Page all of 7 12345>Last »
Topic Options
#26843 - 07/05/09 05:47 PM Gay Marriage
TornadoCreator Offline
member


Registered: 10/24/07
Posts: 586
Loc: No Fixed Address
 Originally Posted By: Fist (from Burka thread)
TC, you should definitely start a gay marriage thread. It has come up a few times and could use it's own thread.

Right you are. Here it is.

 Originally Posted By: Fist
Never the less, marriage is an ancient social construct and is by and large a religious construct. A secular state will have a great deal of difficulty legitimizing gay marriage without defining what exactly a marriage is. In most of the EU there will be a great deal of hand wringing over the issue as they may have to own up to the fact that one-man-one-woman marriage is a Christian construct that is protected and promoted by the State.

Very true, and at no point do I expect a church to accept gay couples, churches should not be forced to conduct gay marriage and I would have no issue with them speaking out against it. That said, registry offices are not religious building, a judge can legally conduct a wedding, as can the captain of a ship. Why can't these weddings be same sex. Hell, even some churches, some being sects of Christianity are willing to conduct a same sex wedding. So why can't that be marriage. In history, marriage is an adaption of the pagan hand-fasting which was not restricted to heterosexual couples. In the Incan tribes to take a man as your wife was a sign of wisdom and a great honour.

 Originally Posted By: Fist
It is worth noting that the Greeks had the most gay friendly culture on Earth yet even they did not even have a concept of gay 'marriage.' Why?

Cultures change. That was a long time ago, perhaps there wasn't much call for it.
_________________________
If you can't practice what you preach, at least have the decency to preach what you practice

Top
#26846 - 07/05/09 06:27 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: TornadoCreator]
ta2zz Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 1552
Loc: Connecticut

Déjà vu : an individual feels as though an event has already happened or has happened in the near past.

What do you do on a local level in the real world to affect change? Sitting here rambling about the way you think things should be is just mental masturbation. You realize this eh?

You chose to fight for lolicon, child abuse, furries, burkas, and gay marriage. You are a freaky man to associate yourself with such people. Only an ignorant man will fight fights that have no special meaning to their personal lives. Sorry but I feel that you either do fight these battles to serve yourself or you think you could make things better for all. I’m no fan of politicians or armchair activists.

Get outside do something. Go hand out fliers, show support at gay rallies, all talk and no substance makes Jack nothing but a bag-o-wind.

Since you seem to have serious personal views on everything odd and socially unacceptable, I must ask what are your views on N.A.M.B.L.A.? Perhaps a thread on why man boy love is a natural act eh?

~T~
_________________________
We are the music makers, And we are the dreamers of dreams. ~Arthur William Edgar O'Shaughnessy

Top
#26850 - 07/05/09 09:21 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: ta2zz]
TornadoCreator Offline
member


Registered: 10/24/07
Posts: 586
Loc: No Fixed Address
Doesn't this forum encourage debate. I could get just as much use out of discussing things on this forum as I could handing out flyers. Here I'm with a small group of people who want to debate and are more likely to take on board what I am saying. I'm expected to join in debates and start debates and people want me to give my opinion. This is a discussion forum, it's very purpose is to give it's members a pulpit for their opinions and to allow people to read the opinions of others. On the street people don't want to hear me, I would be no better than a street preacher. I'm not one for giving opinions when it is neither asked for or I'm not in an appropriate venue/situation.

As for the things you mention.

I oppose the movement to make lolicon illegal because I feel it's limiting art. It hurts no-one, if you don't like it don't look at it. It's not about what it is, it's the principal. If it was impressionism or ballet which people wanted to make illegal I'd feel just as strongly.

I've never fought for child abuse, stop claiming I have you obsessed sicko. One has to wonder if people like yourself are keeping this up because you yourselves are paedophiles who would like someone who supports you. Sorry I don't. (It's not nice when someone makes accusations is it).

Furries... at what point did I claim I was "fighting" for them, there's nothing to fight for. Furries aren't being oppressed, misrepresented maybe, but that's about it. Did you just want something to pad the list with. Besides, I am a furry so anything that effects the group would logically effect me, of cause I'd act in the groups interests.

Burkas I'm against. Bloody stupid things, but I'm not so much fighting as watching the news unfold and smirking at it. I'm actually on the fence on this issue in all honesty.

Gay Marriage, finally the topic at had. Yes, I have an opinion. As a bisexual who has many gay friends, many of which would like to get married I feel I and my friends are not being given the rights we should be given. I'm sorry is there something wrong with this point.

Basically, I'm a person with a hobby (furry) who happens to be libertarian, it's a common enough political stance. I'm sorry if you find it freaky then you're clearly not very politically minded. I actually have opinions. As for why I would fight for things that don't effect me. The lolicon laws don't directly effect me but I don't like them on principal because I don't like the idea of thought crimes, especially as if lolicon is made illegal it's not unreasonable that furry art would be next, why not, it also doesn't hurt anyone and has fuck all to do with anyone except the artist and the person looking at it. And I've explained my position on Gay Marriage.

I have voiced an opinion on two laws that I feel are unjust. I feel moderately passionately about them and I'm willing to vote against them and discuss them in an open forum in the hope of having other people agree. This makes me freaky? ta2zz, you're easily disturbed.

As for NAMBLA, I looked them up just now. They're extremely misguided. As much as they claim they don't want to hurt kids, they want it to be consensual, etc, they know that kids can't give consent. They are using their freedom of speech to campaign for something and I wouldn't want to stop them, free speech is important, but honestly, it's a transparent attempt to legalise child molestation so long as you can manipulate the child into saying it's OK. It's wrong, it's disturbing, and it'll never be allowed by modern society anyway so quite frankly, I'm just going to ignore them.

As this was clearly an implication that I supported them let me say simply this. ta2zz, I had to look up this group, you knew who they where. I was talking about gay marriage, you brought up paedophilia. I voice an opinion, you somehow relate it back to child abuse. What the fuck is wrong with you. Either admit that you like to fondle little boys or drop the fucking subject you sick weirdo.
_________________________
If you can't practice what you preach, at least have the decency to preach what you practice

Top
#26881 - 07/06/09 03:09 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: TornadoCreator]
ta2zz Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 1552
Loc: Connecticut

I had stated, “Only an ignorant man will fight fights that have no special meaning to their personal lives.” Thank you for spending the time to clear a few things up for us all.

Some tend to cry that their words are being taken out of context while others tend to exercise selective sight.

 Originally Posted By: TornadoCreator
Doesn't this forum encourage debate. I could get just as much use out of discussing things on this forum as I could handing out flyers. Here I'm with a small group of people who want to debate and are more likely to take on board what I am saying.

Yes this forum encourages debate yet I am as free to give my opinion as you. Honestly I only saw one gay rally I ended up at back in 98 or 90 in NY on accident. Seems the off day the flamboyant flamers were still home. I would have to say if your local gay rally is anything near as big, then handing out fliers would reach many more people than are active here. But why stop there? More on that thought in a moment.

I have always said you were a bit confused so here we go. Here you are with a small group of people, I doubt any know you personally and not many even know what you look like. Yet somehow you think that most of us are here to debate and pick up your cause? Not many here care about you or I that is a simple fact. Look TC at best here you have a group of people that like to debate that are all looking out for themselves, not you.

Now why in the fuck you would want to keep showing your throat to this bunch I guess just leaves me puzzled.

 Originally Posted By: TornadoCreator
I'm expected to join in debates and start debates and people want me to give my opinion. This is a discussion forum, it's very purpose is to give it's members a pulpit for their opinions and to allow people to read the opinions of others.

So you understand that my opinion has as much merit as yours, based on logic and evidence of course. Then you should also understand that while you are preaching your ideals from your soapbox I am allowed to counter with my ideas as well.

 Originally Posted By: TornadoCreator
On the street people don't want to hear me, I would be no better than a street preacher. I'm not one for giving opinions when it is neither asked for or I'm not in an appropriate venue/situation.

I would think a much better venue to apply yourself to if you want to affect change would be at gay rallies, newspapers, forums specifically for gay rights activists or your local politicians office. But again you think preaching from the 600 clubs pulpit? (your terminology) is somehow enough. So preach away it's what you do best.

I dislike preachers as well as politicians, mostly their messages of do as I say not as I do just don't fly with me.

 Originally Posted By: TornadoCreator
Basically, I'm a person with a hobby (furry) who happens to be libertarian, it's a common enough political stance. I'm sorry if you find it freaky then you're clearly not very politically minded.

Wait so is it I’m not very politically minded because I think you are freaky or because you say I think furry libertarians are?

This whole shit about marriage is so blown out of proportion I find all of it a rather silly ritual that is unnecessary in today’s world. Oh wait the tax break and the next of kinship eh?

Let's not forget those who marry or divorce to get better health insurance. This has also been a hot topic over the last few years. Health Benefits Inspire Rush to Marry, or Divorce

There are still these things known as a will, and men called lawyers and politicians. These are the men you need to sway to your cause if you expect to have any effect at all.

Until then if you want to fuck your beer buddy and call him your lover, you get no tax break under current law.

~T~

PS. I leave you with a recent study done on fruit flies in finding the gay gene. turning-homosexuality-on-and-off Someday a pill may correct what law yet cannot. ;\)

EDIT: I should add I couldn't care less what anyone does, I only care when they feel obliged to tell me about it.


Edited by ta2zz (07/06/09 03:12 PM)
Edit Reason: marked
_________________________
We are the music makers, And we are the dreamers of dreams. ~Arthur William Edgar O'Shaughnessy

Top
#26886 - 07/06/09 05:20 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: ta2zz]
TornadoCreator Offline
member


Registered: 10/24/07
Posts: 586
Loc: No Fixed Address
Fair enough.

You know I debate largely for fun right? I enjoy having intelligent discussions. I don't see why you feel so strongly about me voicing opinions here but I suppose if you don't enjoy debates with little chance of making any lasting change to the issue then it would seem pointless.
_________________________
If you can't practice what you preach, at least have the decency to preach what you practice

Top
#26896 - 07/07/09 01:27 AM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: TornadoCreator]
hellbent666
Unregistered



Marriage was originally designed to trap women into Bull shit relationships, spread genetic material, and keep house. I don't understand the minimal tax breaks, or the want of such breaks, or the desire to be tied to one person for the rest of your natural existence. Marriage was also NEVER designed to include gays, it was for a man and a woman. There is a Magister who's name escapes me that is gay and very vocal about how absurd it is for gays to get married. It is a womans day, not a mans.

With that being said, what possesses anyone to get married is beyond me. Over 60% of all marriages in the states end in divorce mainly due to relationship ADD. No one knows what they want anymore. I think divorce should be illegal personally regardless of sexual orientation. If you can't honor your vows or do it out of convinence I think you're retarded. Being stuck to one person for the rest of your lives is such a crazy concept! I do not understand why anyone would trap themselves like that. People change, and often in very little time.

Top
#26907 - 07/07/09 09:57 AM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: ]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3138
 Quote:
Marriage was originally designed to trap women into Bull shit relationships, spread genetic material, and keep house.

Yeah right.. marriage used for spreading genetic material? If you are limited to 1 wife? You sir, are selling bullshit..

 Quote:
I don't understand the minimal tax breaks, or the want of such breaks, or the desire to be tied to one person for the rest of your natural existence. Marriage was also NEVER designed to include gays, it was for a man and a woman.

1) The idea marriage is only for man and woman is a religious idea. Ofcourse, it is the most natural idea that a man and a women live, fuck and get old together is "natural". Before you start nagging: in history there already were some kind of "same-sex unions" it cannot be considered the same as marriage but still...
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#History
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

2)Marriage nowadays is (and was in history) used to provide financial security. A girl alone who wasn't married was completely lost and considered as "waste" if she wasn't married. Women were regarded as "inferior", letting them marry at least gave them a chance on having a "brighter" future. (Discussable)
Ofcourse I'm only talking about marriage from around these parts of the world. The position man/women might and can differ from envirronement to envirronement.

 Quote:
I think divorce should be illegal personally regardless of sexual orientation.

And why should it be illegal? Imagine you have a wife, beautifull, sexy.. she is dating another guy/girl and meanwhile leeches you for having a good time with him/her while YOU are being leeched out and handled as trash. Since divorcing is illegal you can't cut the money faucet and you have to pay her because otherwise you are being sued for not taking responsibility and for "abuse".


Edited by Dimitri (07/07/09 10:23 AM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#26908 - 07/07/09 10:15 AM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: ]
Fist Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/31/07
Posts: 1453
Loc: B'mo Cautious MF
Ah, now we are getting somewhere. Clearly we will have to use the Socratic Method here.

Firstly, we need to define terms. Just what is a marriage? Where did the concept come from? Why does it endure today and does/did it have a purpose in society. Just what could that purpose be, and is it relevant today?

 Quote:

Marriage was originally designed to trap women into Bull shit relationships, spread genetic material, and keep house.


Was it now? When did societies (around the globe) begin practicing marriage? In Viking culture the woman owned all the land and by all accounts were as tough as the men and EQUAL under Viking law. They kept home and hearth in order while the men went out and hunted for booty - a division of labor if you will. In most of the barbarian cultures of Europe women were equal to men. Ever hear of Boadicea? In the West, this bare-foot-and-pregnant model is product of the Roman Church.

 Quote:
Over 60% of all marriages in the states end in divorce mainly due to relationship ADD. No one knows what they want anymore.


And just why is that? What could be the reason?

How about because the 'women's movement' has told women that they don't need a man. Women have stopped taking care of their men and, as no small consequence, men have stopped taking care of their women. Everyone has stopped taking care of their children. Children are shuttled off to some sort institutional setting to be indoctrinated as obedient serfs. Or, they are simply left to their own devices to cruise the vast wasteland of TV, the internet and FPS video games.

Govt for it's part has run a program for the last 40 year custom tailored to destroy families. Govt, in large part, has replaced the man as the provider. A woman with children and no man has access to a wide array of govt programs. In fact, should a struggling couple try to stay together the State will actually take away their public assistance.

Society in general has promoted this nonsensical concept of the 'Super Mom.' Where woman spend the vast majority of their time promoting their career and a very small amount of time tending to their husband and family. Is it any wonder that most marriages end in divorce?

But, just what is this marriage thing we keep talking about anyway?
_________________________
I am the Devil and I am here to do the Devil's work.

Top
#26914 - 07/07/09 03:04 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: Fist]
hellbent666
Unregistered



LOL! Do you want websters definition of marriage, or are we going to go around in circles like Socrates did, getting nowhere?
Top
#26915 - 07/07/09 03:08 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: ]
hellbent666
Unregistered



one more thing...If you're going to make vows in front of your friends and family to honor and love your mate FOREVER, you need to stay true to your convictions and do what you say you're gonna do. Divorce for most people is just an easy way out, it should never be easy. If people were punished for divorcing they probably wouldn't even get married in the first place. It's an out-dated, worthless institution regardless of sexual orientation. It's beyond me why anyone would submit to such a social contract
Top
#26919 - 07/07/09 04:35 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: ]
TornadoCreator Offline
member


Registered: 10/24/07
Posts: 586
Loc: No Fixed Address
 Originally Posted By: hellbent666
LOL! Do you want websters definition of marriage, or are we going to go around in circles like Socrates did, getting nowhere?


Yes, go ahead provide a definition because you know what the definition means... fuck all.

I don't care if your dictionary claims marriage is between a man and a woman, it's a new thing anyway, it won't say that in most dictionaries 20 years ago, because this "change the dictionary" thing that America does has only happened recently. Look up "Atheist", apparently it's not "Someone who asserts the dogma that there is no God". Fuck the Americans, it's English, not American, want your own language make one up yourselves, stop pissing on ours to further political goals.

As for marriage. If the definition is the only thing stopping it, guess what, we can bloody well change it. The language is fluid, it changes constantly. Hence why words like 'verily' are not used today, and why the word 'cool' officially means "Excellent, First-Rate, Satisfactory, Total Of, Full", this was originally slang, now it's not as it's a common use of the word that has traversed generations and subcultures. Marriage means "two people becoming each others partners, likely lovers, and wanting to be considered family both emotionally and legally", whether the dictionary agrees or not. I know this because if a gay couple said "We're getting married", everyone would know what they meant, even different generations and cultures. Not liking it being called marriage does not stop it being marriage, it still is, even if the form says "Civil Union" or "Civil Partnership".
_________________________
If you can't practice what you preach, at least have the decency to preach what you practice

Top
#26920 - 07/07/09 04:40 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: ]
TornadoCreator Offline
member


Registered: 10/24/07
Posts: 586
Loc: No Fixed Address
 Originally Posted By: hellbent666
one more thing...If you're going to make vows in front of your friends and family to honor and love your mate FOREVER, you need to stay true to your convictions and do what you say you're gonna do. Divorce for most people is just an easy way out, it should never be easy. If people were punished for divorcing they probably wouldn't even get married in the first place. It's an out-dated, worthless institution regardless of sexual orientation. It's beyond me why anyone would submit to such a social contract


Does you not understanding why people would want to mean they shouldn't be allowed to do it. I don't understand why people would want to watch NASCAR, that shit sucks, does that mean they shouldn't be allowed to do it.

