| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
I don't care if he respects me. I do care if he don't respect the right to talk about a problem and try to dismiss people who are engaging in a political discussion by claiming it's meaningless. He did not insult me, but everybody who tried to contribute to the discussion. He called the "end of the discussion" and if that if not a way to dictate how other people should act, I don't know what is.
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it
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.I don't care if he respects me. I do care if he don't respect the right to talk about a problem and try to dismiss people who are engaging in a political discussion by claiming it's meaningless. He did not insult me, but everybody who tried to contribute to the discussion. He called the "end of the discussion" and if that if not a way to dictate how other people should act, I don't know what is.
Then just ignore him. If that's not good enough, flag and move on. Isn't that what the moderators always say? Though I believe everyone should be entitled to their opinion. I don't care if he respects me or not. I don't care if he thinks that this discussion is pointless. As long as he doesn't try to actively stop me, it doesn't affect me. It doesn't affect anyone.
Unlike Prop. 8 which actively tries to stop two people from engaging in marriage because they have the same equipment in their pants.
I am well known for jumping other atheists asses here for piling on Christians and whatnot a lot of the time, but gay marriage is the one place they just need to get bent. Sorry.
Yep, they need to bend. (sorry)
I agree with you on the aim, just not on the mean to attain it. And even if I did disagree with the aim, I still think the right to express your opinion en engage in discussion trumps the aim. If not, we may as well live in a dictature.
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.I don't care if he respects me. I do care if he don't respect the right to talk about a problem and try to dismiss people who are engaging in a political discussion by claiming it's meaningless. He did not insult me, but everybody who tried to contribute to the discussion. He called the "end of the discussion" and if that if not a way to dictate how other people should act, I don't know what is.Then just ignore him. If that's not good enough, flag and move on. Isn't that what the moderators always say? Though I believe everyone should be entitled to their opinion. I don't care if he respects me or not. I don't care if he thinks that this discussion is pointless. As long as he doesn't try to actively stop me, it doesn't affect me. It doesn't affect anyone.
Unlike Prop. 8 which actively tries to stop two people from engaging in marriage because they have the same equipment in their pants.
Hey, you know what, you are right! But I still have a difficult time with people acting as if freedom of speech is meaningless, unfruitfull and stupid. I guess I just needed to say it - it gets on my nerves.
|
This is absurd. Explain the logic behind that statement.
The logic is that there are actually nonreligious reasons that people are against same sex marriage. My only concern was that people stopped demonizing religion as the great evil or the goto villian. I was asked to show other reasons. Thanks for taking the time to read them. Oh wait.
No Beckett, I'm not calling you an idiot. But you are talking nonsense.
I'm actually a little disappointe with you. I can understand some people ignoring anything that doesn't fit their agenda or belief. Don't make thhe mistake of thinking I care or am against homosexuals. I was asked to ink other reasons besides the religious "oh so persecutions". Your link is pretty idiotic, and like I said, I'm actually a little disappointed in you.
As for the other quote, I was eplaining what someone else (in the quote was saying) that wasn't being understood. I'd appriciate it if your retract your snark and aim it back at them.
|
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.
Okay, point accepted-- you do have the right to do so.
The logic is that there are actually nonreligious reasons that people are against same sex marriage. My only concern was that people stopped demonizing religion as the great evil or the goto villian. I was asked to show other reasons. Thanks for taking the time to read them. Oh wait.
O.o? Like what? The children!? which is unsupported except by unfounded speculation. Children are adopted by single parents, why can't they be adopted by same-sex parents?
I don't like looking at extremely overweight people with their fat hanging out, should I get legislature to enact mandatory wearing of shirts in public (including the beach0 if one is over a certain weight? If others ask why it should be passed other than personal distaste, I should claim that the body heat exerted by overweight people not wearing shirts is destroying our ozone.
What would be a good, non-religious reason for disallowing same sex marriage again? Oh, wait, there isn't one.
All religious reasons are rooted in human nature. If it was not religion, I bet there would be political groups claiming the natural supremacy of a sexual orientation or another. Religion is just the cultural form a deeper problem is expressing itself nowadays.
|
The logic is that there are actually nonreligious reasons that people are against same sex marriage. My only concern was that people stopped demonizing religion as the great evil or the goto villian. I was asked to show other reasons. Thanks for taking the time to read them. Oh wait.O.o? Like what? The children!? which is unsupported except by unfounded speculation. Children are adopted by single parents, why can't they be adopted by same-sex parents?
I don't like looking at extremely overweight people with their fat hanging out, should I get legislature to enact mandatory wearing of shirts in public (including the beach0 if one is over a certain weight? If others ask why it should be passed other than personal distaste, I should claim that the body heat exerted by overweight people not wearing shirts is destroying our ozone.
So...I shouldn't invite you to BeachCon 2012, is that what you're saying?
;-)
|
|
What would be a good, non-religious reason for disallowing same sex marriage again? Oh, wait, there isn't one.All religious reasons are rooted in human nature. If it was not religion, I bet there would be political groups claiming the natural supremacy of a sexual orientation or another. Religion is just the cultural form a deeper problem is expressing itself nowadays.
