Gay Marriage page 99

3420 posts

Flag Post

I have shown that marginalizing the role of children and reproduction in marriage is not a logical necessity. It, instead, betrays the self interested nature of gay marriage. Further, degrading marriage and picking subsets of married people in order to draw a false equality is also illogical.

How is it illogical? You suggest that the Marriage Contract is the State Sponsored reward for making babies. Which is justified, as babies are a good thing. (Correct me if I am wrong here.) How does allowing hetero infertile couples to become married not invalidate that entirely? That’s not a false equality, they’re both bound by the exact same legal documents. Marriage itself as a contract does not assume, or demand, the production of children either. (I would accept, culturally, it is generally expected. But as a legal document…)

Furthermore, marriage is not a prerequisite for making children. Any gaggle of teenager is more then capable left to their own devices. How is marriage a vouchsafe for something it has no guaranteed role in, nor exclusive domain of?

 
Flag Post

You are mitigating the importance of child rearing as a product of normal biological families.

Or something like that.

 
Flag Post

Could a pro-homosexual marriage supporter please illustrate the difference between tolerating homosexuality, and supporting homosexuality? Please give your viewpoint if it is acceptable to simply tolerate homosexuality, or if one must support it to be right.

You are addressing different issues within the same question without noticing it, and you are trying to make them equal without us noticing it.

You can tolerate:

1. Homosexuality.
2. Homosexuals.
3. The status quo.

You can support:

1. Homosexuality.
2. Homosexuals.
3. The status quo.

Each one of these six is different, so I’ll have to explain each one of them. They are related, though.

Tolerating homosexuality: You allow it to be part of society. You allow society to show it is part of society. You accept it to be part of society. If you would not tolerate homosexuality, you would shush people who talk about it, you would vote for taking legal action against those who perform homosexual acts (holding hands or kissing are parts of it!), but the people themselves are not prosecuted for other actions. In fact, you may look more closely at homosexuals for this, but heterosexuals will be prosecuted for performing homosexual acts as well (however you arbitrarily define “homosexual acts”). If you tolerate homosexuality, these acts will not be discriminated against over heterosexual acts (so you still can’t have sex in public, but homosexuals can have sex in private). But, tolerating homosexuality does not mean you support it. While tolerating homosexuality, you can still advise people to reduce their homosexual acts, like you would advise people not to smoke while still tolerating their smoke.

Tolerating homosexuals: You allow them to be part of society. Homosexuals have rights and you tolerate them to have those rights. If you do not tolerate homosexuals, you want them to be removed from society, regardless of how they act. It does not matter if they are married to a woman they do not love, do not engage in homosexual acts, and do not show up at rallies supporting homosexual rights, what matters is that they are homosexual. If you tolerate homosexuals, you would not vote for kicking them out of the country, but it does not mean you have to like them. You can avoid them, be rude to them, as long as you do not discriminate against them.

Tolerating the status quo: This is where it gets interesting. If the status quo is discrimination against homosexuality, and you tolerate this status quo, do you really tolerate homosexuality/homosexuals? You tolerate them to be around, and you tolerate their acts, but once other people discriminate against them and prevent them from marrying, you stand by and watch. If you are tolerant of the status quo, you cannot be tolerant of homosexuals/homosexuality. It is a contradictive stance. It is not as bad as supporting the status quo (see below), but you do not vote against it, even if you may not like it.

Supporting homosexuality: Contrary to what you may believe, very few people “support” homosexuality. Supporting homosexuality is suggesting it is a good thing to have in society. It is similar to saying it is a good thing we have left-handed people in society. That is simply silly. Homosexuality is not a good or a bad thing. It does no harm, but neither does it really make us better. You could argue it somewhat counters population growth, but there are much better, controllable ways of countering that. If you support homosexuality, you want it to be in society, and you openly advise people to perform homosexual acts.

Supporting homosexuals: Again, this is not what you think it is. I do not “support” homosexuals as much as I do not “support” people with brown hair. They simply exist. It is their choice to exist. They are people, just like I am. If I like them, I like them, and it would not be because they are homosexuals. If you support homosexuals, you suggest them to be active in public, telling others they are homosexuals, and join homosexual groups that appear on television (as examples). Most people don’t do this.

