Gay Marriage

Angatar wrote:Doesn't matter what was going on 250 years ago, now is far more important and where we live and where we can create, change, and destroy laws. We can marry now without a church, so the church doesn't need to be telling anyone who can get married or not.

Marriage was intrinsically tied to the church, and has been for a very long time. If you can't understand their discomfort in the government taking it and twisting it about at their leisure, then you're soft in the head.

Angatar wrote:People that get pissed off about gay marriage and more freedom and equality should all move to Iran and live a homosexual-free life like they want to.

So basically what you're saying is that you're a belligerent atheist with a chip on your back, and this has more to do with pissing of religious people than giving equality? Because that statement was incredibly discriminatory. How can you preach equality and understanding if you refuse to understand a certain side?

Angatar wrote:Moves the slowest? What is the other option that has worked for homosexuals? Remember, no countries before 2001 supported gay marriage.

The option that we've suggested would go faster, because it is a compromise that both sides can get behind. You catch more bees with honey than with vinegar.

Angatar wrote:Doesn't matter who likes them as long as they have equality. Besides, anyone that doesn't support homosexuality is either A. religious and stupid or B. a homophobe that hates them either way. Neither would like gays either way.

Wow. You really are an idiot. I mean, I was on the fence for a while, but you truly are incapable of cognitive thought.

Angatar wrote:And who support this? Has this ever even worked? Why would homosexuals and churches support this? I really do not believe that all the effort homosexuals have put into their current goals should just be forgotten to go for a completely new set that may or may not work or have support.

The problem, if you'd been paying attention, or maybe paused for a moment to think, as difficult as that may be for you, is that no one has tried it. Everyone has been too busy entrenching themselves in a fight that will never make any progress because it involves telling half the country to fuck off to even consider compromise with the opposition.

Angatar wrote:Also, having to lie to yourself is a pretty big drawback.

Lie to yourself how? Everyone's government slip says civil union. Gays can call it whatever they want. Straights can call it whatever they want. As long as the government chooses a neutral term, everyone wins. Everyone gets the same rights, no one's religion is being trampled upon by government sanctions. Where is the downside here?

But seriously, if you ever evolve into a thinking creature, you're welcome in the debate section.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Angatar wrote:Doesn't matter what was going on 250 years ago, now is far more important and where we live and where we can create, change, and destroy laws. We can marry now without a church, so the church doesn't need to be telling anyone who can get married or not.

Marriage was intrinsically tied to the church, and has been for a very long time. If you can't understand their discomfort in the government taking it and twisting it about at their leisure, then you're soft in the head.

It's not their word, it's not their say.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Angatar wrote:People that get pissed off about gay marriage and more freedom and equality should all move to Iran and live a homosexual-free life like they want to.

So basically what you're saying is that you're a belligerent atheist with a chip on your back, and this has more to do with pissing of religious people than giving equality? Because that statement was incredibly discriminatory. How can you preach equality and understanding if you refuse to understand a certain side?

lulz athiesm, that's worse than religion! But yes, they should go to Iran. They don't want to have a place with equality, or gays, or freedom. Iran has all those. But you're right, I'm sorry Iran. Much of Africa also has all that stuff.

There is nothing more to understand. "My panties are in a bunch because I don't like gays because some guys a few thousand years ago didn't like it either" is the biggest load of bullshit I've ever heard. Why should a few people a few thousand years ago halfway around the world affect us now? There is no reason.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Angatar wrote:Moves the slowest? What is the other option that has worked for homosexuals? Remember, no countries before 2001 supported gay marriage.

The option that we've suggested would go faster, because it is a compromise that both sides can get behind. You catch more bees with honey than with vinegar.

Compromise is not always the best option. Neither is dropping one goal for another.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Angatar wrote:Doesn't matter who likes them as long as they have equality. Besides, anyone that doesn't support homosexuality is either A. religious and stupid or B. a homophobe that hates them either way. Neither would like gays either way.

Wow. You really are an idiot. I mean, I was on the fence for a while, but you truly are incapable of cognitive thought.

Your entire argument boils down to "churches wouldn't like it". Who is uncomfortable with people doing something with their own lives that does not affect them in any way? People who are against it for religious reason or if they are homophobes. There is no other reason to go against it.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Angatar wrote:And who support this? Has this ever even worked? Why would homosexuals and churches support this? I really do not believe that all the effort homosexuals have put into their current goals should just be forgotten to go for a completely new set that may or may not work or have support.

The problem, if you'd been paying attention, or maybe paused for a moment to think, as difficult as that may be for you, is that no one has tried it. Everyone has been too busy entrenching themselves in a fight that will never make any progress because it involves telling half the country to fuck off to even consider compromise with the opposition.

No one has tried it because it's a stupid idea and not in the interest of either side. This way has made progress, ten countries and six states, remember? It is a new issue, and you have no proof that it will just instantly stall. Much of the world will accept same-sex marriage before the US and that's alright. The US is a very slow nation, but it will change.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Angatar wrote:Also, having to lie to yourself is a pretty big drawback.