Yeah, human nature is a b@$**, true. We sure do like killing people for being different, for one.
Eh, it's going to come to that eventually. May as well get it out of the way sooner than later.
More quoty stuff: "The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with blood". Thomas Jefferson.
I'm more on the side of J.S. Mill on this one.
|
|
The logic is that there are actually nonreligious reasons that people are against same sex marriage. My only concern was that people stopped demonizing religion as the great evil or the goto villian. I was asked to show other reasons. Thanks for taking the time to read them. Oh wait.
In case you missed my response to you in the grand blizzard of posts through here... I read your arguments, and here is my more detailed response to the non-secular "arguments" against homosexual marriage.
Presuming all your evidence presented in support of your goal showing non-religious arguments against "gay marriage" is good (not saying I necessarily accept those arguments, but if I did)--
There's still a major problem that you (and others haven't answered yet)-- which is, that those arguments justify banning marriage, and marriage rights, to all couples unless they have children and are the biological parents of those children. No legal childless unions, no legal marriage-type benefits for step-parents. Otherwise, every argument you raised does nothing about the overt discrimination between homosexual couples, and all other couples except those who are the biological parents of children, raising them together. And, your arguments about the extra cost of providing benefits to homosexual couples-- can extremely easily be turned around to ask "why are we providing benefits to childless couples at all?"
Now, if the whole focus we ought to put on providing benefits to couples is in order to support the family-- I think maybe there is a good argument to make about ending benefits, special legal status, and extra civil protections for all childless couples; but I don't think I'd exclude step-parents and adoptive parents. However, if we don't exclude step-parents and adoptive parents.... then, since I've seen at least as many, if not more articles, stating that a loving, stable homosexual couple can do as good a job of child-rearing as a heterosexual couple (your article or two being among the very few I've seen disputing that fact)-- there still isn't a good argument for excluding homosexual couples that have adopted children (or include a biological parent and and an adoptive step-parent) from having marriage rights.
And, since we've placed the focus on children, who deserve protection, deserve to grow up in a good home with a family that can afford to support and raise them well-- we even have a reason to make marriage benefits exclusive to married couples that isn't legally discriminatory against all childless couples (there is no restriction against singling out children for special treatment/protections/assistance while they're growing up-- or there would be a whole lot more laws and programs on the books and functioning right now that we'd have to strike down).
I think my preferred solution is to just extend marriage benefits to homosexual couples out right, and let childless couples continue to have the benefits they currently enjoy-- but you could make the above argument, and it should be Constitutionally acceptable.
Maniac or not, I'm going to sleep. Sorry for the snarkiness earlier - you hit a nerve.
So...I shouldn't invite you to BeachCon 2012, is that what you're saying?;-)
Just because I don't like looking at something, doesn't mean I can't tolerate it. I have the free will of being able to focus on something else.
:p
Depends where this BeachCon is at, no way am I making my way all the way to Texas.
|
|
The logic is that there are actually nonreligious reasons that people are against same sex marriage. My only concern was that people stopped demonizing religion as the great evil or the goto villian. I was asked to show other reasons. Thanks for taking the time to read them. Oh wait.
In case you missed my response to you in the grand blizzard of posts through here... I read your arguments, and here is my more detailed response to the non-secular "arguments" against homosexual marriage.
Presuming all your evidence presented in support of your goal showing non-religious arguments against "gay marriage" is good (not saying I necessarily accept those arguments, but if I did)--
There's still a major problem that you (and others haven't answered yet)-- which is, that those arguments justify banning marriage, and marriage rights, to all couples unless they have children and are the biological parents of those children.
This is one portion of the various arguements, and your right, it doesn't answer that (excpet one article did, I honestly do not remember which). I also don't agree with it. In fact the only one I actually agree with was that it more than likely will devistate and break our econmic system, nearer the end. I mean it was past all the absurdities (ie people who disagree with you's beliefs and points), but ow well, right.
|
|
The logic is that there are actually nonreligious reasons that people are against same sex marriage. My only concern was that people stopped demonizing religion as the great evil or the goto villian. I was asked to show other reasons. Thanks for taking the time to read them. Oh wait.
Children are adopted by single parents, why can't they be adopted by same-sex parents?
Um, same sex partnerships do currently adopts and raise children, not to mention either having children from preexiting heterosexual arangments or through non-sexual fertilization. This isn't really a new thing. My Alliance partner (Thanks Pressman, that was pretty amazing), grew up with two kids adopted by lesbian mother's. These lesbian mother's also patronized the local exchange student, which they are all still friends.
I don't like looking at extremely overweight people with their fat hanging out, should I get legislature to enact mandatory wearing of shirts in public (including the beach) if one is over a certain weight?
I'm not saying "no". . . :) J/K
Actully, on a serious side, this IS the law in some places. It's also the law that females can't walk around public topless, and similar things.
|
|
So...I shouldn't invite you to BeachCon 2012, is that what you're saying?;-)
Just because I don't like looking at something, doesn't mean I can't tolerate it. I have the free will of being able to focus on something else.
:p
Depends where this BeachCon is at, no way am I making my way all the way to Texas.