Supporting the status quo: The key of them all. Simply said, you cannot tolerate homosexuality/homosexuals if you support the status quo. In fact, by supporting the status quo (not just tolerating it), you are actively intolerant of homosexuality/homosexuals. The status quo in America is, again, a certain type of discrimination against homosexuals (and a certain dislike of homosexuality). Supporting the status quo is supporting they cannot get married, and homosexual acts are looked down upon in society. Obviously, if the status quo is like in the Netherlands, it is the other way around, but this is about America.

So, I’m going to have to conclude that you cannot really support homosexuality/homosexuals (without sounding like an idiot), and that it is your choice whether to tolerate them, and if you tolerate or support the status quo. The four of these (excluding supporting homosexuality/homosexuals) are interrelated, and sometimes contradict each other. It is your choice whether you do any of these, but you cannot make contradictive decisions.

I see that there is much anger and intolerance for people who wish for marriage to have a purpose to protect reproduction within intact biological families, and I find this very sad. Instead, it is clear that gay marriage replaces a purpose with no or little discernible reason for marriage to exist in law. Why not just use durable power of attorney? Because that is not the point of marriage or gay marriage.

If your only point is to say “let’s not have any legal marriage”, then I don’t really disagree. I simply don’t see why randomly tossing in some “facts” about the supposed “success” of children in certain types of marriage.

 
Flag Post

Is it acceptable, then, Dark, if someone doesn’t support homosexuals, nor supports the status quo, but does tolerate homosexuals and demands tolerance for them? Is it fine for someone to not believe homosexuality is right, but believes people can choose to do it without fear of discrimination?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:

Is it fine for someone to not believe homosexuality is right, but believes people can choose to do it without fear of discrimination?

Personally, I would say yes, that is more than acceptable. Nobody should be forced to like something, whatever that something is.

It has always been the withholding of equal rights that has been the core of this problem.
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by MyTie:

Is it fine for someone to not believe homosexuality is right, but believes people can choose to do it without fear of discrimination?

Personally, I would say yes, that is more than acceptable. Nobody should be forced to like something, whatever that something is.

It has always been the withholding of equal rights that has been the core of this problem.

It’s not withholding equal rights. Just because you’re gay, that doesn’t entitle you to special privileges. Gay marriage is not defined in the Constitution, it’s not recognized, it was banned federally by the DOMA Act signed by liberal hero Bill Clinton.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darear:

It’s not withholding equal rights. Just because you’re gay, that doesn’t entitle you to special privileges.

So is Vika using invisible text, or are you making that up?

Gay marriage is not defined in the Constitution, it’s not recognized,

Who cares about living Constitutions, amirite?

it was banned federally by the DOMA Act signed by liberal hero Bill Clinton.

And a quick Wikipedia search shows that not only has he and several other people changed their minds and want it repealed, but it has also been found unconstitutional by seven federal courts.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by MyTie:

Is it fine for someone to not believe homosexuality is right, but believes people can choose to do it without fear of discrimination?

Personally, I would say yes, that is more than acceptable. Nobody should be forced to like something, whatever that something is.

It has always been the withholding of equal rights that has been the core of this problem.

I would say YES to both of your questions. vika left out the first one: “Is it acceptable, then, Dark, if someone doesn’t support homosexuals, nor supports the status quo, but does tolerate homosexuals and demands tolerance for them?”

AND, as she stated…neither of those positions align w/ the core of the problem: the withholding of equal CIVIL rights….REGARDLESS OF THE IDIOTIC CRAP SPEWED BY THE GUY BELOW.

Originally posted by Darear:

It’s not withholding equal rights. Just because you’re gay, that doesn’t entitle you to special privileges.

How utterly innane to NOT BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND that: equal is not the same as “special”? Good grief, how low does one have to stoop to make up shit ridiculous enough to slip by a mind that is able to be on a computer?

Originally posted by Darear:
Gay marriage is not defined in the Constitution, it’s not recognized,…
When the hell will the idiotic far-right-wing wackos ever drop this crap of: show me in the Constitution where it sez. How utterly brain-scrambled does one have to be to NOT SEE the abysmal lack of common sense there?

