100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Labeling Pro-Marriage Groups as 'Hateful' Must End | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
IF the objective is equal 'rights' let the contract reflect those issues without regard to sex Unfortunately, as Red pointed out, the marriage contract isn't simply defined by the agreement between the two people, it is also defined by many existing laws on the books. We can't give gays the ability to have the same contract without either (a) using the word marriage or (b)radically rewriting our laws. marriage is a contract which assumes a sexual relationship, This is simply false. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
when did marriage become a 'right'? if it is a 'right' why does it have ANY limitations on it? such as familial relationship or marital status? by definition, if it involves a CONTRACT it is not a 'right' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. You can have whatever beliefs you want. You are free to do so just as others are free to believe differently. What immorality do I have? How am I trying to corrupt the minds of young people? 2. You do the same. 3. We're talking about consenting adult humans, not animals. Bestiality has nothing to do with the discussion. 4. I answered your questions. Now perhaps you'll actually answer the questions I asked in the previous post. Can you tell us why you attack people who believe differently than you do? Does your religion tell you that's what you're supposed to do? Are you supposed to put them down for not believing the same way? You have attacked me and assumed I am gay simply for disagreeing with you. You have been completely disrespectful. I'd hate to see how you attack someone who is actually gay. 1. Amoral people do not see their immorality. Yet you replied with a question, so expect the same. 2. Hypocrite. You give lip service and then do the same thing again. 3. It concerns an adult, is their pursuit of life, liberty and happiness less worthy of anyone else’s? Try not to parrot someone else’s answer. 4. No you did not. You asked questions of my questions. When you can supply answers I will. Why do you instigate attacks on people who believe differently than you do? Did you instigate an attack on me and put me down because I believe differently than you do? What has religion got to do with it? You completely disrespected me ini your instigative attack, why should you be shown respect? Once again you disrespect someone else with your pseudo assumptions. You are simply an instigator and if you don’t like being burned, don’t play with fire. In other words, quit whining because you get the same respect you dished out. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IF the objective is equal 'rights' let the contract reflect those issues without regard to sex Unfortunately, as Red pointed out, the marriage contract isn't simply defined by the agreement between the two people, it is also defined by many existing laws on the books. We can't give gays the ability to have the same contract without either (a) using the word marriage or (b)radically rewriting our laws. marriage is a contract which assumes a sexual relationship, This is simply false. we dont have to 'radically' rewrite anything anywhere we now use the term 'married' we can also include the option of 'engaged in civil union' not really that hard at all and marriage does assume a sexual relationship or else ADULTERY wouldnt be grounds for divorce,,,nor failure to consummate grounds for annulment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Many in the anti-gay crowd don't even realize how they have internalized a hateful position. Many in the pro-same-gender-marriage crowd don't even realize how they are projecting hate onto people who aren't hating. I agree, but just because you don't feel animus doesn't mean you aren't engaged in a hateful act. Consider white slave owners. Many didn't feel hatred towards black people any more than you might feel hatred towards your dog; many told themselves that they loved their slaves. And yet, they embraced and propagated social institutions that were 'hateful'. Many fundamentalists who think that gay people should be 2nd class citizens are engaged in a hateful act. Gays and activists are right to call them out on it. gays are male and female, they arent second class, nor are they SPECIAL they should be afforded any rights other males and females are afforded their BEHAVIOR is acceptable for some and not for others, but it is still their business and their CHOICE they should have every RIGHT to choose their sexual behavior that heterosexuals have,, and they do however, that doesnt mean they earn a special privilege of bypassing the gender nature of marriage Im an 'activist' for civil unions, which can include all the privileges of a marriage I wonder why so many still would not find that sufficient when they claim it is about equal 'rights'? "The gender nature of marriage". That's just how it is, and we can prove it cause 'children'. Marriage is just 'like that'. Forget that sterile and celibate people can