Gay Marriage

Gauz wrote:Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but when your opinion is something like "I don't think two people in love should get married because they're both male/female" then that's not very nice.

May I ask how this is relevant whatsoever to Civ's point?

Gauz wrote:Maybe Chick-Fil-A should just separate religion and business. Religion has no place in a fast food joint, and if they cut it out they wouldn't be in this mess now. Instead the CEO actively funded anti-gay groups who are intent on making gay marriage/partnership illegal.

Because no organization has ever funded radical secular groups, amirite? You are exactly the kind of person Civ was talking about, who is trying to blow this out of proportion. The CEO of CFA donated to an anti-gay group. Good for him. If you have a problem with it, you can boycott the restaurant. But pretending like CFA is a religious organization or somehow mixes religion with business is ridiculous and ignorant.

Gauz wrote:I personally would never give my money to an establishment that would do such a terrible thing. I never really though that food would take a side in a political issue...

Again, you're blowing things out of proportion and singling out CFA for something that I highly doubt is an isolated practice.

Gauz wrote:More like bigtree under the cover of a political disagreement.
Why?
Because if there wasn't bigtree about it there wouldn't be a political disagreement in the first place.

You don't like gays so you make a political disagreement so they can't marry.

You don't mind gays so you make a poli- oh wait you wouldn't because you don't give a shit.

If you're not going to bother forming rational opinions, please don't bother posting in the debate section. This is a section where we discuss things, not practice our use of fallacies. The first two are a non sequitur, and the last two are a strawman. Both really poorly executed, I might add.

Gauz wrote:I didn't say hate Civ.

His point stands. You are baiting and switching disagreement with dislike. These things are not the same.

Gauz wrote:bigtree - stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

Of everyone currently posting in this thread, this best describes your opinion of the anti-gay movement, made obvious by the absolute lack of respect you display, as well as the horribly overt fallacies you try to use to justify it. Civ and myself do not dislike gay people. We simply disagree with gay marriage.

Gauz wrote:Saying my post is bigtree incarnate is a little excessive.

Hardly. You are stubbornly and completely intolerant of the anti-gay movement simply because their opinion differs from yours.

Gauz wrote:I just don't see any other reason for disagreeing with moforexual marriage. If two people are in love, why would you disagree with their love and disagree that they have a right to join each other in union?

That's a slippery slope, Gauz. What of incest? What of NAMBLA? Are you saying that we have no right to keep these people from joining one another in union, as well? If perceived "love" is really all it takes, then we really can't draw a line anywhere.

Gauz wrote:The bible is NOT a reason. The passages about homosexuality is really vague and subjective to ones own interpretation. Not to mention outdated.

The first support is wholly inaccurate, and represents that you didn't bother to look it up and are just vomiting something you read on some pro-gay website. The second clearly represents your lack of respect for your opponent.

Gauz wrote:People aren't upset with EVERYONE in Chick-Fil-A, just the people who support the anti-gay agenda of their CEO. The only one who is doing that though is the CEO, who controls the whole operation. So the only person people are mad at is the CEO (I think).

You do realize that the CEO has very little control of the everyday machinations of his employees, right? He controls how the money is spent, and overarching company policy, but he doesn't directly control every store like you seem to like to pretend. Moreover, with exception of donating to a group that happens to oppose the gay marriage movement, he has not implemented any anti-gay policies within the franchise itself. You stated that CFA should separate religion and business as though the entire franchise was inherently anti-gay.

Gauz wrote:Marriage is actually a legal contract and a civil union now. It can be ABOUT religion, but it doesn't have to be.

Something that you'll see the rational opponents of gay marriage dispute. I'm pretty sure just about everyone in this thread who has stated opposition to gay marriage has similarly stated a desire to entirely separate marriage from government civil unions.

Gauz wrote:Besides, there are things worse than gays that are going to destroy the "sanctity" of marriage.

Because two wrongs obviously makes a right? Please take your red herring elsewhere.

Gauz wrote:Oh and if anyone genuinely believes that love can't exist between two people of the same sex they can kindly go bleep themselves. I can tell you right now from personal experience that you can, and how would you even come up with the idea that you can't in the first place?

