Gay Marriage

Rotaretilbo wrote:

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.

Yes, it is.

...

o... kay?







:/

Rotaretilbo wrote:

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.

I know I've been abrasive because this is something very important to me (tbh we're both kind of doing this) but I really never intended to be rude... even though I have. I'm honestly sorry for all the rude things I've said.


I'm not upset with anyone else either. It wouldn't be fair for me to be (I was being caustic), and I don't want to look like a victim either. Now that everything has been expanded on I understand why you hold your views, and I can respect that. I don't necessarily agree with them, but not everyone will.

Then it's settled. I want pizza. Who wants pizza? Let's get some pizza.

Is it over?

Until someone else necro's the thread with some tangent and we all go right back into it. I feel like we've had this same debate like five or six times, now.

So...

This new thing happened and we should fight about it.

Actually, I was closing up at Subway today an a guy stopped by. He didn't want a sandwich, but he asked me if I knew anything about what was happening at CFA. I said "Yah, why?" and he said that there was a line wrapped all the way around our local food court at a local mall just for the CFA.

I don't think the boycot is working >.>

CivBase wrote:Then it's settled. I want pizza. Who wants pizza? Let's get some pizza.

Only if it has sausages. Big, long, huge sausages...

Divine Virus wrote:

CivBase wrote:Then it's settled. I want pizza. Who wants pizza? Let's get some pizza.

Only if it has sausages. Big, long, huge sausages...

That wouldn't be in your best interests.

Angatar wrote:That wouldn't be in your best interests.

Sausages are delicious on pizza. I don't know what you're talking/thinking about...

Polish sausages?

I've got a 12' Avian sausage for all interested.

Italian beef.

I think I'll just have pepperoni.

gay pride <3

No joke though, pineapple and ham.



That shit be ballin yo.



Doesn't sound largely appetizing, but it is awesome.

Buffalo Chicken, anyone?

I don't like hawaiian or buffalo chicken..

I'll just take classic chicago pepperoni deep dish

I'd like to start this one up again if I could, as my opinion of the issue has change a lot over the past couple years.

The issue of gay marriage is not an issue of whether or not religious beliefs should dictate public policy. The ideas and issues surrounding it are more complex than that.

One very important aspect of marriage involves marital rights, like hospital visitation, inheritance, authority over medical decisions, etc... and these things should be available to any two people who decide to call themselves a 'married couple.' This is the basis for 'civil unions'.

Another aspect of marriage is tax benefits, and the differences in how spouses can claim their respective incomes. Married couples receive these benefits because it is in the interest of just about everyone to encourage stable family environments. Such environments are essential to the proper rearing of children, and to the long term health and success of every family member, local and extended.

Generally, I don't like the idea of the government attempting to influence personal behavior through the tax code, but marriage is the one exception that I make. Strong families are the most important foundation to a healthy society. That's not just a cliche.

Homosexual couples do not produce children. They don't create families. The possibility of adoption exists. To be honest, I think a healthy heterosexual couple is much more ideal for child-rearing than a healthy homosexual couple, but obviously, kids in foster care don't exactly have the choice. Still, adoptive parents have to earn a certain income level as it is... so the gay people looking to adopt don't really need the tax incentives.

I don't think this is a huge issue, and I would never vote for a political candidate on the basis of gay marriage... but I don't think this is a civil rights issue, or an issue of religious tolerance. It's more complicated than that. I don't think it's 'wrong' that gay and heterosexual couples are treated differently under the law.

Toaster wrote:I don't think it's 'wrong' that gay and heterosexual couples are treated differently under the law.

Then you have lost sight of what the founders of this country envisioned for this country and what it is to be a good person.


To not treat someone differently because they aren't the same as you.




That is what I hate most of all. Treating someone differently because they are a different skin color than you, because they believe in a different God than you, or because they live their lives in a different way than you.


But a great deal of people seem to find it is okay to treat other people worse than they would want to be treated because they are different. All I have to say is: Fuck You.

We again see people appealing to the discrimination analogy that is so inherently flawed. If a man is traveling north, he is discriminated against in that he is required to drive on the east side of the road in almost all situations. If he is traveling south, he is required to drive on the west side of the road. If he should travel west, he is required to travel on the north side of the road, and were he to venture east, he would do so on the south side of the road.

Just because it is discrimination does not mean it is inherently wrong. It is the reasoning behind the discrimination that makes things wrong. It is wrong to look at one individual person and say "because that person has a certain outward physical trait, such as skin color or eye color or hair color, they should be treated differently." I do not believe it is wrong, however, to treat people differently if their situations are different.