Just because you don't get it doesn't mean someone should loose their right to enter any legal contract they wish with who they wish, marriage is simple that.
_________________________
If you can't practice what you preach, at least have the decency to preach what you practice

Top
#26921 - 07/07/09 04:40 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: ]
Nemesis Offline
senior member


Registered: 09/01/07
Posts: 2175
Loc: US
Wow, you've obviously never been married, and certainly you've never been through a divorce. I have yet to meet a man who has not been put through the ringer emotionally and financially when he and his wife decide to get divorced. Mountains of paperwork, legal issues, custody battles, name changes, moving, property settlements, etc. Even with a prenup it's a bitch. "Deciding" to get a divorce may be easy, the actual process is anything but.
_________________________
Nothing is sacred.

Top
#26922 - 07/07/09 04:44 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: ]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
lol, we agree on something hellbent:

"If you're going to make vows in front of your friends and family to honor and love your mate FOREVER, you need to stay true to your convictions and do what you say you're gonna do. Divorce for most people is just an easy way out."

That's why you have to be sure of what the hell you are doing. It's funny, my grandmother told me always see a man drunk before you consider marrying him, so you know what you are in for.

Divorce has become easy, people go through so many "starter marriages" because of it. Yet on the other hand, it is so necessary. Divorce is necessary sometimes, in the cases of abuse, abandonment, and attempted murder.

People do marry for love, and those marriages may last for years. It's just a matter of working on it and not giving up. My great grandparents were married over 60 years, and Jake is going on 40 years. I think its possible for it to work, if you really want it to.

I'm just of the opinion that everyone should have the right to be unhappily married.

Morgan
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
#26923 - 07/07/09 05:52 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: Morgan]
hellbent666
Unregistered



Hey, TC. Most words have specific meanings, and there is nothing you can do to change that! You could write your own dictionary and pervert words if you wanted, but in AMERICA, marriage means primarily ONE specific thing. Your terminology may mean multiples of things, I have no idea. Specific words mean specific things like duck fucking means a water bird with a bill! I didn't make up the word! Yell at webster for that and I don't reclaim offensive words either, although it is funny to call my white friends cracka! LOL! Instead of relying on a word that has a specific meaning, join 2 words like you already did, civil-union. Why you would advocate that is like I said beyond me.

Morgan, I'm glad we finally agree on something ;\)

Top
#26928 - 07/08/09 02:41 AM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: ]
hellbent666
Unregistered



Nemesis,
It was your choice in the first place to get married or were conned into it by your ex-wife. Women are quick to play house, and unfortunately it makes sense because the biological clock is ticking away and they only have a certain time frame to accomplish being a mom. Being a mom typically means settling down with a good man and entering into marriage. I've seen plenty of couples do the whole parental thing with no legal attachments whatsoever but I guess this is a matter of taste. I'm not into social status, I'm into personal accomplishments. I also rarely like being claimed in public unless the woman is of high caliber and I'm actually proud to be her man. Marriage is a form of materialism, and I despise materialism.

My wiccan ex made interesting vows with her husband. It was not indefinite, there was a stipulation that said she would remain married unless something made it impossible for her to honor her vows, basically leaving room for a divorce, only if necessary. That's okay I guess because at least she's being realistic. That until death do you part section of the vows are enough to make even strong men pass out in the aisle.

Top
#26929 - 07/08/09 07:16 AM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: ]
Nemesis Offline
senior member


Registered: 09/01/07
Posts: 2175
Loc: US
Excuse me, Señor, but I AM a woman. And I can tell you, I have no desire to play house, nor bear a child. I hate kids. Even as a child, I had no desire to bear and raise another human being. I have too many selfish pursuits in my life that having a child would interfere with.

Concerning the issue of divorce, I was speaking on behalf of my father, my friends and my relatives who have been fucked over by women who simply got bored. The majority of divorces these days are instigated by the wife. She either feels suffocated/trapped in a loveless marriage, is being abused (those tend to stay with their men, however--Stockholm Syndrome), or she has ambitions that her husband does not share. I am wary of marriage for the above reasons. I do not want to become another statistic, which is what I tell my relatives when they hassle me about why I haven't "married that boyfriend of mine".

Just taking the time to learn from your mistakes, mom.;)
_________________________
Nothing is sacred.

Top
#26931 - 07/08/09 08:50 AM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: Nemesis]
Jester Offline
pledge


Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 62
Loc: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Seems this has turned from a discussion about gay marriage to a discussion on marriage in general. I recently got out of a 2 and 1/2 year relationship with a girl I really loved. I would have married her, but I would have married her because it's what she wanted. I'm normally not a marriage kind of person. I think a relationship can be successful without having to go through the ceremony, the wasting of money etc. If her and I got married I don't think it would have been any different, we lived together, so I got a taste of married life so to speak (although, others have said that it is different.)

I don't feel marriage is necessary and I hate those who jump into marriage because, "It's about time we did," or whatever excuse people come up with. I'm definitely not a marriage expert, but no thanks. I entertained the idea with my ex, only because I loved her. Now I can honestly say I plan to never get married. Relationship with someone? Sure, it's possible. Marriage? Kids? No thank you.

Edit. As well, Nemesis, you rule, a lot of people break under the pressure of their family and rush into things, glad to see you are smart enough to listen to your head. \:\)


Edited by Jester (07/08/09 08:53 AM)
_________________________
"...And I thought my jokes were bad."

Top
#26933 - 07/08/09 09:07 AM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: ]
Fist Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/31/07
Posts: 1453
Loc: B'mo Cautious MF
 Quote:
LOL! Do you want websters definition of marriage, or are we going to go around in circles like Socrates did, getting nowhere?


That is a one liner cop out. Firstly, it was a one liner which we do not do here. You have been warned. Secondly, it did not answer the question. I asked quite a few specific questions and this is your answer? Weak.

Never the less, clearly you and TC need a little civics lesson. You see... under Western systems of govt you actually need to DEFINE things with WORDS in order to enact them in law. Get it?
_________________________
I am the Devil and I am here to do the Devil's work.

Top
#26934 - 07/08/09 09:33 AM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: Fist]
Saligia Offline
stranger


Registered: 05/03/09
Posts: 37
Loc: Manchester, England
In my eyes marriage is predominantly about financial security and ritual.
People want a stable relationship and a stable household, they want to know that if they break up they aren't going to be left homeless and destitute because they looked after the house while their partner earned a living (sometimes a divorce causes these problems anyway, but I think in general it leaves both people with something they can use to get "back on track". At least this is what it should provide). In my eyes this sort of financial security should be available to everybody, not just heterosexual couples.
As for the ritual element of marriage I think that the couple in question need to respect the beliefs of others. If a religious organisation considers homesexuality a sin then the couple should know not to ask them to perform a marriage for them. It would be a bit like a christian couple going to a Satanic/Wiccan organisation and asking to be married in the name of jesus christ. Personally I don't understand why certain religions take such a hostile stance against homosexuality, but unfortunately they do and it makes no sense (in my opinion) for a homosexual couple to go anywhere near them, let alone ask to be married by them.
In short, I personally believe that governments should allow access to the financial benefits (or problems?) of marriage to couples of any sexual orientation. However I would argue that finding the appropriate ritual element of marriage should be down to the couple in question.

Top
#26949 - 07/08/09 04:08 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: Saligia]
hellbent666
Unregistered



Here's to you Fist ;\)
Marriage...
1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

So in Socrates' search for forms this confines itself to a man and woman entering into a legal commitment. They really don't share one solid "thing", but it will suffice to say that ole' webster hasn't gotten PC on us just yet. Also, you couldn't engage Socrates in any kind of conversation without him asking a boat load of questions with rarely any answers. I do know my philosophy sir.

Nemesis, sorry for the assumption. You just made a comment on how difficult it is for people going through divorces. Well, if they had never gotten married in the first place that wouldn't have happened.

Top
#26952 - 07/08/09 05:35 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: ]
Fist Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/31/07
Posts: 1453
Loc: B'mo Cautious MF
 Quote:
1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.


Ok......

That is a definition but it is not a particularly useful LEGAL definition. It does not enumerate what legal rights and responsibilities are conferred parties involved. It also does not state the process by which the parties are legally bound nor does it provide for the terms of contract. Furthermore, it does not state the entities responsible for regulating marriage contracts. There is some vague language about religious ceremonies but that would seem to indicate that marriage is of a religious nature. However, this would seem to contradict the 'separation of Church and State' that has long been the practice of Western secular democracies.

Anyone care to clear any of this up? Anyone? Anyone?......
_________________________
I am the Devil and I am here to do the Devil's work.

Top
#26954 - 07/08/09 06:24 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: Fist]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
A "condensed" look at marriage and how it is defined:

 Quote:
Marriage is an institution in which interpersonal relationships (usually intimate and sexual) are acknowledged by the state, by religious authority, or both. It is often viewed as a contract. Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution, in accordance with marriage laws of the jurisdiction. If recognized by the state, by the religion(s) to which the parties belong or by society in general, the act of marriage changes the personal and social status of the individuals who enter into it.

A marriage is often formalized by a ceremony called a wedding, which in modern times is usually performed by a religious minister or a civil officer. The act of marriage usually creates normative or legal obligations between the individuals involved. In some societies these obligations also extend to certain family members of the married persons.

Marriage practices are very diverse across cultures and may take many forms. Some examples include:

A heterosexual marriage uniting a man and woman as husband and wife (also known as a monogamous heterosexual marriage)

A same-sex marriage uniting a man and a man as husband and
husband, or a woman and a woman as wife and wife (also known as a monogamous homosexual marriage).

Polygamy in which a person takes more than one spouse has historical precedent in the Old Testament (for example, Abraham). While illegal in most Western societies as in many others, it still remains common in some societies. Most countries where polygamy is still legal are moving to repeal those laws.

Anthropological definitions


Attempting to encompass the various types of marriage in various cultures without knowing if they have a common origin, anthropologists have proposed several competing definitions of marriage.

Edward Westermarck, in his book The History of Human Marriage (1921), defined marriage as "The more or less durable union between man and woman and marital and paternal care probably due to instincts once necessary for the preservation of the species" including both monogamous and polygamous unions.

The anthropological handbook Notes and Queries (1951) defined marriage as "a union of a man and a woman such that children of the woman are recognized as legitimate by both parents." Because the Nuer of Sudan allow for female-female marriage, Kathleen Gough suggested modifying this to "a woman and one or more other persons." A legitimacy-based definition has been criticized because some societies do not require marriage for legitimacy. In societies where illegitimacy means only that the mother is unmarried and has no other legal implications, a legitimacy-based definition of marriage is circular.

Edmund Leach argued that no one definition of marriage applied to all cultures. He offered a list of ten rights associated with marriage, including sexual monopoly and rights with respect to children, with specific rights differing across cultures.

Duran Bell proposed defining marriage in terms of sexual access rights.


Legal definitions

Roman law described "Marriage as a union of man and woman and the inseparable association of their lives. "An English common law definition was established in 1866 as: "...marriage, as understood in Christendom, may for this purpose be defined as the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others". In Canada, this definition was ruled unconstitutional and altered to refer to "two persons" to include same-sex couples.

State recognition

In the early modern period, John Calvin and his Protestant colleagues reformulated Christian marriage by enacting the Marriage Ordinance of Geneva, which imposed "The dual requirements of state registration and church consecration to constitute marriage" for recognition.

In England and Wales, Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act 1753 required a formal ceremony of marriage, thereby curtailing the practice of Fleet Marriage. These were clandestine or irregular marriages performed at Fleet Prison, and at hundreds of other places. From the 1690s until the Marriage Act of 1753 as many as 300,000 clandestine marriages were performed at Fleet Prison alone. The Act required a marriage ceremony to be officiated by an Anglican priest in the Anglican Church with two witnesses and registration. The Act did not apply to Jewish marriages or those of Quakers, whose marriages continued to be governed by their own customs.

In England and Wales, since 1837, civil marriages have been recognised as a legal alternative to church marriages under the Marriage Act of 1836. In Germany, civil marriages were recognised in 1875. This law permitted a declaration of the marriage before an official clerk of the civil administration, when both spouses affirm their will to marry, to constitute a legally recognised valid and effective marriage, and allowed an optional private clerical marriage ceremony.

Same-sex Marriage

While it is relatively new phenomenon that same-sex couples are being granted the same form of legal marital recognition as commonly used by mixed-sexed couples, there is a long history of same-sex unions around the world. Various types of same-sex unions have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions. It is believed that same-sex marriage was a socially recognized institution in some Native American tribes, regions of China, such as Fujian, and at certain times in ancient European history . A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) issued in 342 CE prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome, but the exact intent of the law and its relation to social practice is unclear, as only a few examples of same-sex marriage in that culture exist. Suetonius mentioned (in the context of Nero's vices) that Nero married a slave boy, and also a male friend; Martial also mentions same sex marriages taking place.

Rights and obligations

A marriage bestows rights and obligations on the married parties, and sometimes on relatives as well, being the sole mechanism for the creation of affinal ties (in-laws). These may include:

Giving a husband/wife or his/her family control over a spouse’s sexual services, labor, and property.

Giving a husband/wife responsibility for a spouse’s debts.

Giving a husband/wife visitation rights when his/her spouse is incarcerated or hospitalized.

Giving a husband/wife control over his/her spouse’s affairs when the spouse is incapacitated.

Establishing the second legal guardian of a parent’s child.

Establishing a joint fund of property for the benefit of children.

Establishing a relationship between the families of the spouses.

These rights and obligations vary considerably between societies, and between groups within society.

Right to marriage

Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses." The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam gives men and women the "right to marriage" regardless of their race, colour or nationality, but not religion.

State recognition

In many jurisdictions, a civil marriage may take place as part of the religious marriage ceremony, although they are theoretically distinct. Some jurisdictions allow civil marriages in circumstances which are notably not allowed by particular religions, such as same-sex marriages or civil unions.

Marriage relationships may also be created by the operation of the law alone, as in common-law marriage, sometimes called "marriage by habit and repute."

The status in the eyes of one authority may not be the same as for another, e.g., a marriage may be recognised civilly, but not by a church, and vice versa.

Financial considerations

The financial aspects of marriage vary between cultures and have changed over time.

In some cultures, dowries and bride prices continue to be required today. In both cases, the financial arrangements are usually made between the groom (or his family) and the bride's family; with the bride in many cases not being involved in the arrangement, and often not having a choice in whether to participate in the marriage.

In Early Modern Britain, the social status of the couple was supposed to be equal. After the marriage, all the property (called "fortune") and expected inheritances of the wife belonged to the husband.

Modern customs

In many countries today, each marriage partner has the choice of keeping his or her property separate or combining properties. In the latter case, called community property, when the marriage ends by divorce each owns half. In many legal jurisdictions, laws related to property and inheritance provide by default for property to pass upon the death of one party in a marriage firstly to the spouse and secondly to the children. Wills and trusts can make alternative provisions for property succession.

In some legal systems, the partners in a marriage are "jointly liable" for the debts of the marriage. This has a basis in a traditional legal notion called the "Doctrine of Necessities" whereby a husband was responsible to provide necessary things for his wife. Where this is the case, one partner may be sued to collect a debt for which they did not expressly contract.

Critics of this practice note that debt collection agencies can abuse this by claiming an unreasonably wide range of debts to be expenses of the marriage. The cost of defence and the burden of proof is then placed on the non-contracting party to prove that the expense is not a debt of the family.

The respective maintenance obligations, both during and eventually after a marriage, are regulated in most jurisdictions; alimony is one such method.

Some have attempted to analyse the institution of marriage using economic theory; for example, anarcho-capitalist economist David Friedman has written a lengthy and controversial study of marriage as a market transaction (the market for husbands and wives).


Taxation

In some countries, spouses are allowed to average their incomes; this is advantageous to a married couple with disparate incomes. To compensate for this somewhat, many countries provide a higher tax bracket for the averaged income of a married couple. While income averaging might still benefit a married couple with a stay-at-home spouse, such averaging would cause a married couple with roughly equal personal incomes to pay more total tax than they would as two single persons. This is commonly called the marriage penalty.

