ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
Ok so why should someone that does believe compromise for them?
Why people say Gay marrage is just the tip of the iceberg
- Thread starter ballen0351
- Start date
Ok so why should someone that does believe compromise for them?
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
not at all
your correct. Ill be honest I can't explain my resistance to it. Your arguments are correct thoughtful and make perfect sense to me. There is just something that bothers me about it and I don't know what it is or why. You def won the argument but I still am on the fence on the issue and I have no logical explanation as to why.
Who is asking you to compromise? Just let others who believe differently live their own lives. You can live yours however you like.
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
But if you believe gay marriage is wrong then you are asking them to. Telling them to shut up and mind your own business won't work.
But I don't want them to shut up and mind my own business. I just want them to shut up and stay out of anyone's business but their own.
Here's the thing. They are entitled to their view, and I mine, regardless of how wrong we each see the other.
I don't see the big deal. It's a personal thing, and means whatever the person making that decision wants it to mean.
I didn't have a church wedding. According to some folks, I'm still living in sin because I didn't have the god of their choice oversee my wedding.
Don't care. My wedding. Not theirs. I've got the papers from the State that gives me all the legal protection I and my spouse need/deserve/get.
All I seek is that any other -2- people of legal age and informed consent, can have what I got. What any gods offer, is between the parties involved in that deal.
You got a god that doesn't like 2 guys falling in love, wanting to be there for each other for the rest of this existence, fine. His call, his faith, his followers.
But don't tell me it's a 'sanctity of marriage' thing when the hetro divorce rate is 55% in the US, when celebs like Brittany make a mockery of it, and 'stars' like Zha Zha and Liz have more weddings than I have pics of naked women in my portfolio.
I also don't think Pol-marriage is wrong. My lines drawn at 'human, of legal age, able to make an informed decision'. You have a different line.
That's your choice.
WC_lun
Senior Master
Many people in our society have been trained for so long that homosexuality is a character flaw or sin that it has become an accepted, ingrained, knee jerk, emotion. Prejudice of this nature is difficult to overcome. Discussions like we've had here are a step in the right direction. We have been respectful of each other so anger does not become a part of the equation. Arguements have been made trying to use logic as the base.
I honestly don't have an issue if you have religious beliefs that homosexuality is a sin. If that's the case you shouldn't marry someone the same sex as you.
However, I don't think someone's religious belief should be the basis from which we as a nation deny equal rights to a significant portion of our populous.
I honestly don't have an issue if you have religious beliefs that homosexuality is a sin. If that's the case you shouldn't marry someone the same sex as you.
However, I don't think someone's religious belief should be the basis from which we as a nation deny equal rights to a significant portion of our populous.Hinges on whether a Church run hospital is a religious institution or not. Wrong thread to debate here.
Suffice it to say that protecting clergy from having to perform same sex weddings is possible. It's been done here, I'm sure the law could be crafted to do it in the US as well.
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
I don't think its a character flaw. I personally believe homosexuality is a mental abnormally. Their brains are wired differently. No different then bipolar or any other mental issue. Does not make them bad or sinful or evil. Just means there brains are not wired the same way a majority of the rest of world. So I don't have a religious objection to anything. Im not sure I have any objection to it actually. I think im more against it because of the way its been forced on people. I say put it up for a vote let the chips fall where they may and deal with the outcome.
I honestly don't have an issue if you have religious beliefs that homosexuality is a sin. If that's the case you shouldn't marry someone the same sex as you.
I think people make laws for a society they want to live in. You vote for people that look at the world as closely as you do with hopes they will vote your beliefs. Im not sure where im going with this other then people do vote their beliefs religious or otherwise
granfire
Sr. Grandmaster
Well, democracy is dictatorship of the majority.
In enlightened countries there is a means of checks and balances to ensure that minorities are not treat upon.
You know, like when the majority makes laws to exclude minorities from due course etc and denies basic rights.
Right now we are 'just' talking about the right to spend your life - legally - with the person of your choice, regardless on how the Good Lord saw fit to run the plumbing through, with all the legal - read worldly - ramifications and rights, not just obligations.
Like this little thing: The daughter of my Mom's friend and her wife are having a baby. In a 'normal' union the other, non-birthgiving partner is automatically added as parent on the birth certificate. The wife in this union has to adopt the baby to legally be a parent.
And that is not in the US, but in some of the more enlightened European countries.
Marriage was in the past a union to provide the economic stability to raise children.
It was not meant to be divorced
It was not meant to be love, only economics. Love marriages are a relatively new thing since the Victorian and Romantic era.
Now we think it has to be love and religious.
Well, considering that the Christian religions bill themselves under the message of love....ah, not going there or Bill pops a top thinking I am hatin again...
Alas, we are faced with plenty of marriages that are not, never have, been intended to create and raise offspring.
That is fine, this is the decision of the partners.
However we still have to deal with the legal aspects of marriage.
Things a hetero couple gets with one signature on the dotted line.
I think it should be rewarded when 2 people are committed to each other, not punished.
There are plenty of hetero couples who violate the sensibilities of just about any moral context, yet their status is protected.
Plenty people make a farce out of the 'institution' (most recent and prominent lately the infamous Kardashian gig)
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
I guess it comes down to what's a "minority" is what you want to have sex with make you a minority? You could make a monority out of anyone or everyone. Are fat people a minority? Are red heads a minority? What about bearded people are they a minority. How many "victim" classes do we need in this world. Can you llok at a gay male and say that dudes gay and be accurate? No so why are they a minority? If its sexual preferences then shouldn't NAMBLA members be a protected minority. Why discriminate against bisexuals by forcing them to only be allowed to marry a male or a female why not both?
