What's Wrong With Civil Unions?

Green Cross said:

Sexuality and race are the same thing?

Thanks I never would have guessed...

Click to expand...

Who are you to determine who get discriminated against?

Green Cross said:

Sexuality and race are the same thing?

Thanks I never would have guessed...

Click to expand...

Yes, sexuality and race are exactly the same thing when analogizing how closely each category associates their "members" with the human race. One's sexuality does not detract from one's humanity in the same way that your skin color does not detract from your humanity.

Green Cross said:

lopezri is fine with his sexuality, and he accepts himself as he is, and that didn't come by beating down religious people, or trying to change society at large.

I congratulate you sir!

Click to expand...

Lopezri,

Green Cross is saying that you are to be congratulated as long as you do not advocate a desire to redefine an unfair and prejudiced LEGAL definition to a definition that is inclusive and respectful of all human being's sexual preferences. His argument would be valid only if you were trying to force YOUR preference on HIS private religious institution's definition of marriage.

I'm not you (and I'm not even gay), but I don't believe that supports a +1 rep.

ancap said:

Lopezri,

Green Cross is saying that you are to be congratulated as long as you do not advocate a desire to redefine an unfair and prejudiced LEGAL definition to a definition that is inclusive and respectful of all human being's sexual preferences. His argument would be valid only if you were trying to force YOUR preference on HIS private religious institution's definition of marriage.

I'm not you (and I'm not even gay), but I don't believe that supports a +1 rep.

Click to expand...

I guess that's why we're all allowed our own opinions. To me it sounds like Green Cross is open and fair about people being gay he just doesn't think it belongs in the church, according to what you're saying. I don't care if the church changes the definition of marriage. Who would want to go to a church that doesn't welcome you anyway? Why can't marriage just be a church thing and the government get out of the business of unions or marriage altogether? Especially now that states have this 50/50 division of assets for divorce anyway, why can't any partnership just be considered a business partnership/transaction?

or two girls bumping flowers

Click to expand...

[youtube]wQZHbJYE7hM[/youtube]

lopezri said:

I guess that's why we're all allowed our own opinions. To me it sounds like Green Cross is open and fair about people being gay he just doesn't think it belongs in the church, according to what you're saying. I don't care if the church changes the definition of marriage. Who would want to go to a church that doesn't welcome you anyway? Why can't marriage just be a church thing and the government get out of the business of unions or marriage altogether? Especially now that states have this 50/50 division of assets for divorce anyway, why can't any partnership just be considered a business partnership/transaction?

Click to expand...

I think we might be in complete agreement though our semantics might be different. I think the church can make whatever definitions for whatever words they want. I really don't care, nor do I think the government should dictate these private matters. However, the government has taken the lopsided and prejudiced definition that the church has established, and put it into LAW.

I am a strict voluntarist, so my criticisms for government involvement in ANYTHING is unwavering. Thus, I believe it is wrong for ANYONE to use the power of government to dictate what YOU choose to call your contract... as simple and silly an issue as it sounds (what to call something).

If this specific title and definition belongs exclusively to people of a particular belief or faith, then it SHOULD NOT be used in secular law. Any definition that is exclusionary based of religious belief and/or prejudice SHOULD NOT be the STANDARD for ALL people!

From what I see, Green Cross is saying that should you decide to make this sensible request, you are guilty of "beating up religious people and trying to change society."

This is offensive to me, and I'm just trying to make the case as to why I think it should be offensive to you. I understand it's a bit harder to see on the surface since he did frame this language with ass kissing pandering to your personal choices and orientation ("He is fine with his sexuality" and "He accepts himself"). Just don't ask for equality, that would immediately change his opinion of you.

ancap said:

I think we might be in complete agreement though our semantics might be different. I think the church can make whatever definitions for whatever words they want. I really don't care, nor do I think the government should dictate these private matters. However, the government has taken the lopsided and prejudiced definition that the church has established, and put it into LAW.