I would argue that most people have no fucking idea what "love" actually is. I would certainly argue that many heterosexual couples have not bothered to find love, either.

Gauz wrote:I'm not going to argue religion, but the views on homosexuality in the bible ARE convoluted.

You really shouldn't argue religion, because you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Convoluted how, exactly? The only thing convoluted are these new interpretations.

Leviticus 18 wrote:²²Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.

Leviticus 20 wrote:¹³If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Both of these are extremely clear.

Romans 1 wrote:²⁶Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. ²⁷In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Which is more convoluted, Gauz? That this refers to homosexuality as perverse, or that it's actually saying that "these heterosexually-oriented men just "gave up," and the heterosexually-oriented women finally decided to "exchange" what seemed natural and just basically said, "Let's have sex," without exercising faith in a loving God who would bring them one man and one woman that they could honorably marry."

So let's see you support this statement, Gauz? And don't bother citing anything in the Wikipedia article, because I've read it all, and you'll be grasping at straws if you use it here.

Gauz wrote:What isn't convoluted however is the most pervasive message in the bible about love. I'm hardly a religious person, but the Jesus that everyone knows had one message and it was about love.

More bait and switch. The Bible instructs us to love everyone. It does not instruct us to allow everyone to do as they please. We are to hate the sins, not the sinners, in the manner that a mother might hate that her son is a crackhead while still loving her son. Taking action to prevent her son from using drugs does not equate to her hating her son, even if it might seem that way to him. In the same way, we do not hate homosexuals, but we do hate the sin of homosexuality.

Gauz wrote:Well alright.

My final point would have to be that... letting homosexuals marry won't change anything, so just let them anyway.

Here's a nice, humorous, list why:

Where the word "humorous" here is used to refer to "fallacious".

Gauz wrote:1. It’s Not Natural
Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

Bait and switch. Everyone here knows that the use of the term "unnatural" when referring to homosexuality is different from the use of "unnatural" to refer to man-made things. If you are going to oppose this point, you should also support both incest (which is similarly considered unnatural) and pedophilia (so long as the parents consent).

Gauz wrote:2. Other People Will Be Gay
Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

Non sequitur. You jump from a behavior (homosexuality) to a physical trait (being tall). These things are not comparable in this manner. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay in the same way that divorce encourages wanton marriage or in the same way that contraceptives encourage people to have wanton sex.

Gauz wrote:3. It Will Lead To Other Crazy Behavior
Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

Because we have never redefined who does and does not have legal standing? Oh, that's right, we have. That aside, I find it funny that, when arguing against a slipper slope, you choose the most extreme example. Why not mention things like incest, which are far more likely to come next?

Gauz wrote:4. Marraige Isn’t Open To Change
Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all. Women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

Strawman. You've changed the phrase "shouldn't be" to "isn't". Though, how the first two of your three examples is relevant to your point is beyond me. The former refers to abuse of specific passages of the Bible without regard to other passages, and the latter was entirely a secular institution, as the Bible has very little to say about interracial marriage (the proponents therein grasp at straws nearly as hard as those who argue that the Bible is convoluted regarding homosexuality).

Gauz wrote:5. The Sanctity of Marriage Will Be Broken
Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed. The sanctity of Britney Spears’ 55-hour-just-for-fun and Kim Kardashian’s 72-day-highly-profitable marriage would be destroyed.

Again, do two wrongs make a right? Just another reason that we want marriage to be separated from civil unions. Gay marriage is just one example of secular abuse of marriage.

Gauz wrote:6. Marriage Should Produce Children
Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.

More bait and switch. We argue that homosexuality is unnatural because it is wholly incapable of producing offspring. I would also argue that sodomy as a whole, whether moforexual or not, is unnatural. No one argues that a prerequisite of marriage is to be able to have children, but the manner in which you have sex should be possible to create offspring as a whole, even if your body happens to be infertile.

