Your thoughts on gay rights?
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General discussions
Forum Description: Discuss any topic at all that is not music-related
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=86234
Printed Date: November 23 2024 at 22:51
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Your thoughts on gay rights?
Posted By: PyramidMeetsTheEye
Subject: Your thoughts on gay rights?
Date Posted: April 14 2012 at 16:21
|
Just curious what you think on this,for me i support them in every way. i got this in mind when there is a referendum in my country for "family rights" -------------  |
Replies:
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: April 14 2012 at 16:47
|
The government should not be in the business of granting privileges and tax benefits for marriage. But since society is not about to get government out of basic institutions, it's better to provide all benefits heterosexuals receive to homosexuals. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: April 14 2012 at 16:49
|
I don't agree with gay marriage but that's about it. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: April 14 2012 at 16:58
What are 'family rights'? Tax exemptions etc, for families? ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
PyramidMeetsTheEye wrote:Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: April 14 2012 at 17:01
|
I support marriage equality. The notion that homosexuals are asking for special rights is ludicrous.
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
Posted By: RoyFairbank
Date Posted: April 14 2012 at 17:18
|
There should be no special benefits or incentives for marrying, nor any financial component of marriage or divorce. Nor should it require lengthy procedures to undo or to enter into, and should have few over all civil ramifications, except on such things as visitation rights perhaps. As such, it should not matter who is exactly becoming married or why. There should be no implied moral component, or any religious component unless it is personal choice. Outside the benefits and incentives, I do not exactly see why people of that persuasion would want to endorse the troubled custom of marriage. Divorce rates and unhappiness in marriage show the poor ability of the institution to cope with modern conditions. Once the incentives are removed, marriage will be replaced by non legally and morally bound relationships over some time (consider how long it took to get to here). It is sort of a shame that people of that persuasion want to be fellow travelers in such a mad caravan heading off the cliff of history. Same thing with the celebration of the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell. |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: April 14 2012 at 17:49
|
I don't believe in gay rights. Nor in male's rights. Nor in female rights. In believe in human being's rights. I don't believe in marriage that much. I believe in loving somebody else so much that you want to commit to that person forever, for sure. I'm not sure about the need of a state-sanctioned contract. Whatever marriage has meant for me throughout my life (and my view of it has changed), I've always have it thought of it as a union between a man and a woman. Having said that, if all it is is really a contract that sets rights and obbligations, I don't see why gay people shouldn't be allowed to use it too. ------------- 
|
Posted By: colorofmoney91
Date Posted: April 14 2012 at 17:50
|
Gay people should have the same rights as heterosexual people. If I weren't heterosexual, then I'd be gay, and if I were to make that switch then I'd expect legal matters in my life to not change at all. ------------- http://hanashukketsu.bandcamp.com" rel="nofollow - Hanashukketsu |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: April 14 2012 at 18:44
|
Our government in the US does not legally have the power to tell us what marriage is. It isn't in the Constitution. But they do it anyway. Gays shouldn't be begging for "rights." They should be denouncing bureaucracy. (Never thought I'd be quoting him, but here we go) Malcolm X said blacks did not need cracker senators deciding what blacks should be allowed to do. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: April 14 2012 at 21:22
|
All human beings have the same rights as individuals. The government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage at all. That sums it up. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: April 14 2012 at 22:06
|
Gay rights, generally speaking and not just in marriage which I assume is what the OP means, should of course be supported. Beyond the obvious reasons including equal rights and ethical treatment, it's on the right side of history just as women getting the vote and black Americans getting at least a semblance of normal rights. |
Posted By: Garden of Dreams
Date Posted: April 14 2012 at 23:53
|