Nah, it would have to be someplace with decent surf. Padre Island is ok, but the Gulf is like a lake. I need an oceanic beach.
|
|
Also, Beckett, are you really arguong that because civil rights cost money (hasn't destroyed the economy of any other nation that does allow gay marriage, btw, so I'm inclined to think this point is as wrong as the ones on children's health and well-being) they shouldn't be enacted. Freedom of religion costs aload of money. Think how much could be made by taxing all those churches. Clearly that righ shold be abolished sothe economy can improve. Sorry you feel thst money is more important than other people's rights.
Paul--
If I read Beckett's last post to me correctly, he was 'playing devil's advocate' by showing that there were counter-arguments (whether they made sense or not) that weren't based on religion, rather than putting full effort into defending a position that he doesn't necessarily agree with, and was also correctly (IMO) pointing out that we shouldn't just be demonizing religion and painting it as the great, stereotyped, one-sided villain of the piece.Beckett--
Correct me if I'm wrong in what I'm posting to Paul above. BTW-- TY for the response to my last post.
@Beckett
Going back to my original question, what legitimate, nonreligious reason is there?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I am argueing, and no other nation has the same economic issues we do, so not relavent, is that our current ENTIRE system could not handle it. Social Security, Family Health benefits, and things of that nature.
Are you saying that it would cost more to give spousal benefits to same-sex couples than it already costs to do the same for different-sex couples?
Also, Social Security and health care spending need to be reformed no matter what, they are going to make our economy broke whether this is done or not. Why not just account for this added cost when doing those reforms?
Again, this argument is for reducing the number of marriages to as few as possible, regardless of the sex of the people involved.
|
|
What I am argueing, and no other nation has the same economic issues we do, so not relavent, is that our current ENTIRE system could not handle it. Social Security, Family Health benefits, and things of that nature.
Are you saying that it would cost more to give spousal benefits to same-sex couples than it already costs to do the same for different-sex couples?
Are you asking me if we should charge gays more or something like that?
Also, Social Security and health care spending need to be reformed no matter what, they are going to make our economy broke whether this is done or not. Why not just account for this added cost when doing those reforms? Again, this argument is for reducing the number of marriages to as few as possible, regardless of the sex of the people involved.
If you asking me if I'd rather get rid of it comletely, worst case scenario, ya, I'd rather that than destroy it completely and screw everyone over. As it stands, every single one of thse financial "rights" is available to same sex partners, through Wills, Power of Attorney's, and through similar things that anyone can get, with the exception sometimes of family healthcare, which is more spcifically grounded in the chilren issue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Scott, I don't think you really read my post carefully. I said that I would prefer that a different term, such as civil unions be used for everyone, same-sex and mixed-sex couples.
No, I get that. I just think that a lot of same-sex couples consider marriage to be something important, something that is lauded on a societal level, and something that allows them to feel as though they are on a level playing field, relationship-wise, with their heterosexual counterparts.
My point is that your (apparently aesthetic) conviction that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman should not, from a rational standpoint, trump the desire by countless couples to feel vindicated in their romantic relationships to the same degree that same-sex couples do.
Yes, civil unions are probably as far as it should go from a legal standpoint. But they're not. Marriages aren't going anywhere, legally speaking. And meanwhile, homosexual couples are marginalized. Give the equal rights now, and strip away the legal trappings of marriage later, when everyone is affected equally by the decision.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Beckett,
Your entire system couldn't handle it? Really? Then you're f!&&ed no matter whether you allow gays to marry or not. If your system is really in that bad a state, it'll collapse anyway.
Also, you missed my point more than I missed yours, apparently. I'm pointing out that if cost is the determining factor in whether you should grant a right, which is the fundamental of the argument you put forward, you should apply it to all the rights and freedom of religion is expensive. I don't advocate denying people rights based on cost, I'm just following the logic of your position to a conclusion you don't like. Not my fault that's the logic. However, I do apologise for the needless dig at you in the last line of that paragraph. It wasn't deserved and I really should know better.
On civilised, insulting people (and calling someone an abomination is an insult, surely) is more civilised than legislating so people are an inferior class of citizens. So, even if HD was being a douche, he was still being less of a douche than the people who insult AND try to deny people rights.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Beckett,
Aretas said you can't compare the two because one is an abomination accordingto the Bible. So, yeah, someone did.
Are these issues you mention that long list of spoilers, most of which weere untrue or absurd extensions to martrying sex toys? If so, you're so out there you're not even wrong.
I'm not denying HD is being a douche. I'm not even denying I'm being something of a douche. I AM arguing that people like you and Aretas who want to deny people equal treatment under the law as guaranteed in the Constitution, are being EVEN BIGGER douches on this issue. I don't think either of you are evil or anything, or even particularly douchey in any other area (ok, maybe clerics in Pathfidner ;-) ), but on this one, not the discussion but the issue itself, you're both being enormous douches.
Mama Kelsey, I lied:
If everyone else is going to pontificate on their ridiculous beliefs, I might as well start posting mine.
For the Right of Gay Marriage...and Divorce!
Vive le Galt!