Gay Marriage 2008- Topic revisited

[DankNuggets]

funny how calm and rational arguments can become when certain people have been removed from the theater... :fear:

[genocidal]

Who knew? Genocide and I actually see eye to eye in some things.



I'm personally pretty happy with how many people actually support gay marriage on this forum. I think if we were to have had this conversation 5 years ago on this board, things would have been a lot different. But then again, everyone's a bit more grown up, maybe even made a gay friend or two and realized that it wasn't the end of the world. I remember my parents even used to be vehemently anti-gay until they realized some of my best friends whom they'd met a few times and liked were gay, and now they really don't talk about it anymore, it's just not a big deal.

In the end I think in another 20 years or so it won't be a big deal at all. Just like when MOST people talk about how Barack Obama running for president the fact that he's back isn't even an issue anymore, neither will being gay. Obviously people like Izor will still exist, but then again there's still people who think the world is flat.

In the end, the more people are exposed to other people and realize that other people who have different beliefs and different ways of life aren't really as bad as all the stereotypes say they are, the better off we are as a world.

I don't know if all of this was directed at me or just the first part but if it was you couldn't have been more wrong about me. If anything I've gotten more conservative (socially and otherwise) in the last few years. When I came to this forum I was almost a hippie, and I especially never had a problem with gay marriage.

We probably agree on a lot more than gay marriage. Off the top of my head, health care and guns we have obvious differences on but who doesn't differ on health care?

[Facetious]

balls are a lot grosser than dicks

i will never understand people who hate gay people though, especially anyone who uses the phrase "sanctity of marriage" but is cool with divorce/remarriage

[Fluffz]

That has nothing to do with marriage! You are talking about pregnancies and raising babies. These facilities are disconnected from marriage!

You are wrong. Ill recapitulate a little but ill also explain why:

The argument against calling the gay partnership marriage is because its a different thing. It is a different thing because of how marriage defines itself (1). Example: "Equal rights for black people" does not mean everyone has to call them white people. (Cant wait for suma to state i was racist).

(1) Now what is marriage? You said you do not want to include the religious meaning of marriage in the term marriage. Thats is not the argumentation i was having but it leaves us with the legal, social and maybe ideological meaning.
The situation on law is clear: In those countries that do not allow same sex marriage the law dictates: You need a man and a woman to marry (Since the law is based on religion there are many points that the same sex partnership can not fulfill but this one will do). Of course you can request to remove the legal meaning of marriage just alike, so we have the social and ideological meaning left.
Contrary to your belief most governments do not only tax individuals but also families. Either direct (family tax splitting) or indirect (family subsidy). Choosing not to produce children in the partnership is a social difference. Furthermore - as if one difference wasnt enough - majorities that interact with minorities require different rules than visa verse.
And finally the ideological meaning of marriage. I suppose this meaning would be equal for both sides. Anyway, lets say the same sex partnership differs from gay partnership by 75%. Again one point difference would be enough to justify a different word than marriage.

From this point on we could think about unifying the two words (like we unified slave rights and master rights into human rights). In order to do this we need to remove the differences. A task which will fail on the religious differences. A task that is impossible on the social level (as long as they can not give birth to babies, are a minority, ...). A task that is highly questionable at the differences in law (2).

(2) This is something i tried to express in my first reply. Conformity will lead to equality but at the cost of individuality. Now if this individuality does not cause harm to different individuals and isnt based on unchangeable properties (unlike the master/slave situation) than there is NO gain from conformity at the cost of individuality. There need to be 2 appropriate words and 2 appropriate laws for 2 different things. So much for the abstract, now here is an example:
National marriage law includes a paragraph that allows one partner to cancel marriage as soon as the partner chooses not to reproduce. Thats the law on wedding here. You know you do not have to pay after the divorce if the partner does not want to get your children. Thats just how it is, thats how the law is defined. If the gay couple could get equally married this paragraph would have to be removed. Lets assume the polygamists want to be called married by applying exactly the same logic. Should we cut the next paragraph until nothing is left? I would guess your answer is yes but i would disagree and we both could not settle the conflict in this lifetime.

Then, sadly, she can't make the decision of aborting it because of homosexual ity. I was being hypothetical.

On the other hand: Is a crime without a victim a crime?

