Talk about anything and everything not related to this site or the Dreamcast, such as news stories, political discussion, or anything else. If there's not a forum for it, it belongs in here. Also, be warned that personal insults, threats, and spamming will not be tolerated.
farrell2k wrote:We're talking about what you quoted me on, not about what you didn't quote me on. I clearly wrote Alternative lifestyles between consenting adults. That automatically cancels out anything that isn't between consenting adults. You may not realize it, but you're twisting what I said. It's alright, though. You're still an alright guy
OK, so we're in agreement then that pedophilia, necrophilia, and beastiality aren't a valid part of this convesation, then. Sorry if I misunderstood what you were talking about. I genuinely had no intention of twisting your words. I still made a valid point about what the others were saying, though - none of those behaviors is between consenting adults, so therefore embracing homosexuals as equal members in our society is in no way going to 'open the floodgates' to allow pedophilia, necrophilia, and beastiality to run rampant.
lol. I agree.
OneThirty8 wrote:
I'd still like to know what alternative lifestyles we would have to embrace, though. If pedophilia, necrophilia, and beastiality aren't any of the things you were talking about (which right away makes your argument more valid than those saying that we'd be opening Pandora's box and end up with these things getting loose), I can't think of one single thing that we're not allowing that I wouldn't be willing to consider as an acceptable lifestyle. Polygamy does have the potiential to hurt a lot of people, so there would have to be some checks on it (all parties must be above the age of consent like in any other marriage, all parties must be aware of all other parties, and things of that nature), but if people want to do it once they're aware of the risk of getting burned, that's on them as far as I'm concerned.
Polygamists are the only ones I can think of. I often change my mind on these things, so bare with me. If you give it to one group,it is unfair not to give it to another. The point is that states decide who can marry, as marriage is not a right, but a privilege afforded by the state. Should gays have that privilege? Not if a majority of society finds it unacceptable, which is curently the case. Should people change? Not if they don't want to.
Bleh, I gotta take some type of moral standpoint I guess. Marriage is a symbol of love, by denying gays the right to marriage, it's essentially saying, "Homosexuals can't love each other because only people of the opposite sex can." When you look at a girlfriend, fiance or wife, and you think of your experiences together, you're no different than a gay man thinking of his experiences with his boyfriend/husband/wife/something/etc. When I examine my soul, I find that I can't, in good conscience, deny a gay man marriage because if it was denied to me, well, I might as well not have a reason to live to find a woman with which to spend my days.
farrell2k wrote:The point is that states decide who can marry, as marriage is not a right, but a privilege afforded by the state. Should gays have that privilege? Not if a majority of society finds it unacceptable, which is curently the case. Should people change? Not if they don't want to.
If you see it as a privelidge, I suppose that's your interpretation of what marriage is and I can't say that's it's any less valid than mine. I personally see it as every couple's right to define their relationship as they see fit. It is, after all, their lives together that we're talking about, but I'm willing to meet you halfway on the right/priveledge issue and agree to disagree. However, if it's a privilege, I just see one flaw in the line of reasoning you outlined above. I think you actually put it best.
farrell2k wrote:
If you give it to one group,it is unfair not to give it to another.
I was going to make this a long, eloquent rant, with lots of amazing points, and grammer that was... um... good. But I don't feel like it, so I'll make this simple.
You can go around spinning your wheels on this all day in a legal / moral logic fight. Stop. Just stop.
Marriage represents something very significant. Two people legally bond themselves to each other. For this bond, we recognize them as more than a couple, but a family. We bestow upon them (among other things) extra rights, tax breaks, and formal recognition so they can perform as such. What difference does it make of the sexes involved? How could it make any difference?
The only arguement I can think of is it goes against someone's religion. But I know there religions that validate gay marriages, and you would be violating their rights. No one is saying you have to embrace gays. You don't have to welcome them into your homes. You don't have to watch them on TV. You don't have to agree with them. Just give them the right to live their lives together, and leave them alone. By denying them the right to at least some kind of civil union, you are denying them access to rights that straight couples enjoy, and that is most certainly wrong.
Need a Treamcast, Dreamcast modchip, HUGE DC memory card, ASCII-like DC fighter pad, or Saturn Gameshark with tons of backup memory? PM me.
fatheadpi wrote:I was going to make this a long, eloquent rant, with lots of amazing points, and grammer that was... um... good. But I don't feel like it, so I'll make this simple.
