 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
| 0 user currently in World Affairs / Debate. |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - World Affairs / Debate - 31 Reasons |
 |  | Thread closed |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 | Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
geeogree Bloober Level: 34  Posts: 295/448 EXP: 231583 For next: 22068 Since: 03-16-04 From: Calgary, Canada Since last post: 1 day Last activity: 11 hours |
| ||
| the thing I love/hate about this whole debate is that so far no one has really taken a look at whether marriage is ACTUALLY a right.... everyone just says it is, or should be... but, if it is a right, then I should be able to go to city hall and demand a wife... (assuming I'm not already married)..... right? oh, and what the conservatives have been suggesting, the civil union, was supposed to have the same rights.... marriage for hetero, civil union for homo.... |
|||
alte Hexe Star Mario I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night Alive as you and me "But Joe you're ten years dead!" "I never died" said he "I never died!" said he Level: 99  Posts: 2880/5458 EXP: 9854489 For next: 145511 Since: 03-15-04 From: ... Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
| Then that would be making a notable difference in the population. That would be segregation with a pretty face. Marriage is a right. The right to marry the person you love and cherish. Should they submit to your woos. |
|||
Grey the Stampede Don't mess with powers you don't understand. And yes. That means donuts. Level: 82  Posts: 1681/3770 EXP: 5192909 For next: 16318 Since: 06-17-04 From: Kingston, RI, USA, Earth Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 1 hour |
| ||
| I think marriage is a right so long as you have someone to marry, Geogree. That goes without saying. Kas's case is especially difficult. Think about this: When you were younger, you dreamt of falling in love and getting married and stuff, right? It was always "fall in love, get married". You'd fall in love, and you'd marry the one you loved, even before you recognized what marriage was about legally or religiously. Suddenly, it hits you, you fall in love. You wanna get married, because you're in love, right? But there's a problem: You just happen to have the same genitals as the person you love. This is a purely physical problem, if you can even call it that. Marriage, and religion in general, is supposed to be spiritual, isn't it? What does your body have to do with your soul or spirit? If you're a soul in love with another soul, then what should your body have to do with that? In the end we all ditch our physical bodies anyway, assuming your beliefs allow you to get rid of that body and join some kind of deity in paradise for all eternity. So why can't two souls be together? Just because their bodies are the same, their souls can't be united? Nice religion. Using physical differences and socially-imposed deviance as an excuse to deny a religious and legal right to people who are essentially the same as everyone else is like saying two people with blonde hair can't be together, or two people with brown hair can't be together. When it boils down to it, their hair is determined by their genetics, and so is their gender, yet they're discriminated for their gender, but not their hair color. Really, very nice. |
|||
|
geeogree Bloober Level: 34 Posts: 296/448 EXP: 231583 For next: 22068 Since: 03-16-04 From: Calgary, Canada Since last post: 1 day Last activity: 11 hours |
| ||
| saying it is natural, or something they can't control.... doesn't make it any less unnatural.... and does no one read what I say? do you people not realize that the "conservative" side is willing to give the exact same rights to same sex unions, we just don't want it called marriage.... yet you don't seem to think that is a viable option do you actually think calling it marriage is going to make our side feel any better or worse about it? do you think we will agree with it more because you can call it marriage? we will still see 2 men or 2 women... and again, why are individual rights of a few trampling over the religious rights of 1000 times as many |
|||
|
alte Hexe Star Mario I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night Alive as you and me "But Joe you're ten years dead!" "I never died" said he "I never died!" said he Level: 99 Posts: 2882/5458 EXP: 9854489 For next: 145511 Since: 03-15-04 From: ... Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
| How is your denial of rights to another person a right? And why can't it be called marriage? |
|||
|
geeogree Bloober Level: 34 Posts: 297/448 EXP: 231583 For next: 22068 Since: 03-16-04 From: Calgary, Canada Since last post: 1 day Last activity: 11 hours |
| ||
| denial of what rights? the right to marry".... I don't see marriage as a right.... I don't have the right to get married.... I have the privilage maybe.... but not the right why does it have to be called marriage? |
|||
|
alte Hexe Star Mario I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night Alive as you and me "But Joe you're ten years dead!" "I never died" said he "I never died!" said he Level: 99 Posts: 2883/5458 EXP: 9854489 For next: 145511 Since: 03-15-04 From: ... Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