Gauz wrote:7. Gay Parents = Gay Kids
Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

This is just a stupid point. I wonder what percentage of straight parents raise straight children, considering the massive majority that heterosexuality holds over homosexuality? And even if Paul Cameron's study was biased, that does not mean the conclusion he reaches was inherently wrong, just that his study was not evidence of such. Schumm's study wasn't ideologically based, and Schumm himself actually supports gay couples adopting, but even he admits that gay parents are more likely to raise gay children.

Gauz wrote:8. It Is Not Supported By Religion
Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.

While this point is valid, it is essentially a strawman, because, again, those in this thread have proposed separating the secular institution of civil union from the religious institution of marriage such that anyone can get a civil union, which is recognized by the government and provides tax breaks and adoption rights and such, and marriage is just something you do in a church, like baptism, which is not recognized by the government, holds no government benefits, etc.

Gauz wrote:9. A Male And Female Role Model Is Required
Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressively forbid single parents to raise children.

We don't forbid it, but we certainly frown on people who intend to be single parents from the start. The children of single parents are typically more likely to be unstable.

Gauz wrote:10. It Will Change the Foundation Of Society
Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. We could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the downfall economy, or longer life spans.

Again, this is a strawman. Religious people argue that gay marriage will negatively affect the foundation of society, not simply change it. There is a pretty significant difference between the two.

KrAzY wrote:I'm tired of buzz words being used on both sides of this debate, so I just made things a bit more difficult for everyone

I appreciate the sentiment, but the "buzz words" you've censored are kind of required. Well, except bigtree. I don't particularly mind that censor.

bigtree was the biggest one thats been pissing me off. been seeing that word used CONSTATNLY the last couple of weeks. and the people using it are usually being just as bigulted if not more-so than the ones they are calling bigulted

the rest were really just to see what would happen in this debate




how did you bypass the filters Rot o_o

undid the filters though, Rot is right in that a lot of the words I changed were nessicary... amongst them being gay and mortgage... which the thread is about

The list isn't my own... and you're scrutinizing it too hard..

And i'm going to stop with the 'debate' because I wont convince anyone obviously, and I won't be convinced of anything either.

Sorry for being abrasive but this is something that will affect my personal life.

I still think it's rude to not let gays marry though.

Rot wrote:We simply disagree with gay marriage.

So... without any bullshit... If your best friend turned out to be gay and he wanted to marry another man because he loved him. You wouldnt support him?

Rot wrote:
Something that you'll see the rational opponents of gay marriage dispute. I'm pretty sure just about everyone in this thread who has stated opposition to gay marriage has similarly stated a desire to entirely separate marriage from government civil unions.

Uh... no. Thats bad. And kinda segregation. Giving them a different word will just keep the homophobic tendencies the same. Look in the past with Black and Whites. Yeah the blacks were free n shit, but the whites kept a wall between themselves... White/Black bathrooms, whites cant marry blacks, and shit like that. This separation kept racism strong. But now after the equal rights movements thats changed. Yeah, you'll say "But there's still racism!" But its a helluva lot lower than it used to be. Especially in our generation. Now bringing this back to the beginning having gay marriage and straight marriage just marriage will be a nice step closer to lowering homophobia.

Rot wrote:

Gauz wrote:Oh and if anyone genuinely believes that love can't exist between two people of the same sex they can kindly go bleep themselves. I can tell you right now from personal experience that you can, and how would you even come up with the idea that you can't in the first place?

I would argue that most people have no fucking idea what "love" actually is.

You better watch yourself. I know what youre inferring asshole.

Rot wrote:
Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay in the same way that divorce encourages wanton marriage or in the same way that contraceptives encourage people to have wanton sex.

Then why are you not against divorce? or sex for that matter?

Legalizing gay marriage will encourage people currently in the closet to come out and feel more comfortable with themselves, which will "increase" the amount of gays. and all that shit happens with regular marriage will happen with gay too. But its not a reason to disagree with it.

Rot wrote:
This is just a stupid point. I wonder what percentage of straight parents raise straight children, considering the massive majority that heterosexuality holds over homosexuality? And even if Paul Cameron's study was biased, that does not mean the conclusion he reaches was inherently wrong, just that his study was not evidence of such. Schumm's study wasn't ideologically based, and Schumm himself actually supports gay couples adopting, but even he admits that gay parents are more likely to raise gay children.