For example, we currently tax people a different percent at different incomes. If you make greater than x annually, you will be taxed y%. Is this discrimination? Of course. It is, by definition, discrimination. Is it wrong? Not inherently, no. People at lower income brackets qualify for a lower percent of taxation. I view this as much the same. We're not looking at people and saying "you are gay, so fuck you." We're looking and saying "marriage is defined as a civil union between a man and a woman, so you do not qualify for these benefits." Do I agree with it? Not necessarily. I've made my viewpoint on it relatively clear throughout the debate. Frankly, I'm not the biggest fan of the progressive tax brackets either. But that's not the point.

The point is that if all you're going to do is regurgitate the litany that this is the same thing as the civil rights movement and that anyone who disagrees is a bigot, then get the fuck out of the thread, find a cliff, and throw yourself off of it. You'll be doing the world a favor. People who act like the opposition are all a bunch of bigots for disagreeing are just as bad as the actual bigots.

Toaster wrote:
I don't think this is a huge issue, and I would never vote for a political candidate on the basis of gay marriage... but I don't think this is a civil rights issue, or an issue of religious tolerance. It's more complicated than that. I don't think it's 'wrong' that gay and heterosexual couples are treated differently under the law.

Wow. Never thought I'd see this.

Lord Pheonix wrote:
That is what I hate most of all. Treating someone differently because they are a different skin color than you, because they believe in a different God than you, or because they live their lives in a different way than you.

But a great deal of people seem to find it is okay to treat other people worse than they would want to be treated because they are different. All I have to say is: Fuck You.

That, though, I could have seen coming blindfolded.

Toaster wrote:One very important aspect of marriage involves marital rights, like hospital visitation, inheritance, authority over medical decisions, etc... and these things should be available to any two people who decide to call themselves a 'married couple.' This is the basis for 'civil unions'.

Now back to this. I got to keep it short, though, because it's running late and I still have to be doing homework.
Do you know about the civil unions in Washington State? We passed the "everything but marriage" law, which granted civil unions the same rights as marriage (visitation, property rights).

Now we have Referendum 74, which seeks to grant marriage to homosexuals, and keep the domestic partnership for senior citizens. What's fishy is that the literature I've seen claims that Ref 74 is necessary for homosexuals to have visitation rights, property rights, etc...

I could be wrong, of course, because I never got around to fully researching the topic before quitting from the school newspaper.

So, one proposal in this thread (And backed by the American Libertarian Party, I think) is to have all marriages recognized by the state as "Civil Unions". What is your opinion on that?

Rotaretilbo wrote:The point is that if all you're going to do is regurgitate the litany that this is the same thing as the civil rights movement and that anyone who disagrees is a bigot, then get the fuck out of the thread, find a cliff, and throw yourself off of it. You'll be doing the world a favor. People who act like the opposition are all a bunch of bigots for disagreeing are just as bad as the actual bigots.

Oh yes quite, people who act like the opposition are bigots are DEFINITELY just as bad as a bunch of racist homophobic anti-islamic woman haters.


And someone is obviously an upper middle class white Christian who has never been discriminated against and probably thinks that "racism is barely even around anymore and people just need to stop mentioning it for it to go away"

Rasq wrote:So, one proposal in this thread (And backed by the American Libertarian Party, I think) is to have all marriages recognized by the state as "Civil Unions". What is your opinion on that?

I think that would be fine, but sort of beside the point. As you're aware, I'm not a religious person, so the specific value assigned to the word 'marriage' isn't something I place a whole lot of significance on. I think it's a very good idea for the government to encourage stable families. Marriage, at its core, is a child-rearing and life-long support system.

I suppose that it wouldn't be a horrible idea to encourage homosexuals to settle down into more stable lifestyles as well, and I'm not really opposed to that... I just feel like a lot of the underlying feelings and notions surrounding this whole debate (throughout the country I mean) are demonstrative of some more deeply rooted flaws.

I think, for example, that my comment about how "a healthy heterosexual couple is much more ideal for child-rearing than a healthy homosexual couple" would probably be met with opposition from around half of the US population... and I think that's troublesome. I don't like this trend of ignoring innate, subtle differences between men and women, and of completely doing away with cultural influences that have guided our's and past societies for all of recorded history.

Honestly Rasq, I think you'd be proud of my more recent position on religion. I don't and won't ever believe, but I think religion is generally a good force on society. It reinforces morals, gives meaning to life, builds communities, provides mental and emotional support. I don't like the modern trend of completely abandoning all of that. I don't think we're even close to being ready for it.

[quote="Toaster"Still, adoptive parents have to earn a certain income level as it is... so the gay people looking to adopt don't really need the tax incentives. [/quote]


.....what? So families that make above a certain amount also shouldn't get tax incentives for children?