| Then get a divorce. Tonight. If you don't want to extend your given right. That is what it is, a right to get married. Then you don't deserve it. You don't see it as a privilege, but for people that have had their lifestyle only recentely made LEGAL they see it as something more. The naivette of privelege, I suppose. Why can't it be called marriage? I've not heard a single good argument about that. Taking away the "but it is sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo passe to be gay" argument that the fundies are spitting out. Or better yet, how about I quote some of the ministers in the states (who are moving their operations to Canada) who call gays "evil" and "hellbound" among other things. Wouldn't that be like calling a black man a thief on the assumption he is black, or attacking a Chinese person for the reason that they have skin different than you? Interestingly on the point of other races, due to the rabid beliefs of the evangelists and episcopal faiths of the early part of this century inter-racial marriages were vastly unallowed. Hell, in some states, courts were given the ability to anull marriages if they felt it was wrong for a Slav to marry a woman of Germanic descent. Back in this time they wanted these couples to be given a union certificate. Of course, it is a denigrating and patronizing activity and setting them apart from the rest of society. Open rights to all or rights for none. What is your pick? |
|||
|
Kasumi-Astra Administrator Level: 62  Posts: 1193/1867 EXP: 1971846 For next: 12840 Since: 03-15-04 From: Reading, UK Uni: Sheffield, UK Since last post: 1 day Last activity: 12 hours |
| ||
| I don't have to break the religious rights of anybody. There are gay clergy in this country who couldn't be happier to marry two men or two women, if their hands weren't tied by the red tape of the government or the prejudice of the ignoarant few. I would never dream of asking a man to go against his beliefs, I would rather have someone who is comfortable with our relationship marry us than ask a person to do that. From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination. (1) 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. (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. These two human rights define that adults have the right to marry, and that everyone has equal rights under the law. Currently the law is discriminatory against a minority. I know you've shown that this minority is small, but does that give you a valid reason to ignore them? |
|||
MathOnNapkins Math n' Hacks Level: 67  Posts: 1374/2189 EXP: 2495887 For next: 96985 Since: 03-18-04 From: Base Tourian Since last post: 1 hour Last activity: 32 min. |
| ||
Originally posted by geeogree Why the hell is it such a big issue not to call it marriage? I'll tell you why. B/c you don't think it's as good as a hetero marriage. You'd like it called something different b/c you want to preserve the status quo, where hetero > gay. Calling it "marriage" or "gay marriage" makes you antsy b/c you think it perverts your normal marriage. When you hear that Gary and Larry are 'married' you will shudder. But what else are you going to call it? "Gary and Larry are gayzored!" erm... no probably not. Unioned? And why do you keep bring this up about religious rights? Tell me how religious rights will be violated citing specific legislation, or government discussions, et cetera. |
|||
|
geeogree Bloober Level: 34 Posts: 298/448 EXP: 231583 For next: 22068 Since: 03-16-04 From: Calgary, Canada Since last post: 1 day Last activity: 11 hours |
| ||
| Math: you are exactly right.... I really don't like the idea of walking down the street with a married friend and having people look at me and think that we might be married.... there are already instances cited earlier of how religious rights are already being violated.... read earlier posts.... |
|||
|
alte Hexe Star Mario I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night Alive as you and me "But Joe you're ten years dead!" "I never died" said he "I never died!" said he Level: 99 Posts: 2888/5458 EXP: 9854489 For next: 145511 Since: 03-15-04 From: ... Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
Originally posted by geeogree ...Wow. Just wow. You do realize that there are barely going to be 500 married gay couples. Not everyone is going to think that you are married. Wow. There is a word for that. Wow. And where are these magical rights that are being trampled? |
|||
|
geeogree Bloober Level: 34 Posts: 299/448 EXP: 231583 For next: 22068 Since: 03-16-04 From: Calgary, Canada Since last post: 1 day Last activity: 11 hours |
| ||
| 500 couples? that's it?..... this whole big fucking mess is being made so 500 couples can say they are married..... this is what's wrong with liberalism..... so much agony for so little |
|||
|
MathOnNapkins Math n' Hacks Level: 67 Posts: 1377/2189 EXP: 2495887 For next: 96985 Since: 03-18-04 From: Base Tourian Since last post: 1 hour Last activity: 32 min. |
| ||
The rights are those of religious clergy who are being forced to marry gay couples, apparently. I asked Geeogree to provide some sources but he redirected me to the rest of the thread, (which I had already read). The only examples turned up in his initial blob of a post, and gave nothing specific other than names of provinces where incidents allegedly occurred. But that definitely is an issue, if it's true. I would hope people would agree to that  .Either way, unless you like to hold the hands of your straight male friends, or engage in other PDFs, I doubt anyone would mistake you for a couple  . If you're worried about being mistaken for a gay man you must be quite a snazzy dresser and have excellent hair and hygiene. (Stereotypes I know, but in many cases it's true.) |