Moreover, when the rates applied by the tax code are not based on averaging the incomes, but rather on the sum of individuals' incomes, higher rates will definitely apply to each individual in a two-earner households in progressive tax systems. This is most often the case with high-income taxpayers and is another situation where some consider there to be a marriage penalty.

Conversely, when progressive tax is levied on the individual with no consideration for the partnership, dual-income couples fare much better than single-income couples with similar household incomes. The effect can be increased when the welfare system treats the same income as a shared income thereby denying welfare access to the non-earning spouse. Such systems apply in Australia and Canada, for example.


Other considerations

Sometimes people marry for purely pragmatic reasons, sometimes called a marriage of convenience or sham marriage. For example, according to one publisher of information about "green card" marriages, "Every year over 450,000 United States citizens marry foreign-born individuals and petition for them to obtain a permanent residency (Green Card) in the United States." While this is likely an over-estimate, in 2003 alone 184,741 immigrants were admitted to the U.S. as spouses of U.S. citizens.

Some people want to marry a person with higher or lower status than them. Others want to marry people who have similar status. Hypergyny refers to the act of seeking out those who are of slightly higher social status. In most cases, hypergyny refers to women wanting men of higher status. Isogyny refers to the act of seeking out those who are of similar status.


Termination

In most societies, the death of one of the partners terminates the marriage, and in monogamous societies this allows the other partner to remarry, though sometimes after a waiting or mourning period.

Many societies also provide for the termination of marriage through divorce. Marriages can also be annulled in some societies, where an authority declares that a marriage never happened. In either event the people concerned are free to remarry (or marry). After divorce, one spouse may have to pay alimony.

Several cultures have practiced temporary and conditional marriages. Examples include the Celtic practice of handfasting and fixed-term marriages in the Muslim community. Pre-Islamic Arabs practiced a form of temporary marriage that carries on today in the practice of Nikah Mut'ah, a fixed-term marriage contract. Muslim controversies related to Nikah Mut'ah have resulted in the practice being confined mostly to Shi'ite communities.


I think that should about covers it. As you can see, hellbent, there is alot more to the definition of marriage than what you offered.

It only took about 15 minutes to compile all of this. Amazing what one can find on the internet...
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#26987 - 07/09/09 07:40 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: ]
TornadoCreator Offline
member


Registered: 10/24/07
Posts: 586
Loc: No Fixed Address
 Originally Posted By: hellbent666
Hey, TC. Most words have specific meanings, and there is nothing you can do to change that!

Yes you can... the dictionary changes all the time.

 Originally Posted By: hellbent666
You could write your own dictionary and pervert words if you wanted, but in AMERICA, marriage means primarily ONE specific thing.

No it doesn't, otherwise there wouldn't be such a huge outcry.

 Originally Posted By: hellbent666
Your terminology may mean multiples of things, I have no idea. Specific words mean specific things like duck fucking means a water bird with a bill!

It also means "to crouch, squat, lean downwards or bend at the back or neck in order to lower the height of ones head." (definition taken from my own brain, I don't need to look it up to know what "duck" means).

 Originally Posted By: hellbent666
I didn't make up the word! Yell at webster for that and I don't reclaim offensive words either, although it is funny to call my white friends cracka! LOL! Instead of relying on a word that has a specific meaning, join 2 words like you already did, civil-union. Why you would advocate that is like I said beyond me.

Yeah, we already have a word for a civil union, it's 'marriage'.

Edit - Thank you for that 6, that was a well compiled article. Granted much of it you can get from wikipedia but still, it was concise enough to get the point across without being a damn chore to read.


Edited by TornadoCreator (07/09/09 07:48 PM)
Edit Reason: Adding comment.
_________________________
If you can't practice what you preach, at least have the decency to preach what you practice

Top
#27006 - 07/10/09 09:04 AM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: TornadoCreator]
Fist Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/31/07
Posts: 1453
Loc: B'mo Cautious MF
Again, I will continue to point this out. In order to codify a 'gay marriage' into law, one must first provide a legal definition of marriage. In the US this was done. Under the Defense of Marriage Act marriage was defined. A few states do allow 'gay marriage' but they only have legal standing in those states. In the fullness of time, I am sure the state law and federal law will find themselves in conflict and a case will be sent to the SCOTUS.
_________________________
I am the Devil and I am here to do the Devil's work.

Top
#27009 - 07/10/09 02:30 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: Fist]
TornadoCreator Offline
member


Registered: 10/24/07
Posts: 586
Loc: No Fixed Address
I understand that Fist. I'm not saying that you're wrong, just that the act is unjust and unconstitutional and should be changed in my opinion. However that's USA, and as I'm not American I'm not really that bothered. If the UK allows gay marriage I'm happy. They do but they insist on calling it "civil union", which pisses me off. After all, women don't need to vote, why don't they do something like voting but call it something different like "suggesting", and black people don't need to be freed from their slave masters, why don't they do something like being freed and call it something different like being re-branded as a servant. Doesn't work now does it?

Gay people are the new niggers. Not the new black people, the new niggers. They're treated as lower class citizens and it's not fair.
_________________________
If you can't practice what you preach, at least have the decency to preach what you practice

Top
#27011 - 07/10/09 03:56 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: TornadoCreator]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3138
 Quote:
They're treated as lower class citizens and it's not fair.

So what? That's part of life: coping with actions, laws and people against you. It's your fair choice to feel pity about them, mine not to pity them.

Preconceptions are just those things which keep floating around the world, nothing to do about it. Politics know about such preconceptions (I wouldn't be surprised if they used some in their private life.. sounds very natural don't you think?) and within their position it is their duty to soften these things to evade mass histery. Most of the time before making an actual change to a law or to let new "shocking" laws pass they soften it by making a description and using lengthy synonims with words the average people barely understand or use.

I got the impression you are quite influenced by the moral statemens all the moralknights make....
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#27013 - 07/10/09 07:17 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: TornadoCreator]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
Honestly, Tc...

What have you done other than bitch about shit?
Have you joined any action groups in real life?
Did you march in any parades?
Did you vote or support any political groups that support your views?

So these ideas about right or wrong laws affect you on a mental level, but not your daily life.

Do you expect at one point to get out of your armchair soapbox and do something about how you feel?

Gay people may have problems depending where they live, but they are not lower class people. I find that statement offensive.

If you are living someplace and not happy with the laws, MOVE!!!

Morgan
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
#27018 - 07/11/09 04:05 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: Morgan]
TornadoCreator Offline
member


Registered: 10/24/07
Posts: 586
Loc: No Fixed Address
 Originally Posted By: Morgan
Honestly, Tc...

What have you done other than bitch about shit?

Discussing things in open discussion raises conciousness. It may not be much but it's something.
 Originally Posted By: Morgan
Have you joined any action groups in real life?

Not really. I've signed petitions and wrote letters to my MP, most of the groups are dismissed as rabble. It's often easier to get results if you're not affiliated to a group.
 Originally Posted By: Morgan
Did you march in any parades?

I don't support the gay pride parade. Shoving gay stereotypes down everyone's faces, I feel, hurts gay rights more because it makes the homophobic masses see gay people as strange and even scary. I want people to see gay people as normal and marching down the street in boy toy leather gear with a neon pink sign saying "I kiss boys" isn't going to help that. How are straight people supposed to feel comfortable around gay people when they act like lobotomised hormone therapy experiments as a means to show themselves as a group. I know many gay people who are more in the closet now because they don't want to be associated with the gay pride stereotypes.
 Originally Posted By: Morgan
Did you vote or support any political groups that support your views?

There honestly isn't one. UKIP is the best example of my political affiliation at the moment and that's still far from my ideals. I've considered forming a party myself but I'm not deluding myself into thinking I'll actually make it into office. I know how politics works in UK and if you're not part of a big party you're not going anywhere. The best way for me would be to join a party that's close (like UKIP) and try to influence it.

 Originally Posted By: Morgan
So these ideas about right or wrong laws affect you on a mental level, but not your daily life.

Pretty much.

 Originally Posted By: Morgan
Do you expect at one point to get out of your armchair soapbox and do something about how you feel?

I do if I feel the effort is likely to cause a change. Most of the time I'm just debating as a means of recreation though, if it's raises conciousness and awareness of the issue then all the better.

 Originally Posted By: Morgan
Gay people may have problems depending where they live, but they are not lower class people. I find that statement offensive.

Tuff. It's true. In many places they can't adopt, they can't marry, they can't sign each other over as next of kin, they often can't get jobs in childcare, teaching or health care. There where protests in Bradford recently because a 2nd Grade teacher is a lesbian and some parents where homophobic. But that's just the civilised world, in many countries still homosexuality is illegal. In many African Countries and Middle Eastern countries homosexuality carries the death penalty by hanging. I'm sorry, is this equality. My mistake, I'm sure me pointing out this clear lack of equality is so offensive. Seriously though, offensive or not, it's true, deal with it. I do. I don't like it, but I don't pretend it's not happening.

 Originally Posted By: Morgan
If you are living someplace and not happy with the laws, MOVE!!!

It's not that simple and you know it. UK has some of the best laws in the world on these topics, and they are far from my ideal. You need money to move, you need a place to go, and most of all you need to be a fucking coward. Why should I run away like that rather than speaking up for what I believe is right.

People who say "If you don't like the laws move" are naive, and you Morgan already know this. You're saying this to be dismissive. You know you wouldn't emigrate if the laws change in your country, against your liking, unless it becomes ridiculous. You will complain, you may protest, you may be upset. Will you move to a country where you have no roots, no connections, no family and friends, maybe don't know the language or the culture all that well... why? because idealistically, you oppose a law that's not likely to affect your life in your current country? I doubt it somehow.
_________________________
If you can't practice what you preach, at least have the decency to preach what you practice

Top
#27021 - 07/11/09 06:00 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: TornadoCreator]
Fist Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/31/07
Posts: 1453
Loc: B'mo Cautious MF
 Quote:
I'm not saying that you're wrong, just that the act is unjust and unconstitutional...


Ahh, and a again we be getting somewhere. But we are still dancing around the issue.

Never the less, you are correct. When/if this goes before the SCOTUS it will most likely be argued on 9th and 10th Amendment grounds. However, this is dangerous territory indeed!. For (and again we are getting closer to answer) the 'gay rights' crowd is aligned politically to the Left and if this case strengthens the individual and State's Rights argument they may open a whole can of worms that will hurt the American Left in other areas. In fact, the 'gay rights' people of California did not appeal their case to the SCOTUS for this very reason!

Now, we have gone on for nearly three pages now and you have yet to explain just what a 'gay marriage' is.

I await your explanation with baited breath....
_________________________
I am the Devil and I am here to do the Devil's work.

Top
#27025 - 07/11/09 08:51 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: Fist]
hellbent666
Unregistered



Honestly I'm glad gays aren't getting the ability to adopt and raise kids in a sexually compulsive environment. Just because you can doesn't mean you should ;\) And yes, I am making a sweeping generalization. EVERY gay person I've ever met was sexually compulsive. I don't want our future raised to believe that sex is supposed to be impulsive. I wonder in the years to come what studies of kids raised by gay couples actually turn out to be gay themselves. It would put a whole new twist on whether or not homosexuality is natural or as a product of one's psychological trauma, societal influence, or up-bringing. And on the record, I don't want most straight people having kids either!
Top
#27026 - 07/11/09 09:00 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: ]
Nemesis Offline
senior member


Registered: 09/01/07
Posts: 2175
Loc: US
Actually, studies have already been conducted on the so-called "gayby" boom.

"According to the American Psychological Association, numerous research shows that most kids of same-sex households describe themselves as heterosexual in roughly the same proportion as conventional families. The association also says that homosexuality is not deviant behavior but a normal expression of human sexuality."

There was an odd thing I found in the article that flies in the face of anti-gay adoption propaganda. Some children of gay parents actively suppress their natural bi or homosexual tendencies in order to keep their parents from "looking bad", ie, the common misconception that gay parents will raise gay kids.

Here's the full article.
_________________________
Nothing is sacred.

Top
#27028 - 07/11/09 09:56 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: Nemesis]
hellbent666
Unregistered



Nemesis! Thank you dear! This is the study me and my substance abuse counselor were looking for! I wasn't BS'ing when I said I was genuinely curious on the subject. Him and I have an ongoing argument about whether homosexuality is natural, or a knee jerk reaction to sexual trauma. There are plenty of instances in nature we can look at, even this one about a homosexual pair of penguins raising an abandoned egg as a couple. I don't know why I am so interested in it, maybe it's due to my constant battle with trying to prove the xtians wrong with scientific evidence...

I guess we could further play Diabolus Advocate and say that "natural" is a trend in common behavior, thus proving homosexuality to be "unnatural". Of course this would also play into the argument that base, or carnal behavior is "natural". If we can observe it in fruit flies then perhaps this is natural. In prison it is a sign of weakness. Weakness when a man substitutes men for women, where no women are available. I think this argument could go one of 3 different ways.

Top
#27030 - 07/11/09 10:37 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: ]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
 Quote:
I guess we could further play Diabolus Advocate and say that "natural" is a trend in common behavior, thus proving homosexuality to be "unnatural".


Are you aware that homsexuality is not something that only people do? Here is an interesting article on homosexual activity among animals from the National Geographic website:

 Quote:
Homosexual Activity Among Animals Stirs Debate

James Owen in London
for National Geographic News
July 23, 2004

Birds do it, bees do it, even educated fleas do it. So go the lyrics penned by U.S. songwriter Cole Porter.

Porter, who first hit it big in the 1920s, wouldn't risk parading his homosexuality in public. In his day "the birds and the bees" generally meant only one thing—sex between a male and female.

But, actually, some same-sex birds do do it. So do beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins, and orangutans. Zoologists are discovering that homosexual and bisexual activity is not unknown within the animal kingdom.

Roy and Silo, two male chinstrap penguins at New York's Central Park Zoo have been inseparable for six years now. They display classic pair-bonding behavior—entwining of necks, mutual preening, flipper flapping, and the rest. They also have sex, while ignoring potential female mates.

Wild birds exhibit similar behavior. There are male ostriches that only court their own gender, and pairs of male flamingos that mate, build nests, and even raise foster chicks.

Filmmakers recently went in search of homosexual wild animals as part of a National Geographic Ultimate Explorer documentary about the female's role in the mating game. (The film, Girl Power, will be screened in the U.S this Saturday at 8 p.m. ET, 5 p.m PT on MSNBC TV.)

The team caught female Japanese macaques engaged in intimate acts which, if observed in humans, would be in the X-rated category.

"The homosexual behavior that goes on is completely baffling and intriguing," says National Geographic Ultimate Explorer correspondent, Mireya Mayor. "You would have thought females that want to be mated, especially over their fertile period, would be seeking out males."

Well, perhaps, in a roundabout way, they are seeking males, suggests primatologist Amy Parish.

She argues that female macaques may enhance their social position through homosexual intimacy which in turn influences breeding success. Parish says, "Taking something that's nonreproductive, like mounting another female—if it leads to control of a resource or acquisition of a resource or a good alliance partner, that could directly impact your reproductive success."

Sexual Gratification

On the other hand, they could just be enjoying themselves, suggests Paul Vasey, animal behavior professor at the University of Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada. "They're engaging in the behavior because it's gratifying sexually or it's sexually pleasurable," he says. "They just like it. It doesn't have any sort of adaptive payoff."

Matthew Grober, biology professor at Georgia State University, agrees, saying, "If [sex] wasn't fun, we wouldn't have any kids around. So I think that maybe Japanese macaques have taken the fun aspect of sex and really run with it."

The bonobo, an African ape closely related to humans, has an even bigger sexual appetite. Studies suggest 75 percent of bonobo sex is nonreproductive and that nearly all bonobos are bisexual. Frans de Waal, author of Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape, calls the species a "make love, not war" primate. He believes bonobos use sex to resolve conflicts between individuals.

Other animals appear to go through a homosexual phase before they become fully mature. For instance, male dolphin calves often form temporary sexual partnerships, which scientists believe help to establish lifelong bonds. Such sexual behavior has been documented only relatively recently. Zoologists have been accused of skirting round the subject for fear of stepping into a political minefield.

"There was a lot of hiding of what was going on, I think, because people were maybe afraid that they would get into trouble by talking about it," notes de Waal. Whether it's a good idea or not, it's hard not make comparisons between humans and other animals, especially primates. The fact that homosexuality does, after all, exist in the natural world is bound to be used against people who insist such behavior is unnatural.