I am a strict voluntarist, so my criticisms for government involvement in ANYTHING is unwavering. Thus, I believe it is wrong for ANYONE to use the power of government to dictate what YOU choose to call your contract... as simple and silly an issue as it sounds (what to call something).

If this specific title and definition belongs exclusively to people of a particular belief or faith, then it SHOULD NOT be used in secular law. Any definition that is exclusionary based of religious belief and/or prejudice SHOULD NOT be the STANDARD for ALL people!

From what I see, Green Cross is saying that should you decide to make this sensible request, you are guilty of "beating up religious people and trying to change society."

This is offensive to me, and I'm just trying to make the case as to why I think it should be offensive to you. I understand it's a bit harder to see on the surface since he did frame this language with ass kissing pandering to your personal choices and orientation ("He is fine with his sexuality" and "He accepts himself"). Just don't ask for equality, that would immediately change his opinion of you.

Click to expand...

Well I don't see it as offensive and like I said previously, I am gay. Do you find it offensive because YOU are gay? or are you straight?

I don't think there was any intent on the part of Green Cross to try to hide some sort of insinuation through his post. He or she just typed what he or she was thinking at the time and put it down. Not everyone is a politician trying to circle around questions and beliefs, etc.

I've got to believe that this person, if I met them in real life, would be accepting of me and have no problem with who I choose to be with in a personal private way. And I'm sure that "marriage" or whatever else anyone wants to call it wouldn't change that a whole lot other then they would consider that word "sacred" to them and their beliefs.

YOU can't change what people believe, even if you try to force down their throats. Change takes time and we're just not there yet. WE'VE taken some big steps though baby!

Hey lopezri,

I do hope you know that I'm not trying to stir up conflict with you or anyone, but I am just trying to reason and debate from first principles. There's not really much at stake here since none of us are going to directly change the system, but debating is a fun mental exercise.

I'm willing to assume that Green Cross is a very nice person and even tolerant on the surface, but it is important that one realizes what they are truly advocating. I am not gay, but I am irked from a different perspective. I don't like people advocating the use of government force to enforce their preferences on other people. It is an affront to my freedom whenever that happens. What is interesting though, is that my opposition on this point tries to make the exact argument, that I am trying to limit their freedom by asking that the PUBLIC definition of marriage be a neutral one regardless of sexual orientation, race or other factors (especially factors that are outside the control of those who inherit them).

If a law defines marriage as a social contract between two people, it does not limit a christian from getting "married" for being heterosexual, thus I am not limiting their freedom (they may be offended, but offending someone is NOT limiting their freedoms). However, if a law defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, it excludes all same sex couples from getting married which is a limitation on their freedom. This is basic stuff! If something is good and ethical for ONE type of human being, it is good and ethical for ALL human beings. If marriage is good and ethical for straight people, it is good and ethical for gay people too.

I have no problem if all religious institutions want to condemn gay marriage as evil, wrong and illegitimate. I just don't want their nonsensical, bigoted, fairy tale beliefs to be FORCED on me through LAWS from the federal government. I also don't accept that they own a monopoly or trademark on the word "marriage".

ancap said:

Hey lopezri,

I do hope you know that I'm not trying to stir up conflict with you or anyone, but I am just trying to reason and debate from first principles. There's not really much at stake here since none of us are going to directly change the system, but debating is a fun mental exercise.

I'm willing to assume that Green Cross is a very nice person and even tolerant on the surface, but it is important that one realizes what they are truly advocating. I am not gay, but I am irked from a different perspective. I don't like people advocating the use of government force to enforce their preferences on other people. It is an affront to my freedom whenever that happens. What is interesting though, is that my opposition on this point tries to make the exact argument, that I am trying to limit their freedom by asking that the PUBLIC definition of marriage be a neutral one regardless of sexual orientation, race or other factors (especially factors that are outside the control of those who inherit them).