|||
|
alte Hexe Star Mario I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night Alive as you and me "But Joe you're ten years dead!" "I never died" said he "I never died!" said he Level: 99 Posts: 2890/5458 EXP: 9854489 For next: 145511 Since: 03-15-04 From: ... Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
| Edited: Thank you Math. You win. (edited by Ziffski on 02-06-05 05:20 PM) |
|||
Rydain Ropa Blaze Phoenix Runs With the Dragon Within Level: 42  Posts: 444/738 EXP: 490056 For next: 31306 Since: 03-15-04 From: State College, PA Since last post: 6 days Last activity: 8 hours |
| ||
Originally posted by MathOnNapkins Besides, how exactly does the legal definition of the word "marriage" affect whether or not two people walking down the street will be generally perceived as a couple? If a pair of people are walking along and acting affectionate towards one another, I'll think they're together regardless of whether or not they are able to become legally married in my state. If they're just walking along platonically, I'm not going to read anything into it. And this is assuming I'm even paying attention to other people...I'm oftentimes just lost in my own thoughts and don't really care.  Furthermore, what exactly is so horrible about having a stranger think you're gay? I can understand this if you live in a very homophobic region and you don't want to get harassed, beaten up, or killed. But if you're intrinsically bothered by the thought of being perceived as gay and it doesn't have anything to do with your personal safety, WHY? |
|||
|
Vystrix Nexoth Level: 30 Posts: 250/348 EXP: 158678 For next: 7191 Since: 03-15-04 From: somewhere between anima and animus Since last post: 3 days Last activity: 2 days |
| ||
Originally posted by geeogree Originally posted by yours truly Besides, whether it's a Right or a Privelage is not relevant. Whatever it is, grant it equally, i.e. without discrimination. Originally posted by geeogreeYes, both sides.  Originally posted by geeogreeIf you have a woman (or a man ) willing to marry you then and there, then, in essence, yes.Originally posted by geeogreeAs has been mentioned, relegating same-sex marriage to an "inferior" term is not an acceptable outcome for our side. I would support civil-union rights for same-sex couples if and only if opposite-sex civil marriage were "reduced" to "civil union" simultaneously. Equal. Originally posted by geeogreeSame can be said of a woman who goes infertile. I don't see large groups of loud people with pitchforks and religious effigies demanding they be denied the right of marriage. Besides, so the hell what? Originally posted by geeogreeRelegating same-sex civil marriage to a term that will invariably be considered inferior does not constitute "exact same rights". Either
Originally posted by geeogreeYour side certainly seems to be getting its feathers ruffled over it, so, yes. Bear in mind that we've been trying to be considerate and respectful of your side's position. If it were all up to me, your feelings be damned, I'd say grant same-sex marriage in all meanings of the word "marriage" and if you don't like it, tough shit, bible-thumper; grow up and throw off the chains of mythology and join the rest of us in this enlightened age, and quit being so damn selfish and arrogant. But that's not the position I am (publically) advocating. I advocate extending civil marriage to include same-sex couples, without any effect on "marriage" in the context of religion (e.g. a Christian marriage being a union of a man, woman, and God, as distinct from "marriage" in a legal context (civil marriage) which confers various rights such as hospital visitation rights, custody of children, inheritance, and other such things). Your religious marriage will not be affected, and if it is, then blame it on the government for taking that approach. (Which, as I stated in my first post in this thread, would be a valid grievance against how it is implemented, not on the actual thing being implemented.) Originally posted by geeogreeSo in that instance, it doesn't matter either way, which makes it a moot point and a non-argument. Originally posted by geeogreeAsk your government that; they are to blame for that. I'd be perfectly happy to have same-sex civil marriage granted without laying a single finger on religious marriage; this is a point I belabored in my first post in this thread. Apparently you did not read it. You may want to do so, since I responded to everything you said and set the tone for most of the posts following it. Go look in the first page of this thread; it's the huge post that takes up at least half the vertical space. You can't miss it, unless you're avoiding it. Originally posted by geeogreeA "right" is something you have or acquire by default, compared to a "privilege" which you do not have by default. You do not have to ask permission or undergo Herculean trials and tribulations in order to be granted the privilege of marriage; it is something you automatically acquire once you reach a certain age (which varies from place to place). Therefore it is a right. And if it were not, then it is privilege that is being granted unequally. Grant it equally, then. Originally posted by geeogreeBecause that's what it is. And we will not settle for an term that will be considered inferior. [Edited... added a section after the "getting your feathers ruffled" bit, and fixed spelling of "privilege".] (edited by Vystrix Nexoth on 02-06-05 09:19 PM) (edited by Vystrix Nexoth on 02-06-05 09:33 PM) |
