View Full Version : Gay marriage, why is this even an issue?
Ducimus
06-05-06, 03:46 PM
Bush urges federal marriage amendment
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11442710/
I don't get it. Don't they have anything better to waste tax dollars on? I do not understand why this needs to be in the forefront.
Firstly, if a couple fudgepackers want to get married, what buisness is it of mine? None. Not my life, not my choice or decision, i dont see the point in butting ones nose into peoples private buisness.
Second, do i care what those people do? nope, could care less. They can do whatever they want, as long as it doesnt effect me directly,I really don't give a ****.
Thirdly, why can't they just be honest and say, This is all about the religious rightwing having a tissy fit? Thats what irks me. In my opinion, this whole measure, is made by people with the bible in their back pocket.
And no, im not gay, infact, im homophobic :roll:
TLAM Strike
06-05-06, 03:55 PM
Congressonal Elections in November, Prez in '08 thats why. :roll:
And your right it shouldn't be an issue. As I see it some religions do allow for Gay/Lesbian marrage therefor under the 1st Amendment they can be married.
Skybird
06-05-06, 04:11 PM
Most Western constitutions put the family (mother-father-CHILDREN) under protection the state and the law, in the imterest of the weakest member of this constellation: children. Family has been hard and core of every social community, forming the basic cell without which no community could survive or even be formed up. Some people - like me, I say - do not see the need to put the relation between two adults of the same sex that never will form a family under the same ammount of protection - in whose imnterest? Children? There are none, and there will never be any (I strictly oppose the idea of making it regular habit that gay or lesbian couples could be turned into a family by adopting children, I think children need to experience the male qualities of a father as well as the female qualities of a mother during their education). Although data seem to be diverse, I have beehn shown enoiugh indications to make me think that children that are raised by mother or father alone, do show statistically significant (thus no spectacular) differences in their later social behavior, there has been a lot of research done especially in the 70s, but also later. I do not see any need while adoptation by homosexual couples must be turned into a regular practice. Nature would have taken care for that, if it is a wanted solution.
I am no phobic about homosexuals, I had loose friendships with two gay buddies during university myself, and never took care, for they never made an issue of it, you even did not realize they were "different", their behavior was absolutely "normal" comlpared to the people around. Wjhat I do not like is if gays and lesbians start to flirt with their diffrent sexual taste, if they say a gay relation is the same like a normal family raising children, or if the start to parade in the streets to show how much en vogue they are.
But what makes me really boiling is - like happened in Germany some months ago - politicians suddenly discover that the crowd perceives it as poltici8al correctness to cheer and to hail gay politicians if they out themselves in front of running cameras. First it became known from the leader of the liberal party. Then a mayor followed, and then three or four other politicans on national level as well. suddenly it was a big story. "I am gay, I am en vogue, now you must support me to show you have no ressentiments againsts gays..."
I have nothing against gays and lesbians as long as they do not try to make profit from it or start to flirt ("kokettieren") with it, but things like Cristopher Street Day make me wanting to vomit all day long (like I also would not tolerate it when women suddenly start to walk on the street all naked - it is aggression of a special kind, and thus an attack on, at least a provocative violation of the personal sphere of others. They want to be respected and treated like normal human being? Iam all for that, opkay. But then they should leave the institution of family and the protection by the state that it dersves alone, and should behave just like what they want to be perceived as: normal.
A gay member of the Green party in the Bundestag found it not to be a self-damaging violation of his (representative) status to join a pro-gay march in Moscow some days ago. Russia is not known for it's tolerance on these things. The demonstration was confronted by militia and polcie, which then started to join ranks with counter-demonstrators and let sticiks and fists fly. Our dear member of the bundestag was hit in the face by one fist, and then expressed into the cameras how shocking and rude it all was.
I grinned for minutes, I admit. no problem with gays. Has been part of community life since centuries and millenias. But no culture was so stupid to make it a norm, or put it on equal rank with the norm that enables social life of a community: hetereo relations, family, and children. No problem with gays. Problem it becomes if you start to tell all the world about your sexual behavior again and again, and even start to collect votes by giving your orientation as an argument. :down:
No, no sympathy on gay marriage from my side. Just more of this PC it is.
God, i'm agreeing with Skybird! Wait let me put on a helmet lest the sky fall on my noggin.:rotfl:
In this country gays have what are called "civil unions" which give them the benefits of being married without redefining the meaning of marriage which is between a man and a woman.
scandium
06-05-06, 04:22 PM
Here in Canada our recently elected Conservative government is making an issue of this as well - even though its already been settled by our Supreme Court. Personally I have no real feelings on the issue either way, other than feeling irked by a government that pretends it has nothing better to do than re-open an issue that was just settled.
Skybird
06-05-06, 04:37 PM
God, i'm agreeing with Skybird! .
This does not mean that we will ever take a hot shower together. :smug:
Drebbel
06-05-06, 06:32 PM
And no, im not gay
I am so sorry, cheer up mate, will all look better tomorrow !
Yawn, it's all politics. There's really no basis for all the noisy opposition to it other than political uses of religious sentiment.
I agree with Ducimius there, and although I'm not homophobic I really could care less about it.
On a referendum, I'd vote in favour of it, but that would also be a political move on my part to show my disapproval of the Conservatives.
Ducimus
06-05-06, 07:47 PM
I am so sorry, cheer up mate, will all look better tomorrow !