All of these “Gay bashers” can continute to rant & whine about this issue…
none of it will matter at all.
Gays will have their CIVIL RIGHTS.
Pretty much, it is old fuckers who “care” so much about the issue.
They will die….the “new” will replace them.
It’s really not all that hard to see the progression….I’ve watched it for 50 years now.
The hatred won’t go away….no more than racism has…along w/ many other cherished bigotries.
BUT, at least America won’t look so hypocritical.

 
Flag Post

The ‘special priviledges’ Darear is referring to, tenco, is the right to marry the consenting adult you love. The right to be recognised as an equal citizen of the state with all the rights and priviledges thereof.

The argument he is making, is that the priviledges of citizenship as bestowed by the constitution and bill of rights, must be modified by the ‘desirability’ of one group of citizens by another.

It is the opposite of my own interpretation of the rights and priviledges of being a citizen of the US, in that I believe they should be given to all citizens equally, irrespective of gender, skin color, sexual orientation or age. That’s where we clash.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darear:

Haha, I enjoy reading karmakoolkid’s posts. It’s like one bad joke after another. So convoluted and disjointed. At least learn how to argue.

I will say the same thing about YOU.
YOU continuously fail to make a real SUBSTANTIAL arguement about why YOU are against Gay marriage. NOW, ya tell us,,indirectly,,that it is ONLY on the Federal level that ya’re against?

I am for civil unions and states determining if they want gay marriage institutionalized into law or not. Humour me kkk, are you for federal gay marriage legislation?

I’m for Constitutional Civil Rights for ALL. How hard is it for YOU to “get it”?

It’s hilarious how if you don’t agree with gay marriage, you’re instantly branded a gay bashing homophobe!

Well, I’d say that usurping a group’s CIVIL RIGHTS is its own unique form of “bashing”….eh?
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
Originally posted by Darear:

Haha, I enjoy reading karmakoolkid’s posts. It’s like one bad joke after another. So convoluted and disjointed. At least learn how to argue.

I will say the same thing about YOU.
YOU continuously fail to make a real SUBSTANTIAL arguement about why YOU are against Gay marriage. NOW, ya tell us,,indirectly,,that it is ONLY on the Federal level that ya’re against?

I am for civil unions and states determining if they want gay marriage institutionalized into law or not. Humour me kkk, are you for federal gay marriage legislation?

I’m for Constitutional Civil Rights for ALL. How hard is it for YOU to “get it”?

It’s hilarious how if you don’t agree with gay marriage, you’re instantly branded a gay bashing homophobe!

Well, I’d say that usurping a group’s CIVIL RIGHTS is its own unique form of “bashing”….eh?

I’m against most legislation on the federal level that has to do with touchy-feely societal issues. I’d prefer if the states decide. And yes, I am not in favor of gay marriage in my state but it’s up to the majority to decide that.

Gay marriage isn’t a Constitutional civil right. It was never mentioned in the Constitution or written into state or federal statutes until recently for the former. Understand? Gay marriage isn’t legally defined as a right. It’s only a right if it’s been enacted into law and if it’s taken away then it’s a lost right.

sigh Again for the last comment, gay marriage ISN’T A CIVIL RIGHT. Learn the definition of it please.

 
Flag Post

Right. you’re a constitutionalist. Not a homophobe.

 
Flag Post

For YOU, Darear:

Civil Rights for kids:

1.right or rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship including especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th amendments and subsequent acts of Congress including the right to legal and social and economic equ
Similar Words: civil right

Hyponyms: civil liberty, habeas corpus, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom to bear arms, freedom from search and seizure, right to due process, freedom from self-incrimination, privilege against self incrimination, freedom from double jeopardy, right to speedy and public trial by jury, right to an attorney, right to confront accusors, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, freedom from involuntary servitude, equal protection of the laws, freedom from discrimination, equal opportunity

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

For YOU, Darear:

Civil Rights for kids:

1.right or rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship including especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th amendments and subsequent acts of Congress including the right to legal and social and economic equ
Similar Words: civil right

Hyponyms: civil liberty, habeas corpus, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom to bear arms, freedom from search and seizure, right to due process, freedom from self-incrimination, privilege against self incrimination, freedom from double jeopardy, right to speedy and public trial by jury, right to an attorney, right to confront accusors, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, freedom from involuntary servitude, equal protection of the laws, freedom from discrimination, equal opportunity

I’m sure the founders meant that to include gay marriage at the time eh?

