Gay Marriage page 103

3421 posts

Flag Post

Sometimes I forgot not all gay ‘communities’ are the same. I mentioned government forcing same sex marriages because I feel here in Finland it’s not so uncommon for gays to demand that. Or it just might be the vocal extremists that’ve gotten more media attention who have caused me to form that opinion. I don’t know.

Are you saying that there can’t be referendums in USA? Can there at least be nation specific referendums?

Marriage could be called civil union in the legislation solving the potential problem with the definition of marriage. I still feel that is unnecessary, if most people feel they are synonyms, but then again only poll would tell us that. Not a big problem, though.

There could also be both civil union and marriage in the legislation, both having the same legal properties, but some homosexuals find that discriminating. I find there is no legal grounds on that complaint, but social grounds, yes. A poll about definition of marriage would solve that…

 
Flag Post

If it is the same thing legally why should it be called differently?

 
Flag Post

It isn’t the same thing legally when only same sex couples can form civil unions and only male-female couples can get married. Their effects would be the same, but their legal definitions differ.

 
Flag Post

Civil unions have less legal rights than marriages, EPR.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

Civil unions have less legal rights than marriages, EPR.

I knew I forgot a subjunctive.
I was referring to the scenario described in the last paragraph of TuJe’s post.


Originally posted by TuJe:

It isn’t the same thing legally when only same sex couples can form civil unions and only male-female couples can get married. Their effects would be the same, but their legal definitions differ.

Based solely on sexual orientation without any other motivation for having different terms?
I’d love to see you find a justification for doing that without it ending up being pandering to churches that don’t like the idea of same sex marriage.

 
Flag Post

Justification for getting the same legal benefits to same sex couples as male-female couples? In that solution the definition of marriage needs not to be changed. Not that I’m inherently against changing it, as I’ve said many times. Marriage as a word isn’t owned by church, they hold no absolute power over its definition. That’s why I’ve said many times and still say that a poll should be made. If we were only to consider legal equality, this is one of the possible choices for solving the problem.


Thinking it through more, it’s some kind of an underlying assumption that only theists are against gay marriage. I did a google search, and found not all atheists/agnostics support gay marriage. The same is also (obviously) true for theists, not all of them are against it.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TuJe:

Justification for getting the same legal benefits to same sex couples as male-female couples?

No.
Justification for calling it differently.

I made this comparison before and I still think it fits:
Let’s imagine living in the late 60s. The civil rights movement is becoming stronger and stronger and finally the politicians decide that it would be a good idea to change the text of the relevant sections in the constitution and laws to realise these changes. Here’s what they do:
Wherever it says humans/persons/men etc. it now says humans/persons/men and niggers. Through this cunning move normal people and black people are now considered equal before the law and everyone is happy.
Right?

 
Flag Post

Homosexuality is immoral.

If you say otherwise, why?

If you are going to say that its “natural” because other animals do it, other animals also rape women and eat each other. So, are you saying that rape and cannibalism are just as “moral” as homosexuality?

You aren’t because you are all hypocrites.

 
Flag Post

Natural and moral are not related terms.

Also, troll harder, please.

 
Flag Post

Yeah, EPR, your example is discriminating as it implies niggers aren’t humans/persons/men, but I also find that example irrelevant to my solution. In my solution homosexuals aren’t defined being lesser than heterosexuals in any way.

Defining marriage only being between man and woman and civil union between same sex people is only found offending for some of the gay community because they define the word differently. Some heterosexuals could also find the definition of marriage offending if they don’t want to have marriage, but form a civil union. Very unlikely, but possible, and it shows how the problem is tied to definition of marriage, not necessarily to legal rights (at least here in Finland, gay couples have the same legal benefits as male-female couples).

This problem gets so much attention only because the traditional definition of marriage is so closely related to christianity(/religion?). I would imagine that in a secular country where most of the people define marriage being between male and female, such outcry wouldn’t ever occur, provided gay civil union couples have same legal rights there.

