308 replies to this topic

[CRYSiiSx2]

I have the same opinion about this as I do about many things.  LEAVE PEOPLE ALONE.  You don't like the same sex?  Don't marry them.  Don't like what the internet has done socially?  Go outside.  You don't like the 2nd amendment?  Don't own a gun.  Everyone in the world just gets nosier and nosier, mind your business people!

[SpiritWriter]

I love how gay issues always get a lot of posts...

[SpiritWriter]

Mr Right Wing, on 23 January 2013 - 05:14 PM, said:

Its Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve!

Gotta love this quote! Or maybe it's the quote you love to hate...

[SpiritWriter]

Pope

Edited by SpiritWriter, 24 January 2013 - 05:51 AM.

[Frank Merton]

Professor Buzzkill, on 23 January 2013 - 07:28 PM, said:

I dont see what race has to do with it. My point being that men and women are different. Trying to equate a man and woman to two men or two woman is crazy. Nature has already made them unequal. No amount of semantics will change that.

You really don't want to see sense here, so I have to wonder why I try.  No one is saying that two men or two women is the same as a man and a woman, but you could as easily say a divorced man and a divorced woman are not the same as a never-married man and woman.  It is an utterly irrational approach that maybe you cling to out of some deeper compulsion, but that can only be my guess.

Quote

"I am married" no longer means what it did last year. Does that effect anyone who uses the term "I am married"?

So?  The word wouldn't mean the same even if gays didn't exist, as many other cultural changes are always changing the meaning of a word like marriage.  If the context doesn't make clear that your spouse is of the opposite sex, it is easy enough to provide the clarification.

Quote

So you can discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation?? I must tell the human rights commission!

I have no idea where you get this, but generally there are few laws nowadays that don't allow discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.  I think we need more such laws.

[Professor Buzzkill]

Frank Merton, on 24 January 2013 - 07:04 AM, said:

You really don't want to see sense here, so I have to wonder why I try.  No one is saying that two men or two women is the same as a man and a woman, but you could as easily say a divorced man and a divorced woman are not the same as a never-married man and woman.  It is an utterly irrational approach that maybe you cling to out of some deeper compulsion, but that can only be my guess.

I agree entirely. But what is the point of gay marriage? My sister is gay. She has every right to have a civil union, (just like i do) which gives you the same rights as marriage. Or she has every right (just like i do) to marry someone of the opposite sex. Where is the discrimination?

What is the point of changing the name from civil union to marriage? Semantics, that is all. As i have stated, gay couples are not equal to straight couples in the most important aspect; they cannot create a family. This is a fact of nature. I didn't make the rules that way, it is how we evolved. Also, marriage is outdated. We should not be promoting a religious ceremony as "normal" for future generations. If you are not religious (Like me) then why promote marriage at all? The arguement that marriage has to be ratified by the state/country does not mean that it did not start, nor continue to be, a religious sacrament. All the gay marriage debate is doing is creating tension between the religous and the homosexuals (of which i belong to neither group)

My stance is anti marriage, not anti gay. I have not and will not discriminate against gays, just as i have not and will not judge people on the colour of their skin.

Frank Merton, on 24 January 2013 - 07:04 AM, said:

So?  The word wouldn't mean the same even if gays didn't exist, as many other cultural changes are always changing the meaning of a word like marriage.  If the context doesn't make clear that your spouse is of the opposite sex, it is easy enough to provide the clarification.

It could result in some unintentional damage (albeit from bigots) in a few ways. Imagine, for example, inviting a married man to a church charity group. He turns up with his husband and gets ridiculed, creating a negitive situation for both the couple and the bigots.

Now we can say that the above situation shouldn't happen, but these unjustified feelings exist.

Frank Merton, on 24 January 2013 - 07:04 AM, said:

I have no idea where you get this, but generally there are few laws nowadays that don't allow discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.  I think we need more such laws.

Can you refer me to a law that discriminates based on sexual orientation?

[Liquid Gardens]

Professor Buzzkill, on 31 January 2013 - 12:20 AM, said:

As i have stated, gay couples are not equal to straight couples in the most important aspect; they cannot create a family. This is a fact of nature.

No it is not, it is Professor Buzzkill's subjective opinion.  It is not a fact of nature that the ability to reproduce is the most important aspect of coupling, nature and science have nothing to say at all regarding 'importance' with no relation to anything else.  I don't think that's how you meant it though, but you are even more wrong that it is a fact of nature that gay couples cannot create a family; you would have to essentially be blind to not have noticed that they already have for forever now.  Unless you don't consider step-relationships and the adopted to be allowable elements of 'a family'.