[Salubrious]

this thread makes me hungry

[Liquid Blue]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27285822/

Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin says she supports a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, a break with John McCain who has said he believes states should be left to define what marriage is.

In an interview with Christian Broadcasting Network, the Alaska governor said she had voted in 1998 for a state amendment banning same sex marriage and hoped to see a federal ban on such unions.

"I have voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I wish on a federal level that's where we would go. I don't support gay marriage," Palin said. She said she believed traditional marriage is the foundation for strong families.

I wan to punch her in the cunt

[Izor]

I like her more and more every day

[Epinephrine]

I don't know if all of this was directed at me or just the first part but if it was you couldn't have been more wrong about me. If anything I've gotten more conservative (socially and otherwise) in the last few years. When I came to this forum I was almost a hippie, and I especially never had a problem with gay marriage.

We probably agree on a lot more than gay marriage. Off the top of my head, health care and guns we have obvious differences on but who doesn't differ on health care?

Oh just the first part was directed at you, thus the large space.

All I know is that you don't like Canada or at least Canadians posting in America-centric threads on this forum, who knew that we actually agreed on a range on issues otherwise

[DUMBRIT!]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27285822/



I wan to punch her in the cunt

I'd like to punch her there too, as well as the ovaries, but ultimately, I'd like to shoot her in the face, but not before I shout 'bet you wish there was more gun control now, don't you!'

On topic - I 100% support gay marriage. My best friend is gay, I have a lot of gay friends, but I don't of them as my 'gay' friends, they are just my friends, if you see what I mean.

-DB!

[Izor]

so you're a fag

[DUMBRIT!]

hahah yep, my best mate is gay so I'm a fag, a 'fag enabler', if you will

-DB!

[Liquid Blue]

saw this on SA forums, was funny-

I mean, really, how can you not? They're keeping the country's entire Musical Theater industry afloat, and I mean, you know, that's a priceless American cultural institution. You know? I mean, you know, some day, when your kids ask you why you can't take them to go see Oklahoma!, you tell them, it's because the GOP drove all the gays away, and now Timmy, now we can't go see Oklahoma!. No, if the GOP has their way, in the future, good, down-home Americans will have to road trip to Canada if they want to see Cats.

Seriously. Fucked up.

edit: This is why we can't have nice things, etc.

[Galleleo]

About what Fluffz is saying, I think my post summed up his beliefs pretty well judged on what he posted after that.

And zerz, in that quote, I never mentioned myself, I said you feel.. so that whole distancing thing doesnt really apply to my post.

And DB, did you just say that Venom is gay?

[Fluffz]

What I think Fluffz is saying, or that is what I get from it is the following:

Marriage is for reproducing, people get married to have kids.
Homosexuals cannot reproduce within a marriage (they can through various other ways, but not with their partner in the marriage).
Therefore homosexuals should not be able to get married in the same sense that woman and guys can get married.

IMO, if that really is his idea (it is hard to really understand what he is saying), his whole idea of marriage is fucked up. Tons of people get married just because they love each other and want that in writing, so to speak, and never have kids.

Look, i said "there is a difference in reproduction" and not "marriage is for reproducing only". Following your own logic "love each other and want that in writing" is the only meaning of marriage, either your idea or your argumentation is totaly messed up.

I thought i could just ignore you but i am having a hard time with that since you insisted to post the same nonsense twice. I just want to make sure you get your attention before you post it a 3rd time. Your argument isnt logical, its called "pulled out of your ass". Maybe you and Suma can found a club but do me a favour and leave me out of this.


But im a man of action. Ill give you more differences so you dont assume i couldnt; so you dont continue to assume i think "Marriage is for reproducing only":
1.) Social difference: Man and woman have a different lifespan. There is a national program that supports home care by the partner (by money and education). This program is unfair because the idealized gay couple will need care at the same age. So even if they pay the same taxes they do not get the same benefit.
2. ) The next difference is an ideological one. A topic which i previously assumed to be without difference. Concrete stated gay couples might teach more tolerance and acceptance. The gay marriage would be used to acquire society's tolerance. Ill even go a step further and say: In the current situation gay marriage is supposed to display gay pride. Pride not regarding how they were born but how they chose to live. This might be an ideological difference to the traditional marriage.
3.) Difference in law: Custody regulations after the divorce

[Facetious]

man i am totally not reading anything galleleo or fluffz is posting