General Chat / GAY MARRIAGE

He continues to dig his hole deeper, but the unfortunate thing is that he doesn't seem to understand that he's doing so... this is often the case with people trying to argue for discrimination.

 

You're calling for "separate but equal" for heterosexual marriage vs. homosexual civil unions, and then you ask "Is it REALLY different?" The answer is YES IT IS. Because bathrooms for blacks vs. bathrooms for whites is REALLY different. Because having one water fountain for blacks vs. one for whites is REALLY different than having one water fountain that everyone shares. So having one institution of marriage for heteros while having one institution of civil unions for homos is REALLY different. 

 

I thought history has shown that "separate but equal" is NOT to be tolerated...? Did you even take American history?

csw, insulting you would be ad hominem. Your belief in some kind of sacred definition of marriage stems from a religious background, not the actual, real definition of marriage, which is a legal one.

The only reason marriage exists in a legal sense is because it was a sacrament of a religion. You can't have the legal meaning without the religious. Saying that the religious definition is "fake" is also insulating, or whatever word you want to use.

Also, I find it embarrassing that you all are so proud of yourselves for "proving him wrong". Its impossible to win any argument when you are the only one on a side. Its like getting 10 guys together to beat some kid up because he believes something different. His opinions are his opinions, they aren't right or wrong, especially when it pertains to something like this.

The only reason marriage exists in a legal sense is because it was a sacrament of a religion. You can't have the legal meaning without the religious. Saying that the religious definition is "fake" is also insulating, or whatever word you want to use.

Also, I find it embarrassing that you all are so proud of yourselves for "proving him wrong". Its impossible to win any argument when you are the only one on a side. Its like getting 10 guys together to beat some kid up because he believes something different. His opinions are his opinions, they aren't right or wrong, especially when it pertains to something like this.

 

Yes you can have the legal meaning without the religious, because now marriage is no longer a religious contract but a state one. Many non-Christians get married at City Hall with zero religious influence on their marriage.  

 

And as for your second point, let me ask you this: would you still say this if someone on the forum begins spouting hateful racist, misogynistic, homophobic rants and then hid behind the excuse of "it's my opinion, they aren't wrong or right, you can't attack me for what I believe!"? Do you say that to Westboro Baptist Church, who protest dead veteran's funerals and whose opinion is that God Hates Fags and God Hates America, or the opinions of ISIS that children who eat during Ramadan should die and Christians should drown in cages and gays should be thrown off rooftops? Really now?

 

Where is the line between having an informed opinion versus spouting blind hate and discrimination?

Yes you can have the legal meaning without the religious, because now marriage is no longer a religious contract but a state one. Many non-Christians get married at City Hall with zero religious influence on their marriage.  
 
And as for your second point, let me ask you this: would you still say this if someone on the forum begins spouting hateful racist, misogynistic, homophobic rants and then hid behind the excuse of "it's my opinion, they aren't wrong or right, you can't attack me for what I believe!"? Do you say that to Westboro Baptist Church, who protest dead veteran's funerals and whose opinion is that God Hates Fags and God Hates America, or the opinions of ISIS that children who eat during Ramadan should die and Christians should drown in cages and gays should be thrown off rooftops? Really now?
 
Where is the line between having an informed opinion versus spouting blind hate and discrimination?

First, its not " now marriage is " its "also marriage is" or "now marriage also is". And I was simply speaking in a timeline sense, with the religious sacrament, the legal act never materializes.

But to the second point, there is a difference. CSW simply is stating his opinions, he's not hurting anyone, he's not acting against anyone, he's certainly not standing infront of judges barring same sex couples to marry. There is a big difference between simply having a pov on something and actually acting on it against others. Hes infringing on no ones rights, he's hurting no one, nothing. Hes expressing his freedom of speech, just as you are, just as I am. The content of whats being said has no effect on this, as long as he's not infringing on others rights, which he can't possibly do if all he does is type on his computer. Anyways, I would go on by my phone is about to die so untill latter.

First, its not " now marriage is " its "also marriage is" or "now marriage also is". And I was simply speaking in a timeline sense, with the religious sacrament, the legal act never materializes.

But to the second point, there is a difference. CSW simply is stating his opinions, he's not hurting anyone, he's not acting against anyone, he's certainly not standing infront of judges barring same sex couples to marry. There is a big difference between simply having a pov on something and actually acting on it against others. Hes infringing on no ones rights, he's hurting no one, nothing. Hes expressing his freedom of speech, just as you are, just as I am. The content of whats being said has no effect on this, as long as he's not infringing on others rights, which he can't possibly do if all he does is type on his computer. Anyways, I would go on by my phone is about to die so untill latter.