Quote

Also, marriage is outdated. We should not be promoting a religious ceremony as "normal" for future generations. If you are not religious (Like me) then why promote marriage at all? The arguement that marriage has to be ratified by the state/country does not mean that it did not start, nor continue to be, a religious sacrament.

Non-religious people getting married is not a religious sacrament; I'm sure you've heard of Las Vegas.  Legal marriage in the US carries with it, rightly or wrongly, a whole host of automatic benefits concerning your rights in relation to your spouse, such as hospital visitation rights, financial rights, rights with regards to children and property in the event of the death of a spouse, etc.  I've heard that it would take hundreds of individual contracts to be set up between two gay people who want the same automatic rights as hetero spouses receive simply by filing a marriage certificate.  I really think that at a minimum is why gays want the right to get married, and more than deserve it.  I'm sure they'd like to not have their relationships treated as some oddity or sinfulness also, but I think they'd like first things first, such as some very basic legal rights.

[Hasina]

Bummer for ladies and guys who are sterile, Buzzkill, they're equal to no one! Right?

Also, here's the Wiki page about laws based around sexual orientation: http://en.wikipedia....ry_or_territory

Edited by Hasina, 31 January 2013 - 01:02 AM.

[Odin11]

Professor Buzzkill, on 31 January 2013 - 12:20 AM, said:

I agree entirely. But what is the point of gay marriage? My sister is gay. She has every right to have a civil union, (just like i do) which gives you the same rights as marriage. Or she has every right (just like i do) to marry someone of the opposite sex. Where is the discrimination?

This weird perverted logic, that gays have the same rights because they can marry someone of the opposite sex, is one that I’ve started seeing more and more these pass couple of years. And I have to say that I’m disgusted by it and I find it quite sad really, that people think its good reasoning.

The discrimination is where your sister can't marry the one she loves. Tell your sister what you've said above and I'm sure she'll find it just as disgusting as I do.

Professor Buzzkill, on 31 January 2013 - 12:20 AM, said:

What is the point of changing the name from civil union to marriage? Semantics, that is all. As i have stated, gay couples are not equal to straight couples in the most important aspect; they cannot create a family. This is a fact of nature. I didn't make the rules that way, it is how we evolved.

Like Liquid Gardens said this is nothing but your opinion. Everyone’s entitled to their own opinion; but you’re not entitled to your own facts. My Aunt and Uncle could not have kids, so they adopted 2. Should they not have been allowed to get married? Are they not a real family?

Professor Buzzkill, on 31 January 2013 - 12:20 AM, said:

All the gay marriage debate is doing is creating tension between the religous and the homosexuals (of which i belong to neither group)

It could result in some unintentional damage (albeit from bigots) in a few ways. Imagine, for example, inviting a married man to a church charity group. He turns up with his husband and gets ridiculed, creating a negitive situation for both the couple and the bigots.

Now we can say that the above situation shouldn't happen, but these unjustified feelings exist

So gays can’t get married because it will make bigots unhappy? More twisted logic.

[Zaphod222]

I have no problem with gays living together and doing whatever they do. But I find it unacceptable that now children are being drawn into this by the PC agenda, with the claim that two men are the same as normal male/female parents. This is where it gets into the area of child abuse. PC social engineering should leave children out of its agenda.

[Liquid Gardens]

Zaphod222, on 01 February 2013 - 02:16 AM, said:

I have no problem with gays living together and doing whatever they do. But I find it unacceptable that now children are being drawn into this by the PC agenda, with the claim that two men are the same as normal male/female parents. This is where it gets into the area of child abuse. PC social engineering should leave children out of its agenda.

Hmmm, your arguments are certainly clearer on the Spirituality/Skepticism forum.  "Children are being draw into this by the PC agenda" ("this"?), 'child abuse'(!)', 'PC social engineering' (....); just those quotes would probably take entire separate threads of their own to unpack.

[Odin11]

Zaphod222, on 01 February 2013 - 02:16 AM, said:

This is where it gets into the area of child abuse.

How?
The many, many studies done show different. Here's a few:

A considerable body of research has examined the development of children of gays and lesbians, including physical and emotional health, intelligence, adjustment, sense of self, moral judgment, and social and sexual functioning, and has indicated no concerns. (AAP Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health, 2002; Mooney-Somers & Golombok, 2000; C. J. Patterson, 1997; Perrin and AAP Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health, 2002)

There is no consistent difference between homosexual and heterosexual parents in emotional health or parenting skills and attitudes (Perrin and AAP Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health, 2002)

Children of homosexuals are no more likely than children raised by heterosexual parents to have social or psychological problems (Chan, Raboy, & Patterson,1998; Mooney-Somers & Golombok, 2000; C. J. Patterson, 1997)

Edited by Odin11, 01 February 2013 - 03:50 AM.