It's kinda sad that we live in a world where laws have to be passed so that people who are not white heterosexual males can get equal rights. Unfortunately subjugation and discrimination is one of the human races most historic past-times since the agricultural revolution. Its good though that we are moving forward as a species and hopefully we will one day see a world where everyone does have equal rights. ------------- Just give it all an hour by the concrete lake. |
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: April 15 2012 at 02:32
|
Absolute support. Marriage, adoption, shouldn't be denied the right of anything, that hasn't been denied to everyone. My view is its not "gay rights" but human rights... |
Posted By: DisgruntledPorcupine
Date Posted: April 15 2012 at 02:49
| Gay people getting anything less than anyone else is just plain ludicrous. Marriage is an even worse case. I don't see why not allowing gay marriage makes any form of sense whatsoever. |
Posted By: OT Räihälä
Date Posted: April 15 2012 at 03:50
|
Human rights are human rights, be them gay or not. I see forming a family as something, where the society has no right to define how it is formed, as long as each part is grown-up and fully conscious of what he/she is doing. I don't see any difference in two men adopting a child than a man and a woman doing that. The only important thing is that parents love their children in a way that doesn't hurt the child. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/osmotapioraihala/sets" rel="nofollow - Composer - Click to listen to my works! |
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: April 15 2012 at 04:56
I don't even have that problem, if they want to wed civilly (is that a word) at the town hall, fine with me... my only slight reserve would be the adoption rights (obviously lesbians are not concerned by adoption), it is about the kid's chances to actually grow and live his own sexuality he feels right for him: would he find it normal to be heterosexual if he had two men as parents (the issue does intervene as well, if he has two women as parents) -------------------------------- RE marriage: It seems again that the problem is again once more (not to change habits).... religious... because if they want to marry religiously, of rear-guards religious zealots oppose it... Which is fine by me... why would the gays insist on marrying in backwards and retrograd religious institutions that reject them as sick or evil?? Just to force the garded gates open?? Screw the retrograds and live your life without them, I say!! ------------- let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: April 15 2012 at 05:38
|
Posted By: CPicard
Date Posted: April 15 2012 at 05:41
|
Gay, straight, bi... The only thing that should matter is what people do for the Revolution and for the Workers' Rights! The reactionary elements of the population would be sent to the GULAG!!! |
Posted By: topographicbroadways
Date Posted: April 15 2012 at 07:19
|
Marriage is a life choice. The person you are attracted to should have absolutely no influence on your right to make that choice. It disgusts me to the core that this is even considered an 'issue' today.
-------------  
|
Posted By: Junges
Date Posted: April 15 2012 at 07:34
|
Rights? Oh wait.... ------------- 
|
Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: April 15 2012 at 07:36
|
I like the gay lefts even more. ------------- “The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.” - Douglas Adams |
Posted By: CCVP
Date Posted: April 15 2012 at 08:26
|
This thread is gay. -------------   
|
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: April 15 2012 at 08:59
-------------
|
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: April 15 2012 at 09:03
Right on! ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: topographicbroadways
Date Posted: April 15 2012 at 09:04
I would actually be interested to hear your reasons. What are they? -------------
|
Posted By: akamaisondufromage
Date Posted: April 15 2012 at 09:13
Even though one thread can't actually marry another thread. It should have the right to marry another thread.
------------- Help me I'm falling! |
Posted By: Vibrationbaby
Date Posted: April 15 2012 at 09:20
|
NO KIDS!! LET THEM DO ANYTHING THEY WANT. BUT NO KIDS! NO KIDS ! KIDS HAVE IT TOUGH ENOUGH GROWING UP THESE DAYS WITHOUT HAVING ANOTHER PROBLEM TO WORRY ABOUT. NO KIDS. DON,T LET THEM HAVE KIDS. ------------- |
Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: April 15 2012 at 09:21
|
A bit of maturity required here I think. Attempts at humour, especially without emoticons, are usually misguided in threads such as this. Please remember the site's policy of respect for all.
Also, references to "The government" mean nothing in an international site such as this. Which spcific "government" is being referred to, or is it all governments?
|
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: April 15 2012 at 09:28
|
All, obviously. -------------
|
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: April 15 2012 at 10:01
No one should have parents, period. That's why everyone is so messed up in the first place. The government knows what's best for you. 