Lie to yourself how? Everyone's government slip says civil union. Gays can call it whatever they want. Straights can call it whatever they want. As long as the government chooses a neutral term, everyone wins. Everyone gets the same rights, no one's religion is being trampled upon by government sanctions. Where is the downside here?

But seriously, if you ever evolve into a thinking creature, you're welcome in the debate section.

It's a civil union, not marriage. Calling it marriage is a lie.

Religion being trampled on? How? Athiests and agnostics can get married, so it's not a fucking religious word. No one's religion gets trampled by upgrading civil unions to marriage.

Too... lazy... to respond...

Lord Pheonix wrote:No, the difference is that same sex marriages get worse health benefits and worse tax breaks and being given different rights because of their life style. Something that is rather looked down upon in this country.


"Thanks to the Defense of Marriage Act, same-sex couples get none of the federal benefits of marriage, such as spousal Social Security benefits after a death or the ability to bring a noncitizen spouse into the country"


If someone gets married in California then they move to another state they get considered legal strangers in that state and lose all their benefits as well.

A person who marries a government employee of the same sex cannot receive federal health benefits which are 1,138 federal rights and benefits for which only heterosexual married couples are eligible.


Yeah Civ, "The only difference is the word"

From a secular point of view, there is absolutely nothing inherently different between a marriage and civil union. The benefits associated with civil unions is less in most states (substantially so in a few), but the words still represent the same construct. Because of this difference, I agree that both should share the same legal benefits or, rather, that only civil unions even be considered from a legal standpoint.

Rotaretlibo wrote:On the contrary. His point works because no one supports legal incest. He is saying that incest and gay marriage are ethically the same, and therefore, anyone supporting gay rights should also support incestuous rights. That they do not implies a double standard. Since the only real argument against incest is that it is "unnatural", it totally defeats the perspective that calling gays "unnatural" is unfair and narrowminded.

In which case we're left with a simple "two wrongs don't make a right" situation. I assumed that everyone here was beyond that sort of reasoning.

Rotaretilbo wrote:You really need to reread his posts, Civ. He was saying "How can you claim that gay marriage is okay and marrying your first cousin, or really any matter of incest, is not?" That is to say, he was saying that anyone who supports gay marriage should also support incest, because they are ethically and morally the same; any argument that can be posed against gay marriage can similarly be posed against incestuous marriage.

Here's word-for-word what LP said: "It is currently legal to marry your first cousin in more states than it is to marry another man/woman."

It's just a fact he's trying to use to bolster the pro-gay-marriage platform. Incestuous marriage is obviously wrong no matter how you slice it. I think everyone agrees on that.

His point was that since we allow incestuous marriage, which is obviously wrong, we should likewise allow gay marriage. The problem with this line is that people don't want to allow incestuous marriage regardless of what the law is. As such, his point doesn't not give reason for people to support gay marriage.

Rotaretilbo wrote:First of all, not everyone here is against both. A lot of people are for one and against the other. His point was that everyone should either be against both of for both, as they are equivocal.

And is anyone here for incest?

Rotaretilbo wrote:I'm not even sure how this makes sense to you. Even if drag were arguing what you think he is, this would only make sense if everyone was against gay marriage, which we clearly see they are not.

What are you talking about? My response was to LP's post, not dragoon's. You really haven't given much thought to what I was originally saying, have you?

To be quite honest, I don't even have two spare fucks to give on this matter. I really just don't care enough to look for news on it, or click on every link that I see.

With that being said, however, repressing the gay community like this seems to go against everything our country was founded on. Gay Marriage will be legal across the country within 5-10 years.

Yeah, it will be, and there's almost nothing anyone can do to stop that.

It doesn't matter if it's semantic bullshit, it's still gonna change so why does anyone give a fuck anymore?

you underestimate how important semantics are to some people

How is incest anything close to sleeping with someone of the same sex? Offspring from incest could potentially have health concerns?

You don't have to support both or none, because they are not equal.

Arty wrote:How is incest anything close to sleeping with someone of the same sex? Offspring from incest could potentially have health concerns?

You don't have to support both or none, because they are not equal.

What if they adopt? What if one, the other, or both are biologically incapable of conceiving?

Arty wrote:How is incest anything close to sleeping with someone of the same sex? Offspring from incest could potentially have health concerns?

You don't have to support both or none, because they are not equal.

There are plenty of things that make offspring likely to have genetic defects. The chance of autism massively increases with older women, should we stop them from having kids too? What if they incestuous couple adopt or just have no kids?

Homosexuality is a sin and all that participate in its practices should be killed. Hell, I wouldn't mind if we just threw them into a camp with electrified fences and let them starve or labor themselves to death. That would show them for disobeying our Almighty Lord Pheonix!

I c wut u did thar


And I'd prefer if you don't. It's kinda like the Sara Palin impersonator... most people think that the sort of thinking that you just used is indicative of all proponents against homosexual marriage when it's definitely not.