If a law defines marriage as a social contract between two people, it does not limit a christian from getting "married" for being heterosexual, thus I am not limiting their freedom (they may be offended, but offending someone is NOT limiting their freedoms). However, if a law defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, it excludes all same sex couples from getting married which is a limitation on their freedom. This is basic stuff! If something is good and ethical for ONE type of human being, it is good and ethical for ALL human beings. If marriage is good and ethical for straight people, it is good and ethical for gay people too.

I have no problem if all religious institutions want to condemn gay marriage as evil, wrong and illegitimate. I just don't want their nonsensical, bigoted, fairy tale beliefs to be FORCED on me through LAWS from the federal government. I also don't accept that they own a monopoly or trademark on the word "marriage".

Click to expand...

That makes sense, to me though, it's just a word. I agree that the government shouldn't be dictating who gets to marry who, they should be out of it completely. If the church wants to use the word marriage to mean between a man and a woman then let them. Maybe the government should just call it a "snarfkle" and it can be defined as a man and man couple, a woman and woman couple, a man and woman couple or any type of coupled relationship between two consenting adults. Just stop using the word "marriage" altogether. The churches can use it for their "snarfkles" between a man and a woman and even call it a marriage but as far as the government is concerned (since "Big Brother" HAS to get their hand in your pocket more) any couple union is a snarfkle. That way the church keeps it's definition of marriage and makes it all go away.

Unless. . . of course, the real underlying reason why someone has an issue with calling marriage between gay couples marriage is because they just don't want gay people to be happy or feel included, but Christian churches are mostly about exclusion anyway. Their main doctrine is exclusion as opposed to inclusion.

I think their main hold up is that if gay people were allowed to be "married", it would magically take something away from their heterosexual marriages, or taint the whole institution of marriage. In order for something to taint something else, the thing doing the tainting must be tainted! Can I use that word one more time? Ipso facto, they are asserting that gay people are tainted, which is false and brought about from the bigoted walls their upbringing and religion has produced.

So as nice and tolerant as a person might seem, if they say you as a human being shouldn't have the same right as they do to be married, that position comes from a place of bigotry towards you!

Anyone want to challenge me on this? If I'm reasoning through this all wrong, I'd really like to know.

By the way, where is the institution of marriage located anyway?

Strange how people can look at something that has been the bedrock of every successful culture on Earth and haphazardly boil it down to an inherently unfair legal entitlement. Has anyone considered it may be more than that? Has anyone considered that when we change people's attitudes toward marriage, we change people's attitude toward the traditional family. Despite being far and away the largest producer of health and wealth known in the history of man, we have been chipping away at the traditional family for the last 4 decades. Where has it gotten us? Well, it has produced more social decay than anything we have ever seen. Every major social indicator shows that society decays in direct proportion to the decline of the traditional family. But evidently people don't place much importance on that anymore.

Regardless, we all need to understand that marriage is not a right. You need a license to get married. You can not marry your sibling or parent or child or animal or more than one other person. If we apply some of the logic posted above, don't we also have to allow brothers and sisters to wed? What if a man wants to take 7 wives? What if a girl wants to marry her father or her cat?

And what of other civil liberties. We restrict the use of alcohol and other things by people who are under 21. Placing restrictions on who can marry is no different. Besides, civil unions do give Gays all the same rights, they just do it without asking others to change the definition of marriage.

One more thing. The law does in fact apply equally to everyone with regard to marriage. Neither gay nor straight people can marry someone of the same sex, or a sibling, or a parent, or a dog, or more than one person.