|||
windwaker Ball and Chain Trooper WHY ALL THE MAYONNAISE HATE Level: 61  Posts: 1089/1797 EXP: 1860597 For next: 15999 Since: 03-15-04 Since last post: 4 days Last activity: 6 days |
| ||
| Well, roffle my waffles. Geeogree. I sometimes doubt if you research anything when you post about it. Are you aware of the fact that eight out of the eleven states that voted against same-sex marriage ALSO voted against civil union?  Laws were passed to give them rights. Same sex couples do not have to be called "married" to receive rights. And laws were -NEVER- passed to take away their rights. You know, geeogree and myself are the only ones who feel correctly about this situation in America. GAYS ARE NOT PEOPLE. Gays are like animals and should have the same rights as animals, and will inevitably burn in hell. *sarcasm* (edited by windwaker on 02-06-05 09:37 PM) |
|||
DahrkDaiz Red Super Koopa  Acmlm's Mosts 2005 Best ROM Hacker Level: 45  Posts: 506/885 EXP: 643520 For next: 16644 Since: 03-15-04 From: K-Town Since last post: 4 hours Last activity: 4 hours |
| ||
| If same-sex marriage is a violation of someone's religious rights, then if there is a religion out there that accepts and recognizes same-sex marriage, it will still be thought of as a violation of religous rights, atleast, your religious rights. Thus, you would think that any institution of one religion that's different from another religion is a violation of another's religious rights. Henceforth, Jews celebrating Hannuka is a violation of Christian rights. Women wearing pants is a violation of Southern Baptist religious rights. Drinking before the legal age is a violation of Christian rights (the Bible DOES say to obey the law of the land). Your girlfriend walking out in a skimpy skirt is a violation of Muslim's religious rights. But you get my point? Just because YOUR religion doesn't support an idea, it doesn't mean that your religious rights are being violated, especially of the same sex couple getting married isn't even of the same religion as you! And that has been said many times before, extending rights is not changing their meaning. Homophobes are just wanting to surpress homosexual relationships by denying them the LEGAL RIGHT of marriage. This is like the fool who broke the bell and held his ears, thinking that if he didn't hear the bell ring, then it wouldn't make a sound. Same-sex marriage isn't forcing religious institutes to recognize their bond, if I recall correctly, my parents got married in a court, not a church. If a gay couple were to go to vegas and elope, the walls of society would not crumble. The government would get more out of them as a couple as far as taxes go. And finally, I see bumper stickers that say "adoption, not abortion" and yet, these same people want to deny those who WANT to adopt (same sex couples) the ability to do so! Talk about hypocracy :/ Edit: Oh and opposite sex marriage has done a great job of ruining the sanctity of marriage as it is. Marriages set up in days of lore just to keep peace between to lands, or to gain more power. How about the high divorce rate in America? How about that Britney Spears! (edited by DahrkDaiz on 02-06-05 10:17 PM) |
|||
|
Vystrix Nexoth Level: 30 Posts: 251/348 EXP: 158678 For next: 7191 Since: 03-15-04 From: somewhere between anima and animus Since last post: 3 days Last activity: 2 days |
| ||
| I think I'll take the initiative this time around. Rhetorical question: of the two couples described below, which do you think is more "deserving" of marriage?
The latter (an opposite-sex couple, I might add) might be giving marriage a bad name, but their marriage was a civil marriage and both parties can annul it if they agree to do so. Yet the United States' "Defense of Marriage" act, and Bush's stated intention to advocate a constitutional amendment to "defend" marriage, see it more fitting to "defend" it from the former couple and not from the latter. If you want to make the concept of marriage (in any sense of the word) more meaningful, then there is only one way to do it: make your own marriage meaningful by loving your spouse and not treating your marriage like something frivolous. "Defending" it by denying the right of marriage to someone else (in spite of the fact it would not affect you at all) over irrational fear, gives marriage a worse name than an average same-sex couple ever could. I do not mean to imply that all same-sex marriages would be sincere, nor that all opposite-sex marriages are frivolous, however the exact opposite seems to be the impression held by die-hard conservatives. Instead, I contend that they would be no worse or better. Instead, if you want to "defend" marriage, you could start by defending it from straight people. Consider:
And so far as I can tell, the vast majority (edited by Vystrix Nexoth on 02-06-05 10:54 PM) |
|||
|
geeogree Bloober Level: 34 Posts: 300/448 EXP: 231583 For next: 22068 Since: 03-16-04 From: Calgary, Canada Since last post: 1 day Last activity: 11 hours |
| ||
| windwaker: uhm.... don't include me in your post.... I don't think homosexuals are not human.... I don't agree with what they do, or how they act in certain aspects.... but they are still humans and I'm not going to treat them like animals.... |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 | Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - World Affairs / Debate - 31 Reasons |
| | Thread closed |