Also there seems to be some secular arguments against gay marriage (seemed to be fiscal), but I won’t go through there.

And I feel the need to remind that I live in Finland where gay couples already have the same legal benefits as heterosexual couples. I’d imagine living in USA might give one a different point of view to this topic…

 
Flag Post
I would imagine that in a non-christian country where most of the people define marriage being between male and female, such outcry wouldn’t ever occur, provided gay civil union couples have same legal rights there.

A secular nation is the term you are looking for. An Islamic nation (non-christian) is even less tolerant than a Judeo-christian nation.

 
Flag Post

Gay marriage makes no sense. Is it phisically possible to have a child with to men or women, without sperm donations? NO. Thats the answer to gay marriage. NO

 
Flag Post

Infertile marriage makes no sense. Is it phisically possible to have a child with two Infertile people, without sperm donations? NO. Thats the answer to Infertile marriage. NO

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by issendorf:

A secular nation is the term you are looking for. An Islamic nation (non-christian) is even less tolerant than a Judeo-christian nation.

Oh, yeah, that is a better term for what I was looking for.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by ThetaPrime01400:

Gay marriage makes no sense. Is it phisically possible to have a child with to men or women, without sperm donations? NO. Thats the answer to gay marriage. NO

Oh for fuck’s sake, do we really need to make a thread for a compilation of the counter-arguments for stupid-as-bricks “arguments” like these?

 
Flag Post

Might not be a bad idea, Tenco. Then we could just link to the relevant post, rather than having to post the same counter arguments over and over again.

 
Flag Post

It’s been scientifically proven that at least 80% of gay couples will get an STD in their lifetimes, some of which may pass on to a child (if they have any).

No.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MFThomas_v2:

It’s been scientifically proven that at least 80% of gay couples will get an STD in their lifetimes, some of which may pass on to a child (if they have any).

No.

[Citation Needed]

 
Flag Post

It has been scientifically proven that 78% of statements without sources are made up.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:

It has been scientifically proven that 78% of statements without sources are made up.

Ahem…I’m 93% sure that YOU are 83% right on that……
given that YOU ONLY KNOW 57% of what ya’re talking about….
and that happens only 79% of the time..
and that’s only for the 37% when I am even listening….deeerrrr,,
percentage wise…

Ain’t spouting numbers FUN?
Like ppl = numbers…..LOL
that is.

 
Flag Post

Which is his point, moron.

Seriously, I know it’s the internet, but what kind of idiot can’t understand sarcasm?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

Seriously, I know it’s the internet, but what kind of idiot can’t understand sarcasm?

The average KY resident won’t understand sarcasm when its directed at them. I’ve not been to Kansas, but I rather suspect its not much different there, either.

 
Flag Post

I’m not at all sure who Jan’s “moron” is.
Nor do I understand why vika’s “jab” at Kansas probably refers to me.
AND, I’m not at all sure if any of Jan, vika, tenco (well, tenco IS obvious…lol), SilverEvil, or MFThomas are being sarcastic or not or, if are, to what degree.

Of course, Jan is merely being his usual sardonic self…difficult to distiquish from sarcasm. lol

I’m making this post to state that MY post above is intended to be a jestful play off of tenco’s.
If THAT isn’t obvious…then, indeed, the Interest is fraught w/ this problematic communication issue.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

I’m not at all sure who Jan’s “moron” is.
Nor do I understand why vika’s “jab” at Kansas probably refers to me.

More a jab in general at both our states. This side of the pond, its a common belief that Americans don’t understand sarcasm, and backwards populations like Kansas, Kentucky, do tend to exemplify that. Kentucky certainly. Mind you, I an recollect many individuals who were never completely sure which end of a gun to face towards at their own body, so that’s not saying much. Pointing it towards their own sex organs with the safety off was not exactly unusual.

 
Flag Post

Personally, I wouldn’t care if they all got aids and croaked.