As to the wife needing to legally adopt the baby that's no different then if my wife had a baby with another man and I wanted to rasie it id have to adopt it. Im not the father im not related to that baby at all. So its not picking on them because they are gay it because the wife is not the birth parent no different then in regular marriages if the father is not the birth father
As to the wife needing to legally adopt the baby that's no different then if my wife had a baby with another man and I wanted to rasie it id have to adopt it. Im not the father im not related to that baby at all. So its not picking on them because they are gay it because the wife is not the birth parent no different then in regular marriages if the father is not the birth father
Steve
Mostly Harmless
In what way does restricting the legal benefits of marriage represent a compromise in your own? I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this. It's like saying, I don't like beef, therefore no one shall eat beef. If you're a vegan, by all means, don't eat your friends. But I'm going to have a steak, thank you very much. My eating steak represents in no way a compromise on your part.
I have no problem with this. We all have issues that are emotional and that is perfectly legit, in my opinion. The issue for me is when you take an acknowledged emotional issue and dress it up as reason so that you can influence others. You are absolutely entitled to your opinions about marriage and I respect them 100%.
I also expect that you'll vote accordingly when the time comes and I have no problem with that.
This. QFT.
Gay couples get married ALL THE TIME. There are churches in which gay couples can currently get married in a religious ceremony. What we're talking about isn't whether or not they can marry. The argument is whether or not the government should recognize the marriage as such and confer the social, civil and financial benefits that go along with this recognition.
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
Now I have read the new hampshire law and as written I don't have any objections to it other then the age of consent but that didn't apply to gay marriage. If a bill was written like that here I wouldn't be opposed to it passing.
granfire
Sr. Grandmaster
Being obtuse again, no? Don't bring polygamy into this. That's another matter.
You are hung up on the sexuality, while making broad statements on how society passes laws they want to have in their environment. Fine if you are the majority. Not good if you are not. We are not talking about fat people. We are not talking about multiple partners. KISS: keep it simple, Silly! marriage. 2 people. We can discuss the rest later.
I let Chanuck and Tez explain to you what can happen when the majority passes laws as to how they want society to work.
Yes, that is a big hint right there.
No. When your wife presents you with her labor of love while you and her are legally married, the child's birth certificate will list YOU as father, unless she decides otherwise. That means you are the legal parent. You would have to go to court to have your status altered.
remember, simple...
Married couple, the kid that pops out is the couples. You don't have to go through extra steps to become the father. The one signature on the dotted line took care of that.
(correct me if I am wrong but there is also a grace period after a divorce, any child born during that time is considered the ex-husband's child unless otherwise specified.)
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
I know I come across as wisshy washy and that's because I am. One min steve says something that makes perfect sense to me and then the next someone says something like if your not gay its shouldn't bother you so get over it and im like well wait it does bother me. So I don't know. I suppose it will fall into the category of "We are the Govt and we will do what we want anyway so resistance is futile" it will pass at somepoint regardless
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
You can't legally put down a fathers name if you know he is not the father. If I know my wife is pregant with another mans baby she can't legally put my name on the certificate. Now that may vary state to state I guess. I only know because a frind of mine and his wife were having a baby. She apparently had been cheating on him. And he didn't know. Well when the baby popped out its was pretty clear my fair skined blonde friend was not the father of the baby and that the babys real father was black. When she tried to put him on the certificate he refused and then found the law and tried to have her charged. But since she never actually put his name on it since he refused she couldn't be charged.
My name was never on my sons birth certificate. She put 'unknown'. I had no say in it.
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
Im not being obtuse it goes back to the original point. Once we open the door its hard to shut it again. That's one of my main concers. And when you get comments like who cares if a guy wnats to marry a toaster just proves the point that people will push the envelope some purposely
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
Same happened to me on my first child I had before I met my wife. I had to take her to court to get my named added
I think you missed my point there.
The problem is, people who know better are out there inserting foot in mouth with even more outlandish hyperbole.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/15/jd-hayworth-gay-marriage_n_498973.html
But people around the world do marry animals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human–animal_marriage
Do I think they should be able to? Not really. My line's been stated already - human, of legal age, able to make an informed decision. number and genders irrelevant.
Does animal marriage have anything to do with same sex marriage? No. None at all. Nada. Zilch. Zero.
The problem is, people who know better are out there inserting foot in mouth with even more outlandish hyperbole.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/15/jd-hayworth-gay-marriage_n_498973.html
But people around the world do marry animals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human–animal_marriage
Do I think they should be able to? Not really. My line's been stated already - human, of legal age, able to make an informed decision. number and genders irrelevant.
Does animal marriage have anything to do with same sex marriage? No. None at all. Nada. Zilch. Zero.
granfire
Sr. Grandmaster
Huh? Toaster?
No, you are mudding the waters with such arguments.
There is no one good argument to deny a same sex couple the same rights any hetero couple receives by just signing the papers.
The 'marrying a house' or toaster, or animal, or polygamy arguments is all smoke and mirrors.
narrow margin: 2 people, one event. Stay on task!
Explain why a gay couple should not be allowed to make the decisions in a life altering situation, like one being on life support.
Or even as simply as being allowed to be in the hospital room with their life partner as spouse, something that is a given for a hetero couple.
explain please.
Or pick any of the list Bob was kind enough to dig out, assuming a civil union was even allowable in any given state.
When we got this problem solved, we can tackle the polygamy thing, but by then it won't be an issue if there are only one man and several women, or more men than women.
And lets face it. There have always been the crazies, wanting to marry their dog or what have you. And let's not forget, i think there are precedents on animal inheriting estates...
Close what door? On allowing equal rights to all people in the jurisdiction? Why would you want to do that?
