¡Viva la Massachusetts!

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 The purpose of a civil marriage is to provide beneficial financial situation to the young couples in hope they'll have children, as well as to provide some security for those children. Therefore gay marriages are an oxymoron, since gays don't have children. I personaly don't have anything against gays screwing one another if they find it pleasurable, or living together for that matter, but they shouldn't recieve subsidies intended for people with children.

Sorry.. that argument doesn't cut it. Marriage and the benefits that come with it are distinct from child-bearing benefits. Infertile heterosexual couples can get married and receive the same benefits as married couples that can have children but don't. And by "infertile," I mean people who want children but can't have them due to reproductive issues/age/menopause as well as couples who get vasectomies/tubes tied.


richard

quote:

Originally posted by ahlamalek child adoption and other stuff to make them look normal? -> NO

why?

quote:

Originally posted by rizen why?

thats the way i think, sue me hehe

___________________
[/IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/ngycqo.png[/IMG]

People are people. I judge a gay person the same way I would judge anyone else. I think gay marriages should be legal.

___________________
"That's why I don't like Hard House, it's more about the tits than the music"

- Dave Dresden

good points raised hgere:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=142420

quote:

Originally posted by anuneventrade So you're saying sterile couples shouldn't marry right? They shouldn't be given the option to make their loving home available for a child that has no parents (adoption)?

No, what I'm saying is that they should be allowed to make a simbolic act of conjoining, but they shouldn't get subsidies unless they decide to adopt children.

quote:

You've got to be kidding me. With all the drug addicts in the world, the rapists, the molestors... You're worried about a gay couple raising a child? They will teach the child to stand up for his/her beliefs, to do what they believe is right, to be their own person. Children grow up with psychological problems in a normal family. I will not admit that it is questionable, because I think you're generalizing. Just because a couple is gay, does not mean that A) the child will be gay, or B) the child will be raised horrible or C) the child will have psychological problems.

I think if a loving gay couple is willing to open their hearts and home to an adopted child, they should be given the right to. Children need a home. What's better? Having a child be brought up in a welfare home (where there are about 500 kids), or having them brought up in a normal life?[/font] [/QUOTE]

I do agree that there are many worse situations in which a child can be raised. But gay marriages should be imo used only as a last resort.

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 No, what I'm saying is that they should be allowed to make a simbolic act of conjoining, but they shouldn't get subsidies unless they decide to adopt children.

You want to deny a person 1500 rights simply because they are gay? That's pretty biased and discriminatory.

quote:

I do agree that there are many worse situations in which a child can be raised. But gay marriages should be imo used only as a last resort.

From what are you basing your facts? Have you actually seen a kid raised by gay parents to have psychological problems? Why should it be a last resort? What are you basing your reasoning on?

Just because you're gay doesn't mean that you're a bad person.

___________________
aka Tits McGee
aka Chesty LaRue
aka Busty St. Claire

Silly to talk about what's natural or moral, since that differs from person to person.

However, let's use some common sense and objectivism here. I have a few questions that have never been satisfactorily answered.

1. What do they really want?
The first thing I have to do is question their reasons for wishing to be married. I am aware of the fact that marriage comes with many legal benefits, but out of all (over 30) pro-Gay-marriage people I've spoken to (including a few who were actually gay), only a select few could actually identify what specific benefits they were after which aren't already provided by a civil union. Besides which, out of those 1500-odd benefits, several wouldn't be relevant to gay couples anyway.

So I'm forced to ask the question, what are they after, really? I don't want to make assumptions, but it seems that only a few people actually understand the rights they are fighting for. If, by some off-chance, the activists are staging this legal protesting in order to make a public statement - which, frankly, wouldn't come as a massive shock to me considering the pride parades and everything - then this is an abuse of our legal system and not fair to the rest of us. A few gay people I've talked to about this seem to view the legalization of gay marriages as a kind of validation of their lifestyle, and while I'm not trying to say that their lifestyle isn't valid, I don't think this is an appropriate way to pursue that goal. They already have plenty of avenues in which to seek this.

