Gay Marriage (touchy subject, keep it nice)

I believe if you love someone then it matters not whether they are the same sex or female. Love is love after all. Society today is better than the past decades have been. But there is still that prejudice that religious level that seems to still linger in peoples opinions. Once you’ve past that age of 16 your capable of choosing who to fall in love with.

Been Gay isn’t illegal so gay marriage should be acceptable to everyone and everywhere regardless of religion and those who are prejudice.

You can’t help who you fall in love with and wish to share your lives with so why should people even have the right to decide about gay marriage been acceptable or not. Just because two males or two females love each other enough to have a relationship doesn’t make them any different or change their personality anymore than it would a heterosexual couple.

You love who you , love because its who you are.

And in my opinion no one has the right to prevent gay marriage or even oppose it whether religion dictates this or that of a county/country or someone who is prejudice or not thinks otherwise.

Gay or heterosexual it matters not if you love the person you love I see no wrong in that whether same sex or not.

 

While I don't agree that it should be "acceptable to everyone and everywhere regardless" (we're still entitled to our prejudices, are we not? as Scatterbrain said), I feel that regardless of their prejudices there should be a level of civility and tolerance when it comes to these matters.

 

"Can you be sued for saying so?"

Maybe after you get out of hospital. Definitions won't prevent people from taking offence. A question I'd like answered, in relation to this debate - Where does prejudice come from? If it was 'written' 2000 years ago that homosexuality is an abomination, why, today, 2000 years later, do people still believe it to be the case? Haven't we evolved enough, from our darkest experiences through the millennia, to have copped onto the fact that prejudice breeds nothing but prejudice? I have no religion, but aren't compassion and tolerance central tenets of Christian belief? What is it - Love thy neighbour, but not if he's gay?

 

I completely disagree with you 100%

What gives any of us the right to judge. A person will fall in love with whom they have the right to.

Not one living person has the right to take that feeling away.

One of the best friends I've ever known is in love with a fellow woman and she is a great person with a great personality and the pair of them love each other greatly.

So I repeat myself. Not one person alive has the right to take anothers feelings of love away just because they are prejudice or religious.

 

My parents have been in internment camps. I understand prejudice as much as anybody else whose suffered.

The same rights that allow you to say, " You shouldn't judge people?"

I'm not saying that people should be prejudiced, which I think you are saying I am. I'm saying, you can't force somone not to say or think something regardless of their beliefs. I personally feel that would be taking a step backward.

edit: sorry cheeno, I didn't read your post thoroughly the first time. I get your point now.

 

Thats true enough we cannot tell anyone what they should be thinking privately. But that said to enforce those beleifs well I see that as a different thing altogether.

 

Prejudice just comes from people being unwilling to deal with other people. I like to call it being inconsiderate .

Just because your supposed to be tolerant and compassionate doesn't mean you have to like it. I'm was tolerant of my room mate last year but darn if he didn't get on my nerves when he came back to the room drunker than hell every night and I had to deal with it because he couldn't even get into his bed (The hangovers each morning weren't fun either). I'll be darned if I wasn't one of the most tolerant roommates who ever lived (sarcasm).

Honestly I don't care if same-sex couples get married. Go ahead it really has no effect on me and what I do (it's God's universe he can sort the mess out). I'm more interested in what justifies ignoring another groups beliefs because they disagree with it.

For a second I thought you meant the foot cream as part of some metaphor XD.

I heard of a guy who sued a woman for having a non-regulation stair case that was too steep. He won the case, even though he broke into her house to rob it, slipped and fell down the stairs and broke his leg. Nothing surprises me when it comes to lawsuits.

 

No.

Well, okay. You could sue for "emotional damages" caused by the anguish and despair caused by the words. (Weirder things have happened, and frivolous lawsuits are entertainment for a certain segment of the population.)

However, you CAN'T sue them just for being racist assholes.

 

There has been a lot of talk kicking around about discrimination and reverse discrimination. There has also been a lot of talk about semantics. Just proof of the power of words. The Proposition is California that will soon either pas or fail is about legal marriage. Some people say that marriage is strickly religious. In this country, that is already not the case. We have men and women who go before a justice of the peace and sign some papers and are legally wed. For those us who marry in a church, it is not legally binding until said paperwork is filled out whetehr or not the union is sanctified by that church. Marriage is a legal issue whether is originally was, whetehr it should be, whatever. It is. I can marry whomever I want, inside a church, outside a church, in Vegas, in the courthouse. I can recieve benefits, insurance, tax breaks, inheritance rights, and the right to make medical decision for my partner should illness or injury render my partner unable to make desicions. I can do this because the law recognizes my marriage. Not because the church does. It is unfair to deny these legal rights and benefits to others simply because they can't be married in the church. That shouldn't stop them from getting married in the courthouse, or their backyard or anywhere else they want. They should get the same rights for making the same commitment. This doesn't take anything away from the sacrament of marriage in a church. We are talking about expanding the legal definition of marriage not taking anything away from the religious definition. The two share a word, but not a definition. I don't care about the history of the word or the origins of the institution. What it comes down to for me is that we have citizens of our country who are being denied the same rights as others. That is a civil rights issue. It is up to the government whether on a state of federal level to make sure that all of its citizens are treated equally. That is not happening until we get the same right and the same title for our unions. I am a Christian. I work in the churhc office. I sing the choir. I read the scripture during service. I am a communion steward. I support gay marriage because it is the right thing, the humane thing, the ethical thing.

If I may be indulged to quote the Bible,"But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God (Romans 14:10)."