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: April 15 2012 at 10:38
.....A little....childlike of you?  (Unless it's sarcasm then my apologies) Anywho, I disagree that statement. As I said, I'm in total support of gay rights (really human rights) including adoption. In fact that's kind of an issue of children's rights as well! The more people that are available to adopt children mean more will get adopted. Seems wrong to me to have it illegal. Also you're right, kids do have it tough these days, and I'll admit there could be increased teasing and problems for a child who has 2 moms or dads. Especially with "gay" being an insult these days  But there's lots of f**ked up families out there and lots of kids that unfortunately grow up in less than ideal conditions. It is ultimately up to the family to get through it. This goes for anything. Good parenting and influence are what's important, it can override anything. Edit: Well since you asked for general elaboration, I think the issue of marriage should be out of government entirely. That means Federal, State, County, Municipal...any. The decision should be solely to those involved. It's what marriage should be, and it is also a way around "legislating" the issue. Marriage would pretty much not be a "status" so it'd also achieve true equality IMO. |
Posted By: RoyFairbank
Date Posted: April 15 2012 at 11:16
|
Should Gays Marry? Sure. Should Gays Have Kids? Sure. Should Gays be able to do anything straight people can do? Yes. Is the Gay Rights movement particularly progressive or forward thinking? No:
|
Posted By: The Bearded Bard
Date Posted: April 15 2012 at 12:07
|
Gay nights? What? Here on PA, say once a week? I'm game!
Oh, gay RIGHTS!
I'm all for that.
^What he said! -------------  
|
Posted By: colorofmoney91
Date Posted: April 15 2012 at 12:20
I second this proposition. ------------- http://hanashukketsu.bandcamp.com" rel="nofollow - Hanashukketsu |
Posted By: The Truth
Date Posted: April 15 2012 at 12:29
|
I'm not going to participate in that... But I definitely believe this thread could use more logic than it has already. Rights are rights, why should they be different from person to person? ------------- http://blindpoetrecords.bandcamp.com/" rel="nofollow">  
|
Posted By: Slaughternalia
Date Posted: April 15 2012 at 12:30
|
the "sanctity of marriage" doesn't exist. It's just some archaic social construct that braindead right-wingers cling to. I'm in full support of the marriage of two people who are the same gender. Why the f**k is this even a debate anymore? can't we just get this out of the way so politicians can spend their time on more important issues? ------------- I'm so mad that you enjoy a certain combination of noises that I don't |
Posted By: colorofmoney91
Date Posted: April 15 2012 at 12:45
|
I feel like the gay rights dilemma will be a thing of the past once the old politicians die and the younger generation takes over, but I could be wrong about that. ------------- http://hanashukketsu.bandcamp.com" rel="nofollow - Hanashukketsu |
Posted By: The Truth
Date Posted: April 15 2012 at 12:53
I don't know, there are some real a****les that I could see coming to power from my generation at least. ------------- http://blindpoetrecords.bandcamp.com/" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: April 15 2012 at 12:59
I actually agree with both of yousss  A lot of things point towards a more free-spirited openness among younger people - at least in regards to gay rights. On the other hand, youth does not equal wisdom in any way imaginable... ------------- “The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.” - Douglas Adams |
Posted By: CPicard
Date Posted: April 15 2012 at 13:11
| By the way, isn't already a thread discussing this matter? |
Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: April 15 2012 at 13:16
|
Yes and no. Alan's thread is about gay people in regards to prog, but yeah people are kind of touching the same sort of areas(not a joke). ------------- “The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.” - Douglas Adams |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: April 15 2012 at 13:52
|
Poligamy should be allowed too. -------------
|
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: April 15 2012 at 14:11
The only reason this thread even exists is because many governments interfere with people's ability to freely make contracts amongst themselves. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: RoyFairbank
Date Posted: April 15 2012 at 22:04
Libertarian Roy (He Isn't Dead): Yeah, why outlaw prostitution, free contract! Why outlaw unlicensed medicine, free contract! Why outlaw sale of defective or dangerous products, free contract! Why outlaw insider trading... free contract! ...... Regular Roy: I think its less about government interfering with free contracts (is this what [usually pro-business] politicians think about when they are passing these restrictions?) then it is trying to make society conform to a certain cohesive and nationalistic status quo and creating political diversions to distract the population and attract their support whilst screwing them, creating an environment within which the establishment can function. Not to nitpick or anything. |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: April 15 2012 at 22:34
A man should be able to marry a chair too. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: colorofmoney91
Date Posted: April 15 2012 at 22:54
|
My chair and I would love to get married. ------------- http://hanashukketsu.bandcamp.com" rel="nofollow - Hanashukketsu |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: April 15 2012 at 23:09