It's funny, we had this conversation at work not too long ago, how the definition of the word "gay" has changed over the years. Sure gay still means happy, but thats not the first thing that pops into someones head when they hear the word. :D
The reasons Bush is doing this is simple.
1. In order to have any chance whatsoever at maintaining control of Congress, the Republicans must energize their radical evangelical base, and nothing riles up bible thumpers (save abortion) like gay marriage.
2. This issue, just like the illegal immigration issue brought up not long ago, serves the purpose of redirecting the nation's attention away from the Iraq War. Bush would rather the country was talking about anything but that. These non-issues fit the bill perfectly. People get fired up, and, the GOP hopes, forget about the war.
As far as the issue itself goes, not allowing gays to marry violates at least two constitutional amendments (First and Fourteenth). Personally, I find barring gays from marriage, or anyone from any right for that matter, to be repulsive. If some conservative churches won't allow it, fine, I could care less, but they have no right to impress their will in regards to who can and cannot exercise certain rights on fellow citizens.
PeriscopeDepth
06-05-06, 11:44 PM
* Bort']The reasons Bush is doing this is simple.
1. In order to have any chance whatsoever at maintaining control of Congress, the Republicans must energize their radical evangelical base, and nothing riles up bible thumpers (save abortion) like gay marriage.
2. This issue, just like the illegal immigration issue brought up not long ago, serves the purpose of redirecting the nation's attention away from the Iraq War. Bush would rather the country was talking about anything but that. These non-issues fit the bill perfectly. People get fired up, and, the GOP hopes, forget about the war.
Bingo. I have an internship with a state assembly campaign for a guy that's trying to appeal as the "real conservative". A big chunk of his voter contact effort is dedicated to appealing to conservative churches through his opposition to gay marriage.
PD
Skybird's thoughts are so offensive to me I'm not even going to dignify them with a response. And I'm heterosexual.
I don't know, it frightens me that people feel so free to express their bigotries with no fear of any consequences. It's a scary time we live in.
werauchimmer
06-06-06, 03:55 AM
Thats the internet. You can express as much of your bigoteries here as you like, its semi anonymous, so you need not have fear about serious repercussions if you express your views, extremist, cotroversial, whatever.
About the topic: I could´nt care less. Let them marry, its mostly a tax thing nowadays anyway.
VipertheSniper
06-06-06, 04:38 AM
I could´nt care less.
Almost got it right, but I guess it was just a typo... Now all the other guys repeat with me: I couldn't care less.
Konovalov
06-06-06, 05:11 AM
BREAKING NEWS....
According to the BBC, (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2212170,00.html) the word "gay" now means "rubbish". :lol: :lol:
Seriously though my view is similar to Ducimus and some others here in that I couldn't care less if two men or two women want to get married. I agree also that for the most part this issue is being used as a political tool.
Sea Demon
06-06-06, 05:13 AM
I personally don't care what two homosexual men or two consenting lesbians do in their own time. Their relationship is their own business. And I feel that the issue is deliberately being brought up to try and energize conservative voters. Nevertheless the issue is valid. The issue has more to do with rule of law and activism than anything else. Here in California, we had a Proposition 22 which banned gay marriage. All it took was one judge to thwart the will of the people. BTW, California is a liberal state, and the people voted overwhelmingly for Prop 22.
This issue also deals with activists trying to redefine institutions and cultural norms to their likings rather than respecting what the institution is. And just what is the institution of marriage:
From Merriam Webster:
Marriage Noun: 1. The state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband and wife. 2. The mutual relationship as husband and wife. :wedlock 3. The institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependance for the purposes of founding and maintaining a family.
Sounds pretty clear to me. I don't know why Homosexual couples just won't push for civil unions and leave the institution of marriage alone. That way they get the same benefits of marriage without destroying the institution. I don't think many would be opposed to that. I certainly wouldn't. But with definitions like the one above.....it's impossible for homosexual couples to be legally married. And definitions like the one above go hand in hand with law.
Skybird's thoughts are so offensive to me I'm not even going to digfnify them with a response. And I'm heterosexual.
I don't know, it frightens me that people feel so free to express their bigotries with no fear of any consequences.
You know, words such as "bigot", "racist", "xenophobe", "homophobe" get thrown around all too often by those that fear the debate. This is the reason that these words just don't have the impact they used to have. These terms have been overly abused. People have used these terms to death as tools to shut down honest debate. I'm sorry, it just doesn't work the way it used to. There are real bigots, racists and such out there. But most of the time I find these words used in a bogus way.
But most of the time I find these words used in a bogus way.Like when they apply to you? Gotcha.
Sea Demon
06-06-06, 05:30 AM
Like when they apply to you? Gotcha.
Actually, I was defending Skybird. :D And anyone else that just wishes to debate important issues without unfairly being called derogatory names. Which most likely doesn't apply to them.
Bigot is not an infantile name. Sorry there Chief. It's very serious.
And I don't think it's unfair. You feel the need to make distictions from people you see as different or "not normal" that's great for you. But it's unfair to people who aren't like you.
Allowing gays to marry has no negative effect on you or anyone else in the world. It's bigotry to try and prevent it.
Like making blacks drink from a different water fountain. Or forcing a Jew to wear an insignia letting everyone know they are a Jew, and should be looked at and treated differently.