In the U.S., in particular, the moral debate over this issue rages on. Many on the religious right regard homosexuality as a sin. And only this month, President Bush vowed to continue his bid to ban gay marriages after the Senate blocked the proposal.

Already, cases of animal homosexuality have been cited in successful court cases brought against states like Texas, where gay sex was, until recently, illegal.

Yet scientists say we should be wary of referring to animals when considering what's acceptable in human society. For instance, infanticide, as practiced by lions and many other animals, isn't something people, gay or straight, generally approve of in humans.

Human Homosexuality

So how far can we go in using animals to help us understand human homosexuality? Robin Dunbar is a professor of evolutionary psychology at the University of Liverpool, England. "The bottom line is that anything that happens in other primates, and particularly other apes, is likely to have strong evolutionary continuity with what happens in humans," he said.

Dunbar says the bonobo's use of homosexual activity for social bonding is a possible example, adding, "One of the main arguments for human homosexual behavior is that it helps bond male groups together, particularly where a group of individuals are dependent on each other, as they might be in hunting or warfare."

For instance, the Spartans, in ancient Greece, encouraged homosexuality among their elite troops. "They had the not unreasonable belief that individuals would stick by and make all efforts to rescue other individuals if they had a lover relationship," Dunbar added.

Another suggestion is that homosexuality is a developmental phase people go through. He said, "This is similar to the argument of play in young animals to get their brain and muscles to work effectively and together. Off the back of this, there's the possibility you can get individuals locked into this phase for the rest of their lives as a result of the social environment they grow up in."

But he adds that homosexuality doesn't necessarily have to have a function. It could be a spin-off or by-product of something else and in itself carries no evolutionary weight."

He cites sexual gratification, which encourages procreation, as an example. "An organism is designed to maximize its motivational systems," he adds.

In other words, if the urge to have sex is strong enough it may spill over into nonreproductive sex, as suggested by the actions of the bonobos and macaques. However, as Dunbar admits, there's a long way to go before the causes of homosexuality in humans are fully understood.

He said, "Nobody's really investigated this issue thoroughly, because it's so politically sensitive. It's fair to say all possibilities are still open."
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#27033 - 07/12/09 02:32 AM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
hellbent666
Unregistered



thanks for all the fire power you 2 ;\)
Top
#27035 - 07/12/09 04:18 AM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: TornadoCreator]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
Originally Posted By: Morgan
So these ideas about right or wrong laws affect you on a mental level, but not your daily life.

tc: Pretty much.

Originally Posted By: Morgan
Do you expect at one point to get out of your armchair soapbox and do something about how you feel?

tc: I do if I feel the effort is likely to cause a change. Most of the time I'm just debating as a means of recreation though, if it's raises conciousness and awareness of the issue then all the better.


So, you are just pretty much jerking off into the wind to get a point across that doesn't mean shit to you. Most people are aware of gay rights and how it affects or doesn't affect them.

Originally Posted By: Morgan
Gay people may have problems depending where they live, but they are not lower class people. I find that statement offensive.


I will point out the use of the word MAY, are you aware of what it means?

tc:
Will you move to a country where you have no roots, no connections, no family and friends, maybe don't know the language or the culture all that well... why? because idealistically, you oppose a law that's not likely to affect your life in your current country? I doubt it somehow.


You don't know me. I used to be the family gypsy. I have an ex in London I plan to see in the fall. He wanted me to move to Australia, and New Zealand. I would have, but I was working for a company I couldn't get away from at the time. I don't bitch about topics that don't affect me, I do stuff. I march in gay pride, I walked down the street holding my girlfriends hand. I vote for those who support gay rights. I don't need to just talk shit and do nothing about a topic. If it really means something to you. Then do something.

Morgan
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
#27053 - 07/13/09 01:31 AM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: Morgan]
TornadoCreator Offline
member


Registered: 10/24/07
Posts: 586
Loc: No Fixed Address
I don't see your argument Morgan. I mean sure I can understand your point and I agree people who have a stance yet do nothing to change the situation have no right to complain unless they physically can't change the situation. However, both you and ta2zz make the same point regardless of the discussion and it's "Well why don't you get up off your arse and do something about it?" which is a perfectly valid question but it's not a reason to not discuss the topic.

It perfectly reasonable to enter a discussion forum and discuss a topic that you have an opinion on, especially politics, moral philosophy and aesthetics as these things are subjective and worthy of in depth discussion. It's a discussion forum, it's very purpose is for us to discuss these topics yet for some reason you want me to not discuss them. Regardless of whether I'm getting up off my arse and doing something about my chosen complaint, the fact is I want to discuss it on a discussion forum, for whatever reason. I don't think it's unreasonable to presume that I don't need to justify this. It's the very purpose of the forum.
_________________________
If you can't practice what you preach, at least have the decency to preach what you practice

Top
#27056 - 07/13/09 04:19 AM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: TornadoCreator]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
It's not that you are discussing the topics, it how you present yourself in relation to it.

As Asemodieus (sorry spelling) pointed out (in another post,so you don't think its just Ta2zz, and I who notice it), you take all these things to heart and say you will fight for people to do whatever, but you don't actually do anything about it.

That was my issue with it.

Morgan
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
#27064 - 07/13/09 03:56 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: Morgan]
Asmedious Moderator Offline
Moderator
senior member


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 1735
Loc: New York
Actually, regarding the post which you refer to, I was on TC's side, regarding posting an opinion, without having the need to go out and doing something about the situation.

Personally, there are many things that piss me off in the world, but unfortunately, I do not have the will, and the fortitude, to go out and do things about them, mainly because I do not see them as a winnable situation.

For example, I hate the way that the government is constantly in my business (and everyone else's). Such as having to register one's home address with the motorvehicle department and which record is considered public. Mandatory car insurance, making certain CARTOONS illegal, having to file a tax return (even though they already have all the records, and take money from my paychecks on a regular basis). It's a long list, and I don't have to time to go out and petition against the things that I find to be a pain in the ass.

So, like most sheep, I will just bitch about it to friends, and online, and do my very best to avoid getting caught up in the "Bullshit Web" as much as possible.
_________________________
"The first order of government is the protection of its citizens right to be left alone."

Top
#27080 - 07/14/09 12:58 AM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: Asmedious]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
Okay, but I was more of making a point of the pattern in the way he presents things so much that you could portray him easily.

"It's a long list, and I don't have to time to go out and petition against the things that I find to be a pain in the ass.
So, like most sheep, I will just bitch about it to friends, and online, and do my very best to avoid getting caught up in the "Bullshit Web" as much as possible."

Okay, I understand your point of view.

It's just when someone gets so up in arms about everything, and writes with such a personal fever yet doesn't act in public about his beliefs, its kinda hypocritical and pretentious.

If no one else thinks its a problem, then go ahead Tc lead from your arm chair.

I'll be silent, observe your posts then go out and do what I think is the right thing to do to get shit done.

Morgan
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
#27081 - 07/14/09 02:24 AM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: Morgan]
ZephyrGirl Offline
R.I.P.
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 706
Loc: Adelaide Australia
I think this comes to the core of why he is no longer blue. Satanists DO. Will is one of the most important part of life, the will to LIVE.

It is the core root of what a Satanist DOES in life. An armchair Satanist really is an insult and should be. Satanists don't just live in their armchairs and basements. That is what makes people elite, what they do and or did in their lives.

I know I'm here from an armchair perspective, to an extent, but I've already DONE alot of shit and have real world experience, I'm not just GONNA Do and BE anything. I've been there and done that and that gives me the chops to have an armchair opinion.

Respect must be EARNT!

ZephyrGirl
_________________________
Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass -
It's about learning to dance in the rain.


Top
#27082 - 07/14/09 02:43 AM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: Morgan]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I agree, at times I get the impression that I am reading another 'Internet broadcast of the minority defense squad'. If consciousness raising is the issue; the question that comes to mind is: "why here?". After all, the big problem for gay marriage isn't the enormous number of satanists putting political pressure out there to have their elected representatives hinder the laws from being passed. The root of the problem is situated elsewhere and addressing it, logically implies raising consciousness there.

Not to say anything is open for debate and argument here.

D.

Top
#27083 - 07/14/09 03:20 AM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: Diavolo]
hellbent666
Unregistered



everyone bitches about shit they can't change, thus we have protesters. When has a giant cardboard sign changed anything?
Top
#27084 - 07/14/09 04:01 AM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: ]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
Boston tea party was one for a start.....
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
#27086 - 07/14/09 09:56 AM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: ZephyrGirl]
TornadoCreator Offline
member


Registered: 10/24/07
Posts: 586
Loc: No Fixed Address
 Originally Posted By: ZephyrGirl
I think this comes to the core of why he is no longer blue. Satanists DO. Will is one of the most important part of life, the will to LIVE.

It is the core root of what a Satanist DOES in life. An armchair Satanist really is an insult and should be. Satanists don't just live in their armchairs and basements. That is what makes people elite, what they do and or did in their lives.

I know I'm here from an armchair perspective, to an extent, but I've already DONE alot of shit and have real world experience, I'm not just GONNA Do and BE anything. I've been there and done that and that gives me the chops to have an armchair opinion.

Respect must be EARNT!

ZephyrGirl


That's an assumption isn't it, and if it is the reason I no longer wear blue well it's nice to know it was removed for ignorance on the part of the admin team rather than an actual reason. You all claim that I'm some "armchair" activist yet you're all the same, everyone here, including me, is an armchair activist for the most part. We're all elitist and we are all pompous, at least I'm man enough to admit it, however, I still feel it's a bit unfair to pigeon hole me.

Don't assume you know what I do or when I do it. I've taken part in protests and petitions. I spent 2 years doing an international free media radio broadcast to raise conciousness on current issues and politics (received 600+ listeners weekly on it's height). I'm a member of multiple societies and have represented them in conferences and discussion groups. I do get involved, but even if I didn't, that's a bloody stupid reason to claim someone shouldn't be respected and that they're a bad Satanist. Not every opinion needs to have time devoted to it in order to further some fucking cause. Time is our most valuable commodity and sometimes I want to sit in my room in my underwear, eating egg butties and watching TV. Why? Because I bloody well enjoy it, and if mindless self indulgence isn't something I should be pursuing, then I guess I misinterpreted "worship yourself". Furthering yourself and every cause you follow is a great use of time. Personal gratification is more important though, if you're not happy, why the fuck bother. I don't have time for both, so I use what SPARE time I have to follow my ideals and learn new stuff about the world. The majority of my time is devoted to making me happy.
_________________________
If you can't practice what you preach, at least have the decency to preach what you practice

Top
#27090 - 07/14/09 12:49 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: TornadoCreator]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3138
 Quote:
You all claim that I'm some "armchair" activist yet you're all the same, everyone here, including me, is an armchair activist for the most part.

No generalisations please, it's not because they call you an armchair activist you need to call everyone the same in defense. Especially if you don't have any background of other members...

Second remark: not everyone here is elitist. Being elite means having a certain branch or doing you are specialised in and can claim with back-up from others that you indeed are the best in that branch. Not everyone is elitist, yet anyone can ACT elitist. Acting and being is a whole difference...
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#27092 - 07/14/09 01:26 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: Dimitri]
TornadoCreator Offline
member


Registered: 10/24/07
Posts: 586
Loc: No Fixed Address
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
 Quote:
You all claim that I'm some "armchair" activist yet you're all the same, everyone here, including me, is an armchair activist for the most part.

No generalisations please, it's not because they call you an armchair activist you need to call everyone the same in defense. Especially if you don't have any background of other members...

They're all active members of a discussion forum, thus the claim is valid.

 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
Second remark: not everyone here is elitist. Being elite means having a certain branch or doing you are specialised in and can claim with back-up from others that you indeed are the best in that branch. Not everyone is elitist, yet anyone can ACT elitist. Acting and being is a whole difference...

OK, I always assumed elitist meant someone who acted as though they where part of the social or intellectual elite. It's what it's always meant with people I've spoken with in person.
_________________________
If you can't practice what you preach, at least have the decency to preach what you practice

Top
#27093 - 07/14/09 02:28 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: Dimitri]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
One can define elitist as many things, even when not invoking the dictionary, and in too many cases it is a rather non relevant but emotionally rewarding argument. A bit like calling yourself the sexiest wo/man on earth. I prefer to see elite as that what is not mass.

Ortega y Gasset described it rather well in his "The Revolt of the Masses".

 Quote:
The concept of the multitude is quantitative and visual. Without changing its nature, let us translate it into terms of sociology. We then meet with the notion of the "social mass." Society is always a dynamic unity of two component factors: minorities and masses. The minorities are individuals or groups of individuals which are specially qualified. The mass is the assemblage of persons not specially qualified. By masses, then, is not to be understood, solely or mainly, "the working masses." The mass is the average man.

In this way what was mere quantity- the multitude- is converted into a qualitative determination: it becomes the common social quality, man as undifferentiated from other men, but as repeating in himself a generic type. What have we gained by this conversion of quantity into quality? Simply this: by means of the latter we understand the genesis of the former. It is evident to the verge of platitude that the normal formation of a multitude implies the coincidence of desires, ideas, ways of life, in the individuals who constitute it. It will be objected that this is just what happens with every social group, however select it may strive to be. This is true; but there is an essential difference. In those groups which are characterised by not being multitude and mass, the effective coincidence of its members is based on some desire, idea, or ideal, which of itself excludes the great number. To form a minority, of whatever kind, it is necessary beforehand that each member separate himself from the multitude for special, relatively personal, reasons. Their coincidence with the others who form the minority is, then, secondary, posterior to their having each adopted an attitude of singularity, and is consequently, to a large extent, a coincidence in not coinciding.

There are cases in which this singularising character of the group appears in the light of day: those English groups, which style themselves "nonconformists," where we have the grouping together of those who agree only in their disagreement in regard to the limitless multitude. This coming together of the minority precisely in order to separate themselves from the majority is a necessary ingredient in the formation of every minority. Speaking of the limited public which listened to a musician of refinement, Mallarme wittily says that this public by its presence in small numbers stressed the absence of the multitude.
Strictly speaking, the mass, as a psychological fact, can be defined without waiting for individuals to appear in mass formation. In the presence of one individual we can decide whether he is "mass" or not. The mass is all that which sets no value on itself- good or ill- based on specific grounds, but which feels itself "just like everybody," and nevertheless is not concerned about it; is, in fact, quite happy to feel itself as one with everybody else. Imagine a humble-minded man who, having tried to estimate his own worth on specific grounds- asking himself if he has any talent for this or that, if he excels in any direction- realises that he possesses no quality of excellence. Such a man will feel that he is mediocre and commonplace, ill-gifted, but will not feel himself "mass."

When one speaks of "select minorities" it is usual for the evil-minded to twist the sense of this expression, pretending to be unaware that the select man is not the petulant person who thinks himself superior to the rest, but the man who demands more of himself than the rest, even though he may not fulfil in his person those higher exigencies. For there is no doubt that the most radical division that it is possible to make of humanity is that which splits it into two classes of creatures: those who make great demands on themselves, piling up difficulties and duties; and those who demand nothing special of themselves, but for whom to live is to be every moment what they already are, without imposing on themselves any effort towards perfection; mere buoys that float on the waves. This reminds me that orthodox Buddhism is composed of two distinct religions: one, more rigorous and difficult, the other easier and more trivial: the Mahayana- "great vehicle" or "great path"- and the Hinayana- "lesser vehicle" or "lesser path." The decisive matter is whether we attach our life to one or the other vehicle, to a maximum or a minimum of demands upon ourselves.

The division of society into masses and select minorities is, then, not a division into social classes, but into classes of men, and cannot coincide with the hierarchic separation of "upper" and "lower" classes. It is, of course, plain that in these "upper" classes, when and as long as they really are so, there is much more likelihood of finding men who adopt the "great vehicle," whereas the "lower" classes normally comprise individuals of minus quality. But, strictly speaking, within both these social classes, there are to be found mass and genuine minority.


D.

Top
#27094 - 07/14/09 03:29 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: Diavolo]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
Generally speaking, I've found that if you have to tell people you are "elite," you probably aren't.

Yes, it's a one-liner, but nonetheless valid.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#27107 - 07/15/09 07:12 AM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: Daryl Basarab]
Nemesis Offline
senior member


Registered: 09/01/07
Posts: 2175
Loc: US
This thread is about gay marriage and all its social connotations, not the marriage ceremony itself or what your terms for procreation are. Stick to Satanism 101 until you have a better idea of how things work on this forum.
_________________________
Nothing is sacred.