What the real question people should be asking is how common homosexuality is. Then this argument might actually mean something...

Rot wrote:
marriage is just something you do in a church, like baptism, which is not recognized by the government, holds no government benefits, etc.

My good friend is getting married on a beach. So he cant say that he's part of a marriage?

Know what that doesn't really deserve a response..

Rot uses personal attacks, is a hypocrite, also says' really rude things.


And Bacon is awesome and I appreciate him.

KrAzY wrote:how did you bypass the filters Rot o_o

I use an obscure form of magik known as awesome.

Gauz wrote:The list isn't my own... and you're scrutinizing it too hard..

Then I will simply ask you to stop regurgitating bullshit from random radical websites.

Gauz wrote:And i'm going to stop with the 'debate' because I wont convince anyone obviously, and I won't be convinced of anything either.

Sorry for being abrasive but this is something that will affect my personal life.

I still think it's rude to not let gays marry though.

...did you read any of our arguments at all? No? I didn't think so.

Spekwyse wrote:So... without any bullshit... If your best friend turned out to be gay and he wanted to marry another man because he loved him. You wouldnt support him?

In the same way that if my best friend decided that he wanted to start smoking spice or drinking excessively, which is perfectly legal, I would not support him.

Spekwyse wrote:Uh... no. Thats bad. And kinda segregation. Giving them a different word will just keep the homophobic tendencies the same. Look in the past with Black and Whites. Yeah the blacks were free n shit, but the whites kept a wall between themselves... White/Black bathrooms, whites cant marry blacks, and shit like that. This separation kept racism strong. But now after the equal rights movements thats changed. Yeah, you'll say "But there's still racism!" But its a helluva lot lower than it used to be. Especially in our generation. Now bringing this back to the beginning having gay marriage and straight marriage just marriage will be a nice step closer to lowering homophobia.

You misunderstand. I want everyone to get civil unions. I want to remove the word "marriage" from the government institution altogether.

Spekwyse wrote:You better watch yourself. I know what youre inferring asshole.

There was nothing subtle about it. I do not believe that many people in today's society, regardless of orientation, have any idea what "love" is. The word is thrown around frequently, but I feel like it is frequently just a word that people say, not something that people mean or understand.

Spekwyse wrote:Then why are you not against divorce? or sex for that matter?

I am actually not particularly fond of divorce. I think that it is allowed far to leniently. People use divorce as a safety net and get married without regard to the consequences as a result. If it were harder to get divorce (for example, you had to prove that there had been cheating or abuse of some kind), I feel that people would be much more reserved about getting married.

And, frankly, I am a proponent of abstinence.

Spekwyse wrote:Legalizing gay marriage will encourage people currently in the closet to come out and feel more comfortable with themselves, which will "increase" the amount of gays. and all that shit happens with regular marriage will happen with gay too. But its not a reason to disagree with it.

I never said it was. I was simply correcting Gauz's fallacious analogy to be more appropriate. In the same way that I do not believe divorce or contraceptives should be illegal, I do not believe gay civil unions should be illegal, as it is not the government's job to make such decisions for people. I personally disagree with gay relations of any kind, and would like the government to stop using the word "marriage" to refer to the secular institution.

Spekwyse wrote:What the real question people should be asking is how common homosexuality is. Then this argument might actually mean something...

Again, I was not making an argument. I was simply pointing out Gauz's flagrant use of fallacy in his own arguments.

Spekwyse wrote:My good friend is getting married on a beach. So he cant say that he's part of a marriage?

He can say whatever he wants to say. I just don't think the government should hand out marriage licenses. I don't care what people call it, because I can't control what people call it. I just want the government to use a neutral term for everyone. If the government just stopped using the term "marriage" when referring to civil unions, it would eliminate almost all legitimate gripes with gay marriage.

Gauz wrote:Wait, what? I missed this skimming through rots post...

For one who talks about logical fallacies and so much you'd think you wouldn't be the kind of person to make personal attacks...

I'm not going to argue with you, I just hope you realize what you said is a vile thing Rot...