Sea Demon
06-06-06, 05:43 AM
Using these terms to shutdown debate is infantile. It is a legitimate concern for many that allowing gay marriage may lead to the destruction of an institution which forms and keeps society. Where's your tolerance for other points of view? If you have to resort to ridiculous name-calling, I don't have to look very far.
Dude I'm sorry you think me saying these attitudes are bigoted is some sort of flame job. By no means do I think that should prevent you from discussing how you feel. My last post compared these attitudes to other, acknowledged forms of bigotry. That was an attempt at debate. You chose to ignore this point and continue to claim that if I think someone is guilty of bigotry then I am childish and ridiculous.
Again, I am sorry, I do not accept this.
an institution which forms and keeps society
Right. Even though about 2/3rds of all marriages end in divorce. Where is your outrage when Britney Spears gets married on a whim and has it annulled less than a week later.
I hardly think it's a sacred institution.
Sea Demon
06-06-06, 06:14 AM
Right. Even though about 2/3rds of all marriages end in divorce. Where is your outrage when Britney Spears gets married on a whim and has it annulled less than a week later.
I hardly think it's a sacred institution.
I am definitely outraged at the fact that these people don't take their marriage vows seriously. Or at the first hint of trouble, it's off to divorce court. Especially with kids involved. There is too much selfishness in our society simply speaking. And it is from this "anything goes" attitude that is prevalent with the activists trying to redefine society. It's not only an "anything goes" attitude, but it also stems from "if it feels good...do it" type of mentality. The very same people trying to redefine society, attack morality and family structure first. Ain't that something???
And sorry, you alluded that another forum member was being bigoted for expressing a point of view. A point of view different from yours, but I saw nothing bigoted from it. Is it bigotry to think that a young child needs a father and mother as both provide different yet necessary functions for a developing child? Is it bigoted to point out studies which show children develop better with the traditional setup? Is it bigoted to quote a marriage definition from a source such as Merriam Webster?
You need to go look up the word bigot, because nobody here has displayed anything like it. Just honest opinion.
The very same people trying to redefine societyI know. Those very same people who got women the right to vote. And thought it was wrong to own other people as slaves. The b*st*rds!
Is it bigotry to think that a young child needs a father and mother as both provide different yet necessary functions for a developing child
In this context, yes. Very much so. Because marriage and raising a child have nothing to do with one another. It's looking for a reason to justify bigotry.
My best friend is married, yet her and her husband have no intention of having children.
If you feel this way, should my friend have been allowed to be married knowing they weren't going to have children? Yes or no. Don't dodge this, give a yes or no answer. Answering YES dismisses your point completely.
Is it bigoted to point out studies which show children develop better with the traditional setupLink?
Is it bigoted to quote a marriage definition from a source such as Merriam WebsterIt was a meaningless post. As the law being discussed seeks to change this. The dictionary is only stating what the unjust law says.
scandium
06-06-06, 08:20 AM
There is too much selfishness in our society simply speaking. And it is from this "anything goes" attitude that is prevalent with the activists trying to redefine society. It's not only an "anything goes" attitude, but it also stems from "if it feels good...do it" type of mentality. The very same people trying to redefine society, attack morality and family structure first. Ain't that something???
I thought it was your government that was attempting to "redefine society" by proposing to amend the constitution?
I know. Those very same people who got women the right to vote. And thought it was wrong to own other people as slaves. The b*st*rds!
Are you seriously implying that gays are responsible for womens sufferage and freeing the slaves? :roll:
In this context, yes. Very much so. Because marriage and raising a child have nothing to do with one another. It's looking for a reason to justify bigotry.
My best friend is married, yet her and her husband have no intention of having children.
If you feel this way, should my friend have been allowed to be married knowing they weren't going to have children? Yes or no. Don't dodge this, give a yes or no answer. Answering YES dismisses your point completely.
Answering yes would not dismiss his point. Married men and women (sad that i have to specifiy their genders), even if they have no current plans to have children, have the potential to have them in the future, either by intent or mistake, so you're wrong. Marriage and having children are indeed linked.
It was a meaningless post. As the law being discussed seeks to change this. The dictionary is only stating what the unjust law says.
No, it only states the historical meaning of the term. Marriage has ALWAYS meant a permanent union between a man and a woman for the purpose of having children. The law being discussed is an attempt to keep that definition from being changed against the wishes of a great majority of the population.
Again, nobody is saying that gays shouldn't form permanent partnerships, nor are they saying that these partnerships can't be recognized via the newly defined and codified institution of "Civil Unions". But there is no need to change the definition of a term that has been with us since our species first started forming community groups.
Konovalov
06-06-06, 10:50 AM
This thread is gay :doh:
At least then you are following the BBC (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2212170,00.html) way of defining the word gay in these modern times. ;)
tycho102
06-06-06, 11:04 AM
Seems to me the solution is fairly straight-foward:
1. Amend the Constitution to outlaw gay marriage.
2. Strike the word "marriage" out of all current laws and governmental forms. Replace it with "Civil Union".
3. Get "married" at your local church. Wear a ring if you'd like. Get your kids Baptized if that suits you.
4. Apply for a "Civil Union" at your local judiciary branch office. Know that your Civil Union means that you are now legally responsible for whatever children you have with your Civil Union Partner.