Top
#27113 - 07/15/09 10:05 AM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: Nemesis]
Fist Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/31/07
Posts: 1453
Loc: B'mo Cautious MF
Ok, so now we are getting ready to hit page 5 on this thread. Back on page 2 I asked the pro-gay committee to define gay marriage. I got nothing. Now, as is always the case in this debate, the issue of 'gay rights' came up.

So please, can you people tell me what exactly is a 'gay marriage' and what are these 'gay rights' you keep talking about? Homos enjoy all of the rights that everyone else enjoys. Can anyone help me out here?
_________________________
I am the Devil and I am here to do the Devil's work.

Top
#27115 - 07/15/09 11:15 AM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: Fist]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
On the last page I posted a fairly in depth description of what marriage is. That description could easily be used to describe gay marriage. The only thing that would change is that the couples would be of the same sex.

Gay marriage is exactly the same legal contract that straight marriage is, but it is entered into by same sex couples. Does that really need to be explained?

You say that homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else, and indeed they do. However they don't enjoy the same rights as a straight married couple. These rights include, but are not limited to:

Joint parental rights of children

Joint adoption

Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains

Immigration and residency for partners from other countries

Crime victims recovery benefits

Domestic violence protection orders

Judicial protections and immunity

Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will

Public safety officers death benefits

Spousal veterans benefits

Social Security

Medicare

Joint filing of tax returns

Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children

Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children

Child support

Joint Insurance Plans

Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits

Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs

Estate and gift tax benefits

Welfare and public assistance

Joint housing for elderly

Credit protection

Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans

You seem to give off the impression that you are against gay marriage. If I am wrong about that, then I apologize. If I am right, however, I respectfully ask why you are of that opinion.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#27118 - 07/15/09 12:40 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: Fist]
TornadoCreator Offline
member


Registered: 10/24/07
Posts: 586
Loc: No Fixed Address
 Originally Posted By: Fist
Ok, so now we are getting ready to hit page 5 on this thread. Back on page 2 I asked the pro-gay committee to define gay marriage. I got nothing. Now, as is always the case in this debate, the issue of 'gay rights' came up.

So please, can you people tell me what exactly is a 'gay marriage' and what are these 'gay rights' you keep talking about? Homos enjoy all of the rights that everyone else enjoys. Can anyone help me out here?


Gay marriage is the union of a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, in which they are recognised by the state as each others next of kin in the same manner as any marriage between a man and a woman. Surely this is self explanatory

As for your statement "Homos enjoy all of the rights that everyone else enjoys", that is an outright fucking lie. You can convince yourself of this all you like but it's false. Gay people are treated poorly. They cannot get married, the cannot adopt, in many countries they are even put to death.

Homosexuality is still a crime in 47 different countries, carries a life sentence in 5 of them and carries the death penalty in 8 of them. Gay marriage is legal only in Canada, Spain, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Belgium and Netherlands. Housing Discrimination and Employment Discrimination are still hot issues in most places, with few countries having laws against discrimination for sexual orientation, and some like USA having hypocritical laws by which they will make discrimination by sexual orientation illegal yet gay marriage and gay adoption in illegal in almost every state.

In the military gays are also treated like second class citizens. In the UN Security Council, only 2 out of 5 countries allow gays. UK & France. Russia and China ban them outright, and USA only allows them if they remain celibate and are secretive of their sexual orientation.

Only 15 countries allow gay adoption (and USA isn't one of them, it's only legal in 6 states, and there it's difficult to get accepted, moving states often gets your kids taken from you and put in foster care)

The only countries with full equal rights to gays are Canada, Norway, Sweden, Belgium, Netherlands and Spain. That's 6 out of 203 countries. Sure, gays have all the same rights as straights don't they.
_________________________
If you can't practice what you preach, at least have the decency to preach what you practice

Top
#27120 - 07/15/09 01:06 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: TornadoCreator]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3138
If it disturbs you, start a protest action.
I'm with Fist when it comes to "gays having equal rights".
Marriage is not a right! Keep that in mind, it's something you CAN do but not should do.

Marriage is the same as having a religious belief, you are free to chose whatever belief you have, but it isn't a right to have a particular belief everyone should obey in your opinion. In the case of marriage it's something you can do, but are not forced to do.

Marriage was and still is an overblown union (lack of better words) which is not necessary to have a "happy" life. Therefor it isn't a right.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#27122 - 07/15/09 01:12 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: Dimitri]
TornadoCreator Offline
member


Registered: 10/24/07
Posts: 586
Loc: No Fixed Address
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
If it disturbs you, start a protest action.
I'm with Fist when it comes to "gays having equal rights".
Marriage is not a right! Keep that in mind, it's something you CAN do but not should do.

And it's something gay people CAN'T do. Right simply means something you are allowed to do, not necessarily something you should do.

 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
Marriage is the same as having a religious belief, you are free to chose whatever belief you have, but it isn't a right to have a particular belief everyone should obey in your opinion. In the case of marriage it's something you can do, but are not forced to do.

In that case. Islam should be illegal. Everyone has the right to believe in Christianity, but believing in Islam should be illegal. See how stupid this stance is now. You clearly don't understand the argument.

 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
Marriage was and still is an overblown union (lack of better words) which is not necessary to have a "happy" life. Therefor it isn't a right.

That's just fucking stupid. Wearing clothes is an overblown tradition of covering ones body which is not necessary to have a "happy" life. Therefore it isn't a right so let's pick a group of people and tell them they can't wear clothes. How about black people, or women, or gays. They can't wear clothes now, it's not a right after all.

This is fucking stupid. Your argument has more holes than Swiss cheese.
_________________________
If you can't practice what you preach, at least have the decency to preach what you practice

Top
#27123 - 07/15/09 01:20 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: TornadoCreator]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3138
 Quote:
And it's something gay people CAN'T do. Right simply means something you are allowed to do, not necessarily something you should do.
Ofcourse they can, you even admitted that it is possible in certain countries. This implies they have the possibility to do so.

 Quote:
In that case. Islam should be illegal. Everyone has the right to believe in Christianity, but believing in Islam should be illegal. See how stupid this stance is now. You clearly don't understand the argument.

Reread please...

 Quote:
That's just fucking stupid. Wearing clothes is an overblown tradition of covering ones body which is not necessary to have a "happy" life. Therefore it isn't a right so let's pick a group of people and tell them they can't wear clothes. How about black people, or women, or gays. They can't wear clothes now, it's not a right after all.

You can put your clothes off now, but I hope you don't live near any cold place where you reeze to death within a few seconds....

Rights are usually linked to morals, and how hard I try; I don't see any link marriage can be linked to a moral since it is only an action which takes place when both parties agree... A bit like 2 political parties who decide to work together. It's only a choice.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#27127 - 07/15/09 01:38 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: Dimitri]
TornadoCreator Offline
member


Registered: 10/24/07
Posts: 586
Loc: No Fixed Address
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
 Quote:
And it's something gay people CAN'T do. Right simply means something you are allowed to do, not necessarily something you should do.
Ofcourse they can, you even admitted that it is possible in certain countries. This implies they have the possibility to do so.

But not here. I don't care if it's legal in Canada, I want it legal here. Ideally, it should be legal EVERYWHERE. The law doesn't become justified just because it's only around in some places. Women have no rights in Saudi Arabia, but that's OK. If they wanted rights, they can go somewhere else, right? You fucking moron.

 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
 Quote:
In that case. Islam should be illegal. Everyone has the right to believe in Christianity, but believing in Islam should be illegal. See how stupid this stance is now. You clearly don't understand the argument.

Reread please...

Yes please do...

 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
 Quote:
That's just fucking stupid. Wearing clothes is an overblown tradition of covering ones body which is not necessary to have a "happy" life. Therefore it isn't a right so let's pick a group of people and tell them they can't wear clothes. How about black people, or women, or gays. They can't wear clothes now, it's not a right after all.

You can put your clothes off now, but I hope you don't live near any cold place where you reeze to death within a few seconds....

Rights are usually linked to morals, and how hard I try; I don't see any link marriage can be linked to a moral since it is only an action which takes place when both parties agree... A bit like 2 political parties who decide to work together. It's only a choice.

Yes. A choice that it's illegal for gay people to make. How fucking hard is it. Do you have cheese for a brain or are you really that stupid that you can't see the obvious inequality here.

Now either make an argument that isn't a fallacy, or piss off.
_________________________
If you can't practice what you preach, at least have the decency to preach what you practice

Top
#27128 - 07/15/09 01:50 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: TornadoCreator]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3138
 Quote:
But not here. I don't care if it's legal in Canada, I want it legal here. Ideally, it should be legal EVERYWHERE. The law doesn't become justified just because it's only around in some places. Women have no rights in Saudi Arabia, but that's OK. If they wanted rights, they can go somewhere else, right? You fucking moron.

There we have the keyword... "ideally". Ideology that is.
Women have no rights in Saudi-Arabia? So what, if we take an estimation that they make out a 50% of the people then they have enough force to shed that bullshit off. Ohyeah, I forgot, most people prefer to be lazy and be armchair activists..

 Quote:
Yes. A choice that it's illegal for gay people to make. How fucking hard is it. Do you have cheese for a brain or are you really that stupid that you can't see the obvious inequality here.

Illegal means not permitted, this differs, they simple don't have the choice.

And I still wander, why are you getting that upset by it and start calling names for something you already claimed you don't care about...
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#27129 - 07/15/09 02:10 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: Dimitri]
TornadoCreator Offline
member


Registered: 10/24/07
Posts: 586
Loc: No Fixed Address
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
 Quote:
But not here. I don't care if it's legal in Canada, I want it legal here. Ideally, it should be legal EVERYWHERE. The law doesn't become justified just because it's only around in some places. Women have no rights in Saudi Arabia, but that's OK. If they wanted rights, they can go somewhere else, right? You fucking moron.

There we have the keyword... "ideally". Ideology that is.
Women have no rights in Saudi-Arabia? So what, if we take an estimation that they make out a 50% of the people then they have enough force to shed that bullshit off. Ohyeah, I forgot, most people prefer to be lazy and be armchair activists..

Or maybe they're intelligent enough to understand that bullets hurt, and as not all women are psychically linked, they can't all revolt at the same time. So what happens, some people start to fight back, they get squashed and the others think "I like being alive, let's just shut the fuck up". If you understood sociology you would know why this happens. Become better informed before making such ignorant claims.

 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
 Quote:
Yes. A choice that it's illegal for gay people to make. How fucking hard is it. Do you have cheese for a brain or are you really that stupid that you can't see the obvious inequality here.

Illegal means not permitted, this differs, they simple don't have the choice.

And I still wander, why are you getting that upset by it and start calling names for something you already claimed you don't care about...

Ignorance, stupidity and self-deceit gets me riled up. They are after all the cardinal sins of Satanism.

Besides, I find insulting people who do such a good job of looking like a moron rather relaxing. It gets out my anger and I find it rather therapeutic. Plus you're just plain wrong on so many point, and as everyone knows...

_________________________
If you can't practice what you preach, at least have the decency to preach what you practice

Top
#27152 - 07/15/09 11:15 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: TornadoCreator]
ta2zz Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 1552
Loc: Connecticut

Coin toss: Try to get the wall to sing opera or reply to TC… Damn

 Originally Posted By: TC
Ignorance, stupidity and self-deceit gets me riled up. They are after all the cardinal sins of Satanism.

Besides, I find insulting people who do such a good job of looking like a moron rather relaxing. It gets out my anger and I find it rather therapeutic. Plus you're just plain wrong on so many point, and as everyone knows...

One shouldn’t preach what he doesn’t understand. Funny from where I stand you insult yourself by posting this picture but you cannot see that can you? Dimitri is not particularly weak. He has been here less time than you, has posted more yet has not had many against him. This is something for you to think about. You freely admit that you like insulting those that are easy targets or morons to use your own words. You also admit to posting to get out your anger, I find this amusing. Do you somehow think this is your personal outlet for therapy?

You have answers to your question there are places where you could go marry your football buddy if you wanted to. There is an answer but you are not happy with it. So you complain on the Internet, to you this discussion is your answer and somehow enough. Like so many real world things you have to get up off your ass and do something to get what you want. The world isn’t Burger King you do not always get it your way. You could get it your way at BK but that costs money, which in turn means you need to be employed (there is that getting off your ass again). Now the last I heard you had two working arms and legs and were not crippled. If only the energy you waste here could be used to find a job or better your life in some way. You could raise your position to that of one who's opinion matters.

Back to the point, for an example if I wanted to live somewhere where most drugs are listed as recreational I could pick one of two or three countries to move to. Just like if I wanted to be somewhere where whites are superior I could easily move to Maine or a few spots in TX that I know of. To do this I would have to work hard. (I know this one will be hard to swallow so take a deep breath.) I would need to build up the money to be able to take charge of my own life and break away from the place I just happened to be born in. I could go the other route as well and try to work getting the laws changed in the place I live but that involves work of a different nature. Here lies the real issue; someone whom has very little yet wants a lot is never happy. Some complain about it, some invoke change of their own to make them selves happy, while others just live in their parent’s basements sucking the teat dry. Crying that their diaper needs to be changed even when it’s clean.

A Satanist takes control of his future as much as humanly possible. No matter how you pour it Satanism and lazy just doesn’t mix.

You like to argue and you like to be right. Here you may always argue (until you tire the mods or admins) but I assure you that you will not always be right. Now since this is a big boys (and girls) discussion forum and you are at least suppose to be trying to at least act better than the average, maybe you could keep the typical grade school name calling to yourself.

Stop, please don’t reply just think a bit.

~T~
_________________________
We are the music makers, And we are the dreamers of dreams. ~Arthur William Edgar O'Shaughnessy

Top
#27159 - 07/16/09 01:03 AM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: ta2zz]
TornadoCreator Offline
member


Registered: 10/24/07
Posts: 586
Loc: No Fixed Address
 Originally Posted By: ta2zz

Coin toss: Try to get the wall to sing opera or reply to TC… Damn

 Originally Posted By: TC
Ignorance, stupidity and self-deceit gets me riled up. They are after all the cardinal sins of Satanism.

Besides, I find insulting people who do such a good job of looking like a moron rather relaxing. It gets out my anger and I find it rather therapeutic. Plus you're just plain wrong on so many point, and as everyone knows...

One shouldn’t preach what he doesn’t understand. Funny from where I stand you insult yourself by posting this picture but you cannot see that can you?

Dude. That was the intention behind the picture. If one cannot laugh at themselves then they shouldn't be allowed to laugh at others. I was making fun of the fact that we were basically repeating ourselves and the argument was going no-where.

 Originally Posted By: ta2zz
Dimitri is not particularly weak. He has been here less time than you, has posted more yet has not had many against him. This is something for you to think about.

Very true. He's still wrong though.

 Originally Posted By: ta2zz
You freely admit that you like insulting those that are easy targets or morons to use your own words. You also admit to posting to get out your anger, I find this amusing. Do you somehow think this is your personal outlet for therapy?

Pretty much... Yeah.

I use this forum as a person outlet. I voice my opinions, I get into discussions, I have heated debates and I get social interaction with people unlike those I see in my day to day life, who at least in part, share my outlook and ideals. I assumed that's why everyone else came here as well.

 Originally Posted By: ta2zz
You have answers to your question there are places where you could go marry your football buddy if you wanted to. There is an answer but you are not happy with it. So you complain on the Internet, to you this discussion is your answer and somehow enough. Like so many real world things you have to get up off your ass and do something to get what you want. The world isn’t Burger King you do not always get it your way. You could get it your way at BK but that costs money, which in turn means you need to be employed (there is that getting off your ass again). Now the last I heard you had two working arms and legs and were not crippled. If only the energy you waste here could be used to find a job or better your life in some way. You could raise your position to that of one who's opinion matters.

Dude. I'm going to University in a little over 2 months to study as a ODP, I then plan to travel Europe (have a route planned that will take me through 30 countries) for one year, money permitting. Just to see the sights, meet the people, gain a little perspective. After that, assuming I can fund it I intend to study medicine in more depth and perhaps become a doctor, ideally before I'm 35 years old. I would love to be able to go into genetic research later in life, perhaps get a paper published, but I'll be well into my 40's by the time that's feasible. It'll take time for me to become qualified as I fucked up the first time in Uni, my health let me down, and I didn't plan ahead so money is an issue, but I feel my failures and subsequent experiences have been valuable experience for me. So in short I am bettering myself. I have quite a structured life.

