Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Gay Marriage


  • Please log in to reply
1006 replies to this topic

#916    Dr. D

Dr. D

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,275 posts
  • Joined:15 Mar 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mexico

  • I love being me even though sometimes I'm still a stranger.

Posted 08 September 2012 - 03:20 AM

View PostTrueBeliever, on 08 September 2012 - 02:52 AM, said:

so you think the gays are being unreasonable to not just accept the next best thing of a civil union? what if they are also religious? and want the spiritual aspect of marriage? or this is shocking!! to be treated equal? imagine that! the audacity huh?

To be treated equal?  That’s an interesting viewpoint.  Equal to what?  The more feminine of the couple wants to be equal to a woman?  How far should that equality go?
And spirituality exists only in a church?  Is that the next step?  The civil union is not acceptable so neither will be a civil marriage?  The next demand will be that churches recognize gay marriage?


#917    TrueBeliever

TrueBeliever

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 578 posts
  • Joined:10 Jun 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:too cold here!

Posted 08 September 2012 - 03:24 AM

View PostDr. D, on 08 September 2012 - 03:20 AM, said:

To be treated equal?  That’s an interesting viewpoint.  Equal to what?  The more feminine of the couple wants to be equal to a woman?  How far should that equality go?
And spirituality exists only in a church?  Is that the next step?  The civil union is not acceptable so neither will be a civil marriage?  The next demand will be that churches recognize gay marriage?

maybe we shouldn't allow anything because you know that slippery slope........slide your ass right into hell and all kinds of trouble.


#918    Likely Guy

Likely Guy

    Undecided, mostly.

  • Member
  • 6,044 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Likely, Canada

  • I might have been born yesterday
    but, I stayed up all night.

Posted 08 September 2012 - 03:25 AM

View PostDr. D, on 08 September 2012 - 02:59 AM, said:

Why do you think that sections of Harlem have “neighborhood probation” programs?  Because crime rates became disproportionate to the population of the region.

Why do you think police departments create neighborhood watch programs for certain sections of cities?  Because of disproportionate problems.

Hundreds of studies are taking place today because of the disproportionate number of blacks in prisons.

Sure, without a doubt violence within white hetreosexual families is being 'proportinately' addressed. Maybe some time, a 'disproportinate'  amount of money will be spent. You know what I mean.Society has always recognized any problem that is disproportionate to the population where it occurs.  The Mayo Clinic has a special program dedicated to sickle cell anemia that is found in a disproportionate rate among blacks.

But the disproportionate violence among gay couples is to be ignored because violence also exists in heterosexual families.  We are to cure it with a “positive attitude.”  But nowhere have I said that domestic violence in straight families should not be addressed.  The fact is that it is being addressed.  In South Carolina alone, the number of organizations combating the problem is impressive; SCCADVASA, Laurens County Safe Home, Citizens Opposed to Domestic Abuse, Cumbee Center to Assist Abused Persons, Hope Haven of the Lowcountry, My Sister's House, Safe Harbor, CASA/Family Systems, Barnwell County Help Line, SAFE Homes, Rape Crisis Coalition, Safe Passage, Inc., Pee Dee Coalition, MEG's House, YWCA of the Upper Lowlands, Inc., Sistercare, Inc., Citizens Opposed to Domestic Abuse, Citizens Against Spouse Abuse, Laurens County Safe Home.

Thousands of organizations across the world are dealing with this problem, but the fact remains that domestic abuse in gay relationships is five times greater per capita and the response is much like yours, to ignore it and justify it by comparing it to others.

That's a nice 'blanket post' by the way, baffle them with lists, it doesn't make your point more substantive. You're also confusing some of my points with TrueBeliever's it seems. Maybe you should sort that out.

You did say though, "But the disproportionate violence among gay couples is to be ignored because violence also exists in heterosexual families?" I didn't say that. You did. Maybe you mean that amongst gay couples, there's a disproportinate amount of violence.

That may be true, I don't know, but remember the point of this thread is GAY MARRIAGE (and maybe a family).

Why that distinction is beyond you, I don't know.

/on second thought, maybe we're both right. maybe society should start spending a proportinate amounmt of time and energy to address a disproportinate amount of violence within a 'subset' of humanity. Good Idea!

Edited by Likely Guy, 08 September 2012 - 03:36 AM.


#919    Dr. D

Dr. D

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,275 posts
  • Joined:15 Mar 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mexico

  • I love being me even though sometimes I'm still a stranger.