“Those who now argue that same-sex couples should be included, as a matter of civil right, within the legal definition of marriage are appealing to the constitutional principles of equal protection and equal treatment. But this is entirely inappropriate for making the case for same-sex “marriage.” To argue that the Constitution guarantees equal treatment to all citizens, both men and women, does not say anything about what constitutes marriage, or a family, or a business enterprise, or a university, or a friendship. An appeal for equal treatment would certainly not lead a court to require that a small business enterprise be called a marriage just because two business partners prefer to think of their business that way. Nor would equal treatment of citizens before the law require a court to conclude that those of us who pray before the start of auto races should be allowed to redefine our auto clubs as churches.

The simple fact is that the civil right of equal treatment cannot constitute social reality by declaration. Civil rights protections function simply to assure every citizen equal treatment under the law depending on what the material dispute in law is all about. Law that is just must begin by properly recognizing and distinguishing identities and differences in reality in order to be able to give each its legal due."

http://www.cpjustice.org/stories/storyReader$1178

This issue bores me. You get the last word.

 
Flag Post

I’m sure the founders meant that to include gay marriage at the time eh?

Who the fuck cares what Thomas Jefferson was thinking at the time? That’s gotta be the most retarded excuse for not granting civil rights in US history. In case you forgot, they didn’t make provisions for blacks either.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

I’m sure the founders meant that to include gay marriage at the time eh?

Who the fuck cares what Thomas Jefferson was thinking at the time? That’s gotta be the most retarded excuse for not granting civil rights in US history. In case you forgot, they didn’t make provisions for blacks either.

Again, gay marriage is not a civil right. Read the excerpt above. You cannot compare slavery and civil rights for blacks to civil rights for gay people. And it’s not about what the founders thought at the time it’s what the Constitution actually means and how it should be followed.

 
Flag Post

Quit trolling Vanguarde.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

Quit trolling Vanguarde.

Can someone explain to me what “Vanguarde” means? That a different user or something?

Edit: Alright so I searched Vanguarde and he was apparently a troll on here. Explain to me why he and I have completely different writing styles and how I rarely create threads. Really annoying how you brand all conservatives a troll based on one guy.

 
Flag Post

You are Vanguarde. You use the same bullshit non-logic that he did to explain away stuff you just wrote a couple minutes ago, the same hectoring ideological claptrap, you hate the same SD posters that he did, and Vanguarde also denied he was a troll with most of his alts, right up until the alt got permabanned. There’s no point discussing anything with you, it’s just a setup for more nonsensical bullshit and i’ve had enough.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

You are Vanguarde. You use the same bullshit non-logic that he did to explain away stuff you just wrote a couple minutes ago, the same hectoring ideological claptrap, you hate the same SD posters that he did, and Vanguarde also denied he was a troll with most of his alts, right up until the alt got permabanned. There’s no point discussing anything with you, it’s just a setup for more nonsensical bullshit and i’ve had enough.

Care to prove it? I didn’t even find kongregate until around 2010. I do not hate anyone on this board I simply dislike them for calling me racist, homophobe, etc. for not blindly agreeing with their views.

Careful with your accusations. You are clearly in the wrong this time. Also my arguments are fact based, I can just as easily say you spout the same bullshit non-logic because I don’t agree with you on an issue. It’s churlish, knock it off. It’s really tiresome.

 
Flag Post

Is it acceptable, then, Dark, if someone doesn’t support homosexuals, nor supports the status quo, but does tolerate homosexuals and demands tolerance for them?

Since supporting homosexuality/homosexuals is nonsense, you can only be (in)tolerant of them. Being tolerant of homosexuals is fine, not supporting the status quo (and, I hope, not tolerating it either) is fine, and this stance is not inherently contradictive. I’m not sure what you mean by “demanding tolerance for them”. I demand that you are not discriminating other people, yes. I don’t demand you to like them.

Is it fine for someone to not believe homosexuality is right, but believes people can choose to do it without fear of discrimination?