5. Have gay sex in the confines of your own castle, not the local coffee shop's bathroom glory-hole.
6. Profit!
Skybird
06-06-06, 11:04 AM
Another example of Umfeld zigzagging around in the search for the "sense". You sense of logic and having a clear line of argument already was broken in the pedophile threat. And in the alcohol-car-accident-thread. But with this one you have delivered your masterpiece in decosntructing clear thought.Simple truth is: you will shout names at everyone who is not accepting your babbled nonsens as ultimate truth. Third time you do it now to me. So who is it using the internet as an anonymous protection!?And now hush-hush back into the garden, play with the other kids. ;)
Cmon now. Can't we all just get along?
Seems to me the solution is fairly straight-foward:
1. Amend the Constitution to outlaw gay marriage.
2. Strike the word "marriage" out of all current laws and governmental forms. Replace it with "Civil Union".
3. Get "married" at your local church. Wear a ring if you'd like. Get your kids Baptized if that suits you.
4. Apply for a "Civil Union" at your local judiciary branch office. Know that your Civil Union means that you are now legally responsible for whatever children you have with your Civil Union Partner.
5. Have gay sex in the confines of your own castle, not the local coffee shop's bathroom glory-hole.
6. Profit!
Not really:
1. The amendment is to clarify what constitutes a marriage, it is not a direct ban.
2. There is no justifiable reason to do this.
3. We can do that anyways regardless of the government position.
4. You're financially responsible for your children regardless of your matrimonial status.
5. Public sex is disgusting regardless of flavor.
6. Whose profit? Certainly not the general public who would now have to fund gay divorce proceedings and gay marriage tax breaks and shelters.
have the potential to have them in the future, either by intent or mistake, so you're wrong.Right. So switch it to a man who has had his testicles cut off by a tragic lawn mower accident. Or anyway in which a man and woman cannont have a child due to medical reasons.
And answer the question in that way.
Or just refuse to again, because it dismisses the entire point.
And you are wrong about the dictionary. Yes, it simply lists the legal definition. If gays are allowed to marry, guess what, the dictionary isn't going to keep the old definition as some sort of politcal statement.
Good lord.
Are you seriously implying that gays are responsible for womens sufferage and freeing the slaves?I'm implying that it's foolish to whine about people who are trying to change things and act like the status que has always been great and never needed changing.
Duh, get it?
Right. So switch it to a man who has had his testicles cut off by a tragic lawn mower accident. Or anyway in which a man and woman cannont have a child due to medical reasons.
And answer the question in that way.
Or just refuse to again, because it dismisses the entire point.
And you are wrong about the dictionary. Yes, it simply lists the legal definition. If gays are allowed to marry, guess what, the dictionary isn't going to keep the old definition as some sort of politcal statement.
Good lord.
I'm implying that it's foolish to whine about people who are trying to change things and act like the status que has always been great and never needed changing.
Duh, get it?
Yeah i get it. You're reduced to imagining obscure testicle accidents in a desperate attempt to make your flawed point.
However, regardless of your own "gimme, gimme" childish arguments, the status quO on the definition of the word marriage is fine as is and doesn't need changing. Come up with some really valid reasons for changing it and just maybe people will listen to you, but change for changes own sake is not one of them.
As for the dictionary, you could redefine any word to mean something it doesn't but that wouldn't make it accurate or proper to do so. Changing the definition of a word just to make a political statement, which is what you, not me, are demanding, would be as ridiculous as asking what the definition of "is" is.
Im an American. And I beleive that if this country wants to wag its finger at the world, call its self the leader of Democracy, spout off about freedom and liberty until the cows come home, then It need to practice what it preaches. Gay Americans are Americans. Thats it. Given that fact, they should in no way be barred from engaging in marraige, here in the "Land of the Free".
As far as the issue itself goes, not allowing gays to marry violates at least two constitutional amendments (First and Fourteenth). Personally, I find barring gays from marriage, or anyone from any right for that matter, to be repulsive. If some conservative churches won't allow it, fine, I could care less, but they have no right to impress their will in regards to who can and cannot exercise certain rights on fellow citizens.
Amen. :up:
Gizzmoe
06-06-06, 02:14 PM
http://img116.imageshack.us/img116/9374/tmw0303047ir.jpg
So you too refuse to answer a simply yes or no question, but still try to pretend you have a valid argument. So I can pretty much skip over whatever you post in the future then? Okay.
Here's your valid argument: There are people who want to get married who aren't allowed to for no reason other than simply bigotry.
How's that killer?
And no offense, but about the dictionary thing, there aren't 'Definition Fairies' floating around deciding what words mean. They mean what humans say they mean. And in this case it's simply the LEGAL defininition of a word. And whether it's this year or the year 3006, when the law is changed to end this discrimination, the dictionarie's difinition will be changed.
I mean good lord! Are you kidding me? Why did I come here?
Are you kidding?!!
So you too refuse to answer a simply yes or no question, but still try to pretend you have a valid argument. So I can pretty much skip over whatever you post in the future then? Okay.
Here's your valid argument: There are people who want to get married who aren't allowed to for no reason other than simply bigotry.
How's that killer?
And no offense, but about the dictionary thing, there aren't 'Definition Fairies' floating around deciding what words mean. They mean what humans say they mean. And in this case it's simply the LEGAL defininition of a word. And whether it's this year or the year 3006, when the law is changed to end this discrimination, the dictionarie's difinition will be changed.
I mean good lord! Are you kidding me? Why did I come here?
Are you kidding?!!