Thank you bacon, for standing up for me, I really appreciate it.

Cynical, perhaps, but vile? I'm not sure I follow.

Mka Rot well just some advice maybe, how about you stop with the whole being rude thing? Insulting people doesn't make you look more intelligent it just makes you look like a twat.

And I want civil unions to be called marriage.

not civil union, because I don't want to civil union the person I love. I want to marry them like everyone else can/does.

gauz, I think you should look at your own posts about the "being rude thing" considering you have had a personal insult in nearly EVERY post you have made the last 2 days. not just in this thread but the whole site


this doesn't just go for gauz... I understand this is a terse subject, but please don't insult each other

Rot wrote:

Spekwyse wrote:So... without any bullshit... If your best friend turned out to be gay and he wanted to marry another man because he loved him. You wouldnt support him?

In the same way that if my best friend decided that he wanted to start smoking spice or drinking excessively, which is perfectly legal, I would not support him.

Oh so youre straight edged. Now things are starting to make sense. But comparing gay marriage to habits that can be dangerous to your overall health is messed up.

Rot wrote:
You misunderstand. I want everyone to get civil unions. I want to remove the word "marriage" from the government institution altogether.

You know what will be easier to just get accepted??? Just calling the fucking thing marriage...

Rot wrote:
There was nothing subtle about it. I do not believe that many people in today's society, regardless of orientation, have any idea what "love" is. The word is thrown around frequently, but I feel like it is frequently just a word that people say, not something that people mean or understand.

You have no right to deem if someone's love for someone is true or not. The only person who has a say in the matter in the person who is in love. In you dont understand that, then you just a prick bro....

Rot wrote:
I am actually not particularly fond of divorce. I think that it is allowed far to leniently. People use divorce as a safety net and get married without regard to the consequences as a result. If it were harder to get divorce (for example, you had to prove that there had been cheating or abuse of some kind), I feel that people would be much more reserved about getting married.

yeah... i think you need to use "some people"

Rot wrote:
And, frankly, I am a proponent of abstinence.

Honest to Lord Pheonix question. Not making fun at all. Have you ever had the chance to break that? As in the girl/boy had her/his hand in your pants and you went "No i want to save it for marriage."

Rot wrote:
I never said it was. I was simply correcting Gauz's fallacious analogy to be more appropriate. In the same way that I do not believe divorce or contraceptives should be illegal, I do not believe gay civil unions should be illegal, as it is not the government's job to make such decisions for people. I personally disagree with gay relations of any kind, and would like the government to stop using the word "marriage" to refer to the secular institution.

=/

Rot wrote:
Again, I was not making an argument. I was simply pointing out Gauz's flagrant use of fallacy in his own arguments.

First I dont think he wrote that himself. Second you were countering the point made and i was stating that both opinions arent really a factor until we now the true percentage of homosexuality in the country.

Rot wrote:
He can say whatever he wants to say. I just don't think the government should hand out marriage licenses. I don't care what people call it, because I can't control what people call it. I just want the government to use a neutral term for everyone. If the government just stopped using the term "marriage" when referring to civil unions, it would eliminate almost all legitimate gripes with gay marriage.

oh heres a neutral term... Marriage! =O BUT WAIT calling civil unions marriages will change the meaning of my marriage to me! Oh wait it doesnt! =O

Gauz wrote:Wait, what? I missed this skimming through rots post...

For one who talks about logical fallacies and so much you'd think you wouldn't be the kind of person to make personal attacks...

I'm not going to argue with you, I just hope you realize what you said is a vile thing Rot...

I agree Gauz.

Gauz wrote:
Thank you bacon, for standing up for me, I really appreciate it.

Eh, its not a big deal. But no probs.

Rot wrote:
Cynical, perhaps, but vile? I'm not sure I follow.

You said that the feelings that Gauz felt for another person wasnt true. Which you know kinda makes you look like an ass. =/

While I am reluctant to post on this type of thread because of both it's subject matter and because it's location resides in the Debate section, I will anyway. But I simply wish to state my view and that is all. I do not wish to be apart of any pyramid debates. I will leave that to my good friend Bacon.