The thing is your point seems to hinge on the idea that I should get off my ass and do something about whatever cause I'm discussing rather than discussing it. The thing is ta2zz, you don't seem to realise that if I WANTED to do something about it I'd go to a rally or a protest march or organise a group of some kind, however, if I WANTED to talk about it I'd go to a discussion forum that I know has members intelligent enough to engage in thoughtful debate and discussion and discuss it with them. Now considering where we are, which one did I specifically intend to do?

 Originally Posted By: ta2zz
Back to the point, for an example if I wanted to live somewhere where most drugs are listed as recreational I could pick one of two or three countries to move to. Just like if I wanted to be somewhere where whites are superior I could easily move to Maine or a few spots in TX that I know of. To do this I would have to work hard. (I know this one will be hard to swallow so take a deep breath.) I would need to build up the money to be able to take charge of my own life and break away from the place I just happened to be born in. I could go the other route as well and try to work getting the laws changed in the place I live but that involves work of a different nature. Here lies the real issue; someone whom has very little yet wants a lot is never happy. Some complain about it, some invoke change of their own to make them selves happy, while others just live in their parent’s basements sucking the teat dry. Crying that their diaper needs to be changed even when it’s clean.

Fair enough. I prefer to change the laws of the place I'm in, campaign for equality etc here in the UK. Hell we're in the EU now, if I wanted to move somewhere where the laws where to my liking I'd go live in Amsterdam, I don't even need to apply for immigration I could get in a car, drive their tomorrow and start renting a house there (there's not even any passport control now between EU countries). I don't want the change just where I live, I want the change worldwide. This is where my political stance clashes a little with itself because this does mean I'm advocating forcing my political ideals on others. However as I feel my political ideals are the only just ideals (hence why I have such ideals), I don't feel it's unjust to impose them on others, even though the act of imposing such ideals is unjust itself. It's a paradox and a fallacious argument I know, but something has to give or I'm incapable of taking a stance.

 Originally Posted By: ta2zz
A Satanist takes control of his future as much as humanly possible. No matter how you pour it satanism and lazy just doesn’t mix.

I disagree. Hedonism by it's very nature is very much in the spirit of Satanism. And someone entirely content to live as the lowest rung of society could still follow the very essence of Satanism so long as he furthers his own goals of making himself personally happy, be that by perfecting hobbies, learning a chosen subject by teaching oneself, or out and out hedonism. Satanism by it's very definition allows someone to live however the fuck they want, and if they want to live at the mercy of the government because they find it easier to leach than work. That's their choice.

 Originally Posted By: ta2zz
You like to argue and you like to be right.

Oh yes.

 Originally Posted By: ta2zz
Here you may always argue (until you tire the mods or admins) but I assure you that you will not always be right.

Regrettably this is true. However I am right the majority of times, assuming there is such a thing as right and wrong in the discussion at hand. However, many of the discussions we have are subjective and thus there's no such thing as right, just different points of view. When it comes to something factual, if I don't know what I'm talking about I don't post, only if I'm genuinely mistaken through false information will I ever be wrong on this forum because I make sure I don't bullshit, something I regrettably did a lot as a teenager.

 Originally Posted By: ta2zz
Now since this is a big boys (and girls) discussion forum and you are at least suppose to be trying to at least act better than the average, maybe you could keep the typical grade school name calling to yourself.

I'll give it a go. I will admit the name calling is a little immature. However the reason I do it is, especially amongst the members here, people on the internet are stubborn and far too convinced of their own importance. They need someone to flatly tell them "No you're wrong. Clearly if you think like that you're a moron", because their own absurdly inflated ego won't allow them to even consider the opposing argument unless you make them feel like ants under your foot. Hell, even I'm guilty of this (although I try to take a step back and consider the opposing position much more now).

 Originally Posted By: ta2zz
Stop, please don’t reply just think a bit.

~T~


I have thought about what you've said. My post count may be high but I carefully consider what I write. Becides, you know I'm going to respond, I'm never one to silently agree.

I assure you, what you said has been taken on board.
_________________________
If you can't practice what you preach, at least have the decency to preach what you practice

Top
#27166 - 07/16/09 03:05 AM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: TornadoCreator]
ZephyrGirl Offline
R.I.P.
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 706
Loc: Adelaide Australia
Ayn Rand sums it up like this Ta2zz:

When one considers the spectacular success, the unprecedented prosperity, that capitalism has acheived in practice (even with hampering controls) - and when one considers the dismal failure of every variety of collectivism- it should be clear that the enemies of capitalism are not motivated at root, by economic considerations. They are motivated by metaphysical consideratiosn-by a rebellion against the human mode of survival, a rebellion against the fact that life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action and by the dreaam that, if only they can harness the men who do not resent the nature of life they will make the existence tolerable for those who do resent it.
_________________________
Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass -
It's about learning to dance in the rain.


Top
#27170 - 07/16/09 12:12 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: Dimitri]
Fist Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/31/07
Posts: 1453
Loc: B'mo Cautious MF
 Quote:
Marriage is not a right! Keep that in mind, it's something you CAN do but not should do.


Not exactly, but close. Marriage is a right because it is something you can do. You are born with all of you rights fully intact. Govts can not give you more rights than you were born with under Natural Law. Govts can only take rights away or choose which rights they will recognize or allow you to have. Just like 'free speech' you have a right to speak freely because you were born that way. So to, you have a right to marry whomever you wish but the larger society or govt may not recognize it.

For fucks sake, after 5 pages I finally had to break down and explain what a 'right' is.


 Quote:

Marriage is the same as having a religious belief, you are free to chose whatever belief you have, but it isn't a right to have a particular belief everyone should obey in your opinion.


Eureka! Possibly the most intelligent thing said on this topic yet! Yes, marriage is a religious construct. Is anyone confused by this? At best, it is a social construct. There is no absolute definition of marriage. Unlike the right to free speech, a marriage cannot be defined absolutely. A marriage is whatever a given religious cult or society deems it to be.

TC and 6Satan, don't worry, I will give each detailed responses, but I don't think your arguments are well thought out. You really need to consider the entirety of your arguments. You are simply regurgitating an argument that you heard from someone else. You could not have possibly applied any critical thinking to this.

In the West, we practice monogamy. Does this mean that Muslim polygamous marriage has no standing in the West? If a Muslim family is visiting the West and one wife ends up in the hospital does the husband still have legal standing to tend to her affairs? Who determines this?

And it is for this reason that I posted this:

 Quote:
That is a definition but it is not a particularly useful LEGAL definition. It does not enumerate what legal rights and responsibilities are conferred parties involved. It also does not state the process by which the parties are legally bound nor does it provide for the terms of contract. Furthermore, it does not state the entities responsible for regulating marriage contracts.


And still, no one has been able to explain this to me. Can a marriage be two men and one woman? Can a marriage be two women and one man? Can a marriage be one man, a transgender male-to-female, and one woman? What does the marriage still have legal standing if the transgender goes back to being male? What about post-op and pre-op transgenders? How should the law handle this? What if one of these triads has children and one or more get divorced? Who gets the children? Who is responsible for child support? Can a marriage be a foursome? Why? Why not?

My problem with the whole 'gay rights' movement is that it is ideologically aligned with the Left. It is simply another Leftist power grab. Why does the 'gay rights' movement not fall in with Libertarians? How about taking marriage completely out sphere of govt control?

Truthfully, if you want to know the answer to anything follow the money.
_________________________
I am the Devil and I am here to do the Devil's work.

Top
#27171 - 07/16/09 01:31 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: Fist]
TornadoCreator Offline
member


Registered: 10/24/07
Posts: 586
Loc: No Fixed Address
 Originally Posted By: Fist
TC and 6Satan, don't worry, I will give each detailed responses, but I don't think your arguments are well thought out. You really need to consider the entirety of your arguments. You are simply regurgitating an argument that you heard from someone else. You could not have possibly applied any critical thinking to this.

No. It's my opinion and it's nothing but critical thinking. If you disagree it's because you don't understand my argument. My argument is simply that gays are do not have the same rights recognised by society as straight people in all countries, including most of the western world and the country I live in. The is a FACT! People are denying this fact, they are wrong. How much more critical do I need to be?

 Originally Posted By: Fist
In the West, we practice monogamy. Does this mean that Muslim polygamous marriage has no standing in the West? If a Muslim family is visiting the West and one wife ends up in the hospital does the husband still have legal standing to tend to her affairs? Who determines this?

I think polygamy should be legal everywhere.

 Originally Posted By: Fist
And still, no one has been able to explain this to me. Can a marriage be two men and one woman? Can a marriage be two women and one man? Can a marriage be one man, a transgender male-to-female, and one woman?

Yes, Yes, and Yes. Why not?

 Originally Posted By: Fist
What does the marriage still have legal standing if the transgender goes back to being male? What about post-op and pre-op transgenders? How should the law handle this?

It's still the same person. Regardless of their gender. If I have a sex change that doesn't make my tenancy agreement change, it's a legal contract just like marriage. Why? Because gender means dick about legal contracts. It would make no difference.

 Originally Posted By: Fist
What if one of these triads has children and one or more get divorced? Who gets the children? Who is responsible for child support? Can a marriage be a foursome? Why? Why not?

When it comes to children it becomes more complicated. I'm not sure how that would be sorted but I'm tempted to say it would need to be looked at on a case by case situation.

 Originally Posted By: Fist
My problem with the whole 'gay rights' movement is that it is ideologically aligned with the Left. It is simply another Leftist power grab.

No it's not. It's about gay rights, it's fuck all to do with the political left wanting power. I don't support the liberal pussies but I definitely support gay rights.

 Originally Posted By: Fist
Why does the 'gay rights' movement not fall in with Libertarians?

It does. One of the paramount ideals of Libertarians is that the right of the individual is of ultimate importance. Guess what. Gay marriage is a right withheld from an individual. Every libertarian I know in person supports gay rights. I'm a libertarian myself.

 Originally Posted By: Fist
How about taking marriage completely out sphere of govt control?

That would only work if marriage didn't effect taxes, wills, medical decisions, legal kinship etc. Marriage has to be a legal contract recognised by the government or it's nothing more than a deceleration of love. Perhaps less regulations and bureaucracy would be a good thing though


Edited by TornadoCreator (07/16/09 01:44 PM)
Edit Reason: Making a more in depth response.
_________________________
If you can't practice what you preach, at least have the decency to preach what you practice

Top
#27174 - 07/16/09 03:24 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: TornadoCreator]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
You start to sound more and more like a kid that got a toy car for his birthday and then noticed the neighbor boy got a bicycle. Oh the injustice.

Like Fist said, one has the right to do whatever one likes solely because one can but when people start talking about rights in a societal or global sense, they are talking shit. There are no rights; society, religion or the state grants you permission to do certain things and that is about it. If you don't like it, do something about it or learn to live with it. I'm fed up by every minority starting a crying game and talking about rights as if some divine power ever granted equality to everyone. Equality is bullshit and this whole Leftist approach to spread equality like a cancer should be halted. Who did grant anyone a right to equality to begin with? Baby Jesus?

I don't think so.

D.

Top
#27178 - 07/16/09 05:34 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: Fist]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
 Originally Posted By: Fist
TC and 6Satan, don't worry, I will give each detailed responses, but I don't think your arguments are well thought out. You really need to consider the entirety of your arguments. You are simply regurgitating an argument that you heard from someone else. You could not have possibly applied any critical thinking to this.


After going through this thread and the few replies I made I can say that I didn't really make arguments. Due to this lack of arguments, there is no possible way that I didn't think them out. I have stated my opinion; that I believe gay people should be able to get married. Just because my personal belief happens to synch up with the beliefs others does not mean that I haven't formed my opinion from looking at it myself. I don't need to apply critical thinking skills to something like gay marriage because I am not trying to evaluate whether a claim is true or false.

 Originally Posted By: Fist
In the West, we practice monogamy. Does this mean that Muslim polygamous marriage has no standing in the West?


Yes that is exactly what it means. When someone from another country visits here they are subject to the laws of this country.(Unless they have diplomatic immunity) Since polygamy is illegal in this country the marriage will not be recognized.

 Originally Posted By: Fist
If a Muslim family is visiting the West and one wife ends up in the hospital does the husband still have legal standing to tend to her affairs? Who determines this?


Whether or not the husband still had legal standing to tend to her affairs would most likely depend on what affairs you are speaking of. As far as who determines it; well I don't have an answer to that. Do you?

 Originally Posted By: Fist
And still, no one has been able to explain this to me. Can a marriage be two men and one woman? Can a marriage be two women and one man? Can a marriage be one man, a transgender male-to-female, and one woman?


Not unless polygamy is legalized.

 Originally Posted By: Fist
What does the marriage still have legal standing if the transgender goes back to being male?


That is not possible. The male to female operation is permanent. Once the penis is removed and essentially turned inside out to create a vagina there is no going back. Let us also not forget the fact that anyone who is considering undergoing that operation must first seek extensive counseling. This counseling is designed to determine if the person fully understands what they are getting themselves into. The are made to understand that once they go through with the operation there is no going back.

 Originally Posted By: Fist
What about post-op and pre-op transgenders? How should the law handle this? What if one of these triads has children and one or more get divorced? Who gets the children? Who is responsible for child support?


Good question. Recently here in Oregon, and you might have heard this story on the news, a woman got pregnant and then underwent hormone therapy to complete her sex change to become a man. I know that doesn't answer your question, but if her and her partner seperate you just might get the answer you seek.

 Originally Posted By: Fist
Can a marriage be a foursome? Why? Why not?


Again, only if polygamy is legalized.

 Originally Posted By: Fist
My problem with the whole 'gay rights' movement is that it is ideologically aligned with the Left. It is simply another Leftist power grab.


Yes, and the anti-gay crowd is ideologically aligned with the Right. It is simpl another power grab from the Right.

 Originally Posted By: Fist
Why does the 'gay rights' movement not fall in with Libertarians?


Probably because it doesn't fit with their platform of "don't fuck with me and I won't fuck with you". By staying out of it the Libertarian party doesn't have to worry about agitating either side. The Libertarians have a hard enough time being taking seriously as it is.

 Originally Posted By: Fist
How about taking marriage completely out sphere of govt control?


That is a fine idea. Good luck with that though, the government likes to have as much control as possible over people.





_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#27182 - 07/16/09 11:46 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
fakepropht Moderator Offline
Big Slick
active member


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 990
Loc: Texas
To no one in particular. Have we forgotten our history? To the ones arguing for gay rights/marriage. You are trying to reverse 2000 years worth of laws and common thinking? And you want action now? It took women years to gain the right to vote. It took blacks 150 years to elect a black president and gain rights. So how do you think that society is just going to flip flop 2000 years worth of laws in a few weeks?

Sorry, but this battle is not going to change anything overnight. It may not even happen in our generation. There are more implications to it than can a guy and a guy become "husband and husband". There are property rights to be considered, insurance, possible new challenges. Like Fist mentioned, it could open the door for challenges from polygamists, transgenders, hell, why not bestiality? When lawyers, god fearing men, big money, and politics get involved, expect nothing to get resolved for a long time.
_________________________
Beer, the reason I get up every afternoon.

Top
#27186 - 07/17/09 06:25 AM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: fakepropht]
TornadoCreator Offline
member


Registered: 10/24/07
Posts: 586
Loc: No Fixed Address
I don't expect fast results, doesn't mean they shouldn't happen. I understand things won't change overnight, but they will eventually change, only if people keep talking about it and fighting for it.
_________________________
If you can't practice what you preach, at least have the decency to preach what you practice

Top
#27229 - 07/19/09 12:12 AM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: TornadoCreator]
Atralux Lucis Offline
pledge


Registered: 05/22/09
Posts: 79
Loc: Australia
My opinion:

I am an open gay-bi-sexual but I still think the entire idea of gay marriage is complete bullshit.

In a debate I had on the subject I divided the issue into Religious, Social and Legal.

Religious
Marriage has nearly always been a religious affair. Most religions say no to gays. And even still our society is a western one (christian) and so marriage is still only for heteroes. It's not that I biblically gay bash but marriage is a christian sexist ceremony.
The basis of our concept of marriage is the sexist ceremony where a woman is given to a man. 'Man and wife' who gives this woman to this man, love and obey, etc.
Can't do that with two men. Granted, this isnt our perception now, but one cant deny that this is the basis and origin of marriage. Marriage is like a club where the leaders make the rules. Its like satanist forum only christians not allowed, straight marriage only gays not allowed.

Social
Looking at family, marriage serves as a harder glue to keeping the couple together and therefore strengthens a family, for the children. Now gays cant have children, often dont, so this practical usage of marriage is basically lost.
And lets say they adopt and what-not. The child can be confused in their identity, if we go by genes they can develop aggression, self-esteem issues. Teasing at school pretty common. And where did i come from will be a hard question to answer.
So there is no practical reason gays should marry unless for the legal benefits, moving on.