I have no problem with you ignoring me Pal. There's even a forum feature i believe that will help you do just that.
As for your latest gasp, you're right, they DO mean what humans say they mean, including the legal definition but since the public overwhelmingly DON'T want the meaning to change to accomodate a few activist nuts don't hold your breath waiting for it to happen.
XabbaRus
06-06-06, 03:53 PM
In the UK we already have the civil unions and I think they work just fine. Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a women. It's terminology. At the end of teh day what matters is whether the couple involved have recognition of the union in law and protection. A civil union does just that, the great thing is it can be used by heterosexuals too....
However I agree with most of the people on this, I don't give a damn what someones arientation is as long as they aren't arseholes and it doesn't involve children, animals or brutality.
What I do get peed of with is those homosexual people who shove it down your throat. In the UK at least (and the rest of the EU) there is legislation that protects and gives equal rights to gays in work, life etc. I have know many gay people and well didn't know until it just came about. I have met a couple who made it their business that you knew they were gay and hell become you lest you forgot.
As for a gay couple adopting, well There are many children who are brought up succesfully without either a mother or a father so I wouldn't say just because a couple are gay they are, by default not ideal parents. The issue is that in this society children will be horendously bullied at some point. Also I think it is a symptom of the "have anything no matter what" culture that exists in the west, at least in the UK, and that extends to people using IVF, which I don't agree with but that's another topic.
I haven't seen anything here that is bigotted, some of it I might not agree with but none of it is homophobic.
No? go read the very first post again. :oops:
Ducimus
06-06-06, 04:14 PM
No? go read the very first post again. :oops:
Im sarchastic. I tend to refer to alot of things in a deragatory fashion (Ie, my use of the word "fudgepacker" instead of homosexual.) . I may not agree with what somone does, but i don't beleive they're privacy or any of their rights should be infringed upon simply because i dont agree with them. Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, these are, as i recall, our unalienable rights.
I don't know you from Adam, Ducimus. But I took your post as somewhat joking. For what it's worth, I think the important part of your post was you saying basically 'it's none of my business.'
Ducimus
06-06-06, 06:00 PM
I took your post as somewhat joking. For what it's worth, I think the important part of your post was you saying basically 'it's none of my business.'
Right on both counts. Joke wise, i I have a darker sense of humor sometimes, but i relish words that speak the truth in all its clarity in reality. Is fun to use words that doesnt cover up or tone done what your talking about in euphamistic language. Its somtimes even more fun to use euphisms that embellish the truth, or fully relay the reality of the subject. Somtimes i have to temper that with the need to be PC, which isnt as much fun, but if i can slip in a word which i feel fully conveys reality of the subject in question, i usually will ;)
Sea Demon
06-06-06, 06:43 PM
I thought it was your government that was attempting to "redefine society" by proposing to amend the constitution?
:lol:......:-?......:lol:. It's actually sad that we have to make amendments to protect society's institutions from selfish adults that want the world defined their way. Marriage has been defined for centuries upon centuries as between a man and woman. Guess what...nutjob activists ain't going to change that. I actually agree with gay civil unions as the compromise. Same benefits without the redefining aspects.
I know. Those very same people who got women the right to vote. And thought it was wrong to own other people as slaves. The b*st*rds.
They ain't the same people. But what an odd argument. BTW did you know gay people do have the same rights of marriage as I do? But just like me....they can't marry someone of the same sex. Just like me, they can get married if they do it with someone from the opposite sex. And no, they have no right to redefine the concept of marriage to their own liking.
Because marriage and raising a child have nothing to do with one another
I know you don't like definitions and real meanings of words. But according to the marriage definition, it is an institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependance for the purposes of founding and maintaining a family. I know the definition doesn't meet your liking, but it is what it is. No amount of whining is going to change it.
It was a meaningless post. As the law being discussed seeks to change this. The dictionary is just stating what the unjust law says.
Umfeld, I understand you may be a young college guy that is trying to be ideal about the world around you. Of course you know everything, and everyone else who has a different viewpoint is wrong and perhaps bigoted in your own world. I was there at one time myself. I grew up and so will you. I'm now in my mid-thirties, out of college, and kind of value societal norms as a stabilizing factor. And I'm sorry, but gay marriage is not the same as women's suffrage or slavery.
Okay Sea Dink. I'm 35 and I didn't graduate Jr. High, nor did I attempt to get a useless GED. I'm retired, and am enjoying my golden years (may they be many many decades.)
I'll ask you. Should a couple, man and a woman, who due to medical reasons simply cannot have a child and have no interest in adopting, be allowed to marry?
Again, if you answer yes, then stop using children as a reason for gays not to get married. It does not make sense, and you look really stupid trying to make this point.
Yes Or No?
It's discrimination. Discrimination seeded by ugly bigotry.
Have fun with that!
And no, they have no right to redefine the concept of marriage to their own liking.
And gosh, I'm pretty sure they do. As the courts will eventually decide.
:up:
Sea Demon
06-06-06, 07:23 PM
Okay Sea Dink. I'm 35 and I didn't graduate Jr. High, nor did I attempt to get a useless GED. I'm retired, and am enjoying my golden years (may they be many many decades.)
I'll ask you. Should a couple, man and a woman, who due to medical reasons simply cannot have a child and have no interest in adopting, be allowed to marry?