|
I'm quite sure a lot of men are actually married to their chairs... -------------
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: April 15 2012 at 23:09
|
IMHO Marriage is the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law. So I don't believe in gay marriage. But I do believe that single people can adopt if they have a stable position that ensure the kids wealth, no matter the sexual preference of the parent, There are millions of abandoned kids, and gay couples (or single gay persons) are as good parents as heterosexual couples. Sounds contradictory, but that's my position. Iván Note: I believe in equal rights, not in special rights. For example, in my country they have created femicide, if you kill a woman you have a larger conviction, that's absurd Gay or straight you can only marry persons of the opposite sex But adopting is a right that gay or straight share equally
------------- 
|
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: April 15 2012 at 23:48
|
There is an inequality in how people who can love one another cannot marry whereas people who do love one another can marry. All that is different is the sex of one of the partners involved. All parties are of the age of consent and reasonable people, at least it is possibly they are. It's...kind of hard to put into words because it seems so obvious that it's wrong do deny homosexuals the ability to marry one another. It would at least be understandable to say "I disagree with gay marriage because of my religion" but I take issue with trying to make it a rational opinion through argument devoid of empathy. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: Slaughternalia
Date Posted: April 16 2012 at 00:02
I disagree, only because I think that it's a bit old fashioned to define and restrict "marriage" that much, but this is a reasonable argument ------------- I'm so mad that you enjoy a certain combination of noises that I don't |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: April 16 2012 at 00:10
This is not a religious thread, if it was based on religious idea, my opinion would be different, because as a Catholic person, would be enough to agree with the rules of the Catholic Church (The Church will never accept it), and the Church doesn't care for civil marriage. . In the Civil Code of my country, marriage is defined as the legal union between two persons of different sex with no impediments. as long as it's not changed, and I believe it shouldn't be changed because marriage is clearly defined, I won't change my position, remember, marriage is an institution but also a contract and contracts must be formal in order to be valid. They can live together, I have no problem, they can inherit to anyone they want, they should be allowed to adopt, that not contrary to the institution of marriage and grants no special rights to anybody. We should have equal rights, and be allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex, granting marriage between people of the same sex, would be allowing special rights to one sector of the population and I can't accept this. For the same reason I don't accept polygamy (even between consenting adults), the institution of sister-wife or marriage with minors allowed in determined religions. Iván -------------
|
Posted By: PyramidMeetsTheEye
Date Posted: April 16 2012 at 00:23
|
f**king epic man thanks for the video. this video really opens your mind. Cant wait for the philosophy class ------------- |
Posted By: PyramidMeetsTheEye
Date Posted: April 16 2012 at 00:23
|
why not it seems reasonable ------------- |
Posted By: Textbook
Date Posted: April 16 2012 at 04:14
| The Catholic church will accept gay marriage within 30 years, bank on it. That big bunch of sellouts will do anything to change with the times in order to keep the coffers fill. Time and again they shift the goalposts whenever they worry they're losing customers. |
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: April 16 2012 at 04:15
How is that allowing special rights? It's equal rights. Which is exactly what you want. -------------   
|
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: April 16 2012 at 04:26
|
Yeah Ivan, if you are against it for religious reasons/think it's unnatural than that's perfectly fine...but can't use the rationale you are trying. I and most will agree "special rights" are not equal..but you are trying to claim gay marriage is a special right? They are already denied that right, so if it was allowed they WOULD be equal, not special. It's just not a sound reason, just admit you don't like it/the notion goes against your religious beliefs. |
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: April 16 2012 at 04:31
|
Special rights is what heterosexuals have by not allowing homosexuals to marry. I would also say that I am all for the husband taking his wife's surname and also neither partner changing their surname.
-------------
|
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: April 16 2012 at 04:51
That is an excellent point. |
Posted By: Textbook
Date Posted: April 16 2012 at 04:56
|
Look, let's cut to the chase- whatever he says, Ivan *is* opposing gay marriage because of his religious prejudices. He's trying to conceal this in a trojan horse of logic and law because he knows that if he's honest and says "I hate gays because a man in the sky who created them tells me to", then there's likely to be a dog pile. PS Ivan's right about femicide though. What complete nonsense that is.