The belief is not the problem, it is when people act on it. So, you can believe whatever you want about homosexuality/homosexuals, as long as you accept them in society. As a not-so-minor note, I dislike the way you added “choose” in there, it is as if you’re really stressing your religious belief that people choose to be homosexual.

Just because you’re gay, that doesn’t entitle you to special privileges.

Nah, mostly you’re just playing semantics to reduce the amount of privileges for homosexuals. You’re annoyed that most things are rights nowadays, because it is nearly impossible to do away with rights for homosexuals, but it is quite a lot easier to stop them from having certain privileges. Instead, the discussion should be about discrimination. Keeping a privilege away from a certain group of people with the reason you dislike them and “blah, blah, tradition” is laughable at best. Keeping the privilege away because the constitution doesn’t demand equality or non-discrimination on this issue is at minimum outrageous.

 
Flag Post
Nah, mostly you’re just playing semantics to reduce the amount of privileges for homosexuals. You’re annoyed that most things are rights nowadays, because it is nearly impossible to do away with rights for homosexuals, but it is quite a lot easier to stop them from having certain privileges. Instead, the discussion should be about discrimination. Keeping a privilege away from a certain group of people with the reason you dislike them and “blah, blah, tradition” is laughable at best. Keeping the privilege away because the constitution doesn’t demand equality or non-discrimination on this issue is at minimum outrageous.

No, you need to actually learn the difference between a civil right and a privilege. Being gay doesn’t entitle you to any special prerogatives and I am certainly not in the business nor do I have any interest in stopping gays get whatever special privileges they want. You need to be a bit more logical in dealing with this. I don’t dislike gay people would you grow up please? Your whole argument is “you’re a homophobe.” Nice try but it’s not going to work. No one group should get “special privileges” unless everyone is entitled to the same. You are playing with semantics and changing the meaning of words.

Again, stop making it out like I’m bashing gay people. I have a personal view on this that’s different than yours. Please learn to respect an opposing side’s view instead of name calling.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darear:
Originally posted by 1badCompany1:

It is a religious ceremony. How do you think people got married before government was involved in all the litigation? Also gay couples can have the same legal rights and monetary privileges by civil unions.

No it is not. It is a civil law institution. Here’s a wikipedia article about marriage which is locked so its all fact-based. And government has always been around, even before religion was around. You are just uneducated and you should do some research before you start a debate you are not ready for.

Again more insults. Grow up really. You’re uneducated. You don’t even know proper grammar. You wrote “its” when it is “it’s.” The problem with people like you is that when someone has a different opinion you immediately resort to petty insults. You’re the one who should follow your own advice and research this.

I was making the argument that for millenia, marriage has been a religious and traditional institution between one man and one woman. You’re asserting I’m wrong for saying religious/traditional marriage came before government. You conveniently ignore that quote right when EPR89 took a step back further and asked ‘How did people get married before religion.’ Religion predated government. Religion is a fundamental belief of moral values. How can you say that people from the dawn of time had established government before they had these beliefs? You’re clearly in the wrong.

Again, drop the insults or I will insult right back.

Haha thanks for the laugh. Not sure if troll or being serious. You really did offend me with the whole grammar nazi business. But back to the topic. Marriage is a human right. By telling a fellow human they are not able to marry some other human being is wrong. Other countries such as Canada, Denmark, Brazil and even six states here in America have legalized gay marriage, but I don’t see marriage failing or being violated or people dying all over the streets. It’s not a religious violation, it’s a human rights violation. And why should two people of the same-sex getting married even bother you? If in your bible it says they are going to hell then so be it. It’s not affecting you in any way.

 
Flag Post

Darear, it is pretty annoying to see you be so defensive about your “viewpoint”. Discrimination is a real issue. A privilege is something that people can receive by performing a certain procedure. Not everyone is automatically married. You’d have to find a partner you love for that, pay a sum, and appear before some people. It is fair not to call this a right, but also fair not to have it fall under legal protection at all. The biggest problem is that homosexuals are never capable of marrying the person they love, while heterosexuals can.

It is shitty reasoning any way to let something be both legal and a privilege so you can deny it to a certain group of people. You didn’t address this. Instead, you went on a rant on how I call you names and want homosexuals to get “special” privileges. This isn’t even an argument. It’s a weak attempt at maintaining the status quo: discrimination.