Again, if you answer yes, then stop using children as a reason for gays not to get married. It does not make sense, and you look really stupid trying to make this point.
Yes Or No?
It's discrimination. Discrimination seeded by ugly bigotry.
Have fun with that!
And gosh, I'm pretty sure they do. As the courts will eventually decide.
:up:
I apologize for the error in your age. Actually, I'm college educated. But no need for useless insults. Honestly, I thought you were in your early 20's. I wish you a happy retirment, sir. :)
As far as your question, what's the point? It has nothing to do with the gay marriage issue or redefining cultural norms to accomodate the wishes of activists. As of now, men and women can marry without having kids, even though founding and maintaining families is an important part.
Bigotry?!?! Again?!?!:nope: Some people neve learn.
And I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for courts to decide the issue. GW's appointing more and more judges that know their role as interpreters of law rather than makers of law. The problem is the courts that don't know their role. And the nightmare is finally ending...at least here in the USA. Liberal activists just don;t control the courts like they used to.
So we're all bigots and killers eh? Doesn't sound like you should be associating with us evil people. Maybe you should leave.
I'll do what I want, thanks. You like telling other people what they should and shouldn't do, don't you?
I'll do what I want, thanks. You like telling other people what they should and shouldn't do, don't you?
No just making an observation. But I thought you were ignoring me? Can't get enough?
Haha. This is good for you I think. I'd stop debating with me if I were you as well.
Cheers.
Haha. This is good for you I think. I'd stop debating with me if I were you as well.
Cheers.
You call this debate? Haha that's as funny as gay marriage!
Sea Demon
06-07-06, 12:12 AM
So we're all bigots and killers eh? Doesn't sound like you should be associating with us evil people. Maybe you should leave.
Actually, the bigots are everywhere. Run for the hills. :p (Sarcasm off)
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/G/GAY_MARRIAGE_STATES?SITE=ORROS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
No. It was a failed attempt at debate made by me.
I'll try again:
Yes or no?
Anyone? Anyone?
Sea Demon
06-07-06, 02:20 AM
No. It was a failed attempt at debate made by me.
I'll try again:
Yes or no?
Your question is irrelevant. Because marriage is already defined as between a man and a woman as stated by the law and the definition of the word. Any man may get married to any woman by definition. You have to make believe a scenario that has no play in the real world to try and support your flawed arguments. That is very illogical, and no point can be made from you and your made up scenario.
And the debate was over a long time ago. You lost it once you began to play the childish name calling game. Name calling is the admission of a lost argument.
You're just not worth the time anymore.
ALRIGHT, ALRIGHT!!!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7f/Graham_Chapman_Colonel.jpg
This thread has gotten much too silly, what with all the name calling and such, now get back into a civil discussion or the moderators will undoubtedly end this thread here and now!
(Graham Chapman, ironically enough, was gay)
Yeah. And perhaps the funniest man to ever live.
:up:
* Bort']ALRIGHT, ALRIGHT!!!
This thread has gotten much too silly, what with all the name calling and such, now get back into a civil discussion or the moderators will undoubtedly end this thread here and now!
(Graham Chapman, ironically enough, was gay)
Graham Chapman was gay? Good thing the other Pythons killed him.:x
Joke btw, look up how Eric Idle answered a homophobe who made a negative remark about Chapman. :know:
My 2 centimes: live and let live...make a universal sort of pact for those register (and then can get married at a church if they so choose) and another type for couples who have lived together a certain number of years. There exists something like this in some European countries such as France for example. I still think the norm of a traditional hetero couple is desirable for raising children for the reasons already evoked here, having male and female role models.
Umfuld, even if I agree with you on this issue I think you are a bit too abusive, just a minor example making a swipe at those of us who persue a college education for example (Masters in my case). Never thought I was superior to anyone else because of that. Or calling everyone with a contrary view a bigot.
Thanks for your thoughts, Joea. Yes, I am a bit abusive. But I'm having trouble understanding why my use of the word bigot is ruffling so many feathers.
I do not have problems with people disagreeing with me. But I am passionate about putting people in their place if their goal is to infringe on others rights. Nothing upsets me more than this, and as I indicated with my first post on this thread, I was seriously offended.
My use of the word bigot on this thread was never intended as in insult or to be hurtful. As silly as it may sound, I do hold out hope that the people who've argued against gay marriage on this thread will see themselves in a different manner after discusssing the matter with me.
I am quite aware that bigots never think of themselves as bigots, and it was my intention to inform them that they, in fact, are.
Not simply because they disagree with me. But because they couldn't come up with a reason to support their ideas. At first, it was about children somehow. When I gave them a simple yes or no question to dismiss their logic, they ALL ignored that question.
Now their argument is some sort of circular nonsense about dictionary definitions. And that isn't a valid point. Leaving me to the only conclusion available. They don't like gay people. And no matter how much they deny it, think of gay people as something other than human beings with the same rights as they have.
I'm not sure what you mean by a swipe a college. I made no swipe at college. I realize that you need at least GED to go to college (I mean, I think that's true), but my comment about the GED was in regards to the GED on it's own. I held many jobs before I retired, and everyone one of them required at least a GED. But in reality not once did my lack of one stop me from getting a job. This is how my 'useless' comment was intended. Sorry if it was unclear, but understand that I was responding to a post that was just trying to insult me. And I was only too happy to let that person know they'd actually given me a great compliment.