 

That was the history of marriage, but it's no longer the current status of marriage. You can't keep all of marriage's history with it because it has changed so much throughout history. In fact, love had nothing to do with marriage, which was originally used in ancient times as a political move to gain in-laws, alliances and political traction; it also had little to do with religion, actually. Polygamy was also the basis of marriage in many cultures, especially during biblical times. Etc.

 

The definition of marriage was NEVER static, but these Christians somehow believe that the definition they hold dear, one that hasn't been static itself, is somehow the *true* definition of marriage. 

 

Yes, it's a little bit of a hyperbole to compare CSW to ISIS.

The point still stands: A non-black man saying the n-word or a non-gay man using a gay slur is only expressing his freedom of speech... right? That freedom of speech does not give you freedom from responsibility or freedom from consequences of your words.

Would you be so forgiving to an ISIS supporter or a white supremacist who voices his hateful opinions on these forums? 

why is marriage even regulated by governments btw

Because, as we keep saying, marriage is a legal contract. You need official forms and documentation for health care, property ownership, inheritance, and tax reasons. The state is responsible for collecting or keeping track of most or all of these things, therefore it is their responsibility to issue the licenses. Church and state are separated by the Constitution. This is pretty clear-cut.

 

We really shouldn't make it a purely Christian issue about the definition of marriage because their religious text is no less self-contradictory about it than any other creation myth. The simple fact is you don't get to decide for yourself what marriage is by definition. The state gets to do this because they issue the licenses. What your marriage means to you is another matter, but equality means that you don't get to keep other consenting individuals from participating in the institution. No church, and therefore no ideology, has a monopoly on marriage, it's not a privatized industry. Let's not pretend we haven't advanced to the point where a legal, secular definition isn't the best option. Leave the ceremony to the religious leaders or personal beliefs of the individuals involved, but the institution itself must permit equality in the eyes of the law.

yes, i understand the financial ramifications of it, but they still shouldn't be allowed to be turned down as long as all parties consent. i'll extend this into polygamy and other 'taboo' paradigms

 

That was the history of marriage, but it's no longer the current status of marriage. You can't keep all of marriage's history with it because it has changed so much throughout history. In fact, love had nothing to do with marriage, which was originally used in ancient times as a political move to gain in-laws, alliances and political traction; it also had little to do with religion, actually. Polygamy was also the basis of marriage in many cultures, especially during biblical times. Etc.

 

The definition of marriage was NEVER static, but these Christians somehow believe that the definition they hold dear, one that hasn't been static itself, is somehow the *true* definition of marriage. 

 

Yes, it's a little bit of a hyperbole to compare CSW to ISIS.

The point still stands: A non-black man saying the n-word or a non-gay man using a gay slur is only expressing his freedom of speech... right? That freedom of speech does not give you freedom from responsibility or freedom from consequences of your words.

Would you be so forgiving to an ISIS supporter or a white supremacist who voices his hateful opinions on these forums? 

 

 

As long as he doesn't act upon his opinions and infringes upon the rights of others, words are just words and always will be.  I could care less, there are a lot of people on this planet, a lot of different opinions, a lot of people to disagree with.  Not everyone is going to agree/have the same opinions are you want, or society wants, and I'm perfectly ok with that.  Obviously you aren't, which is fine, I could care less.

 

 

 

As long as he doesn't act upon his opinions and infringes upon the rights of others, words are just words and always will be.  I could care less, there are a lot of people on this planet, a lot of different opinions, a lot of people to disagree with.  Not everyone is going to agree/have the same opinions are you want, or society wants, and I'm perfectly ok with that.  Obviously you aren't, which is fine, I could care less.

How old are you? I'm in disbelief that any adult would type what you did. I'm hoping you don't really believe what you wrote. 

 

Would you go to your boss and say fuck you? No? Why not? Aren't words just words? You didn't infringe upon your boss's rights did you? 

 

Would you go on national TV and start screaming the n-word and spewing hateful racist speech? No? Why not? It's just your opinion? You're just expressing your freedom of speech! 

 

Obviously ridiculous examples here, but I'm just trying to get as ridiculous as those sentences you typed in your post.

 

Words are NOT just letters on a page and they have NEVER been less than the foundation of modern society and human civilization. How can you be so flippant about words when words are what the world is built upon? Words are what made the Bible, the Quran, etc. giving birth and lasting credence to religion itself. Words are what cements history into the minds of an entire generation. Words of hate from Adolf Hitler had real impacts on creating Nazi Germany's strength and power during WWII and starting the holocaust - do you think the Holocaust would have occurred if Hitler did not have a nation's mindset and power backing his will?

 

Words are not powerless, they affect change and are of the HIGHEST importance. Words are the building blocks of society - they inspire, the corrupt, they create leaders and they create sheep... are you seriously suggesting that words are nothing but letters on a page? That's not only ridiculous but also naive.