The recent Chick-Fil-A (I'm just gunna call it CFA) fiasco has been kind of annoying to listen to.

The charity foundation WinShape, whose primary funding comes from CFA, has served proponents of the anti-gay movement and praised comments of some anti-gay activists. The president of CFA has responded to attacks about this by noting that, though his personal opinions are that marriage should be heterosexual, CFA will still happily serve homosexuals and treat them with the same respect. Correct me if I'm understanding this wrong.

CFA has definitely gotten themselves into a muddy situation and I do not fault the homosexual movement for instigating a boycott. Each side is entitled to their opinions and CFA is responsible for any economic loss because of political affiliations. Besides, I would consider this much less significant than Pepsi's use of stem cells from aborted fetuses for flavor tests (although that is another topic that I'm going to stay out of).

What bugs me are accusations from the homosexual movement and liberal media. Maybe I'm just looking at the wrong stuff, but I see a lot of people from these camps suggesting that CFA hates gays and the like. If it's one thing that I cannot stand, it's when disagreement is framed as hatred from the opposing view. This seems to be particularly frequent with any cause labeled as a 'right': right to marriage, right to choose, right to health insurance, right to a pony, etc.

Some officials from Boston and Chicago have even talked about trying to remove CFA establishments from their cities because of the incident. That's absurd! You can't deny business permits because of political disagreements!

Okay, my head has stopped aching now so I'll let you guys respond if ya want.

no matter your position on gay marriage, the use of a government office to penalize the business of someone simply because of an opposing view of the owner is an infringement on free speech. which is a jailable offense if they proceed with their threats

I have a gay friend who worked at Chick-fil-a ... they do not discriminate against serving or allowing them to work there, to say that the company hates gays is hyperbole.

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.

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.

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, I thought the Pepsi/stem cell fiasco was much worse and it didn't get this kind of response.

I also don't see how the anti-gay movement can be described as "terrible". It's a stance of political disagreement, not hatred.

More like bigotry under the cover of a political disagreement.
Why?
Because if there wasn't bigotry 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.

Exactly. I disagree with homosexual marriage because I hate gays. You caught me.

Gauz, your post is practically the definition of bigotry.

I hate this subject so much...

Why does it always have to be blown out of proportion? One man who happens to be in power does not mean every single of the thousands under him also think exactly the same. Boycotting to undermine the power of the opposition? Sure, go for it. Lying and saying that and entire organization is anti-gay? No, that's just wrong.

It's an organization, not an organism. The head doesn't control everyone and everything in an organization. bad analogy grumbles

CivBase wrote:Exactly. I disagree with homosexual marriage because I hate gays. You caught me.

Gauz, your post is practically the definition of bigotry.

I didn't say hate Civ.

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

Saying my post is bigotry incarnate is a little excessive.

I just don't see any other reason for disagreeing with homosexual 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?

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

Angatar wrote:I hate this subject so much...

Why does it always have to be blown out of proportion? One man who happens to be in power does not mean every single of the thousands under him also think exactly the same. Boycotting to undermine the power of the opposition? Sure, go for it. Lying and saying that and entire organization is anti-gay? No, that's just wrong.

It's an organization, not an organism. The head doesn't control everyone and everything in an organization. bad analogy grumbles

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).

Gauz wrote:I didn't say hate Civ.

Fine, then I obviously "don't like" gays. Same point.

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

Saying my post is bigotry incarnate is a little excessive.

Bigotry might be going to far, sure, but your posts demonstrate that you have given the opposition no respect or consideration.

Gauz wrote:I just don't see any other reason for disagreeing with homosexual 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?

Most people, even in the anti-gay movement, don't - although there are plenty of reservations from the anti-gay movement about whether genuine love can exist between two people from the same sex. It's marriage (and sometimes the legal benefits associated with it) that is primarily fought against. For many, marriage is viewed as a religious practice, not a secular one, and so they don't want the government messing with it.

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.

Outdated by what? And the bible is definitely not vague about homosexuality. A quick google search will provide you with half a dozen verses that make the bible's stance on homosexuality abundantly clear.

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).

It's the president, although he doesn't display any sort of intolerance towards homosexuals.

Marriage is actually a legal contract and a civil union now. It can be ABOUT religion, but it doesn't have to be. Besides, there are things worse than gays that are going to destroy the "sanctity" of marriage.


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

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

Opponents to homosexual marriage typically see marriage as different from civil union.

Gauz wrote:Oh and if anyone genuinely believes that love can't exist between two people of the same sex they can kindly go fuck 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?

Largely due to a belief that 'love' is often mislabeled by the general public. I, personally, do not have an opinion on the matter.

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

Correct. There are many people who try to use scripture to justify their prejudice; as a Christian, I personally find it disgusting. Still, this point doesn't really do you any good since neither myself nor anyone from the CFA incident (to my knowledge) has been identified as having any sort of hatred towards homosexuals.

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:

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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