Anyway, you won't see me walking down the street with a sign or anything but, I support gay marriage. That's all I really have to say. I agree with what Bacon says and is doing. That's all I really wanna say, carry on. (I'm no good in these kind of subjects as reflected in this post. this is why i typically stay out of them)

An argument against gay marriage that makes some sense (imo) is the following:

Tax benefits and such granted to married couples may be have been put in place by the government to encourage production of families (and by extension, production of new members of the particular country raised in the society of the country and prepared to further economic growth in the distant).
Same-sex marriage has no chance of producing children. Therefore, same-sex marriage should not happen because same-sex doesn't need the benefits cause it doesn't give back in the form of children.

Problem: Many hetero marriages do not produce children either, fuckin' freeloaders; however, it is still more likely than a same-sex.

What could be done without making same-sex orientation a second class group that doesn't have right to marry, do family stuff, ect, would be to allow for having people be your spouse through the government (not through religious marriage, unless part of a religion that is okay with that; there probably is one somewhere) and have that count for like everything that being married does except the incentives-to-get-married-and-have-a-family.

Is this 'fair' to gay couples? no, because they don't have equal marriage standing as straights. but it makes sense considering what IMO marriage tax stuff should be FOR. if it's for something else, then either axe it on the straight end or give it to everyone.

_____

It may/maynot be worth noting that I currently neither support or am against same-sex marriage. I'm still deciding.

BBJynne wrote:An argument against gay marriage that makes some sense (imo) is the following:

Tax benefits and such granted to married couples may be have been put in place by the government to encourage production of families (and by extension, production of new members of the particular country raised in the society of the country and prepared to further economic growth in the distant).
Same-sex marriage has no chance of producing children. Therefore, same-sex marriage should not happen because same-sex doesn't need the benefits cause it doesn't give back in the form of children.

Problem: Many hetero marriages do not produce children either, fuckin' freeloaders; however, it is still more likely than a same-sex.

What could be done without making same-sex orientation a second class group that doesn't have right to marry, do family stuff, ect, would be to allow for having people be your spouse through the government (not through religious marriage, unless part of a religion that is okay with that; there probably is one somewhere) and have that count for like everything that being married does except the incentives-to-get-married-and-have-a-family.

Is this 'fair' to gay couples? no, because they don't have equal marriage standing as straights. but it makes sense considering what IMO marriage tax stuff should be FOR. if it's for something else, then either axe it on the straight end or give it to everyone.

_____

It may/maynot be worth noting that I currently neither support or am against same-sex marriage. I'm still deciding.

America's population has skyrocketed and we already have problems of over population. I graduated highschool in a class of 600.


We should be wanting LESS children so your argument says we should start giving incentives to gays because they apparently never adopt children or anything.

Same-sex marriage can produce children through a surrogate.

Never say never!

Spekwyse wrote:

Rot wrote:We simply disagree with gay marriage.

So... without any bullshit... If your best friend turned out to be gay and he wanted to marry another man because he loved him. You wouldnt support him?

I wouldn't really support the relationship to begin with, although I wouldn't do anything to try and stop it. As a friend, I would want the best for him/her and I honestly do not believe a homosexual relationship could ever fall in that category. However, it's not wise to confront others' decisions when they don't affect you.

I would hope, though, that my friend would respect my ideology as much as I respect his and that the difference would not cause any problems.

CivBase wrote:As a friend, I would want the best for him/her and I honestly do not believe a homosexual relationship could ever fall in that category.

And why not?

Angatar wrote:

CivBase wrote:As a friend, I would want the best for him/her and I honestly do not believe a homosexual relationship could ever fall in that category.

And why not?

That's just my part of my beliefs. Let's stay away from the religion debate.

Spekwyse wrote:

Rot wrote:
There was nothing subtle about it. I do not believe that many people in today's society, regardless of orientation, have any idea what "love" is. The word is thrown around frequently, but I feel like it is frequently just a word that people say, not something that people mean or understand.

You have no right to deem if someone's love for someone is true or not. The only person who has a say in the matter in the person who is in love. In you dont understand that, then you just a prick bro....