2. Why get married?
Now, this was mentioned briefly by Tito. Let me start by saying that marriage is a religious institution - yes, I understand that it's been secularized and written into the country's legal code, but I don't think it's fair for us to completely ignore what marriage is and why we have it.

We used to have a lot of religious people in power - we still do. Most religions consider marriage to be something very righteous and important. More than anything else, it provides an infrastructure for having children and raising a family. Marriage symbolizes a commitment between two individuals to stay together for the rest of their lives, which can exist independently, but the real reason for it is children and traditional values.

I'm by no means a religious man. But I also think that taking the traditional definition of marriage and trying to pass it off as a mere discriminatory stereotype is a slap in the face to the religious institutions who, really, were the ones responsible for its creation. If there were no religion, there never would have been marriage. A civil union makes sense, because it is entirely secular in nature and confers upon them most of the important civil rights that they'd gain from marriage anyway. The institution was created as a framework for family, and homosexuals can't produce offspring. Yes, they can adopt, but so can heterosexuals, the marriage laws were never created within that context, so let's leave it out of this debate for the moment.

3. Equality
I'm disappointed that some of you are willing to play the equality card after hearing you debate the issue of "multiculturalism" so well. The fact is, homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals. This, of course, does not for a minute imply that they shouldn't be entitled to the same legal rights! However, I think we need to delve a little deeper into what this whole equality thing means, first...

Now, I'm not sure whether homosexuality is based on genes, upbringing, lifestyle, etc. It seems like the trend is to say that gays were just born that way, but we haven't found the "gay gene", there's no scientific evidence that these people are biologically different from the "straight." I don't care how politically incorrect it is to say this - we have to at least consider the possibility that homosexuality is, to some extent, a choice. There are lots of things that people are "stuck" with that they can technically change. People can work out and modify their diet to alter their bodies. They can, under the influence of drugs, hypnosis, or other mental techniques, alter their minds as well. Being gay could be a gift rather than a handicap for all I care, I'm not trying to represent homosexuality as "worse" than heterosexuality, but I do conjecture that there may be ways to alter that orientation if it was desired and a lot more study was done.

If we can find biological evidence that homosexuality is "pre-programmed" at birth, then that's fine, but so far, we haven't. And, if it's a choice of lifestyle, then it puts a completely different spin on this entire issue - I understand that people who are born different may have the same rights, but there is absolutely no sound reason in my mind why anybody who makes different lifestyle choices should be entitled to the same rights as someone else. It's like, if I wear baggy jeans, a heavy metal T-shirt, and 800 piercings to a job interview, they may be disgusted and not hire me - it was my choice to wear those clothes, I didn't have to, I can't protest that they made their decision based on my clothes.

I'm not trying to say that it is a lifestyle choice and not simply a genetic trait, I am just saying that I need a lot more proof to believe the latter, and as long as the latter remains unproven then we can't play this "equality" card.

An interesting thing would be to see if two homosexual men, for example, could adopt a 1-year-old boy and raise him to be "straight." If this could happen, then I would give serious weight to the whole genetic theory - on the other hand, if we see hundreds of gay couples raise hundreds of gay kids, it would make me all the more skeptical about this.

4. Other Laws
I don't think anyone has considered this, but allowing for gay marriages would very likely wreak havoc on the legal system. I mean, half of our legal code would have to be rewritten. Even parts of the criminal code relating to sexual harassment, sexual abuse, etc. We're talking total and utter chaos. Now, I understand that this, by itself, is not a valid reason to reject any changes to the marriage laws, but it is something to consider along with all the other reasons.

5. Who performs the ceremony?
Keep in mind that the greater part of marriages are still performed as religious ceremonies. The idea of legal gay marriages raises many questions and I wonder how it would affect the constitutional right to freedom of religion:
- Can a Pastor/Rabbi/other spiritual leader be forced to marry a gay couple? And if so, how has their freedom of religion been preserved?
- Will there be legal recourse for the ones who do choose to marry one or more gay couples and are excommunicated because of it?
- Further to this, can any marital authority be forced to marry a gay couple if it is against his/her religion? (This is assuming that the marriage is secular, but that the one asked to perform it has religious objections.)

