gay marriage

[Raziaar]

who's at fault? the person who wrote it, or the person who mis-interpreted it?

Well considering many people here think all conservatives are rednecks(you too at times), and its mainly the conservatives who are against gay marriage. Its easy to see how one such as yourself, would lay claim that us 'rednecks' are racist.

 

[seinfeldrules]

yes it does affect me, every time I go to fill up my car it affects me, everytime I see a picture of a dead iraqi baby it affects me, everytime I hear that 14,000 innocent people died as a result of bush's policies it affects me, everytime I hear bush open his mouth justifing the destruction of a nation it affects me

And everytime I hear talk about gay marriage it affects me. You cannot grasp that it doesnt directly effect you, just as gay marriage doesnt directly affect most people.

 

[CptStern]

And everytime I hear talk about gay marriage it affects me. You cannot grasp that it doesnt directly effect you, just as gay marriage doesnt directly affect most people.

the difference is that you're basing that on your personal opinion whereas mine is based on a universality: the death of innocents is wrong morally/ethically

 

[seinfeldrules]

the difference is that you're basing that on your personal opinion whereas mine is based on a universality: the death of innocents is wrong morally/ethically

And gays using the word marriage is morally wrong to me.

 

[CptStern]

Well considering many people here think all conservatives are rednecks(you too at times), and its mainly the conservatives who are against gay marriage. Its easy to see how one such as yourself, would lay claim that us 'rednecks' are racist.

isnt the definition of the word "redneck" synonymous with the word "racist"?

In some instances it's justified ..sorry but some of you do make racist comments

 

[CptStern]

And gays using the word marriage is morally wrong to me.

back to square one ...what does that have to do with someone elses life?

 

[seinfeldrules]

back to square one ...what does that have to do with someone elses life?

Other people agree with me, just as others agree with you even though it doesnt directly affect them.

 

[CptStern]

Other people agree with me, just as others agree with you even though it doesnt directly affect them.

you are advocating discrimination: that is morally wrong is a universal sense.

 

[falconwind]

A man would be married to a woman, and have a male sexual lover. Greeks did it, macedonians did it, romans did it.

Ah, so you're anti-gay marriage, but pro-infidelity? You'd rather a man and woman get married and have a gay lover, rather than two men marry and remain faithful to each other?

Besides, one would think that we'd have advanced past the greeks, macedonians, and romans by now.

Withholding the term marriage for heterosexuals is just an attempt for the homophobic to distance and distinguish themselves against gays. It's social and class segregation, plain and simple. They want marriage to be the sole domain of the non-gay. "They get to say we're married, you're are not, nah, nah." It's very petty and childish, the religious right should get their Bibles out of their asses and grow up. It has less to do with marriage, and more to do with homosexuals. They let pagans, satanists, racists, and criminals marry, but you don't hear opposition to those "lifestyles".

The opposition to gay marriage stems from the belief that gays are somehow not equal, that they don't deserve the same rights and recognition as straight people. That there is two camps, them and us. Of course, they can't say that or else it's too plain and apparent. They are, instead undermining gay-equality movements. But the last thing they want is to have to use the word "we".

The whole thing is petty and stupid that there must be so much opposition to a harmless thing that hurts no one! Don't Americans have more important things to think about? No wonder Bush can't find Osama bin Laden, he's too busy being outraged by gay people getting married.

And part of the reason they can do this is because the religious right has hi-jacked the US government through it's public officials. Secularism, a founding ideal of America, is no more. The seperation of church and state is gone.

If marriage is not a fundamental or civil right of every person, why then, can't we ban marriage, period? It wouldn't happen, true, but there would be no legal reason why not. If it's not a right, it's not guaranteed to anyone! Besides you can't trust Jesse Jackson, he's way biased. And I, for one, resent the way the Bible and God's name is being used as a weapon.

And I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of suicides, molestations, and drug abuses and depression happens in traditionally married families. Shock! And almost all gay people come from straight families too. By the reasoning that the children will suffer as a result of the marriage you should ban people with dwarfism from marrying. Ban people with genetic or mental disorders because they're children will suffer from stigmatism! Ban satanists from marrying! Ban the unfaithful! And 30 or 40 years ago, you'd be wanting to ban mixed race marriaged, because the children would be outcasts, neither balck or white! The religious right would say that Adam and Eve were white! That God is white! That God hates blacks! All that crap that we are disgusted about now, is just being tweaked with the word "black" replaced by "gay".