 

Yes, I am not ashamed to say I am intolerant of intolerance itself. I don't need everyone to agree with me. I like blueberries, my sister doesn't. Does that matter to me? No. But if you actually think black people are inferior to whites or you actually think gay marriage is going to turn America upside down, then I don't think we can be friends. I am not one to idly stand by while real issues in the world are being perpetuated by what you call "mere opinions" and "just words". These words and these thoughts are here and they cause real issues of ignorance and hate. Spreading discrimination, racism, misogyny, and homophobia affects the lives of millions.

 

Think about it: If people didn't have an opinion that whites are superior to blacks, then racism wouldn't be the huge problem it is today and black poverty rates and black incarceration rates would drop significantly. If people didn't have the opinion that a woman's place is in the kitchen and should be submissive to men, then women would probably not face as much misogyny as they do now nor have to live in fear of being raped while living in this staunch patriarchy. If people weren't of the opinion that gays are vile sinners and shouldn't get married because God said so, then maybe we wouldn't have as many gay teen suicides and such a stigma against homosexuals.

 

An opinion isn't "just an opinion". Your words and opinions have weight to them. Choose them wisely. 

Shotguns, the reason the polygamy/beastiality arguments that always seem to be brought up in these conversations aren't valid is that, once again, this is a purely legal argument. There are clear-cut procedures for handling estates and finances in the event of divorce, death of one or both involved parties, account ownership, etc., and there are still endless court cases over these things. Could you imagine trying to rule in a case where a husband is divorcing one of six wives and the other wives are trying to each claim property? What about when multiple children from multiple spouses are involved in a divorce or death of one parent in a multi-parent legal arrangement? Who gets visitation? Would you have to document who spent how much time raising the child to determine who takes the most responsibility? What if some remaining spouses want to keep the children in the family and some don't? If one partner dies and is the primary owner of an estate, how are you going to legally decide what to do with it when you have two, three, four, or more other "in-part" owners of it clamoring for different outcomes? Do you have to name a "primary" spouse? What other kinds of issues might that cause? What about extended families' claims? And this is purely for human relationships between presumably healthy, consenting adults.

 

Animals cannot own property or handle paperwork. Inanimate objects cannot file taxes or inherit money. This is why the slippery slope argument is so outrageously stupid, particularly when applied here. These aren't even the biggest issues, actually, now I think about it. Non-humans can't even legally consent to anything so there is no ground to start from. Even some humans can't (dementia, developmental disorders, minors), and we have special circumstance laws to try to handle that too. You do a great disservice to the communities that would benefit from these kinds of equalities to even compare these issues. Think more critically about it.

Would you be so forgiving to an ISIS supporter or a white supremacist who voices his hateful opinions on these forums? 

 

There is a difference. CSW is a decent member of the community. His opinion, whilst disagreeable, is purely an opinion on one certain aspect. He is not against gays, he is against gay marriage, he is not going to go round blowing up people because they are gay, he is also not discriminating against anybody directly and making matters extremely personal.

 

His comments may be difficult to understand and may not be of your opinion, and yes they may directly affect you and hurt you somewhat, BUT, calling him out for stating his opinion, which he has done respectfully, is just as bad, if not worse. Everyone here (almost everyone) is singling him out and making him to feel like an ass. If you think he is an ass cause of what he has said, then fair enough, but ganging up and attacking his beliefs is much worse than CSW having his opinion that was expressed respectfully.

 

I am gay. One day I would like to get married, not because it means I can have the same rights as everybody else, because I hope to one day be in a loving relationship and that I can show that off by committing my entire life to somebody else.

BUT I don't believe in gay marriage. In fact, I am against it. Why does it need to be labeled? Marriage is marriage. I don't want to be a part of anything that is labeled as it is signifying that we are different, when we aren't. I am a normal person who lives a normal, albeit somewhat flamboyant, life, and as such wish to be married like a 'normal' person in a 'normal' marriage, not one that is labeled differently.

His comments may be difficult to understand and may not be of your opinion, and yes they may directly affect you and hurt you somewhat, BUT, calling him out for stating his opinion, which he has done respectfully, is just as bad, if not worse.

Louis, since you live in a civilized country with seemingly reasonable people this may not make sense to you (I know it makes no sense to me) but here in the land of the free, home of the brave if someone has a different opinion than we do we have to be complete dicks about it at all times and put labels on then to completely discredit them and everything they say.

For example... rather than your very reasonable stance of (paraphrasing) "I don't agree with CSW but he's a cool guy and I'm glad he stated his opinion and we could have this debate". In America we would call him a homophobe who needs to be held accountable for his "offensive" and "anti gay" statements. The only thing we love more than bragging about free speech (something that the vast majority of the world has) is trying to bully people into being afraid to exercise that free speech. We only like free speech when the person speaking agrees with us.