adopt. Forget that not all married people have children, and yet really want to get married, and that childless hetero people get a lot of value out of being married. The 'gender nature of marriage' is just...how it is! But why? Really, why? Why is marriage naturally between a man and a woman, only? Why do I see loving, functional, gay couples doing a far better job at raising their children than most heteros? Why are so many married childless couples happier than unmarried childless couples? There is no 'gender nature of marriage'. Marriage serves many purposes. To even *think* that there is an intrinsic, absolute 'gender nature of marriage' is an act of diminishing gay people. This closely parallels the racist justifications for slavery just being 'how it is'. People had elaborate and detailed 'scientific' sounding justifications for their beliefs that slavery was natural. Its the functional nature of the races. It just is. Some slaves can have all kinds of personal liberty in their evening hours, and have all kinds of privileges with their white land owners, however, that doesnt mean they earn a special privilege of bypassing the natural order of things and stop being a slave. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
when did marriage become a 'right'? if it is a 'right' why does it have ANY limitations on it? such as familial relationship or marital status? by definition, if it involves a CONTRACT it is not a 'right' I have to 'block' the government from being in the business of VALIDATING and EXPECTING homosexual relations,,,sure do I dont have to BLOCK the government from granting adults who share their lives and assets or raise children from having equal 'rights' , regardless of sexual orientation or consideration of sexual relations I Want CIVIL Union, for family members who dont want to be married but who take on all the responsibilities together that a husband and wife would I want civil union, for homosexual couples who wish to have the same rights as heterosexuals who take on responsibilities together that a husband and wife would I want civil union, for friends and partners who will find it more beneficial and desirable to be joined as one LEGALLY responsible entity like husbands and wives are I dont want marriage to no longer be a husband and wife, and potential father and mother to children, which has and should hold a special place in society,,,, marriage involves a HUSBAND AND A WIFE,,the only reason to tamper with that is to FORCE acceptance and promotion of the PURELY physical and emotional choice to have homosexual relations which has no OTHER significance socially (unlike heterosexual relations which create LIVES) I dont have a problem with the equal rights, I have a problem with watering down marriage strictly on what people 'feel' or whom they 'love',, or else we have a whole pandoras box where we shouldnt be stopping ANY CONSENTING Adults from 'marrying' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Mon 08/27/12 12:00 PM
|
|
Many in the anti-gay crowd don't even realize how they have internalized a hateful position. Many in the pro-same-gender-marriage crowd don't even realize how they are projecting hate onto people who aren't hating. I agree, but just because you don't feel animus doesn't mean you aren't engaged in a hateful act. Consider white slave owners. Many didn't feel hatred towards black people any more than you might feel hatred towards your dog; many told themselves that they loved their slaves. And yet, they embraced and propagated social institutions that were 'hateful'. Many fundamentalists who think that gay people should be 2nd class citizens are engaged in a hateful act. Gays and activists are right to call them out on it. gays are male and female, they arent second class, nor are they SPECIAL they should be afforded any rights other males and females are afforded their BEHAVIOR is acceptable for some and not for others, but it is still their business and their CHOICE they should have every RIGHT to choose their sexual behavior that heterosexuals have,, and they do however, that doesnt mean they earn a special privilege of bypassing the gender nature of marriage Im an 'activist' for civil unions, which can include all the privileges of a marriage I wonder why so many still would not find that sufficient when they claim it is about equal 'rights'? "The gender nature of marriage". That's just how it is, and we can prove it cause 'children'. Marriage is just 'like that'. Forget that sterile and celibate people can adopt. Forget that not all married people have children, and yet really want to get married, and that childless hetero people get a lot of value out of being married. The 'gender nature of marriage' is just...how it is! But why? Really, why? Why is marriage naturally between a man and a woman, only? Why do I see loving, functional, gay couples doing a far better job at raising their children than most heteros? Why are so many married childless couples happier than unmarried childless couples? There is no 'gender nature of marriage'. Marriage serves many purposes. To even *think* that there is an