Seinfeldrules: Bush's foreign policy effect everyone, idiot. It's foreign, meaning outside your country. We're all outside your country. And more to the point, it effects you through us, as well.

 

[Raziaar]

isnt the definition of the word "redneck" synonymous with the word "racist"?

In some instances it's justified ..sorry but some of you do make racist comments

Yes, the term redneck is synonymous with the word racist, but the thing is... nowhere near all conservatives are rednecks. It's probably less than 5-10% that actually are.

And, I don't know who you're talking about, but I never make racist comments. I'm highly anti-racist.

 

[Raziaar]

Ah, so you're anti-gay marriage, but pro-infidelity? You'd rather a man and woman get married and have a gay lover, rather than two men marry and remain faithful to each other?

I'm not anti-gay marriage. You won't see me participating in it, or praising it, or liking the thought of it(ick, two hairy guys in love is very disturbing to me), but i'm not going to try to ban it. I say let em do it, if they aren't going to hurt anyone else while doing so. You won't see me saying how beautiful a thing love is though, if I see two guys making out in the street.

Women on the other hand... they're an exception :naughty:

lol.

 

[seinfeldrules]

you are advocating discrimination: that is morally wrong is a universal sense.

No, I am advocating equal rights. Gays should be allowed to pay the same discounted taxes and inherit from their partners. In no way should they be treated differently, just referred to differently.

 

[Dedalus]

Did you just stereotype heterosexuals as promiscuous people who have all sorts of random, loveless sex? I think you did, since you called them the 'average'. That's so untrue its not funny. Yes, there are people like that, but they are no where near the average of heterosexuals.

well no that wasn't the desired effect. i said that mainly to mimick the sweeping generalisations we've heard earlier in this topic.

you'll also notice the similarities between homosexual intercourse (is that even a phrase?) and hetrosexual intercourse. there can be loveless (as stated in the example), or loving intercourse.

a hypothetical question, not just to you, but to all: if you had a brother or sister who was gay, and they announced their intentions to marry their partner, would you object or give your blessing? it'd be interesting to hear your thoughts on this, as it's a difficult issue to deal with. firstly, they're your sibling, someone you've grown up with, known your whole life, you love them dearly. but on the other hand you might be strongly for/against gay marriage, although not necessarily against someone being gay. so would you stand in the way of their happiness because of your beliefs? do you feel their life would be better if they didn't marry them?

i haven't faced that situtation myself, but if it did happen, i can probably see myself approving as long as their partner was a decent person.


EDIT: does anyone know what sort of gay rights there are in other countries? eg. african countries, middle east, asia etc?

 

[seinfeldrules]

if you had a brother or sister who was gay, and they announced their intentions to marry their partner, would you object or give your blessing?

It cannot happen at this time, but I would recommend seeking a civil union instead of marriage.

 

[Raziaar]

I'd probably support it. But i'd say,

"Damn man, I *TOLD* you you were gay!"

Hahahaha. =)

 

[CptStern]

No, I am advocating equal rights. Gays should be allowed to pay the same discounted taxes and inherit from their partners. In no way should they be treated differently, just referred to differently.

then why not call it marriage? why a seperate word for a certain segment of society? "seperate but equal" is still discrimination, the anti-segregation movement proved that

 

[Kangy]

Discrimination is wrong, and it always will be. Many of the arguments holding back gay marriage/union (so I'm not flamed) are carbon copies of the ones used against black people, or women in the 19th and 20th centuries.

And every civilised person knows how that turned out.

 

[Raziaar]

Discrimination is wrong, and it always will be. Many of the arguments holding back gay marriage/union (so I'm not flamed) are carbon copies of the ones used against black people, or women in the 19th and 20th centuries.

And every civilised person knows how that turned out.

Yeah but the same people who are against gay marriage aren't really nessesarily the same people that are afraid of/discriminate against. I have a very liberal friend, and know some more people, who are quite afraid of black and latino people. It just goes to prove that not everybody mirrors everybody else exactly in their views. For example, i'm a conservative, but i'm against the NRA bigtime.

 

[Comrade438]

Government should not be in the marriage business. Nuff' said. Now for our stupid fiat currency...

 

[gh0st]

fact is stern, so many things the united states does doesnt affect you directly or indirectly. such as rwanda, but you certainly have opinions on them. just like i have opinions on this. i've given them, theres no point to trying to argue with you weve got our feelings set in stone. since gay marriage wont be legalized for quite some time, at a national level, its rather low on my priority list.

