Homosexual marriage is an oxymoron.Well now, that depends on how you define marriage, doesn't it?
Or homosexual, I guess, but we all agree on what that word means at least.
I'm pretty sure we can't all agree on that, honestly. Some of us are talking about a mental illness brought on by abuse or domineering parents. The rest of us are talking about an ordinary, healthy trait possessed by a minority of the population: like pale skin, eyes, or hair.
I know a guy on another board who thinks it's an addiction. Apparently gay sex is mind-alteringly awesome. The earth doesn't just move, it reverses direction, does a few spins, and hops through the rings of Saturn with nothing but net. You try it once and nothing else will ever do again. Makes me wonder if he's jealous. Personally I wish he'd tell me where he got that idea from because whoever that guy is, I'd like to meet.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So those people that voted for Prop 8 got their vote flushed down the toilet b/c Judge Walker decided it. That sounds like a Tyranny to me.
Aretas--
Don't know how many times I have to repeat it. Guess I should ask at this point whether you even live in the United States. We have Constitutional Guarantees of rights to protect minorities' rights against tyranny of the majority. We don't need those guarantees to protect "rights" that the majority agrees with anyway-- we need them to keep majorities from oppressing unpopular minorities. And yes, when a majority vote tries to over-ride the Constitution, usually it's a Judge who has to step in, in the context of a court case addressing the issue, and overturn the Unconstitutional law.
Regarding the blast of hatred you just unleashed-- if you have, in spite of my statements to the contrary, gained the impression that I was one of the ones saying everyone who voted for this was a bigoted and hateful person-- you are getting the wrong impression (I've already extended an apology earlier for personal attacks I did make-- I don't deny making a few, but I do apologize because we should be discussing and disputing the ideas and decisions at hand, not exchanging insults). I do think that vote, and the decision to support Prop 8, was a prejudiced and rather bigoted act, but that is not a judgement I make on the whole person. If you want to characterize gay marriage as an "oxymoron", I suppose that is your right, if you insist that the very definition of the word means a heterosexual marriage, but many of us here will not agree with you. And, you still do not have any right to redefine that word for other faith groups who define marriage differently than your faith does.
|
|
It was an issue that should never have even come to a vote. Rights and privileges should never be voted on, and in fact, most of the time, they AREN'T. Slavery, women's voting, and the end of segregation weren't voted on, and the last two would have been voted down if they had come to a vote. The only right or privilege I can think of that has come to a vote is gay marriage, and I don't see that as fair. Why should gays have to get popular support when nobody else does?
I agree with the principle that we shouldn't have to vote on rights and privileges.
However, as a matter of historical fact-- ending slavery, and enforcing the idea that women have an undeniable, Constitutional, right to vote, were passed by voting in two Constitutional Amendments: the 13th (ending slavery) and the 19th (women's suffrage). Sometimes it still takes some voting to get it written into the law in more explicit form, before people will acknowledge these rights.
I meant a popular vote, not a congressional vote. I just don't see desegregation or suffrage passing a popular vote. Slavery, though, might have.
There was a Monty Python skit involving this, but with televisions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, a study about kids raised by same-sex parents.I'm not even going to try to link anyting else, but I'm pretty sure this is wrong. Research tends to indicate that same sex females do present a lot of the issues attributed to same sex parents, with same sex male parents much less so, even proportionally.
I highly doubt it.
Think about these factors for gay/lesbian couples.
They have to plan to have a child, it never happens accidentally.
When you spend weeks/months/years planning to do something, you will typically be better prepared for it than someone who does not plan.
If you are better prepared for something, you will probably be better at it than someone who is not prepared.
Most studies conducted show zero difference in outcomes for children in regards to crime, income and education base on the parents being gay or straight. Zero difference. None.
There is a difference between a couple and single parents. But in the realm of single parents, there is again, no measurable difference in the areas of crime, income and education level, based solely on the parent being gay or straight.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thought we all agreed 'homosexual' means 'likes the same sex'. I could be wrong, however.
But to some it means the choice of liking the same sex, not just the state of being where you like the same sex. This is why people like Michelle Bachmann's husband runs a clinic where you can go to be cured.
My dad is left-handed. Is he left-handed? Or does he have the left-handed disease?
Cured as in fixed, or as in what they do to leather?
Cured as in fixed, or as in what they do to leather?
They are one and the same. Embrace the holy chemical vats, heathen! They shall be your salvation!
This may be steering the conversation even further off the rails, but what is it called when someone is attracted to intergendered or androgynous people?
So those people that voted for Prop 8 got their vote flushed down the toilet b/c Judge Walker decided it. That sounds like a Tyranny to me.