... Murica

I don't see what's wrong with having this debate. Yes it's his opinion but a lot of his arguments for why he has that opinion is based on hypotheticals and ignorance. What's wrong with pointing that out? Maybe we could have changed his mind...

@both Louis and Coasterbill,

ISIS supporters and white supremacists don't necessarily act on their beliefs either. Again, exercising freedom of speech does not free you from the consequences of your word. This is obvious given how careful public figures are in choosing what they say, because what you say DOES have palpable effects on others whether you'd think so or not. Don't try to write it off as simply an opinion.

If this discussion was involving a beloved community member who just so happens to hate the idea of interracial marriage (which, as we all know, went through this same idiotic debate and trial before finally getting legalized), I don't think people would be as easily acceptin of a "differing opinion".

As for your reason to be against gay marriage, you're arguing a purely semantic case. Once gay marriage is allowed, it wouldn't be seen as gay marriage; it would be known as marriage. Normal marriage. Before the SCOTUS decision, you weren't afforded that right in the U.S., and if you did want to get married, you literally COULDN'T. I don't think you meant what you said, because saying "I'm against gay marriage" is saying "I'm against equal rights". Literally. I think you meant "I don't like the labelling of gay marriage as gay marriage, it should be just marriage", which means you're FOR the acceptance of gay marriage into the norm.

@coasterbill

This isn't an American thing, but that's a attempt at ad hominem trying to discredit my points with an attack on my nationality. I have European and Asian friends who are just as adamant against racism and misogyny as any American I know. They get heated in debate if they meet someone a Nazi sympathizer (this actually happened...) or someone who's racist or sexist, as they rightly should be.

Acceptance of intolerance is passive agreement that it does no wrong to have "simply a different opinion". Not only are you downplaying the seriously negative effects of hate speech and discriminatory thoughts, but you're also perpetuating the cycle of oppression by not actively fighting against these kind of arguments. As far as I'm concerned there is no place for intolerance, none at all. Like I've said, I'm intolerant of intolerance, and that is the only thing I cannot stand for because although you guys write off discriminatory opinions as simply "opinions", it's the unfortunate reality that many people in the world who share CSW's misled opinion affected the lives of millions of gays in horribly negative ways.

Did I somehow stomp on CSW's right to express himself? Or did I simply point out counter arguments to his debate? Practice your free speech, I love debate, just don't be surprised when I tear you a new one without resorting to ad hominem logical fallacies. I don't recall ever calling CSW a homophobe or any names. His ideas are homophobic, and they lack evidence or logic, so I simply called him out on it. That's the point of debate, isn't it?

If you're going to debate about a controversial subject but can't support your ideas with logic, reasoning, and evidence, and you can't handle that others disagree PASSIONATELY about something you said because your opinion is about an issue that affects their very lives, then maybe you should reevaluate what you're really trying to do. If I can change just one person's stance on homosexuality or racism or sexism, then I've done something good in the world in which these oppressive opinions are, subconsciously or consciously, actually manifesting themselves in people's actions and affecting people's daily lives.

I wasn't saying I'm against gay marriage as a thing, I just meant it shouldn't be referred to as gay marriage as that just highlights the fact that being gay is different.

 

I'm also not saying that the debate shouldn't be happening, I was merely pointing out that some people were being a bit too direct IMO and that I personally was becoming a bit uncomfortable with what I was considering a lack of respect (basically calling religion and the bible 'mumbo jumbo')

 

Anyway, carry on.

I wasn't saying I'm against gay marriage as a thing, I just meant it shouldn't be referred to as gay marriage as that just highlights the fact that being gay is different.
 
I'm also not saying that the debate shouldn't be happening, I was merely pointing out that some people were being a bit too direct IMO and that I personally was becoming a bit uncomfortable with what I was considering a lack of respect (basically calling religion and the bible 'mumbo jumbo')
 
Anyway, carry on.

I agree with you, gay marriage should be just called marriage, and the battle for same sex marriage should be "marriage equality".

The thing is, being gay IS different, just like being a woman is different than being a man, being black is different than white, etc. We shouldn't seek to erase differences because diversity is the strength of America, and I wish we could celebrate difference instead of pretending to be race-blind or sex-blind and the like. We should recognize and celebrate our differences but not allow these unique characteristics to dictate our rights or lack thereof.

On a really related note - I would like MA and Louis CK to have kids.

https://www.youtube....h?v=eb-JZSyhWSc

On a really related note - I would like MA and Louis CK to have kids.

Absolutely LOVE Louis CK!! And he's so right about Mr. Mcgregor.... So yummy

He also handled it like a boss.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Qd7MQ9xHUg