 

[CptStern]

fact is stern, so many things the united states does doesnt affect you directly or indirectly. such as rwanda, but you certainly have opinions on them. just like i have opinions on this. i've given them, theres no point to trying to argue with you weve got our feelings set in stone. since gay marriage wont be legalized for quite some time, at a national level, its rather low on my priority list.

again it's hypocrisy ...you'd be up in arms if I discriminated against say for example texans, yet you'll openly descriminate against your fellow americans ..they're still americans yet you treat them as less than americans because they dont enjoy the same freedoms you have

 

[jverne]

i think (just think nothing else) that they should be given the right to get married but not to have children! that is because a child need a mother and a father, this is needed to grow a healthy child! try to imagine politics if you find hard to understand! but hey, the world is f****d up anyway, so...!

if we look from the biological point of view, homosexualizm is a mistake! the inability to reproduce and survival of the species! if we were animals the gay ones would die! so...are we animals?

religion opposes homosexualizm because of the previous (inability to reproduce) because this way it wouldn't have any followers! logic...not god!

 

[gh0st]

again it's hypocrisy ...you'd be up in arms if I discriminated against say for example texans, yet you'll openly descriminate against your fellow americans ..they're still americans yet you treat them as less than americans because they dont enjoy the same freedoms you have

i dont care who you descriminate against. me being against gay marriage is not descrimination by any stretch of the imagination. less than americans? they are NOT HETEROSEXUAL COUPLES so they shouldent be married, i have nothing against gay people personally, and am all for them getting everything marriage entitles (monitary benefits, legal benefits, etc) but without the name.

 

[seinfeldrules]

then why not call it marriage? why a seperate word for a certain segment of society? "seperate but equal" is still discrimination, the anti-segregation movement proved that

They arent seperate rights, they are seperate words. Blacks had completely different facilities and schools back in the time period you are referring to. Gays would receive the exact same benefits as married couples under civil unions.

discriminate-

1. To make a clear distinction; distinguish:
discriminate among the options available.
To make sensible decisions; judge wisely.

1. To perceive the distinguishing features of; recognize as distinct:
discriminate right from wrong.

In that sense, it is discriminating. It is making a clear distinction from man joining man and man joining woman. Just as the word blue discriminates that color from orange. It makes a clear distinction. Blue is treated no differently from orange. Nor is a shark from a whale, but they are distinguished.

 

[CptStern]

They arent seperate rights, they are seperate words. Blacks had completely different facilities and schools back in the time period you are referring to. Gays would receive the exact same benefits as married couples under civil unions.

discriminate-

1. To make a clear distinction; distinguish:
discriminate among the options available.
To make sensible decisions; judge wisely.

1. To perceive the distinguishing features of; recognize as distinct:
discriminate right from wrong.

In that sense, it is discriminating. It is making a clear distinction from man joining man and man joining woman. Just as the word blue discriminates that color from orange. It makes a clear distinction. Blue is treated no differently from orange. Nor is a shark from a whale, but they are distinguished.

seperate but equal ..you cant avoid it. it is discrimination based on gender and sexuality

 

[el Chi]

Whoa dude. You BETTER not be making the accusation, even slightly masked that the same people who support bush are people who supported/would like to support segregation. I know its not the case, but if you were making that connection, that'd be very very bad.

No, he was saying that some people were against sharing waiting rooms with black people and felt strongly about it. That's not right.
Some people are against gay marriage and feel strongly about it. Thst doesn't necessarily mean it's right.

Did you just stereotype heterosexuals as promiscuous people who have all sorts of random, loveless sex?

Actually, that's the stereotype of gay men. After all, isn't how they all got the gay plague?

fact is stern, so many things the united states does doesnt affect you directly or indirectly.

Oh look. A thread in the Politics folder in no way related to the usual slew of US-bashing/-buffing but that simply has to be morphed into that strand of comment and debate. It's getting tired, it truly is.

 

[seinfeldrules]

seperate but equal ..you cant avoid it. it is discrimination based on gender and sexuality

Not seperate, referred to differently, but not treated differently. You cant get past that.

 

[Phisionary]

*sigh* @ this thread (again).

gay people are way cooler than everybody else. so they should not get married, because marriage is a pointless outdated convention and definitely not cool. go gay!

sry. I can't take these threads seriously anymore.