|
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: April 16 2012 at 05:00
Of course that's the case, but like I said...we're not being fooled, just come out with it, Ivan. I respect an honest opinion I hate over someone pandering, any day. That's a different story, no one (should) believe in different penalties for the same crime just because the victim is (insert whatever you'd like). That's for another thread though. |
Posted By: Textbook
Date Posted: April 16 2012 at 05:05
|
I think it's about time Ivan came out and told us the honest truth about how he feels about gay men. That he disapproves of them because of sincerely held religious convictions of course. |
Posted By: AtomicCrimsonRush
Date Posted: April 16 2012 at 05:09
THIS! ------------- 
|
Posted By: Textbook
Date Posted: April 16 2012 at 05:10
| SUCKS! |
Posted By: AtomicCrimsonRush
Date Posted: April 16 2012 at 05:11
|
Appropriate? -------------
|
Posted By: Textbook
Date Posted: April 16 2012 at 05:27
|
Is sucking appropriate in a thread about gays you mean? I'm really not sure where this is going. But anyway, to actually speak on my views on this topic, I've never really understood why they're so hungry for legal marriage. In the Western world at least, people are becoming increasingly tolerant of same sex couples openly cohabiting. The likelihood of being arrested or beaten for doing this is slowly but surely decreasing over time. If I were gay, I would think that would be enough. I don't know why I'd clamour for marriage. If I could go "I'm gay and this is my life partner and we have sex, like this, poom, poom, poom, alright alright I was leaving now anyway" in a public place without fear of reprisal, I'd feel satisfied I think. I don't know why one needs the archaic thumbs up from "the man" that marriage is. Gay couples can appoint each other as legal guardians or order their wills or enter other types of arrangements, arguably more purposeful/meaningful than marriage, to have their affairs arranged how they wish them to be regarding their loved one. Why you need to walk down the aisle and have a priest go "HOOWAY" escapes me. BUT all of that I just said is NOT an argument to not allow gay marriage, it's just why I don't feel that passionate about it. My stance on gay marriage, is hey, go ahead I guess, I just don't think it's that meaningful. I would certainly never oppose any attempt to legalise it. I just think rather than fussing over a silly old rite, gay groups should be trying to bring more attention to where the real problems are, such as Africa with its often beyond horrific treatment of homosexuals. It feels a bit "first world problems" to me.
|
Posted By: CPicard
Date Posted: April 16 2012 at 05:34
| Yes, gay marriage is meaningful: it allows you to have the rights of heterosexual couples (and adoption is one of these rights, at least in France), including having less taxes to pay, being the legal inheritor of each other, etc... It's a social protection. |
Posted By: Textbook
Date Posted: April 16 2012 at 05:38
| Well you should be able to do that stuff without being married. |
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: April 16 2012 at 05:44
|
Like we were saying, just admit your true convictions. The argument makes no sense: "Its ok to adopt, but marriage is too far!" Sooooo it's OK to more or less be married, and raise a child, but don't actually get married? That's a cover...or a very very odd belief. The rights thing makes no sense. There are many many people who are uncomfortable and even hate the idea of gay marriage, think its immoral and will destroy our "moral fiber" whatever that is...just say so!! I agree Textbook, what's real funny is the want to get married in a church...that most likely hates what you're doing. Hell I don't even want to get married in a church...not sure why a homosexual couple would want to. That's just me though. |
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: April 16 2012 at 05:49
Quite a few of them hang around on PA 
I'm fine with it. Besides, most people have enough sh*t being married to one person. 3? Have fun... |
Posted By: Textbook
Date Posted: April 16 2012 at 05:53
| It's strange how you don't hear more people arguing for polygamy. Post religion, if everyone involved wants to give it a try, why not? I know two families that had a daddy and two mommies, both produced children, both sets of children are totally normal and functional. |
Posted By: CPicard
Date Posted: April 16 2012 at 05:56