intrinsic, absolute 'gender nature of marriage' is an act of diminishing gay people. This closely parallels the racist justifications for slavery just being 'how it is'. People had elaborate and detailed 'scientific' sounding justifications for their beliefs that slavery was natural. Its the functional nature of the races. It just is. Some slaves can have all kinds of personal liberty in their evening hours, and have all kinds of privileges with their white land owners, however, that doesnt mean they earn a special privilege of bypassing the natural order of things and stop being a slave. please dont compare homosexual BEHAVIOR with RACE u really dont want to take it there,,,, we can nitpick away any reason we want with the 'exceptions' for instance, why should we then stop siblings from marrying, because not every hetero couple has kids,,,RIGHT so therefore the potential impact on POSSIBLE creation of life should have no bearing on the marital guidelines ,, ,right? and why should we stop children from marrying adults, because I have seen many very young people doing a better job at raising their siblings than their parents do so therefore, biological age should have no bearing on marital guidelines right? ,,,,these are all smokescreen issues that try desperately to water down the very REALITY That we only exist because of HETEROSEXUAL UNIONS and as a way of promoting the continued commmitment between those couples we promote MARRIAGE for THOSE COUPLES,,,, we dont need to promote or support MARRIAGE for homosexual unions , although they should absolutely be each persons RIGHT to engage in such a RELATIONSHIP it shouldnt be the governments job to EQUATE That desire and its POTENTIAL affect on society with the 'natural' desire to PROCREATE with the opposite sex, and all we know about how children BENEFIT From having their father and mother in their lives, throughout their lives,,, if we speak of rights, lets light it up and give RIGHTS regardless of a chosen sexual behavior, based simply in an adults desire to share a life with another adult,,? |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Mon 08/27/12 01:00 PM
|
|
so, children are born through sex, heterosexual sex, and once created by HETEROSEXUALS, their best chance is to maintain that structure as a foundation throughout their life, so I dont think DIVORCE should be encouraged and in fact its pretty pricy and time consuming and DISCOURAGING, so that is no issue in this discussion I dont think HOMESEXUAL SEX should be encouraged either under the guise of redefining MARRIAGE to include it, there are other ways to address the rights of adults wishing to share their lives, or wishing to raise children, that do not require MARRIAGE to be addressed at all one is a matter of contract between adults to share legal liability(civil union) the other is a matter of contract with the government to undertake responsibility for children (guardianship) civil union should have the protections of marriage without an assumption or expectation for a sexual relationship So you are not in favor of making divorce illegal but you are in favor of making sex between homosexuals illegal or at the very least you simply want it to be something left in the closet and never spoken of. Isn't that how the overwhelelming prejudice and discrimination against gays developled in the first place? Isn't that what they want in Uganda where gays and lesbians fear for lives and safety? You know I remember a time when we didn't speak of homosexuality, outside of the disgusing, hateful terms. I remember friends who feared discoverey because even as an adult that person could be swept up and taken to place for the psychologically disturbed. Their rights taken from them via court order. That's what your kind of denial amounts to and then people question why there is hate toward the groups who insist on turning us into some kind of fiendish, unnatural, being who will destroy society, convert children, and bring God's wrath upon whole nations. It's good excuse for those politicians who claim climate change is a myth and that it's only God's wrath against homosexuals that's causing our current natural disasters. NOW THAT IS SCARY. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I dont think HOMESEXUAL SEX should be encouraged either under the guise of redefining MARRIAGE to include it, there are other ways to address the rights of adults wishing to share their lives, or wishing to raise children, that do not require MARRIAGE to be addressed at all one is a matter of contract between adults to share legal liability(civil union) the other is a matter of contract with the government to undertake responsibility for children (guardianship) civil union should have the protections of marriage without an assumption or expectation for a sexual relationship Guardianship rights should have the protections over their family that married couples have over theirs, with no regard to biological or sexual relationship So we can surmize that marriage by any other name can include all the same protections for children, property and its inheritance, social security & insurance benefits, medical and end of life decisions, legal entry of foreigners to be naturalized citizens when partnered with an American, and all of the other 1,000 laws - as long as the couple maintain seperate bedrooms. Is that correct? How do we assure that no sex is taking place in the privacy of - well, any room in the house? What has been indicated is that marriage is ONLY about sex while homosexual partnerships are about social acceptance, being involved in community affairs to make a better community for everyone, including children. Those partnerships are not about SEX, but about being an accepted part of a family, and legitimizing their role and the lives of any children they should raise. All the while, heterosexual marriage is all about the SEX. