It's masked oppression. You are a homophobe desperately trying to make out your reasons for opposing gay marriage is something it isn't, Like your feigned concern regarding the definitions of words. In reality your pretend reason is no different than someone saying "men should find another word instead of nurse to describe their job" or "women should be called legal decision officers instead of judges" for no other reason than that's how it has been in the past. In it's self it would be a pretty bigoted thing to say, Even if it wasn't your pretend, manufactured reason. The fact that this is the best thing you could invent to mask your bigotry is even worse.
Im sorry but you are way to judgmental and paranoid. If i were homephobic i wouldnt have any gay friends at all. Ever since marriage was known as a word it has been described as a union between 2 people. Now bringing up the nurse example is a little more simplistic then bringing up the marriage example. Like i said i have always been a moderate and have always protested for peoples right to exist but this has absolutely nothing to do with freedom or oppression. What you are talking about is going all the way over to the left. I really dont see the lives of any gay people being effected one way or another over this. I can throw a hissy fit over every little thing a straight person or gay person wants but i dont. Now the majority voted and and the case is closed. I dont see any gay couples committing suicide or crying over this. If they wanna try to redefine what a marriage is that is their right. Its also my right to vote against it if i choose to. calling a person a homophobe that has had gay friends is like calling a lesbian couple straight. I dont know if they have meds to cure this paranoia or not?, but thats not my problem is it.
The thing that troubles me, pong, Is you find it hard to justify your "opinion" (as it is) and are simply fishing for more sociably acceptable reasons for opposing something which has absolutely no effect on you what so ever. It wouldn't be so bad if you at least had the courage to come out and say what you think and the genuine reasons for thinking it.
Forgetting, for the moment, that it seems awfully damn irrational for any of us to declare two informed, rational, consenting adults simply can't be married because we straights feel it is "our" arrangement, are you saying you have no issue with the same benefits that are normally accorded straight married couples - say, pensions, insurance plans, tax benefits - being accorded gay couples, whether owning the name "married" or not?
Right, hence the irony. :] That's not even remotely true. Just discussing an issue doesn't mean we've forgotten about any other issues one iota. You're obviously attempting to lessen the importance of the debate and more importantly, the original post. Could you possibly tell us specifically why? Did you read the OP? That's exactly what I'm saying -- only, the difference is that all people would get a civil union in the eyes of government. Only religious people would be able to get 'married' as their church saw fit. It's been put to a vote several times and those opposed are decreasing in number. Sure, both issues matter but it doesn't mean we should put blinders on and forget about all other issues while one big issue is taking place. Luckily, most of us are graced with brains that are multi-tasking friendly. 'Voluntarily oppression if you do let them get married' -- how is that even close to possible? You're saying that by allowing a group of people the same rights as everyone else, you're oppressing another group of people that already have the rights? Correct me if I'm wrong, but your logic is pretty twisted. Nah, it's an issue of equal rights and civil liberties. It varies from couple to couple, just like with straight people. Some people get married for love, some for kids, some for taxes, some for naturalization, some for money, or any combination thereof. The point is that those marriages are recognized by the law. Sure, a lot of people fuck with marriage but that doesn't mean you disallow people from doing it. What I think is hilarious is that the church takes such issue with 'marriage' when atheists and agnostics can get married with no problem. I don't want to take this in a religious direction but the very book that outrightly condemns homosexuality in the Bible (Leviticus) is the book that most denominations completely ignore when it comes to practicing the religion altogether. People say "all that matters is the new testament." You show me where it condemns homosexuality in the New Testament and I'll never scoff at this particular aspect of the argument again, but I suffer no illusions -- I know people vote against it because they're raised to think gay people are child molesters and of the devil. It's not a mystery. It is, however, ridiculous. Handouts? What handouts are you referring to? Oppression (noun): the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. Yeah, it's not just, so ... bingo. Yeah, like all those civil rights rioters for women and blacks, right? They were so 'touchy.' Having gay friends doesn't make you any less of a bigot. You can be friends with gay people and still think that they're less worthy of rights than you are. I'm not calling you specifically a bigot -- but rather, I'm using your statement as an example. The left? As in liberal? As in not conservative (objecting to change)? That's exactly right. In this case, the notion of gay marriage is completely liberal just like any other social issue at the time that it's not widely socially acceptable. That's because you aren't gay (I presume), so why would you see it affecting anyones' lives? Not even close. This is just a moment in time -- it will get overturned and overruled at some point in the future. The question is when. Sure, people have their reasons and that's perfectly fine but we have the right to ask you what your reasoning is as long as you're participating in the discussion. Homophobia (noun): unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality. I'm sure your antipathy has reasoning. I'm just curious as to what it might be. What's funny is that I don't even have that many gay friends and never really have. I just see the complete retardation (in the truest sense of the word) in oppressing people governmentally when the real cause behind the oppression is religion-based. In fact, I haven't seen a sensible argument against gay marriage. The only thing people say is: "it's the way it's always been. why should we have to change it?" If that was how we operated, the United States of America would never have existed. We created the country to escape religious persecution -- why should this argument be any different?