The most effective of all morality-based arguments for same-sex marriage, the one that persuades more people than any other argument, is the one that equates opposition to same-sex marriage with the old opposition to interracial marriage.
The argument, repeated so often that it sounds incontestable, is this: Just as parts of American society once had immoral laws that forbade whites and blacks from marrying, so, today, society continues to have immoral laws forbidding men from marrying men and women from marrying women. And just as decent people overthrew the former, decent people must overthrow the latter.
Thanks in large part to widespread higher education -- the higher the educational level, the more one is likely to hold this view -- vast numbers of Americans believe in this equation of sex (gender) and race.
But the equation is false.
First, there is no comparison between sex and race.
There are enormous differences between men and women, but there are no differences between people of different races. Men and women are inherently different, but blacks and whites (and yellows and browns) are inherently the same. Therefore, any imposed separation by race can never be moral or even rational; on the other hand, separation by sex can be both morally desirable and rational. Separate bathrooms for men and women is moral and rational; separate bathrooms for blacks and whites is not.
The second reason the parallel between opposing same-sex marriage and opposing interracial marriage is invalid is that opposition to marriage between races is a moral aberration while opposition to marrying a person of the same sex is the moral norm. In other words, none of the moral bases of American society, whether religious or secular, opposed interracial marriage -- not Judaism, not Christianity, not Judeo-Christian values, not deism, not humanism, not the Enlightenment. Yes, there were religious and secular individuals who opposed interracial marriage, but by opposing interracial marriage, they were advocating something against all Judeo-Christian and secular norms, all of which saw nothing wrong in members of different races intermarrying (members of different religions was a different matter).
On the other hand, no religious or secular moral system ever advocated same-sex marriage. Whereas advocating interracial marriage was advocating something approved of by every religious and secular moral tradition of America and the West, advocating same-sex marriage does the very opposite -- it advocates something that defies every religious and secular moral tradition. Those who advocate redefining marriage are saying that every religious and secular tradition is immoral. They have no problem doing this because they believe they are wiser and finer people than all the greatest Jewish, Christian and humanist thinkers who ever lived.
But as objectionable as hubris is, false comparisons are worse. And there is no comparison between different races and the different genders. There are no inherent racial differences; there are significant differences between the sexes. To the extent that racial groups are different, they are only because their cultures differ. But a black man's nature is not different from that of a white man, an Asian man, an Hispanic man.
The same is not true of sex differences. Males and females are inherently different from one another. We now know that even their brains differ. And those differences are significant. Thus, to oppose interracial marriage is indeed to engage in bigotry, but to oppose same-sex marriage is not. It simply shares the wisdom of every moral system that preceded us -- society is predicated on men and women bonding with one another in a unique way called "marriage."
Comparing the prohibition of same-sex marriage to prohibiting interracial marriage is ultimately a way of declaring the moral superiority of proponents of same-sex marriage to proponents of keeping marriage defined as man-woman. And it is a way of avoiding hard issues such as whether we really want all children to grow up thinking it doesn't matter if they marry a boy or a girl and whether we really want to abolish forever the ideal of husband-wife based family.
Those who wish to redefine marriage for the first time in Jewish, Christian or secular humanist history may offer any honest arguments they wish. Comparing the prohibition of same-sex marriage to prohibiting interracial marriage is not one of them.

Dennis Prager

Well Rick, I don't think there will ever be a way to get you to see things differently than the way you see them because from what I've read it seems like you've been brought up to believe that homosexuality in general is immoral. I'm not criticizing you here. I'm just saying that's what it seems to me from what I've read in this thread and the "is gay marriage really that big'o'deal?" thread. And I guess that's okay to have that opinion.

My only question is, aside from what the Bible, church, and your parents have taught you, have you ever considered the issue from the other side? Do YOU really know what homosexuals are feeling? Do you know anything about what any of them have ever gone through in their lives? Until recently, most of them were within inches of their own lives because heterosexuals have abused and harassed them to the breaking point. I'm glad that God has given us the ability to love and be able to control our populations. Can you imagine how long ago we would have killed each other off had we only had a bunch of heterosexuals running around and making babies all the time? We'd be way more overpopulated than China or India. People would be dying off just from starvation and I think homosexuals and heterosexuals would be dying about the same rate. That's just survival of the fittest, not survival of the one's who like to put their dicks in pussy.