I wonder how we resolve these issues...


Anyway, I'm against gay marriages as it stands. I'm also tired of hearing gays say that they are persecuted everywhere and mocked by society - can we see some evidence of this? If I can be disgusted by scat porn, why can't I be disgusted by homosexuality? Aren't they both sexual orientations?

Just some food for thought. I think, if we are going to allow gay marriages, then some more scientific and sociological study needs to be done before jumping to any conclusions.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Silly to talk about what's natural or moral, since that differs from person to person. However, let's use some common sense and objectivism here. I have a few questions that have never been satisfactorily answered. 1. What do they really want? The first thing I have to do is question their reasons for wishing to be married. I am aware of the fact that marriage comes with many legal benefits, but out of all (over 30) pro-Gay-marriage people I've spoken to (including a few who were actually gay), only a select few could actually identify what specific benefits they were after which aren't already provided by a civil union. Besides which, out of those 1500-odd benefits, several wouldn't be relevant to gay couples anyway. So I'm forced to ask the question, what are they after, really? I don't want to make assumptions, but it seems that only a few people actually understand the rights they are fighting for. If, by some off-chance, the activists are staging this legal protesting in order to make a public statement - which, frankly, wouldn't come as a massive shock to me considering the pride parades and everything - then this is an abuse of our legal system and not fair to the rest of us. A few gay people I've talked to about this seem to view the legalization of gay marriages as a kind of validation of their lifestyle, and while I'm not trying to say that their lifestyle isn't valid, I don't think this is an appropriate way to pursue that goal. They already have plenty of avenues in which to seek this.

To be treated like an ordinary person. To have the same rights as every average Joe. To not be scorned, ridiculed, and treated unjustly simply for whom they are attracted to.

quote:

2. Why get married? Now, this was mentioned briefly by Tito. Let me start by saying that marriage is a religious institution - yes, I understand that it's been secularized and written into the country's legal code, but I don't think it's fair for us to completely ignore what marriage is and why we have it. We used to have a lot of religious people in power - we still do. Most religions consider marriage to be something very righteous and important. More than anything else, it provides an infrastructure for having children and raising a family. Marriage symbolizes a commitment between two individuals to stay together for the rest of their lives, which can exist independently, but the real reason for it is children and traditional values. I'm by no means a religious man. But I also think that taking the traditional definition of marriage and trying to pass it off as a mere discriminatory stereotype is a slap in the face to the religious institutions who, really, were the ones responsible for its creation. If there were no religion, there never would have been marriage. A civil union makes sense, because it is entirely secular in nature and confers upon them most of the important civil rights that they'd gain from marriage anyway. The institution was created as a framework for family, and homosexuals can't produce offspring. Yes, they can adopt, but so can heterosexuals, the marriage laws were never created within that context, so let's leave it out of this debate for the moment.

So I suppose that means you are against religious gays too? There are very many gays who follows their faiths and want to be united under the eyes and hands of God, just as any couple should have the opportunity to if they truly love each other, so should a gay.

Civil Union provides them with 15 rights compared to 1500. Are you telling me that you would settle for 15?

quote:

3. Equality I'm disappointed that some of you are willing to play the equality card after hearing you debate the issue of "multiculturalism" so well. The fact is, homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals. This, of course, does not for a minute imply that they shouldn't be entitled to the same legal rights! However, I think we need to delve a little deeper into what this whole equality thing means, first... Now, I'm not sure whether homosexuality is based on genes, upbringing, lifestyle, etc. It seems like the trend is to say that gays were just born that way, but we haven't found the "gay gene", there's no scientific evidence that these people are biologically different from the "straight." I don't care how politically incorrect it is to say this - we have to at least consider the possibility that homosexuality is, to some extent, a choice. There are lots of things that people are "stuck" with that they can technically change. People can work out and modify their diet to alter their bodies. They can, under the influence of drugs, hypnosis, or other mental techniques, alter their minds as well. Being gay could be a gift rather than a handicap for all I care, I'm not trying to represent homosexuality as "worse" than heterosexuality, but I do conjecture that there may be ways to alter that orientation if it was desired and a lot more study was done. If we can find biological evidence that homosexuality is "pre-programmed" at birth, then that's fine, but so far, we haven't. And, if it's a choice of lifestyle, then it puts a completely different spin on this entire issue - I understand that people who are born different may have the same rights, but there is absolutely no sound reason in my mind why anybody who makes different lifestyle choices should be entitled to the same rights as someone else. It's like, if I wear baggy jeans, a heavy metal T-shirt, and 800 piercings to a job interview, they may be disgusted and not hire me - it was my choice to wear those clothes, I didn't have to, I can't protest that they made their decision based on my clothes. I'm not trying to say that it is a lifestyle choice and not simply a genetic trait, I am just saying that I need a lot more proof to believe the latter, and as long as the latter remains unproven then we can't play this "equality" card. An interesting thing would be to see if two homosexual men, for example, could adopt a 1-year-old boy and raise him to be "straight." If this could happen, then I would give serious weight to the whole genetic theory - on the other hand, if we see hundreds of gay couples raise hundreds of gay kids, it would make me all the more skeptical about this.

Yes, there is an issue dealing with equality.

You're example of the clothes is good, but not good enough. A person can choose what clothes to where. He/She cannot choose who they are attracted to or what sex. To make laws prohibiting them from living the lifestyle that is entitled to them, is unjust, and unequal, and is one of the largest acts of discrimination seen in civil and supreme courts.

We aren't playing the equality card. We are trying to make you understand that it is not possible to pick and choose who you are attracted to, and in not being given an equal opportunity at life, that is therefor, UNEQUAL.

quote:

4. Other Laws I don't think anyone has considered this, but allowing for gay marriages would very likely wreak havoc on the legal system. I mean, half of our legal code would have to be rewritten. Even parts of the criminal code relating to sexual harassment, sexual abuse, etc. We're talking total and utter chaos. Now, I understand that this, by itself, is not a valid reason to reject any changes to the marriage laws, but it is something to consider along with all the other reasons.

That's right, because they aren't normal people right? They don't deserve to be protected.

Do you not see your bias and generalization? I think it's fairly obvious to everyone else.

quote:

5. Who performs the ceremony? Keep in mind that the greater part of marriages are still performed as religious ceremonies. The idea of legal gay marriages raises many questions and I wonder how it would affect the constitutional right to freedom of religion: - Can a Pastor/Rabbi/other spiritual leader be forced to marry a gay couple? And if so, how has their freedom of religion been preserved? - Will there be legal recourse for the ones who do choose to marry one or more gay couples and are excommunicated because of it? - Further to this, can any marital authority be forced to marry a gay couple if it is against his/her religion? (This is assuming that the marriage is secular, but that the one asked to perform it has religious objections.)

Once again, so what happens when gays are religious? They should be denied the rights of every other individual simply because of who they are attracted to? I hope you are beginning to see you aren't making too much sense.

quote:

I wonder how we resolve these issues...

By giving gays the rights they are entitled to as human beings and citizens of the United States.

quote:

Anyway, I'm against gay marriages as it stands. I'm also tired of hearing gays say that they are persecuted everywhere and mocked by society - can we see some evidence of this? If I can be disgusted by scat porn, why can't I be disgusted by homosexuality? Aren't they both sexual orientations?

Where is there not evidence? Do you not see the deaths of gays simply because they are gay on television everywhere? Do you not see the hate crimes?

Once again, you can choose to be in porn, watch it, etc. You cannot choose who you are attracted to.

quote:

Just some food for thought. I think, if we are going to allow gay marriages, then some more scientific and sociological study needs to be done before jumping to any conclusions.