Aretas--
Don't know how many times I have to repeat it. Guess I should ask at this point whether you even live in the United States. We have Constitutional Guarantees of rights to protect minorities' rights against tyranny of the majority. We don't need those guarantees to protect "rights" that the majority agrees with anyway-- we need them to keep majorities from oppressing unpopular minorities. And yes, when a majority vote tries to over-ride the Constitution, usually it's a Judge who has to step in, in the context of a court case addressing the issue, and overturn the Unconstitutional law.
Regarding the blast of hatred you just unleashed-- if you have, in spite of my statements to the contrary, gained the impression that I was one of the ones saying everyone who voted for this was a bigoted and hateful person-- you are getting the wrong impression (I've already extended an apology earlier for personal attacks I did make-- I don't deny making a few, but I do apologize because we should be discussing and disputing the ideas and decisions at hand, not exchanging insults). I do think that vote, and the decision to support Prop 8, was a prejudiced and rather bigoted act, but that is not a judgement I make on the whole person. If you want to characterize gay marriage as an "oxymoron", I suppose that is your right, if you insist that the very definition of the word means a heterosexual marriage, but many of us here will not agree with you. And, you still do not have any right to redefine that word for other faith groups who define marriage differently than your faith does.
FINK,
I'm putting something together from our prior dialogue. I'll keep this short. I am a U.S. citizen, faith groups can interprete anything they want, that does not mean it is accepted by the Christian community (Catholic / Orthodox)Regarding the 14th amendment equal protection can be secured without granting a “right to marry.” Even if we concede all the equal protection-related points made by supporters of same-sex marriage, those arguments do not actually imply constitutional requirement to allow same-sex couples to marry, they only imply a constitutional requirement that same-sex couples and their children receive the same legal benefits as opposite-sex couples. That is, if the children of same-sex couples have the benefits of stability and support that result from their parents having certain legal rights, then by all means let’s give those parents those prerogatives, but nothing in the Constitution requires that we call it “marriage.”
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This may be steering the conversation even further off the rails, but what is it called when someone is attracted to intergendered or androgynous people?
May?! ;)
But wow, I half think there might be as many legitimate answers as there are ways of viewing each case-by-case situation. Honest gut answer: The person is whatever sexuality would correspond with the percieved gender of their partner.
And I write that, and even before posting I can see this from other angles and it just seems a simple clean answer just sells it short. At that point I'd just say, "Don't bother trying to classify it. If you love that person, do 'em." Reducing something as wild and varied as sexuality to easy terms just seems like a lost cause there.
But good call. Transgendered and intersexed folks remind us that things aren't so binary as we're often tempted to think. And those are yet more people that get left on the outs or caught in the crossfire in these issues.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is, if the children of same-sex couples have the benefits of stability and support that result from their parents having certain legal rights, then by all means let’s give those parents those prerogatives, but nothing in the Constitution requires that we call it “marriage.”
There's nothing in the Constitution that says religions can establish monopolies on the usage of certain words either.
|
|
I meant a popular vote, not a congressional vote. I just don't see desegregation or suffrage passing a popular vote. Slavery, though, might have.
Ummm.... quick political science/American Government lesson for you: Amending the Constitution requires that the Amendment pass on State votes by 3/4 of the States in order to be ratified-- usually this has to be a popular vote in each state (although passing it via a State convention instead is possible). (the one on Slavery did slip through on the grounds that the Southern States were excluded from the count of States needed for it to pass, since it was right after the Civil War).
Congress can actually be bypassed, if the State Governors and etc get together, agree that an amendment should be presented to the people-- and then 3/4 of the States ratify the Amendment (at least in theory-- I'm not sure if it has actually happened since the passage of the Bill of Rights).
Vote no. California is crowded enough. There's barely any jobs here. We don't need all the gays in the world flocking here so they can get married.
EDIT: And just to put it out there, I support civil unions for everyone, but I think the term "marriage" should be reserved for civil unions between a man and a woman.I don't think your distaste for other person's definitions of the word is enough reason to justify restricting people's civil rights. If marriage were removed from civil law and given entirely to religious groups as part of religious sacraments but not part of civil law-- you still would not have sufficient justification to interfere with the religious freedom of groups that approve of gay marriage and want to conduct such ceremonies and confer such statuses within the constrains of their faith.
*sigh*
Look man, I said I didn't like the word "marriage" being used to describe combine two similar things, such as a man and a man or a woman and a woman. I think that using that WORD to describe that relation is very dumb. This is just my personal opinion, I respect that others do not have this problem with using the word that way. I see it as related to the idea of "marriage of form and function" (combining two different things), where is they see it as related to "civil relationship between two people [or more]". I understand that, I just think there is probably a better word for that idea than "marriage". Again, that is just my personal preference.Just because I feel the word "marriage" should be reserved for pairing two unlike things together does not mean (1)I think the word should be reserved only for religious unions or (2)that same sex couples shouldn't be given all the same benefits and responsibilities as mixed sex couples.