Posted 08 September 2012 - 03:28 AM

View PostTaylor Reints, on 08 September 2012 - 02:47 AM, said:

From the article: "Given the context of coercion, however, such technically homosexual acts seem to imply no homosexuality on the part of the offenders." This is supported by Harry, 1992.

The article, again by the favorite of the gays, the arch-gay Gregory Herek who I dealt with earlier, and deals with gay bashing, not pedophilic acts.


#920    TrueBeliever

TrueBeliever

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 578 posts
  • Joined:10 Jun 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:too cold here!

Posted 08 September 2012 - 03:29 AM

View PostDr. D, on 08 September 2012 - 03:20 AM, said:

To be treated equal?  That’s an interesting viewpoint.  Equal to what?  The more feminine of the couple wants to be equal to a woman?  How far should that equality go?
And spirituality exists only in a church?  Is that the next step?  The civil union is not acceptable so neither will be a civil marriage?  The next demand will be that churches recognize gay marriage?

marriage is a union of two human beings who love each other, well may be a gold digger situation, but you know what I mean, 'traditionally' speaking lol...anyways.....why deny marriage based on the genders involved? of course it creates different situations, problems, probabilities...as does EVERYTHING...you deal with it...the issue is why deny the marriage based on there being a problem because of gender when there are bucketloads of problems with man/woman marriage? to deny a right of two humans who love each other to have a union equal to any two other humans seems silly and petty to me. problems exist. deal with them but dont deny a right because of it....that is absurd and impractical


#921    Kazoo

Kazoo

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Joined:26 Jul 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Where the old one sleeps.

  • “What a treacherous thing to believe that a person is more than a person.”

Posted 08 September 2012 - 03:35 AM

Gays are more likely to do bad things. Therefore we should not allow them to have kids?

  Is this the point D is trying to make?


View PostDr. D, on 08 September 2012 - 03:16 AM, said:

Oh, so gay marriage is now a grand discovery of humanity?  Like the earth not being the center of the universe.

Who has called gays “inferior?”  Or is that just an assumption to be used as an accusation?

I agree that gays should not be denied rights.  They aren’t.  They cannot be denied the right to rent a dwelling.  They have the right to cohabitate with a partner.  They have the right to vote.  They have the right to work with all the labor protections of any other citizen.  They are entitled to every social benefit given to anyone else.  They are not denied any government program at any level.  But now to even consider if two men marrying each other is an acceptable legal process falls into the realm of bigotry.

We do not permit people to terminate their own lives when afflicted with a terminal illness.  We determine as a society that they do not have that right.  Imagine, your life is yours.  It’s your exclusive possession and yet you do not have the RIGHT to end it.  Why?  Because decisions of such magnitude require time, analysis, debate, consideration, an evaluation of the consequences, etc.

But with gay marriage, no!  It is automatically a right that should be given now by all people across the world.  Well, that’s not going to happen and it has nothing to do with bigotry.  It has a lot to do with consideration and exploration of what such a freedom (not a right) would eventually bring.
Call it bigotry if you like, but that’s how things work.  Victims of Parkinson were not given the right to use experimental treatments and stem cell research was denied as they pleaded for their right to find a cure.

Blacks were freed in 1865 but not really.  They had a voting tax to prevent them from voting.  They were excluded from establishments frequented by whites and if permitted, they had separate drinking fountains and restrooms.  They could not attend public schools and were excluded from many churches.  Their eventual freedom came through a process that was long and agonizing.  Why?  Because that’s how it’s done.  Gays don’t realize that or don’t want to.  They live with the illusion that a right is immediate and obvious to all.  Well, it’s neither.  They will wait their turn and see if they get to the front of the line.

I don't understand. We are suppose to take away the rights of gay people because they are more likely to do bad things?

I see people spewing facts. I don't see any solutions or ideas or opinions.

Edited by Kazoo, 08 September 2012 - 03:35 AM.

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." - H.L. Mencken

#922    Dr. D

Dr. D

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,275 posts
  • Joined:15 Mar 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mexico

  • I love being me even though sometimes I'm still a stranger.

Posted 08 September 2012 - 03:36 AM

View PostLikely Guy, on 08 September 2012 - 03:25 AM, said:

That's a nice 'blanket post' by the way, baffle them with lists, it doesn't make your point more substantive. You're also confusing some of my points with TrueBeliever's it seems. Maybe you should sort that out.

You did say though, "But the disproportionate violence among gay couples is to be ignored because violence also exists in heterosexual families?" I didn't say that. You did. Maybe you mean that amongst gay couples, there's a disproportinate amount of violence.