I think, you need to become more open-minded.

Some questions for you:

1.What are you so afraid of?

Has homophobia really gotten to the point where will allow discrimination to take place and refuse to give the rights entitled to each and every American citizen by law? Or have you all become so terrified of the thought that homosexuals are real, that comprehending that marraiges should be entitled to them drives you insane? This isn't about disgusting you, or trying to flaunt.

This is about the rights. It was the same for women, blacks, Native Americans, and everyone else. We are all entitled to the same rights. It doesn't matter who you are attracted to.

2.Has there been any physical evidence backing the claims that a homosexual couple adopting a child resulted in psychological problems?

No. There hasn't. And the mother/father role mentioned earlier is so overplayed. What happens when the father is a computer geek who never plays sports? Does that make him any less fit to be a father? No. So what's the difference on who you are attracted to?

In not facing your own fears, you are letting children live in unsatisfactory homes without love and support. Homosexuals can provide a home, but you are all too scared to admit there is a possibility of it working.

3. Would you honestly prefer 15 rights to 1500?

No, you wouldn't. You would bitch and complain until you got each and every right that you should have. But it's different for them right? Because they're gay. They are attracted to the same sex, so let's take away their rights.

4. What is honestly *so* bad about homosexuals that you can't handle it?

That's something I've always wanted to know. What is so bad about homosexuals that the thought of them being on the same plane as you with the same opportunties just makes you shudder and want to cry in your bed at night?

___________________
aka Tits McGee
aka Chesty LaRue
aka Busty St. Claire

What an inflammatory post. This is one of the exact reasons why I'm so against it.

Automatic [false] reaction: Anyone against gay marriages must also be against gays. I'm not fond of this straw-man argument, when people try to take all my words and make it look like I'm "gay-bashing."

quote:

Originally posted by anuneventrade To be treated like an ordinary person. To have the same rights as every average Joe. To not be scorned, ridiculed, and treated unjustly simply for whom they are attracted to.

Yes, they're hated, just like every other minority group, right? Please show proof. In actual fact, if you do some research, you will most likely find that homosexuals are favoured because of "anti-discrimination" policies.

quote:

So I suppose that means you are against religious gays too? There are very many gays who follows their faiths and want to be united under the eyes and hands of God, just as any couple should have the opportunity to if they truly love each other, so should a gay.

The religion prohibits homosexuality. I don't see where your analysis of this is coming from. If you truly believe in a religion, you can't just change the rules to suit your personal tastes. I'm not saying that these people are bad people, I'm not against religious Gays, but they have to respect the rules of their religion.

quote:

Civil Union provides them with 15 rights compared to 1500. Are you telling me that you would settle for 15?

It might be of some help if you could elaborate on what these are. I'm not expecting for you to list all 1500, but if you could give me the gist of what's "missing", and why you think they should be entitled to it, that would give some substance to this argument. The numbers don't impress me.

quote:

You're example of the clothes is good, but not good enough. A person can choose what clothes to where. He/She cannot choose who they are attracted to or what sex.

You seem to have completely missed the point of the argument, which was directly entirely at saying that there is no proof that such a choice does not exist.

quote:

To make laws prohibiting them from living the lifestyle that is entitled to them, is unjust, and unequal, and is one of the largest acts of discrimination seen in civil and supreme courts.

No laws have prohibited them from anything. It's just that no laws have granted them special rights. People under 16 don't have the right to get married either. Really, marriage is not a legal "right" that applies to every single person. What they're asking for is not equal rights, it's special treatment, to be exempt from all the laws that normally apply to a marriage so they can still gain all the legal benefits.

quote:

We aren't playing the equality card. We are trying to make you understand that it is not possible to pick and choose who you are attracted to, and in not being given an equal opportunity at life, that is therefor, UNEQUAL.

Again, this may be true, but really, it has never been conclusively proven.

quote:

That's right, because they aren't normal people right? They don't deserve to be protected.

Gross misrepresentation of original statements.

quote:

Do you not see your bias and generalization? I think it's fairly obvious to everyone else.