I specifically said, more than once, that I thought all couples (and perhaps larger groups in the future) same-sex or mixed-sex should be called civil unions. Nobody should get to use the word "marriage" in a legal sense. I am not suggesting letting mixed-sex couples use the word legally and same-sex couples have to "settle" for "civil unions". Everybody should have to use civil unions for all legal matters. "In a civil union and filing jointly?"
Christian marriage, like a lot of things, was "stolen" from pagan roman civic rituals. By stolen I mean that when christianism was chosen as the official faith of the roman empire, they kept almost every rituals they had and gave them a christian twist in order to ease the transition.
So, no, marriage is not a christian thing. It existed before christianism, it exist outside cristianism in other faiths, and it will survive christianism because the need for a ritual giving meaning to love sex and parenthood is more basic and rooted in human nature than any one religion will ever be.
So clearly a marriage between a person and a person is kind of dumb, because you know, those are two like things...
So clearly a marriage between a person and a person is kind of dumb, because you know, those are two like things...
Yup, you got me there. In fact, I think we agree that the word marriage does not really exist.
|
|
FINK,
I'm putting something together from our prior dialogue. I'll keep this short. I am a U.S. citizen, faith groups can interprete anything they want, that does not mean it is accepted by the Christian community (Catholic / Orthodox)
Regarding the 14th amendment equal protection can be secured without granting a “right to marry.” Even if we concede all the equal protection-related points made by supporters of same-sex marriage, those arguments do not actually imply constitutional requirement to allow same-sex couples to marry, they only imply a constitutional requirement that same-sex couples and their children receive the same legal benefits as opposite-sex couples. That is, if the children of same-sex couples have the benefits of stability and support that result from their parents having certain legal rights, then by all means let’s give those parents those prerogatives, but nothing in the Constitution requires that we call it “marriage.”
However, if you leave "marriage" in the language of Civil Law, then you still get into non-religious definitions for marriage, not the Christian definition of marriage. You cannot leave the term used for unions under civil law in civil law, and be able to impose your religious definition on it, and, if you try-- because of the connotations that are then laid on the word, you get into "separate but equal" territory (something the Court has already struck down as inherently prejudicial and unequal treatment). So-- no, marriage cannot remain a civil status at all, and remain denied to homosexual couples, and not be a civil rights problem.
If you remove marriage from civil law, then I agree with you that Christian churches are entitled to define (Christian) marriages as they see fit-- which means, yes, your Church can define religious marriage within your faith as being only between a man and a woman. If anyone were to tell you that you didn't have that right, they would be (at that point) interfering with your religious freedom.
However, if other (presumably non-Christian) faith groups want to have homosexual marriages under the auspices of their faith, you do not have the right to tell them they can't, even if they are using the term 'marriage' in a way you don't agree with. However, I do NOT expect you to acknowledge any such marriage outside your faith as a legitimate 'marriage' under your faith, anymore than you'd have to agree that the Gods Hindus worship actually exist.
So-- to sum it up: if you leave marriage in civil law, you cannot define it on religious terms, therefore, as a civil rights issue, you cannot deny marriage to homosexuals. If you remove marriage from civil law, and only have civil unions for the legal/civic portion of what was otherwise called marriage, you cannot stop non-Christian faith groups from using the term "marriage" to describe unions as they see fit, but you can rest assured that the Catholic and Orthodox Christian Faiths will be able to define marriage (as practiced by Catholics and Orthodox Christians) in accordance with your Christian beliefs.
(I'll be waiting for your other posts, and my apologies for that snap about whether you were in the US or not-- that was uncalled for on my part)
Vote no. California is crowded enough. There's barely any jobs here. We don't need all the gays in the world flocking here so they can get married.
Yeah, and vote no to sex equality, because women will steal our jobs, and no to racial equality, because blacks and latinos and whatnots will steal our jobs...
Seriously?
So clearly a marriage between a person and a person is kind of dumb, because you know, those are two like things...Yup, you got me there. In fact, I think we agree that the word marriage does not really exist.
Well as long as we understand each other. Though maybe we should stop arguing symantics and get back to discussing how California Government refuses to legally acknowledge someone's significant other because they are of the same sex.
|
|
I specifically said, more than once, that I thought all couples (and perhaps larger groups in the future) same-sex or mixed-sex should be called civil unions. Nobody should get to use the word "marriage" in a legal sense. I am not suggesting letting mixed-sex couples use the word legally and same-sex couples have to "settle" for "civil unions". Everybody should have to use civil unions for all legal matters. "In a civil union and filing jointly?"