Skybird
06-07-06, 08:11 AM
It starts to become a little bit too rich.
Thanks for your thoughts, Joea. Yes, I am a bit abusive. But I'm having trouble understanding why my use of the word bigot is ruffling so many feathers.
That is no excuse for showing no manners. The world does not revolve around what you understand and what not.
I do not have problems with people disagreeing with me. But I am passionate about putting people in their place if their goal is to infringe on others rights. Nothing upsets me more than this, and as I indicated with my first post on this thread, I was seriously offended.
It escapes my understanding why someone who is not gay and must not be affected by gay's relations nevertheless makes it his personal mission to tell people about what gays do need in order to live happily. It also escapes my understanding how a remark by me that I had loose friendships with gays myself and that we dealt normally, without the big tamtam some are making of it, could be offensive to anyone. You simply feel offended becasue my opnion violates your imagination of what people have to think on this - sharing your opinion, that is. It is not about gays. It is about you.
My use of the word bigot on this thread was never intended as in insult or to be hurtful.
Sure. Not at all, we believe it blindly.
As silly as it may sound, I do hold out hope that the people who've argued against gay marriage on this thread will see themselves in a different manner after discusssing the matter with me.
My God, how fantastic you are. The board bows and apologizes that we did not realize your greatness earlier.
I am quite aware that bigots never think of themselves as bigots, and it was my intention to inform them that they, in fact, are.
Start with yourself. you are definetly in serious need of it.
Not simply because they disagree with me. But because they couldn't come up with a reason to support their ideas. At first, it was about children somehow. When I gave them a simple yes or no question to dismiss their logic, they ALL ignored that question.
Impossible to imagine that people may had come to the conclusion that your broken chain of loose and contradictory thoughts was missing that logic that you claim for yourself. Also, generalizing hairsplitting exceptions from the rule and replace the rule by the exception that wayand think of that as being a valid argument does not do a convincing job.
You are not around for too long, but already managed to bring up several of the regular board members against you. Not so much by your opinion, but by your arrogant manners. Like some others already have indicated more or less directly, I would prefer you to change that, or to leave.
I don't know, it frightens me that people feel so free to express their bigotries with no fear of any consequences. It's a scary time we live in. - Remember your own words, eventually?
"Du bist zu selbstüberzeugt, kleiner Mann."
Skylark, I don't read your posts since your first one on this thread. Any chance you answered Yes or no yet? Much of your first post hinged on the 'marriage is for children' argument.
So...still waiting there, Chief, or what?
Skylark, I don't read your posts since your first one on this thread. Any chance you answered Yes or no yet? Much of your first post hinged on the 'marriage is for children' argument.
So...still waiting there, Chief, or what?
It's SkyBIRD and calling people names is not helping your cause one bit.
Another example of Umfeld
I agree. Maybe you should address Skykelp with your complaint though, don't ya thinK?
Skybird
06-07-06, 09:20 AM
August,
let him have his way. He probably already lost this place, and sooner or later he will realize it. I recommend to simply ignore this troll, and period.
Reminds us of the good ol' times, doesn't it? :lol:
I agree. Maybe you should address Skykelp with your complaint though, don't ya thinK?
If Skybirds misspelling was anything other than an accident common to those of his nationality then I would. However yours are deliberate insults and there's a difference.
And there we have it.
Umfuld = No matter your beiefs, I can assure you gays are people too, and you should have no rights that they do not have.
Skybird = Troll!
If Skybirds misspelling was anything other than an accident common to those of his nationality then I would. However yours are deliberate insults and there's a difference.I don't think it was a misspelling. And my variations on his name were a direct response to that.
Regards
-Umsy
August,
let him have his way. He probably already lost this place, and sooner or later he will realize it. I recommend to simply ignore this troll, and period.
Reminds us of the good ol' times, doesn't it? :lol:
Yeah you're right I guess. Conversing with him is about as challenging as poking ant hills with a stick, at least when I debate with you i have to think.
Guys, simply saying you got the better of someone because you have no valid point to make is pretty pathetic. It's my guess that this thread did nothing to change anyone's point of view either way. But as for simply stating the case and debate, you lost baldy in my opinion. But, I'm just a troll trying to show off my new college education. Plus, I've got a lot of growing up to do, so I wouldn't put too much stock in my opinion.
Umfuld, thanks for your response.
Actually, Umfuld has a valid question getting lost in all the noise. Should hetero couples who don't intend (or cannot) have children be allowed to get married or not?
Very interesting attitudes displayed here.I actually have two friends, both from Eastern Europe, one is gay and the other straight (they don't live in the same city). The straight one is very left wing in his views and also very homophobe...the gay fellow is a bit more conservative and supports gay marriage. This is not relevant but just interesting.
I really want to say I support gays cause that leaves more women for us. :rotfl:
I also must confess that I am in fact, a lesbian.
Sorry again. :oops:
Lighten up guys.
Actually, Umfuld has a valid question getting lost in all the noise. Should hetero couples who don't intend (or cannot) have children be allowed to get married or not?
Well, yes Joe. Mainly because it would be impossible for any government to ever prove a couples true intent or ability to have children. Making it even more difficult is that both intent and ability can change over time and advances in medical science.