In France, we have the PACS - Pacte Civil de Solidarité (Solidarity Civil Pact, roughly translated): it allows people of same or different sex to live together with most of the same rights or obligations as a married couple (it's a bit more complicated than that, but I'm not sure to have the time to translate the whole law in English!) It's NOT the same thing as marriage, even civil marriage (yeah, in France, we don't need a priest to get married). It's clear that it had been created to give to homosexual couples the same "legality" than heterosexual couples, but some heterosexual couples have contracted PACS, for... some... reasons... that I don't really understand.  |
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: April 16 2012 at 06:00
|
I did always find the "civil union" thing kind of funny. Guess it's easier to accept "they are pretty much married" but not having to say the word. |
Posted By: Textbook
Date Posted: April 16 2012 at 06:03
| I remember South Park doing a great episode about "civil unions" about how it was basically marriage with a different name to not upset fundies. Except in South Park, instead of using the term "civil unions", it was "butt buddies". |
Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: April 16 2012 at 06:12
That is basically the issue eh? People(some) are afraid of using the word marriage in this regard, because they feel it will kill the sanctity of the "original" one - ie man and woman. There is of course no other world than the one we project through society. ------------- “The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.” - Douglas Adams |
Posted By: CPicard
Date Posted: April 16 2012 at 06:14
It depends: when the PACS was discussed in the National Assembly, some people wanted to extend the PACS to a solidarity contract between... brothers and sisters... (needless to say, the representatives who defended this idea were given suspicious glares...) It was so obvious for everyone that the PACS was nearly "marriage for homosexual people" that our fundies tried to turn it into some of kind of general assistance contract. So, it makes clear that even the words "civil union" can be unacceptable for some people. |
Posted By: Alitare
Date Posted: April 16 2012 at 06:32
|
Ah, and 'nobody gives a damn about dykes'. I remember that one. If I were asked this question face to face I'd say something like 'I support gay rights', but that is a lie. I don't support gay rights. I'm not out in the streets waving picket signs and shouting. I'm not active in any political field. I'm not against gay rights, but I'm too lazy to care. I'm not in a homosexual relationship - fancy I never will be. These rules do not apply to me. Same as with abortion, these rules don't apply. Hey, I'd fight for gay males' rights to have abortions. I'd carry signs and start petitions. That seems like a worthy cause. Child-killing, sodomy, religion, atheism, charity, chastity, cancer, the lottery - it all seems blearily similar to me these days.
|
Posted By: Textbook
Date Posted: April 16 2012 at 06:39
| I think a satirical campaign for the right for gay men and transgendered women to have abortions is hilarious in a strange and evil sort of way. |
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: April 16 2012 at 06:47
|
Well CPicard you may be talking about a different issue, I am referring to the US situation. It's true though, like in my state of NJ..there are civil unions as well as like 350 laws that "have unions on the same level as marriage" or something like that. I think wow...just use the M word and make it easier! A decent majority of the state supports it. It's always a moral argument, but man...people can find a way to work economics into everything! If NJ was to legalize same sex marriage: " the State’s gross receipt tax revenues would rise by $7.2 million per year, and 1,400 new jobs would be created in relevant industries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_New_Jersey#cite_note-17" rel="nofollow - " :O |
Posted By: Textbook
Date Posted: April 16 2012 at 06:50
| I bet Mitt Romney says that in his next campaign speech. |
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: April 16 2012 at 07:23
Yeah, I can see that clearly happen in most cases, but I guess it would depend on how hardcore gay the "parents" would be (and in this case, I'm thinking more of lesbians than homos... some are really anti-men) and of course the sex of the child (lesbians having a girl or homos adopting a boy)
How about poliandry?? 
Ivàn buddy,
Are you not confusing civil marriage with religious marriage, in this issue? I don't favor gays trying to force the church gates open to wed, but they are indeed welcome in some countries to marry
How do you treat the people who are married only at city hall? It's perfectily legal, yet they've not gone to do that religiously
Yeah, I agree that surrevaluating the women's value to men is illegal (same with babies, cops, priests, politicians or judges & lawyers). Someone could attack Peru for this!!