Well...

Right, Rot does not have the right to judge whether or not someone's love is true. However, someone also cannot judge whether or not someone's love is true if they do not know what love is. Rot isn't so much saying that someone's love isn't love, but that the person in question probably doesn't know what love is.

Spekwyse wrote:

Rot wrote:
And, frankly, I am a proponent of abstinence.

Honest to Lord Pheonix question. Not making fun at all. Have you ever had the chance to break that? As in the girl/boy had her/his hand in your pants and you went "No i want to save it for marriage."

Yup.

Spekwyse wrote:

Rot wrote:
He can say whatever he wants to say. I just don't think the government should hand out marriage licenses. I don't care what people call it, because I can't control what people call it. I just want the government to use a neutral term for everyone. If the government just stopped using the term "marriage" when referring to civil unions, it would eliminate almost all legitimate gripes with gay marriage.

oh heres a neutral term... Marriage! =O BUT WAIT calling civil unions marriages will change the meaning of my marriage to me! Oh wait it doesnt! =O

Marriage has two meanings at the moment. For the conflict to be resolved, either the government has to change their term, or every religion around the world has to change theirs.

This is where things go down the drain, though. It's just a semantic debate. Personally, I think the homosexual marriage movement would have a lot more luck if they pushed for civil unions before tackling the semantics. Get the cake baked before fighting about which color frosting to use.

Spekwyse wrote:

Rot wrote:Cynical, perhaps, but vile? I'm not sure I follow.

You said that the feelings that Gauz felt for another person wasnt true. Which you know kinda makes you look like an ass. =/

Ah... I didn't know that about Gauz. I guess that makes this debate much more personal for him, then. I hope you don't have any hard feelings Gauz. None of my arguments are aimed directly at you.

"Your happiness isn't real happiness since you don't do it the way I like"


Kind of a dick opinion.

Happiness =/= love, although there is a correlation. I believe this would be an example of reverse causation.

"Your love isn't real love since you don't do it the way I like"



Still a dick opinion.

CivBase wrote:
That's just my part of my beliefs. Let's stay away from the religion debate.

This is almost entirely a religious debate already, so please, explain yourself.

That is a dick opinion. It's not mine or Rot's, though.

Our opinion is that many people, perhaps even myself, do not know what real love is and often misidentify it.

Angatar wrote:

CivBase wrote:
That's just my part of my beliefs. Let's stay away from the religion debate.

This is almost entirely a religious debate already, so please, explain yourself.

It's not a religious debate, though. Nobody's criticizing anyone's fundamental religious beliefs.

Angatar wrote:

CivBase wrote:
That's just my part of my beliefs. Let's stay away from the religion debate.

This is almost entirely a religious debate already, so please, explain yourself.

He bases his life on a book made 2 centuries ago by a bunch of guys in the desert that followed around a pretty rad dude.


The book told him what his opinions are so he follows them.

Thank you, LP. Thank you.

Anytime buddy.

Gauz wrote:Mka Rot well just some advice maybe, how about you stop with the whole being rude thing? Insulting people doesn't make you look more intelligent it just makes you look like a twat.

Coming from the guy who busts into the thread, ignores all of the arguments, and then makes abrasive comments and insults at anyone with a particular viewpoint, that's rich.

Gauz wrote:And I want civil unions to be called marriage.

not civil union, because I don't want to civil union the person I love. I want to marry them like everyone else can/does.

Then call them marriage. Again, for the billionth time, I only take issue with what the government calls them. And, again, for the billionth time, I want the government to call everyone's a civil union. We've been up and down this debate maybe six or seven times due to necro, so I would think that my opinion on this matter would be really well established by now.

Spekwyse wrote:Oh so youre straight edged. Now things are starting to make sense. But comparing gay marriage to habits that can be dangerous to your overall health is messed up.

In my opinion, I believe that homosexuality is a mistake with deep repercussions. While it doesn't directly endanger your physical health, I believe it poses a threat to one's mental well being. I recognize that this is my personal opinion, and to each their own, but for me, homosexuality is more serious than, say, using a Mac. While I would similarly not support a friend in purchasing a Mac, the repercussions therein, from my perspective, are significantly lighter, and so I am not nearly as worried about it.