Legal
Well at the moment, to my knowledge, gays can apply for the de facto couple after living together for a certain amount of time. So they get a few rights, though not the extent of marriage.
So our government is basing rights on religion, well that seems a bit harsh, so the solution is dissolving marriage and replacing it. Give the gays a civil union with the same rights as a married couple but under different name and different principle.
You may say why not just give them marriage then, which is true, BUT this whole argument is based on principles and so we work it out so that the principles are kept and rights are given too.

I think the whole issue is easily solved, its just that homophobic peoples just want to keep gays down and so the issue goes away from simply moral issue but personal prejudice.

Top
#27251 - 07/20/09 02:55 AM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: fakepropht]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I decided to look up the legal status of homosexuals in the UK. After this whole debate I was under the assumption they were a bit the social niggers in the UK. I was kinda surprised when I read this on wiki:


 Quote:
Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom, granted under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, give same-sex couples rights and responsibilities identical to civil marriage. Civil Partners are entitled to the same property rights as married opposite-sex couples, the same exemption as married couples on inheritance tax, social security and pension benefits, and also the ability to get parental responsibility for a partner's children,[1] as well as responsibility for reasonable maintenance of one's partner and their children, tenancy rights, full life insurance recognition, next-of-kin rights in hospitals, and others. There is a formal process for dissolving partnerships akin to divorce.


The question that appeared in my mind was: what is the fucking problem debated here so intensely upon? A white wedding?

D.

Top
#27297 - 07/21/09 02:47 AM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: Diavolo]
TornadoCreator Offline
member


Registered: 10/24/07
Posts: 586
Loc: No Fixed Address
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
I decided to look up the legal status of homosexuals in the UK. After this whole debate I was under the assumption they were a bit the social niggers in the UK. I was kinda surprised when I read this on wiki:


 Quote:
Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom, granted under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, give same-sex couples rights and responsibilities identical to civil marriage. Civil Partners are entitled to the same property rights as married opposite-sex couples, the same exemption as married couples on inheritance tax, social security and pension benefits, and also the ability to get parental responsibility for a partner's children,[1] as well as responsibility for reasonable maintenance of one's partner and their children, tenancy rights, full life insurance recognition, next-of-kin rights in hospitals, and others. There is a formal process for dissolving partnerships akin to divorce.


The question that appeared in my mind was: what is the fucking problem debated here so intensely upon? A white wedding?

D.

Yep, it's almost perfect. Now they just need to call it "MARRIAGE", you know, because that's what it actually is. After all, we didn't agree to give women a "suggestion", we gave them a fucking vote. Obama isn't the first black "civil overseer of USA" he's the first black president. Just because it's a different group doesn't mean you segregate the group. It's prejudice and segregation that's the issue, it's petty distinctions being made just so the government can point at people and say "You guys are different", it also means, from a logistical point of view, any group that wants to distinguish between gay and straight couples can easily identify them in forms and records.

I didn't say that the law was an incredible injustice, just that it's not currently equal, it's almost equal, but not equal.
_________________________
If you can't practice what you preach, at least have the decency to preach what you practice

Top
#27303 - 07/21/09 08:02 AM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: TornadoCreator]
Meq Offline
Banned
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 861
The thing is, even if gay civil unions were legally called "marriage", they would still not be 'equal' to heterosexual marriage. For one thing, gay partners can't reproduce and have their own happy family. Adoption isn't quite the same as raising one's own flesh and blood. Not that there is anything wrong with adoption, but biological drives are geared towards raising one's own.

There is also the problem of cultural prejudice, because face it, many people do not consider kids having two dads to be 'normal'. Such adopted children will inevitably face ridicule from peers. And this problem doesn't look like it will completely disappear any time soon.

Top
#27310 - 07/21/09 02:52 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: TornadoCreator]
ceruleansteel Offline
active member


Registered: 10/15/07
Posts: 784
Loc: Behind you
 Quote:
it's petty distinctions being made


What I find petty is the fact that the only thing you are apparently arguing about is the label. Marriage, I do believe, has a definition: one man and one woman. That is the legal definition. Thus, it would be impossible to call any other type of union by that name. A horse and a cat both have four legs and fur, but no fool would call a horse a feline.

You have equal rights. Stop bitching.

Top
#27319 - 07/21/09 05:42 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: ceruleansteel]
ZephyrGirl Offline
R.I.P.
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 706
Loc: Adelaide Australia
I'd go so far as to say, legally it's better if the name 'marriage' be kept for hetrosexual liasons.

Unless they want to keep protecting the illusion that there really is no difference between the two types of couples?

Surely not.

ZephyrGirl
_________________________
Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass -
It's about learning to dance in the rain.


Top
#27326 - 07/21/09 07:47 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: ZephyrGirl]
Meq Offline
Banned
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 861
Of course, one other option would be to drop the notion of 'legal' marriage altogether and just have 'legal civil unions' for both heterosexual and homosexual couples. No real change, just leave the 'M' word out of the legal side.

Both will then be free to call it 'marriage' in a personal and/or religious sense, just that the 'M' word will be kept out of law, and the legal side can be called what it actually is in both cases: a legal civil union.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the notion of 'marriage' being primarily a matter for the State a modern one? Marriages were traditionally a matter for the Church.

Today of course marriages can be non-religious or performed by minority religions, but there is still the dual personal/spiritual and state aspects. Why not confine the 'M' word to the former?

Just a suggestion.
Of course social conservatives and religious folk requiring "legal marriage" may strongly object.

But this begs the question: Why is having the 'M' word legally recognized such a big deal after all?


Of course, another natural inequality facing male homosexual couples is that, to put it crudely, they lack a tooth-free, shit-free hole to fuck.
Lesbians are at even more of a disadvantage in lacking a natural orifice-filling device (and don't tell me strapons and double-ended dildoes are as good as what Mother Nature kindly provided!)


Edited by Meq (07/21/09 07:52 PM)

Top
#27334 - 07/21/09 09:08 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: ceruleansteel]
TornadoCreator Offline
member


Registered: 10/24/07
Posts: 586
Loc: No Fixed Address
 Originally Posted By: ceruleansteel
 Quote:
it's petty distinctions being made


What I find petty is the fact that the only thing you are apparently arguing about is the label. Marriage, I do believe, has a definition: one man and one woman. That is the legal definition. Thus, it would be impossible to call any other type of union by that name. A horse and a cat both have four legs and fur, but no fool would call a horse a feline.

You have equal rights. Stop bitching.


Marriage only had that definition in USA and only in the last decade or so. It was re-defined by the religious right in an attempt to legitimise the argument you just made. It's misdirection, nothing more.
_________________________
If you can't practice what you preach, at least have the decency to preach what you practice

Top
#27339 - 07/21/09 11:05 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: TornadoCreator]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
Oh my god, I can't take it anymore............

Please re read Diavolo's last post.

You are SUPPOSEDLY Satanists, who are really not supposed to give a FLYING FUCK about what the Xitian church thinks or says.

Shit, it's a word "marriage".

It only has the power you give it, and since a civil union gives you all the same rights what the fuck does it matter.

If you stand up in front of the people you care about and proclaim your love for life for another individual what difference is it if you do it in a church, city hall, or on a beach.

You only have to make yourself and your partner happy, if you can't do that then no word or phrase will ever make a difference.

FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK..............................

Morgan
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
#27342 - 07/21/09 11:40 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: Morgan]
TornadoCreator Offline
member


Registered: 10/24/07
Posts: 586
Loc: No Fixed Address
Morgan, if you can't understand why it bothers me that's fine. In many respects its a trivial thing, however on a certain level it's a fundamental injustice that I feel strongly about and I'm not alone. If you don't feel the same it's hard to explain, and it's nothing to do with how the Christian church treats us, it's all about laws, regulations, government and segregation. I can't really explain it any differently to how I already have.

The only thing that I feel I can say, is everyone here who's arguing against same sex unions has basically said what amounts to "if civil union and marriage give all the same rights, why the hell does it matter, they're the same thing", well, if you feel it's the same thing, why not agree we should name it the same, after all, you all consider it trivial but it means a hell of a lot to us. You can either tell us to grow up, tell us we're making a big deal out of nothing, and it really have no effect on you, or you can agree that same sex unions can be called marriage, knowing it would make us happy, and again it having no effect on you because... why the hell not, it's just a trivial thing, right?
_________________________
If you can't practice what you preach, at least have the decency to preach what you practice

Top
#27348 - 07/22/09 12:31 AM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: TornadoCreator]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
REMINDER from Diavolo post.....

"I decided to look up the legal status of homosexuals in the UK. After this whole debate I was under the assumption they were a bit the social niggers in the UK. I was kinda surprised when I read this on wiki:


Quote:
Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom, granted under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, give same-sex couples rights and responsibilities identical to civil marriage. Civil Partners are entitled to the same property rights as married opposite-sex couples, the same exemption as married couples on inheritance tax, social security and pension benefits, and also the ability to get parental responsibility for a partner's children,[1] as well as responsibility for reasonable maintenance of one's partner and their children, tenancy rights, full life insurance recognition, next-of-kin rights in hospitals, and others. There is a formal process for dissolving partnerships akin to divorce.


The question that appeared in my mind was: what is the fucking problem debated here so intensely upon? A white wedding?"


It's a word "Marriage" in your country which doesn't recoginize the pope anyway, Its all the same thing !!!!!!!!!!

So it means a lot to you, really???
You ever have a lover of the same sex?
You ever walk down the street holding their hand?
You ever talk about the future and kids with such a person?
I have so don't tell me it doesn't mean anything to me.

I'm just sick and tired about you going on about this when its pointless as Diavolo has previously pointed out.

Get it yet?

Morgan
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
#27353 - 07/22/09 02:13 AM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: Morgan]
TornadoCreator Offline
member


Registered: 10/24/07
Posts: 586
Loc: No Fixed Address
It obviously doesn't mean anything to you, because you said you didn't care, you told me it doesn't mean anything to you.

Yes, I have been in a same sex relationship, and I've dated multiple guys although none for very long. I specifically seek heterosexual relationships because I want to raise a family, however if I found a guy who was perfect for me then we could always either adopt or use a surrogate mother.

You say you're sick of the argument, you claim it's pointless and doesn't make any difference. That it's just a word. I'm claiming that the principle means more to me than you realise, that for my personal happiness it means a lot. If you're sick of arguing about it, stop, no-ones making you argue. I, however, have a stance, which I'm not entirely convinced you've understood (and I don't mean that in a condescending way, I'm not sure how I can explain it all that well anyway) and it greatly effects my emotional well-being, as it does others.

I'm a man of principles and my principles tell me that true equality, something I feel is of paramount importance within the realm of human rights, doesn't exist in the case of gays, even in a country like UK where we have civil unions, and especially not in USA where actual freedoms are taken away, that's without even considering the undeveloped world and their archaic laws. So for that reason I speak out about such things. It makes me unhappy to see my principles not valued globally, so I do what I can to instil my personal values in others and explain them in the hopes of changing peoples minds. (Why do I feel like I'm explaining the purpose of debating and philosophy to a four year old).

Now, you need to decide Morgan. Are you on the side of the gay rights movement, wanting true equality across the world; are you on the side of the anti-gay right fighting for the "sanctity of marriage"; or are you on the side of the apathetic crowd who don't give a shit (in which case why are you even arguing at all). You can't claim it's petty and pointless one minute, and act as though you're grievously insulted the next when I say it clearly doesn't matter to you. Either you give a shit or you don't, make up your mind.

As for me, I still feel gays are not treated equally. Sure the laws are the same, but the segregation is still there. Even if it's only their as a construct in language it's still there and in order to move on as a society in order to progress we need to stop these petty distinctions put up for the some purpose of legitimising prejudices. I hope this last paragraph highlights my reasons for wanting gays to have "marriage" not something similar, not something the same but with a different name, I want "marriage". In the same way as Women wanted to vote, they didn't want to have a "suggestion", or a "political pledge", they wanted to vote. They wanted the same thing men had, and they where right to want that. It's the same principal here.
_________________________
If you can't practice what you preach, at least have the decency to preach what you practice

Top
#27354 - 07/22/09 02:35 AM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: TornadoCreator]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3138

 Quote:
That it's just a word. I'm claiming that the principle means more to me than you realise, that for my personal happiness it means a lot.

So, because a "marriage" between 2 same sex people is called a civil unionship, although it is the same as a marriage, you feel your personal happiness attacked?

It's the same thing of starting a fuzz about calling shit turd.
However you would like it to be called it still remains the same thing. This is what diavolo and morgan mend. You can give it thousands of synonyms but it still remains the same fucking thing. It still is a "unionship". Marriage, hand-fasting,... are synonyms for the action (and maybe with a slight difference in texts) of unionship between 2 people.

 Quote:
I'm a man of principles and my principles tell me that true equality, something I feel is of paramount importance within the realm of human rights, doesn't exist in the case of gays, even in a country like UK where we have civil unions, and especially not in USA where actual freedoms are taken away, that's without even considering the undeveloped world and their archaic laws.

True equality? Pipedreams that is. Differences will always occur and will be based on every slight detail. Be it your sexual orientation, the way you look (I.e. how you are being stereotyped), your skin color, your behavior and many other things.
You may always try to get equality officially by laws, acts,... you might even succeed with that. But because it is written and everyone has to do so that everyone WILL obey it. We are humans after all, and as you know: humans seldom obey laws who go straight against natural principles.

 Quote:
Now, you need to decide Morgan. Are you on the side of the gay rights movement, wanting true equality across the world; are you on the side of the anti-gay right fighting for the "sanctity of marriage"; or are you on the side of the apathetic crowd who don't give a shit (in which case why are you even arguing at all). You can't claim it's petty and pointless one minute, and act as though you're grievously insulted the next when I say it clearly doesn't matter to you. Either you give a shit or you don't, make up your mind.

If you've read her answers you should know her opinion and position. You are placing people in a corner in which they have to choose between a vast amount of answers. This isn't really a way to debate don't you think?
It actually is even a sign of being close-minded and failure of the ability to discuss or debate.

 Quote:
As for me, I still feel gays are not treated equally. Sure the laws are the same, but the segregation is still there.

You are fighting against "the masses", and you together with another few are forming a minority. It is almost impossible for a minority to be recognized by the masses even if the laws put you on a same status. Learn to live with it. Minority stays minority.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/I1MSI592s64&hl=nl&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/I1MSI592s64&hl=nl&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Is a bit related in what the subject changed to now..


Edited by Dimitri (07/22/09 02:46 AM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#27355 - 07/22/09 03:14 AM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: Dimitri]
TornadoCreator Offline
member


Registered: 10/24/07
Posts: 586
Loc: No Fixed Address
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri

 Quote:
That it's just a word. I'm claiming that the principle means more to me than you realise, that for my personal happiness it means a lot.

So, because a "marriage" between 2 same sex people is called a civil unionship, although it is the same as a marriage, you feel your personal happiness attacked?

It's the same thing of starting a fuzz about calling shit turd.
However you would like it to be called it still remains the same thing. This is what diavolo and morgan mend. You can give it thousands of synonyms but it still remains the same fucking thing. It still is a "unionship". Marriage, hand-fasting,... are synonyms for the action (and maybe with a slight difference in texts) of unionship between 2 people.

If it was just a synonym then I wouldn't complain. It's not. A gay union cannot be a marriage in most countries because it's against the law. That's the issue. All marriages are civil unions, but not all civil unions are marriages, and they should be, if you want them to be. Marriage is after all just a word.

 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
 Quote:
I'm a man of principles and my principles tell me that true equality, something I feel is of paramount importance within the realm of human rights, doesn't exist in the case of gays, even in a country like UK where we have civil unions, and especially not in USA where actual freedoms are taken away, that's without even considering the undeveloped world and their archaic laws.

True equality? Pipedreams that is. Differences will always occur and will be based on every slight detail. Be it your sexual orientation, the way you look (I.e. how you are being stereotyped), your skin color, your behavior and many other things.
You may always try to get equality officially by laws, acts,... you might even succeed with that. But because it is written and everyone has to do so that everyone WILL obey it. We are humans after all, and as you know: humans seldom obey laws who go straight against natural principles.

Doesn't mean I shouldn't strive for it. Few people get to the top echelons of society, by their very definition, it doesn't mean I shouldn't aim to get there.