Intentionally killing someone (whoever it may be) is killing someone, regardless of who he/she was the victim
------------- let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword |
Posted By: Vompatti
Date Posted: April 16 2012 at 07:36
| I think people should be allowed to make any kind of contracts with each other, regardless of their sex, as long as those contracts aren't against the law. |
Posted By: Alitare
Date Posted: April 16 2012 at 07:54
| It just so happens that certain same-sex contracts are against the law in some American states. |
Posted By: Vompatti
Date Posted: April 16 2012 at 07:57
| So what's the problem? The law is the same for everyone. |
Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: April 16 2012 at 08:12
|
And the law is always righteous? ------------- “The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.” - Douglas Adams |
Posted By: Negoba
Date Posted: April 16 2012 at 08:31
|
We live in a time where some social conventions are becoming meaningless. Marriage may be one of these. Aside from the legally codified ownership rights that are involved, I think everyone has different definitions of what Marriage means. My now wife and I had been together 5 years, lived together 3 years, and had a child when we got married. It was basically a public celebration of something that already existed long before. And the legal aspects of rights and responsibilites for me as a father were much simpler after marriage. In today's world, we're all navigating this stuff on a case by case basis. I don't see why any two people who wanted to make a long term committment (even two eunuchs) couldn't get legally married, adopt, etc. as long as they were of sound mind. I don't know that our opinions of sexual behavior has to affect our opinions of families. As most married guys know, a few years after the kids and that's pretty low on the priority list in terms of what defines the relationship. After a certain age, a large proportion of marriages are pretty asexual. Just my thoughts. Not that anyone cares.
------------- You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all. |
Posted By: Vompatti
Date Posted: April 16 2012 at 08:43
|
Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: April 16 2012 at 08:56
^Ok. Now I better understand what you meant earlier  ------------- “The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.” - Douglas Adams |
Posted By: colorofmoney91
Date Posted: April 16 2012 at 09:03
|
Many years ago, this conversation was "should black people have equal rights" and "should women have equal rights" and the obvious answer and (loosely) implemented solution was "yes, equal rights for all". It seems inevitable that homosexuals will have the same rights eventually because it only makes sense. ------------- http://hanashukketsu.bandcamp.com" rel="nofollow - Hanashukketsu |
Posted By: horsewithteeth11
Date Posted: April 16 2012 at 09:28
Pretty much this. And what Teo said. *Steps back out of the wildfire* ------------- 
|
Posted By: AtomicCrimsonRush
Date Posted: April 16 2012 at 09:30
|
Maybe its best to remember -------------
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 16 2012 at 10:15
|
Okay. Pass the bucket of stones.
What the hell does "sin" have to do with it?
------------- What? |
Posted By: Negoba
Date Posted: April 16 2012 at 10:29
|
That redhead is making me feel kinda sinful... ------------- You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all. |
Posted By: Vompatti
Date Posted: April 16 2012 at 10:39
|
Gay sex is a sin if it distracts you from contemplating God. Gay marriage should be alright though. |
Posted By: Negoba
Date Posted: April 16 2012 at 10:54
|
Straight sex or autoeroticism would then also be a sin if it distracts you from contemplating God.
Or all of it could be sacred because sexual pleasure is one of the gifts of this mortal coil. And thanks to the Creator would be in order.
------------- You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all. |
Posted By: Alitare
Date Posted: April 16 2012 at 11:03
| ^Doesn't that depend on WHO you're having sex with whether or not the Creator is deserving of adulation or derision? Although you did say 'pleasure', there. I suppose it answers itself. |
Posted By: CCVP
Date Posted: April 16 2012 at 12:59
WTF Dean, it has everything to do with it. Just put your thinking keyboard wizard cape and you should be able to figure this one. -------------
|
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: April 16 2012 at 15:22
|
No, I agree with Dean. Sin is meaningless in this.
-------------
|
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: April 16 2012 at 15:43
|
Why I think sin is kind of meaningless in all this is because: ..... It's their personal choice. If it is a sin, frankly why do you care? People have pre martial sex ALL the time. Like....hundreds of millions of people over the world. Ironic since most Christians I've known (some quite devout) have had it and would try to get laid...which, just makes no sense to me  Anyway, what about that? And even if that was made illegal how are gunna stop it? I'm no expert on the Bible but I'm guessing there are many other things that are sins that are legal...and people do all the time. Now I may be wrong am just using what someone else has said, but apparently in Thomas Aquinas' "Summa Theologica" (I believe a major work in Christianity) he says that not all vices should be punishable, human law should forbid direct harm like murder and theft. Also that law cannot make a wicked person virtuous, only God can. So if it's not causing harm to you, it should left be and even if you think it's wrong...law won't change that, only God could do so. edit: of course I don't believe it's a sin but some religious background to back up our heathen arguments |
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: April 16 2012 at 15:54
|
I find sin a weird concept anyway. You commit a sin, God forgives you.
So it makes them worthless. So you may as well break them. -------------
|
Posted By: Textbook
Date Posted: April 16 2012 at 15:56