Actually, no, I don't. You are telling me to accept certain tenets without proof, and I am refusing to do it. Show me information on the genetic code that determines sexual orientation, and I'll believe you.

quote:

Once again, so what happens when gays are religious? They should be denied the rights of every other individual simply because of who they are attracted to? I hope you are beginning to see you aren't making too much sense.

Telling me I'm making no sense doesn't actually mean I'm making no sense. The religion prohibits homosexual unions. Again, that's their religion, it's not about legal rights, the religion prohibits it, they can't change that.

quote:

By giving gays the rights they are entitled to as human beings and citizens of the United States.

Ah, everybody's entitled to everything nowadays. Society has us believing that as soon as we see someone else with something, we automatically have the "right" to have it too. Why not just do away with the legal system altogether and let everybody do anything they want?

quote:

Where is there not evidence? Do you not see the deaths of gays simply because they are gay on television everywhere? Do you not see the hate crimes?

I see hate crimes against Jews and Blacks too, but nobody complains about those anymore.

quote:

Once again, you can choose to be in porn, watch it, etc. You cannot choose who you are attracted to.

Yes, you've repeated that several times now. Still not sure if I'm believing it.

quote:

I think, you need to become more open-minded.

I think you need to question the things people tell you and stop believing without any evidence.

quote:

Some questions for you: 1.What are you so afraid of? Has homophobia really gotten to the point where will allow discrimination to take place and refuse to give the rights entitled to each and every American citizen by law? Or have you all become so terrified of the thought that homosexuals are real, that comprehending that marraiges should be entitled to them drives you insane? This isn't about disgusting you, or trying to flaunt.

Once again, as soon as I'm against gay marriages, it makes me homophobic. Sorry, but this argument doesn't fly. We are basing this on a claim that they have the "right" to get married, but gays are not the only group of people in society who can't legally get married.

quote:

This is about the rights. It was the same for women, blacks, Native Americans, and everyone else. We are all entitled to the same rights. It doesn't matter who you are attracted to.

There were never any laws excluding women, blacks, Native Americans, and everybody else from getting married. Let's stay on topic here.

quote:

2.Has there been any physical evidence backing the claims that a homosexual couple adopting a child resulted in psychological problems?

No, but there isn't any evidence to the contrary either. That's why I said that there should be studies done, rather than assuming without any evidence that everything will be hunky dory. Does nobody believe in the process of study and observation anymore?

quote:

No. There hasn't. And the mother/father role mentioned earlier is so overplayed. What happens when the father is a computer geek who never plays sports? Does that make him any less fit to be a father? No. So what's the difference on who you are attracted to?

Bad parents are a reality, but that doesn't mean we should just give up and say, screw this whole family thing, it's "overplayed." We should still be attempting.

quote:

In not facing your own fears, you are letting children live in unsatisfactory homes without love and support. Homosexuals can provide a home, but you are all too scared to admit there is a possibility of it working.

Anyone else getting a little tired of hearing the word "scared?" What would I be afraid of?

quote:

3. Would you honestly prefer 15 rights to 1500? No, you wouldn't. You would bitch and complain until you got each and every right that you should have. But it's different for them right? Because they're gay. They are attracted to the same sex, so let's take away their rights.

As mentioned earlier:
a) Nothing was "taken away" from them - it was just not given in the first place.
b) More information on what these rights are and how they're important would help. As I said above, you as well as many other people don't seem to know what these rights are, so it sounds like maybe you're just looking for something to say.

quote:

4. What is honestly *so* bad about homosexuals that you can't handle it? That's something I've always wanted to know. What is so bad about homosexuals that the thought of them being on the same plane as you with the same opportunties just makes you shudder and want to cry in your bed at night?

I have no problem at all with homosexuals, and it was incredibly wrong of you to assume that in the first place. I just don't think that because John wants to fuck Jack, they should be allowed to get married. They can fuck all they want, I don't care, but that doesn't give them a legal right to marriage.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here