Treat your bothers and sisters with respect and kindness in this life. If there is a judgment to be made, it isn't up to us to make it. At least, that is what I try to do.

 

California doesn't deny legal rights because people can't be married in the church ( I don't think "where" you choose to marry matters), but does deny certain benefits (like taxes or financial aid for children of homosexual couples) to those who are not a heterosexual couple.

 

The important word in that quote is "can't." I know California doesn't deny rights to straight people who marry outside the church. That is my point. If the government can give those rights to straight people who marry outside the church there is no reason to deny them to gay couples who also marry outside the church (and are not allowed to marry in the church). Gay couples marrying outside the no different than straight couples marrying outside the church. It isn't in a church. It isn't their business. If as a straight person I can do it, why can't my gay friend? That was my point.

 

I mean no personal offence, this is just my opinon:

But I find it really rediculous. I mean, if a person wants to be gay then fine, but to have it a legal thing is kind of over-board. I mean if the government allows this, the next thing will be that guys have marry more the 1 wife and then people who want to marry animals.
I'm sorry if this sounds a little harsh, but one things always leads to something else. I believe people can do whatever they want with their lives, but lets leave the 'making this and that legal'.

 

Gay couples have been blocked on many issues like insurance benefits and medical consent, etc. because of the lack of legal status.

The "slippery slope" argument is fallacious.

 

Even I agree with that one. Slippery slope never made sense to me. I could see someone making the argument for legal polygamy, but come on. How many men/women in US culture do you know who would really commit themselves to someone who would also be committed to someone else? Last I checked as a general rule, people tend to get pretty pissed when their significant other is around. Last I checked that tends to have 75% chance of you being dumped by one of the individuals, or or a 25% chance of someone winding up dead.

And animal marriage? That's just ridiculous. Anyone who actually thinks you can have n personal relationship on the level of marriage with a goat needs a CAT scan and maybe a little sit down time with Dr. Kroger. Sure they're related concepts but one just won't last in US culture and the other is just plain silly and would probably be deserving of it's own wacky latin name in a list of psychological disorders.

 

I'm not religious in any way (wait, I’m not having a go at religion!), But I just don’t see the problem with gay marriages and all, I mean what do people fear. That the world is going to turn gay and create gay churches etc.... I mean I don’t really think about the issue much, but if anyone for ANY reason is going to be blocked on issues of health, finance, emotional support then that does get me thinking, and I don’t like it.... everyone should be on the same ballpark (imo).

Times change, I just can’t see it, that when I’m an old man that the gay population will be held back. Look at the black world, no its still not perfect but its not like it was decades ago….and the gay population has a lot of information out their, and many strong societies (I mean a lot of discrimination and the sort comes from lack of knowledge right?, no?).

How do you find it ridiculous…. The follow sentences didn’t actually explain so, except…. Never mind.

 

Honestly, it probably already has one.

 

In California, the problem was a mixup in information from the media. They had to issue a few lines in the papers to clarify that passing the law to allow gay marraiges would not undermine religious rights. Also ads for Prop 8 were very misleading, which have already led to misunderstandings (that homosexuality would be taught in schools to children regardless of their religious background). The problem also was that homosexual couples here were very vocal about changing the definition of marriage to mean that heterosexual couples = homosexual couples. While I don't necessarily agree with that line of thought, I see no reason to stop people from marrying and getting "equal benefits". I care more about the starving children in Africa than all these idiots on both sides arguing over here.

I personally don't see how the government allowing gay marriages (along with all the benefits of heterosexual couples) will affect religion (particularly certain christian denominations), but I personally don't understand why the definition of marriage has to be changed.

Don't reply on this. It's just a silly opinion of mine.

Discrimination doesn't just come from lack of knowledge. While I don't find homosexuality natural (there, I admit it, however I don't say it out of contempt, so please don't take it that way), it's none of my business to say that the law should discriminate against homosexuals and homosexual couples, because it shouldn't. I see nothing wrong with people discriminating and having their prejudices ( I wish people would stop telling people they're somehow wrong for thinking a certain way, it irks me), but I see a problem when the government does.

 

NOT "animal husbandry", though...

 

Thats cool, i see where your coming from a lttle better now.

All points valid, and understood.


on this topic and education, there was something on the news (In Australia) about opening a gay school...... i really wasent that interested (Sport was on), but i really should try to find something on it now, err and see what feedback it got.

 

Have a look at the countries listed in this article where gay marriages are legal.

Legal Gay Marriage Around The World

I Googled a number of these countries and I found NO articles about people marrying livestock or other non-human beings in same said countries.

Slippery slope argument..... wow, people.

 

Reminds me of a comic:

 

Slippery slope, aka reducto ad absurdum, is a logicaql fallacy. That is to say, it is one of a number of faulty logic patterns that is known to produce incorrect conclusions in logical arguments.

This type of fallacy takes the form:

If A => B, that will lead to A => C, because we all know that B will eventually lead to C. The fallacy rests in the assumption in red, that lumps B and C together as being "kind of similar".

When you look at it that way, it doesn't look so harmless - gay marriage is like marrying animals?

Recognize slippery slope on sight, and avoid falling for it. It is truly an ugly beast that feeds on fear.

 

I do recall learning in debate class that the slipper slope argument is one of the gravest of logic errors to make during competitive debate.

 

I think the only one that'd get laughed off a debate stage faster would be an ad hominem.

 

The one's I know that are real argument killers are Ad Hominem, Red Herring, and Slippery Slope.