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
so I would never view any child as a BASTARD but there is no BENEFIT that extends from a MAN LAYING WITH A MAN, or a WOMAN LAYING WITH A WOMAN and no reason for the government to be involved with encouraging or supporting its maintenance neither has anything to do with potentially creating a life, or the effects that life will have as part of society,,, But the government supports extra-marrital sex and our of marriage conception. How is that better than supporting a same-gender couple who make the same monogamous committment and are very much want to adopt those children for whom heterosexual sex has failed to provided a loving family, and a secure home. About the only thing same-gendered couples have a problem with, when raising children, is the prejudice and discrimination that continues to undervalue the 'legitimate' and worthy act of raising children, which could be alleviated by marriage. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I might add, that no points were won in this thread for the side against ss marriage.  Oh? Just who is authorized to make such a judgement? So far it's the various Supreme Courts, in which some of the less obsurd arguments posted here, have lost in court. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
when did marriage become a 'right'? if it is a 'right' why does it have ANY limitations on it? such as familial relationship or marital status? by definition, if it involves a CONTRACT it is not a 'right' Either way, why are you trying to take the ability to marry away from gay people? I understand that you don't agree with it, but that's certainly not a reason to deny people the ability to marry. Not one person has been able to explain clearly how it affects their life in a way that is detrimental to them. its not an 'ability' , its a contract What a strange false dichotomy. Marriage involves a contract. There is a marriage contract. There is also the 'ability' to get married. The existence of a marriage contract in no way impacts the meaning of validity of the statement you are responding to. The existence of a marriage contract doesn't change the fact that some have the ability to get married, and some do not. Many people also have the worldview that ability to get married is also a right. The existence of a marriage contract in no way reduces the merit of this point of view. IM all for a contract that takes no consideration of sexual relations, but affords the same 'rights' in the eyes of the law So you just don't want that contract to carry the label 'marriage' ? exactly IF the objective is equal 'rights' let the contract reflect those issues without regard to sex marriage is a contract which assumes a sexual relationship,,governments encouraging those involved in heterosexual relationships to commit to each other has sound reasoning (potential new lives) encouraging those involved in homosexual relationships to commit doesnt have any sound basis besides forcing acceptance and validity of a sexual CHOICE that has no social significance,,, You don't think that homosexuals can commit to each other in a marriage just like straight couples? Or should be able to do so? Why is that? Simply because they're not able to have children? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
when did marriage become a 'right'? if it is a 'right' why does it have ANY limitations on it? such as familial relationship or marital status? by definition, if it involves a CONTRACT it is not a 'right' The laws associated with marriage are a right (equal protection/Constitution) - if there is no reason that same-gendered couples cannot marry, then they are being denied their right to enter into a contract through which they would gain access to the laws associatd with marriage. So far no person or group has set forth an argument that qualifies as a reasonable claim against same-sex marriage. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. You can have whatever beliefs you want. You are free to do so just as others are free to believe differently. What immorality do I have? How am I trying to corrupt the minds of young people? 2. You do the same. 3. We're talking about consenting adult humans, not animals. Bestiality has nothing to do with the discussion. 