I hope one day you'll be able to see God's infinite wisdom with all of his creative design to understand that everyone deserves an equal chance because we're all created by Him. His words are sacred but even we know those words have been manipulated and even omitted to meet the needs of those trying to use it as a tool of "morality". Not everyone's idea of morality is the same. The "golden rule" and the 10 commandments are really just basic living ideals and standards. And that's mainly what we as humans should be trying to follow, not all the stuff that can be misinterpreted.

lopezri said:

Well Rick, I don't think there will ever be a way to get you to see things differently than the way you see them because from what I've read it seems like you've been brought up to believe that homosexuality in general is immoral. I'm not criticizing you here. I'm just saying that's what it seems to me from what I've read in this thread and the "is gay marriage really that big'o'deal?" thread. And I guess that's okay to have that opinion.

My only question is, aside from what the Bible, church, and your parents have taught you, have you ever considered the issue from the other side? Do YOU really know what homosexuals are feeling? Do you know anything about what any of them have ever gone through in their lives? Until recently, most of them were within inches of their own lives because heterosexuals have abused and harassed them to the breaking point. I'm glad that God has given us the ability to love and be able to control our populations. Can you imagine how long ago we would have killed each other off had we only had a bunch of heterosexuals running around and making babies all the time? We'd be way more overpopulated than China or India. People would be dying off just from starvation and I think homosexuals and heterosexuals would be dying about the same rate. That's just survival of the fittest, not survival of the one's who like to put their dicks in pussy.

I hope one day you'll be able to see God's infinite wisdom with all of his creative design to understand that everyone deserves an equal chance because we're all created by Him. His words are sacred but even we know those words have been manipulated and even omitted to meet the needs of those trying to use it as a tool of "morality". Not everyone's idea of morality is the same. The "golden rule" and the 10 commandments are really just basic living ideals and standards. And that's mainly what we as humans should be trying to follow, not all the stuff that can be misinterpreted.

Click to expand...

save the planet, suck a dick.


you're joking about this, right? if it weren't for gays we'd be overpopulated? this is not what you are really saying is it?

fdd2blk said:

save the planet, suck a dick.


you're joking about this, right? if it weren't for gays we'd be overpopulated? this is not what you are really saying is it?

Click to expand...

LOL! I like that. I'm going to make T-Shirts that say that!

I'm not completely joking. Homosexuality does help with overpopulation by limiting procreation. I'm telling you. . . I wouldn't get hard from or touch one of them "giners" no matter how persuasive or coercive someone were being. It's just not in my blood. Sorry, it just doesn't arouse me, just like "those parts" don't arouse other homosexuals. I think true lesbians feel the same way. I use the word "true" here because I DO know some women who become lesbian because they just feel more loved or comfortable with another woman. Never knew a gay guy that was like that though.

lopezri said:

LOL! I like that. I'm going to make T-Shirts that say that!

I'm not completely joking. Homosexuality does help with overpopulation by limiting procreation. I'm telling you. . . I wouldn't get hard from or touch one of them "giners" no matter how persuasive or coercive someone were being. It's just not in my blood. Sorry, it just doesn't arouse me, just like "those parts" don't arouse other homosexuals. I think true lesbians feel the same way. I use the word "true" here because I DO know some women who become lesbian because they just feel more loved or comfortable with another woman. Never knew a gay guy that was like that though.

Click to expand...

i'm a horny straight man and i have seen one or 2 giners i wouldn't touch either.

fdd2blk said:

i'm a horny straight man and i have seen one or 2 giners i wouldn't touch either.

Click to expand...

LOL! That's funny!

fdd2blk said:

save the planet, suck a dick.

Click to expand...

LOL. In a strange sense that was sorta what I heard too.