That may be true, I don't know, but remember the point of this thread is GAY MARRIAGE (and maybe a family).

Why that distinction is beyond you, I don't know.

/on second thought, maybe we're both right. maybe society should start spending a proportinate amounmt of time and energy to address a disproportinate amount of violence within a 'subset' of humanity. Good Idea!

Sorry, but you did, indeed, say that.  Quote: “So, if a minute minority create a disproporniate amount of violence, that should be stamped out, immediately. But 'proportionate' (straight white heterosexual families) violence is okay, or it isn't important enough to deal with right now?”

Certainly the theme is gay marriage.  So we should treat the forum just like we do the issue itself and restrict ourselves and not explore the influences and consequences?  That’s what I would expect because that’s how gay activists do their research.

View PostKazoo, on 08 September 2012 - 03:35 AM, said:

Gays are more likely to do bad things. Therefore we should not allow them to have kids?

  Is this the point D is trying to make?




I don't understand. We are suppose to take away the rights of gay people because they are more likely to do bad things?

I see people spewing facts. I don't see any solutions or ideas or opinions.

Who has taken a single right from gay people?


#923    Kazoo

Kazoo

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Joined:26 Jul 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Where the old one sleeps.

  • “What a treacherous thing to believe that a person is more than a person.”

Posted 08 September 2012 - 03:37 AM

View PostDr. D, on 08 September 2012 - 03:36 AM, said:

Who has taken a single right from gay people?

I never said anyone took away rights from them. I'm trying to get a stance from you. Your just saying facts that I don't really have a need for without an over arching opinion.

Edited by Kazoo, 08 September 2012 - 03:38 AM.

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." - H.L. Mencken

#924    Supersquatch

Supersquatch

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 486 posts
  • Joined:30 Jul 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Earth, Milky Way, Local Group

  • Supersquatch powers, activate!

Posted 08 September 2012 - 03:41 AM

View PostDr. D, on 08 September 2012 - 03:36 AM, said:

Who has taken a single right from gay people?

Why can't they marry?

Posted Image

#925    Likely Guy

Likely Guy

    Undecided, mostly.

  • Member
  • 6,044 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Likely, Canada

  • I might have been born yesterday
    but, I stayed up all night.

Posted 08 September 2012 - 03:41 AM

View PostKazoo, on 08 September 2012 - 03:35 AM, said:

Gays are more likely to do bad things. Therefore we should not allow them to have kids?

  Is this the point D is trying to make?




I don't understand. We are suppose to take away the rights of gay people because they are more likely to do bad things?

I see people spewing facts. I don't see any solutions or ideas or opinions.
Very astute and to the point! But there are many opinions on the matter.


#926    Dr. D

Dr. D

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,275 posts
  • Joined:15 Mar 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mexico

  • I love being me even though sometimes I'm still a stranger.

Posted 08 September 2012 - 03:43 AM

View PostKazoo, on 08 September 2012 - 03:37 AM, said:

I never said anyone took away rights from them. I'm trying to get a stance from you. Your just saying facts that I don't really have a need for without an over arching opinion.

I'm sorry but you did.  You posted, "We are suppose to take away the rights of gay people . . . ."

I will repost my stance . . . .

I agree that gays should not be denied rights. They aren’t. They cannot be denied the right to rent a dwelling. They have the right to cohabitate with a partner. They have the right to vote. They have the right to work with all the labor protections of any other citizen. They are entitled to every social benefit given to anyone else. They are not denied any government program at any level. But now to even consider if two men marrying each other is an acceptable legal process falls into the realm of bigotry.

We do not permit people to terminate their own lives when afflicted with a terminal illness. We determine as a society that they do not have that right. Imagine, your life is yours. It’s your exclusive possession and yet you do not have the RIGHT to end it. Why? Because decisions of such magnitude require time, analysis, debate, consideration, an evaluation of the consequences, etc.

But with gay marriage, It is automatically a right that should be given now by all people across the world. Well, that’s not going to happen and it has nothing to do with bigotry. It has a lot to do with consideration and exploration of what such a freedom (not a right) would eventually bring.

Call it bigotry if you like, but that’s how things work. Victims of Parkinson were not given the right to use experimental treatments and stem cell research was denied as they pleaded for their right to find a cure.

Blacks were freed in 1865 but not really. They had a voting tax to prevent them from voting. They were excluded from establishments frequented by whites and if permitted, they had separate drinking fountains and restrooms. They could not attend public schools and were excluded from many churches. Their eventual freedom came through a process that was long and agonizing. Why? Because that’s how it’s done. Gays don’t realize that or don’t want to. They live with the illusion that a right is immediate and obvious to all. Well, it’s neither. They will wait their turn and see if they get to the front of the line.