4. I answered your questions. Now perhaps you'll actually answer the questions I asked in the previous post. Can you tell us why you attack people who believe differently than you do? Does your religion tell you that's what you're supposed to do? Are you supposed to put them down for not believing the same way? You have attacked me and assumed I am gay simply for disagreeing with you. You have been completely disrespectful. I'd hate to see how you attack someone who is actually gay. 1. Amoral people do not see their immorality. Yet you replied with a question, so expect the same. 2. Hypocrite. You give lip service and then do the same thing again. 3. It concerns an adult, is their pursuit of life, liberty and happiness less worthy of anyone else’s? Try not to parrot someone else’s answer. 4. No you did not. You asked questions of my questions. When you can supply answers I will. Why do you instigate attacks on people who believe differently than you do? Did you instigate an attack on me and put me down because I believe differently than you do? What has religion got to do with it? You completely disrespected me ini your instigative attack, why should you be shown respect? Once again you disrespect someone else with your pseudo assumptions. You are simply an instigator and if you don’t like being burned, don’t play with fire. In other words, quit whining because you get the same respect you dished out. I am not attacking you. You are free to believe as you want. You've been quite nasty to me and I was actually surprised to see that coming from you. You brought religion into this and went on about how I was an abomination to the lord because of what I believed. I'd quote the post you said that in, but it has been edited. If you're unable to answer questions and have an adult discussion, then there's no reason to say anything more. If you decide you can handle the conversation, please do go back and answer the questions I asked. You made accusations and I asked you about them. You have refused to answer. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Many in the anti-gay crowd don't even realize how they have internalized a hateful position. Many in the pro-same-gender-marriage crowd don't even realize how they are projecting hate onto people who aren't hating. I agree, but just because you don't feel animus doesn't mean you aren't engaged in a hateful act. Consider white slave owners. Many didn't feel hatred towards black people any more than you might feel hatred towards your dog; many told themselves that they loved their slaves. And yet, they embraced and propagated social institutions that were 'hateful'. Many fundamentalists who think that gay people should be 2nd class citizens are engaged in a hateful act. Gays and activists are right to call them out on it. gays are male and female, they arent second class, nor are they SPECIAL they should be afforded any rights other males and females are afforded their BEHAVIOR is acceptable for some and not for others, but it is still their business and their CHOICE they should have every RIGHT to choose their sexual behavior that heterosexuals have,, and they do however, that doesnt mean they earn a special privilege of bypassing the gender nature of marriage Im an 'activist' for civil unions, which can include all the privileges of a marriage I wonder why so many still would not find that sufficient when they claim it is about equal 'rights'? "The gender nature of marriage". That's just how it is, and we can prove it cause 'children'. Marriage is just 'like that'. Forget that sterile and celibate people can adopt. Forget that not all married people have children, and yet really want to get married, and that childless hetero people get a lot of value out of being married. The 'gender nature of marriage' is just...how it is! But why? Really, why? Why is marriage naturally between a man and a woman, only? Why do I see loving, functional, gay couples doing a far better job at raising their children than most heteros? Why are so many married childless couples happier than unmarried childless couples? There is no 'gender nature of marriage'. Marriage serves many purposes. To even *think* that there is an intrinsic, absolute 'gender nature of marriage' is an act of diminishing gay people. This closely parallels the racist justifications for slavery just being 'how it is'. People had elaborate and detailed 'scientific' sounding justifications for their beliefs that slavery was natural. Its the functional nature of the races. It just is. Some slaves can have all kinds of personal liberty in their evening hours, and have all kinds of privileges with their white land owners, however, that doesnt mean they earn a special privilege of bypassing the natural order of things and stop being a slave. please dont compare homosexual BEHAVIOR with RACE u really dont want to take it there,,,, we can nitpick away any reason we want with the 'exceptions' for instance, why should we then stop siblings from marrying, because not every hetero couple has kids,,,RIGHT so therefore the potential impact on POSSIBLE creation of life should have no bearing on the marital guidelines ,, ,right? and why