I fully agree with you on this point. However, once you've removed marriage as a term used in civil law at all, it will doubtless still be a term used by various religious groups. Some of them approve of homosexual marriages, and will probably continue to conduct homosexual marriages under the auspices of their faith. So, part of my point was, whether you like them doing that or not, once "marriage" is out of civil law, you still will not have the right to interfere with their freedom of religion, so you have no right to tell them they cannot use "marriage" as the descriptive term for their religious rite and status.
No-one says you have to agree with them or acknowledge their religious rites if you do not share their faith though.
I specifically said, more than once, that I thought all couples (and perhaps larger groups in the future) same-sex or mixed-sex should be called civil unions. Nobody should get to use the word "marriage" in a legal sense. I am not suggesting letting mixed-sex couples use the word legally and same-sex couples have to "settle" for "civil unions". Everybody should have to use civil unions for all legal matters. "In a civil union and filing jointly?"I fully agree with you on this point. However, once you've removed marriage as a term used in civil law at all, it will doubtless still be a term used by various religious groups. Some of them approve of homosexual marriages, and will probably continue to conduct homosexual marriages under the auspices of their faith. So, part of my point was, whether you like them doing that or not, once "marriage" is out of civil law, you still will not have the right to interfere with their freedom of religion, so you have no right to tell them they cannot use "marriage" as the descriptive term for their religious rite and status.
No-one says you have to agree with them or acknowledge their religious rites if you do not share their faith though.
And I have in no way suggested that I think people should somehow stop religions from using the term or any term in any way they see fit. It doesn't mean I have to think they are using the terms appropriately. I mean if someone's religion wants say that all dogs are actually cats. More power to them. I'll still think they are dumb for doing so, but I am not going to worry about stopping people from being dumb.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Translation: Please be a Democrat. They're slightly less abhorrent on SOME issues.And WAY less abhorrent on others.
Seriously, I know there's a perception that the two parties are very similar, but they have gigantic differences in proposed policy. I linked their platforms earlier in the thread. They aren't easy reads (around 50 pages) but even if you're not interested in joining them it really ought to be required reading just so you know what's being planned for your country.
Ok, so Republicans say some ridiculous crap then actually try to do it. Democrats say some nice sounding stuff then basically do crazy crap, but they "tried" and made the right noises.
Whatever.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And isn't there some other thread (that I have hidden because religion is an asinine topic to discuss on a gaming board) for the theological discussion?
It's freaking marriage, if two people want to sign up for that stupid institution and risk half their s+#% on a gamble that they'll even like each other in a year or a decade, let them, who the hell cares?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, so Republicans say some ridiculous crap then actually try to do it. Democrats say some nice sounding stuff then basically do crazy crap, but they "tried" and made the right noises.
Whatever.
It's freaking marriage, if two people want to sign up for that stupid institution and risk half their s@*$ on a gamble that they'll even like each other in a year or a decade, let them, who the hell cares?
So, your point, if I understand it and if there is something to be understood, is this one: everybody who cares about something you don't is stupid.
Good. We heard you. Now if you would be mature enough to understand some people are different from you, that engaging in a political discussion means at the very least aknowledging, prior to any discussion that you will have to try to understand and show some basic empathy to other points of view and try to evaluate what is the best way to get each of those points of view to live together, maybe we may hope to get somewhere.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you care if two gay people get married and want to stop said thing from happening, you're a douchebag.
If you think our system is salvageable and your fearless leaders actually give a rat's ass about you, you're naive.
If you're stupid enough to think you should have the right to dictate to people how they live their lives, you deserve none of my respect.
End of discussion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you care if two gay people get married and want to stop said thing from happening, you're a douchebag.
If you think our system is salvageable and your fearless leaders actually give a rat's ass about you, you're naive.
If you're stupid enough to think you should have the right to dictate to people how they live their lives, you deserve none of my respect.
End of discussion.
Yeah. Because those are the only three options, and you have the right to call the end of the discussion all by yourself (and dictate how people should act). Also because everybody who's not you is either naive, a douche, or not deserving your respect.
Wow, you contribution to this really is awesome!
If you care if two gay people get married and want to stop said thing from happening, you're a douchebag.
If you think our system is salvageable and your fearless leaders actually give a rat's ass about you, you're naive.
If you're stupid enough to think you should have the right to dictate to people how they live their lives, you deserve none of my respect.
End of discussion.
Yeah. Because those are the only three options, and you have the right to call the end of the discussion all by yourself (and dictate how people should act). Also because everybody who's not you is either naive, a douche, or not deserving your respect.
Wow, you contribution to this really is awesome!
Houstonderek may be rude, blunt, and stubborn, but nowhere did he tell anyone how to dictate their lives. And why does it matter whether or not he respects you. He's made his opinion and you misrepresenting it as him against the world doesn't do anyone any good.
Wow, and the best way you found to tackle a very serious political problem is to dismiss it and insult everybody who think discussion is maybe, just maybe, a way to at least resolve some of the tension and get people to talk instead of shooting each other?