#927    Likely Guy

Likely Guy

    Undecided, mostly.

  • Member
  • 6,044 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Likely, Canada

  • I might have been born yesterday
    but, I stayed up all night.

Posted 08 September 2012 - 03:47 AM

View PostDr. D, on 08 September 2012 - 03:36 AM, said:

Sorry, but you did, indeed, say that.  Quote: “So, if a minute minority create a disproporniate amount of violence, that should be stamped out, immediately. But 'proportionate' (straight white heterosexual families) violence is okay, or it isn't important enough to deal with right now?”

Yes, I did say that, but I took it from what you implied on an earlier point. Rhetorical really, because I thought you might take in context. But there was an influx of posts at the time.But yes the question still holds. Do you mean to say that, "So, if a minute minority create a disproporniate amount of violence, that should be stamped out, immediately. But 'proportionate' (straight white heterosexual families) violence is okay, or it isn't important enough to deal with right now?"


#928    Kazoo

Kazoo

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Joined:26 Jul 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Where the old one sleeps.

  • “What a treacherous thing to believe that a person is more than a person.”

Posted 08 September 2012 - 03:48 AM

Quote

I'm sorry but you did.  You posted, "We are suppose to take away the rights of gay people . . . ."

You left out the question mark. Those are important.

Quote

I will repost my stance . . . .

I agree that gays should not be denied rights. They aren’t. They cannot be denied the right to rent a dwelling. They have the right to cohabitate with a partner. They have the right to vote. They have the right to work with all the labor protections of any other citizen. They are entitled to every social benefit given to anyone else. They are not denied any government program at any level. But now to even consider if two men marrying each other is an acceptable legal process falls into the realm of bigotry.

We do not permit people to terminate their own lives when afflicted with a terminal illness. We determine as a society that they do not have that right. Imagine, your life is yours. It’s your exclusive possession and yet you do not have the RIGHT to end it. Why? Because decisions of such magnitude require time, analysis, debate, consideration, an evaluation of the consequences, etc.

But with gay marriage, It is automatically a right that should be given now by all people across the world. Well, that’s not going to happen and it has nothing to do with bigotry. It has a lot to do with consideration and exploration of what such a freedom (not a right) would eventually bring.

Call it bigotry if you like, but that’s how things work. Victims of Parkinson were not given the right to use experimental treatments and stem cell research was denied as they pleaded for their right to find a cure.

Blacks were freed in 1865 but not really. They had a voting tax to prevent them from voting. They were excluded from establishments frequented by whites and if permitted, they had separate drinking fountains and restrooms. They could not attend public schools and were excluded from many churches. Their eventual freedom came through a process that was long and agonizing. Why? Because that’s how it’s done. Gays don’t realize that or don’t want to. They live with the illusion that a right is immediate and obvious to all. Well, it’s neither. They will wait their turn and see if they get to the front of the line.

You are comparing give two people the legal benefits of marriage to slavery and doctor assisted suicide. Does that not seem silly to you?

The best argument people made for something like this happening is gay marriage leading to allowing people to get married to ducks and box turtles.

Edited by Kazoo, 08 September 2012 - 03:49 AM.

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." - H.L. Mencken

#929    notoverrated

notoverrated

    O.O

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,244 posts
  • Joined:18 Jul 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kansas

  • courage > scooby

Posted 08 September 2012 - 03:49 AM

just let them get married so we can move on to more important things.

If your not after beauty, then why are you even drawing breath?

#930    Dr. D

Dr. D

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,275 posts
  • Joined:15 Mar 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mexico

  • I love being me even though sometimes I'm still a stranger.

Posted 08 September 2012 - 03:49 AM

View PostTaylor Reints, on 08 September 2012 - 03:41 AM, said:

Why can't they marry?

Again, an action requiring the authorization of law does not become a right until it is legislated as a right.  Marriage as known to heterosexuals was enacted in 1228 as a part of British law.

We do not have rights to breahe, have a pulse or think, those are physical functions necessary to life.  Rights are not simply rights because someone declares them to be.  I have the right to be a millionarie because there are many millionaires?  Who will give me my money?

We are throwing the concept of human rights around here like it is an absolute fact when it is not.

In answer to your question, they cannot marry in many places because the law forbids it.  Will that change?  Who knows.  The British court ruled that gay marriage is not a right.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users