should we stop children from marrying adults, because I have seen many very young people doing a better job at raising their siblings than their parents do so therefore, biological age should have no bearing on marital guidelines right? ,,,,these are all smokescreen issues that try desperately to water down the very REALITY That we only exist because of HETEROSEXUAL UNIONS and as a way of promoting the continued commmitment between those couples we promote MARRIAGE for THOSE COUPLES,,,, we dont need to promote or support MARRIAGE for homosexual unions , although they should absolutely be each persons RIGHT to engage in such a RELATIONSHIP it shouldnt be the governments job to EQUATE That desire and its POTENTIAL affect on society with the 'natural' desire to PROCREATE with the opposite sex, and all we know about how children BENEFIT From having their father and mother in their lives, throughout their lives,,, if we speak of rights, lets light it up and give RIGHTS regardless of a chosen sexual behavior, based simply in an adults desire to share a life with another adult,,? This discussion can absolutely parallel with racial discussions. People tried to ban interracial marriage in the past, which is very similar to what they're trying to do with same sex marriage. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just dont support the insane attempt to completely ELIMINATE any aknowledgement of the different potential impact a homosexual union has on society than a heterosexual union That seems to be the biggest problem - no one has been able to come up with some reasonable examples of any detrimental effects of ss marraige on heterosexual marriage or on society. Reasonble being the key word as defined by the Supreme Court. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This closely parallels the racist justifications for slavery just being 'how it is'. People had elaborate and detailed 'scientific' sounding justifications for their beliefs that slavery was natural. Its the functional nature of the races. It just is. Some slaves can have all kinds of personal liberty in their evening hours, and have all kinds of privileges with their white land owners, however, that doesnt mean they earn a special privilege of bypassing the natural order of things and stop being a slave. please dont compare homosexual BEHAVIOR with RACE You seem to be missing the point. Homosexuals and black people are just two groups of many that have been effected by harmful mainstream cultural beliefs. I'm trying to shed a light on those harmful beliefs, their origins, their similarities. Slavery is perfect for this purpose because today everybody know s that keeping black people as slaves was wrong. Yet 300 years ago pretty much all white people in those regions thought they knew that it was morally right, and they had wonderful sounding rationalizations for it. Some of the anti-gay arguments today sound surprisingly similar to the 'blacks should be slaves' arguments from long ago. It's even interesting that you bring up behavior vs race. Are you saying that because black people didn't CHOOSE to be so, while some homosexuals choose to engage in homosexual behavior, that therefore it is okay to propagate social beliefs that harm homosexuals? I hope you aren't saying that they 'deserve it' because of their 'choice'. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just dont support the insane attempt to completely ELIMINATE any aknowledgement of the different potential impact a homosexual union has on society than a heterosexual union That seems to be the biggest problem - no one has been able to come up with some reasonable examples of any detrimental effects of ss marraige on heterosexual marriage or on society. Reasonble being the key word as defined by the Supreme Court. You'd think that with so many people being against same sex marriage that at least some of them would be able to come up with reasons why it's detrimental to heterosexual marriage. No one has been able to do that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One reason for the aversion to same-gender marriage is a belief that marriage is an institution with a religious origin. That is why I suggested earlier that the government have nothing to do with marriage, that the government recognize civil unions only.
Homosexual couples could get all of the government benefits that they want through civil unions. Leave marriage to religious organizations. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am not attacking you. You are free to believe as you want. You've been quite nasty to me and I was actually surprised to see that coming from you. You brought religion into this and went on about how I was an abomination to the lord because of what I believed. I'd quote the post you said that in, but it has been edited. If you're unable to answer questions and have an adult discussion, then there's no reason to say anything more. If you decide you can handle the conversation, please do go back and answer the questions I asked. You made accusations and I asked you about them. You have refused to answer. 
|
|
|
|
|