For example, should permission to marry be denied based on an 18 year olds intent? For how long would such a denial be in effect? How would the government handle a bad diagnosis either way? People can have children regardless of matrimonial status so what about accidental pregnancies among people who have declared their intent not to reproduce? What about people that said they did intend to have children but then used birth control to prevent a pregnancy? Could a child of parents that were denied the ability to marry be able to sue the government that issued the denial because it hurt his or her chances for a good two parent home environment?
Bottom line here is no government can ever hope to effectively prohibit something it cannot either quantify or enforce. It would be the height of stupidity to even try.
He might as well have asked what if the government prohibited the sky from being blue on sunny days. Of course it goes without saying that any hope of creating a useful discussion on the subject went right out the window due to his rude and abrasive manner.
Hypothetically then. Yes or no? Why is it so hard to answer for you?
Edit: Not even hypothetically. What about a 90 year old man and a 90 year old woman. See, I'm not just tying to be a wang by repeatedly asking this question.
Here's what I hope you'll do. Consider telling that couple, the 90 year old man and 90 year old woman, who are both dying of cancer and want to be married before they die, that they can't get married because marrige is only meant for raising children (or for whatever reason you may have).
Think of the cruelty in that. That's what you are doing to every gay couple who want what everyone but them can have. I just want you to open your heart for a moment and think about what you are arguing against. Forget that you're just on the internet killing time, and saying whatever may pop into your head.
Think about what you are saying, and why, REALLY WHY, you want to deny these people the dignity of marriage.
It's the 21 century, you know? This kind of discrimination will end eventually. It always does. Why are you fighting against what is so clearly right? Why?
You say marraige has always been this or that. Well, not really. Marriage has always meant different things at different times, and places. Even in the West, a wife was considered more or less a piece of property. In fact, the legal definition of rape (since you are so keen on definitions) used to indicate that no wife could ever claim her husband raped her.
This was the law in the U.S not too long ago. A man had the right to take his wife by force, legally. And there was nothing she could do about it.
This definition was changed. Just as impling marriage is the sole province of a man and woman couple will be changed, eventually.
Why do you want to tell that 90 year old couple on their death beds that they can't be wed? Why do you want to tell any two human beings they can't be wed? Really? Why?
Konovalov
06-07-06, 12:12 PM
Umfuld, thanks for your response.
Actually, Umfuld has a valid question getting lost in all the noise. Should hetero couples who don't intend (or cannot) have children be allowed to get married or not?
Very interesting attitudes displayed here.I actually have two friends, both from Eastern Europe, one is gay and the other straight (they don't live in the same city). The straight one is very left wing in his views and also very homophobe...the gay fellow is a bit more conservative and supports gay marriage. This is not relevant but just interesting.
I really want to say I support gays cause that leaves more women for us. :rotfl:
I also must confess that I am in fact, a lesbian.
Sorry again. :oops:
Lighten up guys.
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: You crazy girl, ah.... I mean guy. :up:
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: You crazy girl, ah.... I mean guy. :up:
I too have always felt like a lesbian trapped in a mans body.
Bada boom chish.
PeriscopeDepth
06-07-06, 04:08 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/06/dobbs.june7/index.html
You guys do know I was joking...I am not a gay woman but a straight man. :o
Ok, I like the same things as a lipstick lesbian seeking butch lesbian. I am very masculine, I only play gritty WWII games and dislike quiche and drinks with umbrellas (well I like Long Island Iced Tea, and the YMCA song by the Village People....but that's it).
Think of the song "Macho Man" by the Village People and you'll get what this forum should be...
NO NO NO...scratch that.:arrgh!:
Where is Graham Chapman to shut this thread down?
bradclark1
06-07-06, 06:35 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/06/dobbs.june7/index.html
Here, Here :up:
(Just trying to get my count up.)
Subnuts
06-07-06, 07:17 PM
Good riddance, I think this non-issue has finally been driven into the ground. Couldn't have come at a better time, too!
I usually find Lou Dobbs to be a bit of an obtuse jerk, but I actually agree with him here. Then again, I've agreed with just about everyone at least once. I can name a half dozen bigger fish that need frying right now. :down:
SUBMAN1
06-07-06, 09:28 PM
Its a major issue. You are talking about the very fabric that hold society together. To destroy that fabric, without getting into detail, you destroy the society.
Go ask the Romans and Greeks - took the Romans 1000 years to accomplish what the US will do in 250 years. Gays trying to marry is part of their downfall since it represents their society falling apart. What it eventually leads to, this and other things, is a country (or republic or empire for that matter) that no one is willing to fight for. This is just one part of the puzzle however. Another is a here now attitude vs. leaving something for your children, etc. But this isn't of course happening to the US (Choke!...Sarcasm!)! This time, it will not be the Germanic tribes walking across our borders....
But of course, you can never tell what is going to happen in the future by studying the past (Sarcasm...choke...choke!)!
-S
SUBMAN1
06-07-06, 09:33 PM
PS. One more thing (excuse the lang!). Nature usually corrects its f*ck ups. It will do it one more time.
Ducimus
06-07-06, 09:51 PM
Whatever posssed me to start this thread i have no idea.
http://battleangel.org/gfx/clipart2/demons_stupidity.gif
EDIT: not gonna bump this thread, but i coudlnt resist posting these:
http://cagle.msnbc.com/news/GayMarriageBan/images/sherffius21.jpg
http://cagle.msnbc.com/news/GayMarriageBan/images/arial.gif
http://cagle.msnbc.com/news/GayMarriageBan/images/marlette.gif
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.