I support all people getting married. Gays, hindus, illegal aliens, pets, and little children. Just to stick it to all the people who think they own it.

 

[gh0st]

Oh look. A thread in the Politics folder in no way related to the usual slew of US-bashing/-buffing but that simply has to be morphed into that strand of comment and debate. It's getting tired, it truly is.

stern said this issue doesnt even affect me. i said i should have an opinion on this, regardless of its affect upon me. he certainly has them about things that dont affect him. read the entire thread before commenting thanks. baseless accusations are also getting tired. i was well within my rights to say what i did.

 

[CptStern]

el chi has a point (thx chi )

 

[gh0st]

el chi has a point (thx chi )

no he doesnt. you brought up america again just now in that kofi thread. whose the hypocrite now?

 

[seinfeldrules]

Actually, that's the stereotype of gay men. After all, isn't how they all got the gay plague?

Now whose making baseless accusations. You're better than that.

 

[weihbe]

I am absolutley sick of the american people making huge issues over completley NON-issues. I mean, seriously, in a time when the nation is at war, the economy has gone to the dogs, the world hates us, there is terrorism up the wazoo, and we are running out of oil, what do the american people care about? Abortion and gay marrige!

This entire election was run on...moral values? What the HELL is that? The american people need to get their head out of the sand and realize...you can do NOTHING about gay marrige and nothing will happen. Gay marrige should have been set aside for another time to deal with much more important matters. Does it truly affect the american people if gays can be married or not? What affects the american people is the economy, the war, natural resources, foreign policy! People here are just too stupid to realize that gay marrige and abortion will not affect their jobs, it will not affect their well-being in any way at all.

I was ashamed to realize that in all of the battleground states whom had conservative governors, they put gay marrige ON THE PRESIDENTIAL BALLOT! so, every religious conservative went out to vote for that, hell, even the AMISH who have NEVER come out for an election before came out and voted based on that issue alone. That, my freinds is exactley how the president got the popular vote this time. It is a shame how the media and the government can conjure up such wag-the-dog issues that completley divert the american people from what is important.

My personal opinion? I DO NOT CARE about gay marrige, but if I were to take a stand, it would be for it. A religious issue you say? Since when did YOUR religion become an issue of the GOVERNMENT as far as I am concerned, the government is not supposed to make laws based on any particualr religion and will not restrain the rights of any person according to any of their religions. It is not YOUR RELIGION's choice to tell people that they cannot have one of the fundamental rights that all human beings deserve. What if, for instance, one of these homosexuals who wanted to get married was atheist? According to their religion, there would be absolutley nothing wrong with it...however, according to the religion which was forced upon them by law, they would not be allowed to marry. Is that right?

The government does not see marrige as a religious issue whatsoever...or at least they are not supposed to. Marrige, by law, is nothing more than a civil agreement. Whether you call it a "civil union" or not makes it no difference, a marrige is nothing more than a contract binding two people together under law. However, civil unions will never be enough for homosexuals, it is not enough to be in civil union, and not recognized as an embodiment of love, as marrige is...

You see, one of the hugest compliants of conservatives about gays is their promiscuity. Well, to me, it is easy to see how they are promiscuous...They have NO true options to hold a steady boyfreind or girlfreind for the rest of their lives like heterosexuals do. If gays were allowed to marry, they would actually be legally bound to that person, in both name of marrige and the actual bond of love. Also, they would have consequences like everyone else if they divorced. Then, gays would feel obligated to stay together, and would not be promiscuous with many partners at once.

Sorry if this is sounding like an essay, or political speech, but I was happy that a politics forum could be added, so I could express my political views freely without fear of consequence, you see, it's kind of hard having my opinions in a place like texas

excelent post.

 

[bliink]

I quite like what theotherguy said; I think that for people to get this obsessive over the issue, priorities have become quite mixed up.
What about the people being killed? Who cares about that when you can instead go and whine about people who feel love?
I mean, WTF?

 

[drolo]

Christian/Jewish Hypocrits

I don't approve of it, or like the thought of it. But hey, whatever floats their boat, or however the saying goes. At least they're not doing illegal drugs or killing people, except the potential babies that can't be conceived. Heh.

Sorry, I am not gay and the thought to being gay makes me throw up, but whoever wants to be gay can be this .... and if wantig to get married .... I got married and have no children, so where is the difference ?