 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
 Quote:
Now, you need to decide Morgan. Are you on the side of the gay rights movement, wanting true equality across the world; are you on the side of the anti-gay right fighting for the "sanctity of marriage"; or are you on the side of the apathetic crowd who don't give a shit (in which case why are you even arguing at all). You can't claim it's petty and pointless one minute, and act as though you're grievously insulted the next when I say it clearly doesn't matter to you. Either you give a shit or you don't, make up your mind.

If you've read her answers you should know her opinion and position. You are placing people in a corner in which they have to choose between a vast amount of answers. This isn't really a way to debate don't you think?
It actually is even a sign of being close-minded and failure of the ability to discuss or debate.

It's a binary situation. You either care or you don't. They are mutually exclusive all encompassing opposites. You definitely fit into one of the two, you definitely don't fit into both, so choose. It's not being closed minded to make a claim. If I said she was either pro gay rights or anti gay rights, then that would be pigeon holing, but I gave the apathy option as well. Now, I can think of any other positions to take, you're either for something, against it, or don't give a shit, if you can think of a fourth then I'll happily admit my mistake.

 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
 Quote:
As for me, I still feel gays are not treated equally. Sure the laws are the same, but the segregation is still there.

You are fighting against "the masses", and you together with another few are forming a minority. It is almost impossible for a minority to be recognized by the masses even if the laws put you on a same status. Learn to live with it. Minority stays minority.

I'm aware of that. I accept that as basic human nature. However, the government shouldn't put arbitrary legislations such as bothering to make a legal distinction between gay "civil union" and "marriage". The only purpose for doing such is as a symbolic method of prejudice. Legally they can't remove any material rights from gays such as tax breaks and medical rights, however they can appease bigots by giving them a different label as a constant reminder that same sex couples ain't quite equal. It's basically an adult way of saying "We're better than you", and it's government sanctioned. The distinction serves no other purpose, it's there solely because the religious right want to push the gay population around, and if they can't remove some material rights from them a symbolic smack in the face still makes it clear who's in control of the government. It would be like a slave being told they can live exactly like a free person, but they're still a slave technically. They have all the rights that a free person has, but they are still registered on the forms as a slave... I'm sure Martin Luther King would have approved of that. It's petty yes, but it's done out of hate and bigotry and it's offensive and spiteful. It should be changed if anything, because society should be growing beyond the need for such pathetic segregative labels. I can't help feeling humanity should be better than this.
_________________________
If you can't practice what you preach, at least have the decency to preach what you practice

Top
#27356 - 07/22/09 03:34 AM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: TornadoCreator]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3138
 Quote:
It's a binary situation. You either care or you don't. They are mutually exclusive all encompassing opposites. You definitely fit into one of the two, you definitely don't fit into both, so choose. It's not being closed minded to make a claim. If I said she was either pro gay rights or anti gay rights, then that would be pigeon holing, but I gave the apathy option as well. Now, I can think of any other positions to take, you're either for something, against it, or don't give a shit, if you can think of a fourth then I'll happily admit my mistake.

It isn't a binary situation. YOU make a binary situation out of it, together with other people who are eagering for "equal gay rights". The normal person in the street doesn't give a fuck. He or she is neither for or against it. They only make up their mind when confronted with the subject. And still then their is the pressure of society, which might differ for influencing someone being pro or against.

I simply do not care about gays, they're just people. However I sometimes have the feeling to take a huge gun and shoot the first gay who is wearing a pink shirt and really acts gay or resembles a bit like this:


Rest of your response:
Can you backup statements like these:
 Quote:
The only purpose for doing such is as a symbolic method of prejudice.

Or is it once again just a moral statement based on your own interpretations?
In that case it's non-valid to me and the whole discussion was utterly pointless. I deal in hard things, texts from authorisized persons, laws, scientifique works and "valid" critical interpretations.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#27365 - 07/22/09 11:57 AM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: Dimitri]
TornadoCreator Offline
member


Registered: 10/24/07
Posts: 586
Loc: No Fixed Address
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
 Quote:
It's a binary situation. You either care or you don't. They are mutually exclusive all encompassing opposites. You definitely fit into one of the two, you definitely don't fit into both, so choose. It's not being closed minded to make a claim. If I said she was either pro gay rights or anti gay rights, then that would be pigeon holing, but I gave the apathy option as well. Now, I can think of any other positions to take, you're either for something, against it, or don't give a shit, if you can think of a fourth then I'll happily admit my mistake.

It isn't a binary situation. YOU make a binary situation out of it, together with other people who are eagering for "equal gay rights". The normal person in the street doesn't give a fuck. He or she is neither for or against it. They only make up their mind when confronted with the subject. And still then their is the pressure of society, which might differ for influencing someone being pro or against.

You missed my point completely. It's not binary between the pro-gay right and the anti-gay rights. It's binary between the people who give a shit, and the people who don't. Read carefully before you argue against a point.
_________________________
If you can't practice what you preach, at least have the decency to preach what you practice

Top
#27376 - 07/22/09 08:35 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: TornadoCreator]
Meq Offline
Banned
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 861
 Originally Posted By: TornadoCreator
It's not binary between the pro-gay right and the anti-gay rights. It's binary between the people who give a shit, and the people who don't. Read carefully before you argue against a point.

I would think that there are various degrees of concern, on a spectrum between complete apathy towards the issue towards a militant passionate crusade for (or against) gay rights on the other.

It's not a black and white (or 'binary') issue, that is to commit the fallacy of the excluded middle. Most people fall into the "gray" on this one. It's a big deal to some, completely unimportant to others, but most fall in the middle - whether pro or anti. And there may be others who are unsure whether they are pro or anti.

And another thing: Would you consider it a form of thought crime for people to not particularly consider gay rights a big deal, or at least the big deal some make it out to be?

Top
#27379 - 07/22/09 09:40 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: Meq]
TornadoCreator Offline
member


Registered: 10/24/07
Posts: 586
Loc: No Fixed Address
No, not at all, if someone doesn't think gay rights is a big deal, fair enough. The only time it's a crime, (or at least should be a crime), is when they think it is a big deal and are against it, because then they're being prejudice and attempting to remove rights.
_________________________
If you can't practice what you preach, at least have the decency to preach what you practice

Top
#27389 - 07/22/09 10:50 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: TornadoCreator]
Meq Offline
Banned
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 861
Christian fundies will be Christian fundies. The same for conservative Muslims. Good luck getting their faith criminalised, for in their eyes, giving rights to gays is to promote sin and lead people astray to the Lake of Fire; hence opposing gay rights is, in their dogmatic view, the compassionate thing to do.

Hell, even secular social conservatives are under the impression that gay rights will erode the institution of the traditional family and thus (in their eyes) lead to more harm than good.


But are these views really thought crimes, or only criminal when they affect behavior in such a way that political and social action is taken which adversely affects homosexuals?


I for one am glad to live in a country where the religious right doesn't have such a huge influence as in the States.

Top
#27391 - 07/22/09 11:11 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: TornadoCreator]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
 Originally Posted By: TornadoCreator
The only time it's a crime, (or at least should be a crime), is when they think it is a big deal and are against it, because then they're being prejudice and attempting to remove rights.


Wait a second. Wouldn't that make your belief also a crime? You being against them for being against the gays is also prejudice and attempting to remove their right to be prejudice.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#27402 - 07/23/09 02:05 AM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
ceruleansteel Offline
active member


Registered: 10/15/07
Posts: 784
Loc: Behind you
To no one in particular:

What kicks my ass is all these little fringe-people wagging their differences in everyone's faces and DEMANDING that they be accepted, loved, placed high and exalted....just so that they can feel better about their different-ness. I'll not restate what I've bitched about ad-nauseum in the tolerance thread.

To TC:

Get the fuck over it. As Morgan has pointed out, it's just a fucking word. If this sort of thing is a representation of what gay men are like, then it's a wonder to me that no one has taken a minute to eliminate your whiney asses from the food chain altogether. You are being just as petty, etc as every bitch who ever filed charges for not being admitted to the boyscouts.

Truth be told, I'm sick of everyone being such a sniveler. Grow the fuck up and get the fuck over it. IT'S A WORD.

Oversensitive and overdramatic. If I were queen of the world, I'd make you change another word just because I could and just because you're a crybaby.

What next? The sub in the relationship going to demand entrance to the women's restroom? Go find a REAL cause to crusade about.

Top
#27405 - 07/23/09 02:39 AM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: ceruleansteel]
Atralux Lucis Offline
pledge


Registered: 05/22/09
Posts: 79
Loc: Australia
The ignorant argument started by morgan is that YES, we can all say 'get the fuck over it' but I really doubt you can tell the whole world that.
This argument isnt a practical one its one of principles. There is no practical reason they cant have a union of a sorts but the word MARRIAGE infringes on certain principles.

And as we have already defined what marriage is, most of us agree that gays shouldnt be married, because of all the reasons mentioned.
I agree with Morgan that the whole argument isnt practical, but its based on principles which if you cant appreciate dont bother having an input.

Top
#27410 - 07/23/09 04:57 AM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: Atralux Lucis]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
This is silly.

In the UK where Torando is from, they have a civil union which has every right a straight couple has. Except they use the words CIVIL UNION instead of MARRIAGE.

Thats why I said to TC, get over it.

I dont care who gets married, unionized or whatever. Let everyone be either happy or misrable in the partner they choose.

If you need a priest and the word marriage, I think your in the wrong place anyway.......

Morgan
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
#27592 - 07/28/09 04:06 AM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Atralux Lucis Offline
pledge


Registered: 05/22/09
Posts: 79
Loc: Australia
Its great that UK has a civil union. Now if the rest of the world can follow that we can be relieved of these 'Gay Marriage' protests and stuff. I mean they are going to end up giving in anyways so they may well appease them now.

As Morgan and others emphasize, its a blatantly simple issue, just civil union and problem solved. Unfortunately world leader and politicians make things complicated.

Top
#27924 - 08/05/09 12:46 AM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: Atralux Lucis]
ceruleansteel Offline
active member


Registered: 10/15/07
Posts: 784
Loc: Behind you
You are missing the point, and the reason why I'm annoyed.

TC is from the UK. He can make a legally binding relationship with any man he pleases. THEY HAVE ALL THE RIGHTS THAT EVERYONE ELSE HAS.

 Quote:
Now if the rest of the world can follow that we can be relieved of these 'Gay Marriage' protests and stuff.


WRONG. They have all those rights and now they (and I must use TC as the "representative they") are bitching because even though they have all the same rights, they don't get to use the same word. It's petty and makes him (and by extension, "them") look like pussy crybabies who just want to bitch about something.

I cannot go into the men's room. I cannot be called a "waiter". There are many things that I cannot do and words I can't own that a man can because I am NOT A MAN. Just as I can't do some of the things that insanely wealthy people can do, things that musicians can do, etc. Egalitarianism is bullshit and will never truly exist. People ARE different. I don't understand why the minority and fringe lifestyles feel like they have some sort of special entitlement compared to the mass majority. I can accept it. Most other people can accept it.

Top
#28419 - 08/13/09 07:34 AM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: ceruleansteel]
Atralux Lucis Offline
pledge


Registered: 05/22/09
Posts: 79
Loc: Australia
I already said that the same rights should not be limited to just the UK.

Are you accepting that christian ethics of gays being bad and not worthy of marriage are perfectly okay in our political legal system?

If for anything Id like to see gay marriage just to shove it up the ass of the christians and even show them their stupid ethics is being pushed out of law. At the moment no gay marriage is proof that, I think in america, a contradiction when they said the church and the country being kept separate.

Top
#28529 - 08/17/09 05:44 AM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: Atralux Lucis]
ceruleansteel Offline
active member


Registered: 10/15/07
Posts: 784
Loc: Behind you
Trying to label my motives as Christian doesn't intimidate me a bit. I am beginning to wonder if English is your first language or perhaps you are purposefully ignoring the point I'm making. I never said shit about Christianity, did I? I never said whether or not gays DESERVE this or that, did I? You seem to have difficulty addressing what I actually AM saying, which - for the ten thousandth fucking time - is that it's just a word and people need to stop being such fucking crybabies.

My defense of the man-woman marriage is (as I have already stated) based on the fact that the word "marriage" already has a legal definition. While we can change the definition of common words, you can't so easily change a legal definition. Those words HAVE to remain constant so that the law can remain interpretable.

Now, commonly, it can be referred to as a marriage, but because the LEGAL definition of the word clearly states that it is between members of the opposite sex, you just have to give it a different legal name.

My gripe with the gay community is that they DO have just as many "rights" as everyone else. They are bitching and whining over nothing more than semantics. They need to get the fuck over it and just be glad that it's not still legal to jail them for morality crimes or beat them down, deny them jobs, and just generally make them wish they were dead.

And my feelings towards faggotry have nothing at all to do with Christianity.

Church and State ARE separate. Anyone can have a marriage ceremony. The legality comes into play when you go downtown and sign a legally binding marriage contract. They are two separate animals.

Top
#28530 - 08/17/09 06:24 AM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: ceruleansteel]
Wdrndr Offline
Idiot--banned
stranger


Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 6
Loc: South Africa
Wow! Sory. A ?, are u gay? Have ever been judged by parents, family and just strangers?... Have you ever been told you cant do a job cause you are gay?.... I have! Do you know how it feels 2 be gay?... Finaly, the fact of your overt anger and hostility in this matter and thus in the words of shakespear, and in acord with the previous posts... "me thinks the lady doth protest to much"
Top
#28532 - 08/17/09 07:05 AM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: Wdrndr]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3138
 Originally Posted By: Wdrndr
Wow! Sory. A ?, are u gay? Have ever been judged by parents, family and just strangers?... Have you ever been told you cant do a job cause you are gay?.... I have! Do you know how it feels 2 be gay?... Finaly, the fact of your overt anger and hostility in this matter and thus in the words of shakespear, and in acord with the previous posts... "me thinks the lady doth protest to much"

Everyone is being judged everytime, knowing how it feels to be gay? I guess the same as every goddamned person on the planet. Put aside your emotional whining crap. You know that there are people on the world who don't like gays, learn to anticipate on that and don't proclaim you are gay everywhere you go, or do not even try to link rejection from certain people because of your sexual orientation.

You didn't get a job because you were gay? I'm more inclined to believe you didn't get it because your skills didn't match the profile the company wanted.Keep your head down little girl, more brainfarts like these will most likely let you end up in the hall of shame.


Edited by Dimitri (08/17/09 07:05 AM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#28612 - 08/18/09 02:41 AM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: Wdrndr]
ceruleansteel Offline
active member


Registered: 10/15/07
Posts: 784
Loc: Behind you
I'm surprised you know who Shakespeare is. Judging from the rest of your post I gathered you to be one of the africans who cowered in fear at the sight of an electric lightbulb.

Happy? Now I knock you because you're gay AND because you live in a continent of ignorant bushmen shaking their dicks at chickens all day. Wooga Booga!

Nope. I'm not gay, and after giving it serious consideration, it's just not in me to jump the fence.

 Quote:
Do you know how it feels 2 be gay?...


If it's that damn bad, kill yourself.

 Quote:
Have ever been judged by parents, family and just strangers?...


Yes I have. But I don't whine about it on a public forum. I deal with it. Everyone judges. It's human nature. If you are so gay that the room ignites before you even enter, then perhaps you should tone it down a bit, instead of (once again) thinking that the world has to embrace your little fudge-packin' ass.

We don't.

 Quote:
Finaly, the fact of your overt anger and hostility in this matter...


If you are too stupid to see what I'm being hostile about, even though I have explained it ad nauseum, then I'm not going to do anything at all about it. Have your little victim complex. I could give a shit less. The weak are always the first to be brought down by the predator, thus ensuring the survival of - yes, I'm going to say it - The Fittest.


Edited by Nemesis (08/19/09 07:05 PM)
Edit Reason: might want to invest in a wireless laptop mouse, lol ;)

Top
#28657 - 08/19/09 06:30 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: ceruleansteel]
Wdrndr Offline
Idiot--banned
stranger


Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 6
Loc: South Africa
Injury and insult? And p ubic forum?...Interesting... Thus in judging from your own words, just a ?, where are the logic and the objective or subjective facts behind anything you have just stated?...pls enlighten our intelects?... I rest my case your honour!

Do not reply to this fool. He/she has been banned.


Edited by Nemesis (08/19/09 06:46 PM)

Top
#28665 - 08/19/09 09:34 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: Wdrndr]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
Sorry for the attempted one liner and the lame ass internet forum meme, but, seriously, /thread.

This should should probably be locked now before it degenerates to a level of idiocy more so than it already has.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
Page all of 7 12345>Last »


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.113 seconds of which 0.004 seconds were spent on 113 queries. Zlib compression disabled.