Spekwyse wrote:You know what will be easier to just get accepted??? Just calling the fucking thing marriage...

No, it would not. Do you realize what you're saying? You honestly think that it would be easier to give a vast majority of America, many of whom are very ignorant and very stubborn, the finger? You honestly think that if you just keep saying "fuck you" that people will warm up to you? Reality check: that's not going to work. Previous civil rights movements recognized that telling everyone to fuck off all at once wouldn't work, and instead were achieved through a series of smaller, slower changes. They chose realistic goals and worked towards them. That is what I have proposed: a realistic goal. One that is far, but which ultimately denies the opposition legitimate reasons to oppose the union of homosexuals who wish to receive government benefits like everyone else.

Spekwyse wrote:You have no right to deem if someone's love for someone is true or not. The only person who has a say in the matter in the person who is in love. In you dont understand that, then you just a prick bro....

Give me a break. Everyone here knows that the word "love" has lost value in society as a whole. This has nothing to do with homosexuality or whatever. More people than not say "I love you" and have no idea what love is. They simply use the word because they are expected to. In how many couples, heterosexual couples, would you honestly believe that both parties would die for one another? We see people who profess to "love" someone later break up with them over minor personality quirks, or simply because someone more physically attractive came along. And don't even get me started on the rise of cheating! As a whole, society has lost sight of what "love" is. This is simply an observation. The world has become incredibly superficial, and "love" is only thrown around because guys think its what girls want to hear and vice versa. If this makes me a prick, then so be it, but I refuse to turn a blind eye to the complete and total devaluation of the term "love" by society as a whole (and, again, this has nothing to do specifically with homosexuality).

Spekwyse wrote:yeah... i think you need to use "some people"

It's obviously not the case with everyone, but I use "people" to refer to the majority. I feel that people who are mature and reasonable are steadily falling further and further into the minority.

Spekwyse wrote:Honest to Lord Pheonix question. Not making fun at all. Have you ever had the chance to break that? As in the girl/boy had her/his hand in your pants and you went "No i want to save it for marriage."

Only on a couple of occasions. I try to keep myself out of such situations, because I've generally found myself to lack self-control.

Spekwyse wrote:First I dont think he wrote that himself.

Whether or not he wrote it, he used it. Frankly, I'd rather Gauz write his own fallacies than just copy pasta from radical websites. At least writing your own fallacies typically involves researching the points first.

Spekwyse wrote:Second you were countering the point made and i was stating that both opinions arent really a factor until we now the true percentage of homosexuality in the country.

I think it is safe to say that, no matter the actual percentage, homosexuals are in the minority. And the second point regarding Schumm's study still stands. The sexual orientation of one's parents can affect one's own orientation.

Spekwyse wrote:oh heres a neutral term... Marriage! =O BUT WAIT calling civil unions marriages will change the meaning of my marriage to me! Oh wait it doesnt! =O

Marriage is not a neutral term. Marriage is a term with a very long history in the church, which was later adopted by governments, many of which were theocratic monarchies, and eventually as adopted by the United States. Marriage is a term that has been tied with religion since written history. And, under separation of church and state, the government should use a neutral term, like civil union.

Spekwyse wrote:You said that the feelings that Gauz felt for another person wasnt true. Which you know kinda makes you look like an ass. =/

I made an overarching statement about society as a whole, and brought up the possibility that the way Gauz felt about another person wasn't necessarily true. If I had a friend who thought he was in love with a girl, I wouldn't be an ass to suggest that he consider his feelings objectively, so why am I an ass for doing so now? In my personal experience, many of my friends were afraid to challenge my "love" for my first girlfriend to my face, and ultimately, I suffered for it. It is very easy, in the heat of the moment, to confuse attraction and love.

Angatar wrote:This is almost entirely a religious debate already, so please, explain yourself.

No, it really isn't. While my opinions on this matter may be religiously based, my arguments on this matter have been based wholly in logic.