I have never seen the need to mask my opinions stox. Have you ever considered the fact that i did state my opinion and its your irational paranoia that wants my opinion to mean something other then what i said? Have you ever known me on all the posts i have made to state anything other then my opinion? I stated that the majority has a different view on marriage. I never said they cant get together but let them call it something else. I mean what is so hard to understand about this answer?????? Have you ever considered that maybe you feel people maslk their answer not because they mask their answer but because you are the one who really masks your answer? Have you ever known me to make fun of someone that is gay (unlike you who constantly makes fun of people who believe in god). My friend , i truely believe that the shoe is truely on the other foot here god bless you
Right. So anyway -- I'm just curious. Is there anyone who is against gay marriage in the eyes of the government who is willing to give us concrete reasons as to why it would be a bad idea? So far, I haven't heard any intelligent reasons besides "marriage should only be for people who procreate" and "marriage has always been defined as a union between a man and a woman and I'm afraid of all change, therefore it should stay the same." If you agree with the first one, you're an idiot. If you agree with the second one, put down the technology and please, go lay in the street. Anyone? -- Also, I'd like to note that this was my 1,111th post on 11/11, started at 11:11pm. OMG it's the devil.
Hail Satan. Just kidding So if the term marriage does get federally defined as something religious, which religion gets to claim it? Are Wiccans going to be allowed to marry or are we going to get the Feds to define it as a Judeo-Christian union between a man and a woman under the eyes of God? And can we get the Feds to redefine the word gay too? I would really like it to mean happy go-lucky again.
I want to have sex with my neighbors consenting 13 year old though. It doesn't affect you, so why should you care?
If it goes to the Christians, I say the Episcopalians get dibs. :] You're a child molester? Yikes. :]
You really think so? Conflating homosexuality with pedophilia is a good point? What the fuck does that even have to do with the topic of marriage? Is he going to marry the 13 year old?
The reason it applies to this thread is because the biggest argument I have read here is that people shouldn't care about what anyone else does because it doesn't affect them. It's not a valid argument because society is concerned with me having sex with young girls (even though they consent) or with my dog for that matter. I am allowed to disagree with it because its wrong, I don't need any other reason to not want two men to get married.
So you think gay men are like 13 year old girls? That marrying one is just like marrying another? Oh and I respect your right to disagree because you disagree, I just don't think "because it is wrong" is any kind of good reasoning on which to base a federal law. You should at least be able to tell me why you disagree. I also want to point out this is about marriage and not sex. A lot of people seem to think we are talking about sex. If we were then we would have to start talking about which sex acts are appropriate and which are not and that could get really awkward really fast For example if a straight couple has anal sex exclusive to all other types of sex should they not be allowed to marry?
Glad you raised this point. Almost every conversation I've heard about gay marriage seems to involve some mention of the physical act of sex, specifically in regards to male/male relationships. The fact that this is viewed as "unnatural" and/or disgusting, is then (occasionally) used as a basis to deny them marriage rights. My question is, why is it always about gay men? And if same sex sex is "unnatural" or disgusting, why is lesbian porn so prevalent? BTW, I think many states DO actually have sodomy laws still on the books that make specific sex acts (often oral) illegal. They are understandably NOT enforced. ***Edit*** I take that back. After some research it seems sodomy laws have been repealed in every state except NC. source: http://www.sodomylaws.org/
Almost but not quite. For your argument to work, it would have to work regardless of the sex of marriages (meaning, it would have to apply when marriage is between men and women AND when marriage is between people of the same sex). It's false logic to conclude that you'd allow marriage between a person older than 18 to someone under the age of 18 just because you're removing sex from the definition of marriage. Since the very thing in question is sex/gender, NOT age, your argument fails. However, I give you an A for effort. 1.) While I get where you're going with it, I don't think porn should be a guideline for the definition of marriage. However, lesbian porn is socially acceptable while male-male porn is not. Completely valid point. 2.) If sex (procreation) is the determining factor for marriage, then we've got a lot of work to do because I technically didn't have to have a child when I got married. In fact, I don't ever have to have a child. If religion is the determining factor, then why can people of all religions get married in the US? Why isn't it Christian marriages alone that are allowed? Satan worshipers, Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, etc. can all get married. If Christians determine who gets to marry and why, why can my Hindu neighbors get married while my homo neighbors have to get a civil union?
Even marrying a 13 year old is illegal in most states. I have had relatives get married at at age of 14 before, yet it would be illegal here in most states. Now why arent you guys making such a hissy fit about how 14 year olds cant really get married and make a choice of their own? I didnt see any of you go crazy about making a proposition about allowing 14 year olds to get married did i? Now for you to say that all 14 year old arent mature enough to make this decision on their own is a bunch of hogwash. Now go out there and start protesting about it. Like i said once you go way to far to the left or way too far to the right can you ever get back to the center? You dont see mature 14 year old girls making protests against this law do you. Now why dont you go out into the streets and protest it. This is hillarious. Majority won, and thats that. I certainly wouldnt be crazy if the decision went the other way.
"Majority won, and thats that." It's as if you're ignoring all the valid points flying around and only focusing on those that you can argue against and then, not making any logical case against them. You're just bringing in new things that aren't related to the topic. Is that really how you want to argue this? No one's talking about age or species. We're talking about equal rights for people regardless of race, sexual orientation or religious beliefs (or the lack thereof) and civil liberties for all. If you have arguments along these lines, feel free to indulge.
because shes a child. Is it really that difficult for you to distinguish the difference between the abuse of a child and an act between consenting adults? Seriously, This is a question that needs an explanation from you. Because if you really can't tell the difference i think you should be reported to some kind of authority and put in a register of some description.