You can go around spinning your wheels on this all day in a legal / moral logic fight. Stop. Just stop.
It's too much fun watching the other guys get all fired up and then refuting everything they say with sound logic. I'm fully aware that I'll probably never get them to admit that I'm right and they're wrong. I still enjoy arguing with them.
fatheadpi wrote:
Marriage represents something very significant. Two people legally bond themselves to each other. For this bond, we recognize them as more than a couple, but a family. We bestow upon them (among other things) extra rights, tax breaks, and formal recognition so they can perform as such. What difference does it make of the sexes involved? How could it make any difference?
The only arguement I can think of is it goes against someone's religion. But I know there religions that validate gay marriages, and you would be violating their rights. No one is saying you have to embrace gays. You don't have to welcome them into your homes. You don't have to watch them on TV. You don't have to agree with them. Just give them the right to live their lives together, and leave them alone. By denying them the right to at least some kind of civil union, you are denying them access to rights that straight couples enjoy, and that is most certainly wrong.
Well said. That's the kernel of what I've been trying to say all along - you don't have to agree with how they live their lives, but it's not right to deny them the things that you have just because their chosen partner happens to be of the same sex.
The point is that states decide who can marry, as marriage is not a right, but a privilege afforded by the state. Should gays have that privilege? Not if a majority of society finds it unacceptable, which is curently the case.
Has this subject ever been put to a vote in any state? Just wondering, I honestly don't know.
Need a Treamcast, Dreamcast modchip, HUGE DC memory card, ASCII-like DC fighter pad, or Saturn Gameshark with tons of backup memory? PM me.
I think it was a ballot issue that passed in Louisiana, not sure though.
"You know, I have a great, wonderful, really original method of teaching antitrust law, and it kept 80 percent of the students awake. They learned things. It was fabulous." -- Justice Stephen Breyer
farrell2k wrote: Polygamists are the only ones I can think of. I often change my mind on these things, so bare with me. If you give it to one group,it is unfair not to give it to another. The point is that states decide who can marry, as marriage is not a right, but a privilege afforded by the state. Should gays have that privilege? Not if a majority of society finds it unacceptable, which is curently the case. Should people change? Not if they don't want to.
Didn't a majority think that slavery was moral because we were giving them religion? Same with the reservations? Well if the Majority is always right.
farrell2k wrote:The point is that states decide who can marry, as marriage is not a right, but a privilege afforded by the state. Should gays have that privilege? Not if a majority of society finds it unacceptable, which is curently the case. Should people change? Not if they don't want to.
If you see it as a privelidge, I suppose that's your interpretation of what marriage is and I can't say that's it's any less valid than mine. I personally see it as every couple's right to define their relationship as they see fit. It is, after all, their lives together that we're talking about, but I'm willing to meet you halfway on the right/priveledge issue and agree to disagree. However, if it's a privilege, I just see one flaw in the line of reasoning you outlined above. I think you actually put it best.
farrell2k wrote:
If you give it to one group,it is unfair not to give it to another.
There is no flaw in my reasoning. Let me define my position. heterosexual couples are given the privilege of marriage, and becasue of that, I do believe it is unfair not to give it to gays. Just as it would be unfair to allow gays to marry, but not the polys. Life is not fair
Last edited by farrell2k on Thu Oct 21, 2004 9:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
farrell2k wrote: Polygamists are the only ones I can think of. I often change my mind on these things, so bare with me. If you give it to one group,it is unfair not to give it to another. The point is that states decide who can marry, as marriage is not a right, but a privilege afforded by the state. Should gays have that privilege? Not if a majority of society finds it unacceptable, which is curently the case. Should people change? Not if they don't want to.
Didn't a majority think that slavery was moral because we were giving them religion? Same with the reservations? Well if the Majority is always right.
I never said the majority is always right. Don't put words in my mouth. That's not what I typed. As always, I will let the majority do as they see fit, whether it is wrong or right. That is how this representative democracy of ours works. We follow he will of a majority of the people.
farrell2k wrote:
There is no flaw in my reasoning.
Perhaps from where you stand the flaw is not apparent, but I can see it.
farrell2k wrote:Let me define my position. heterosexual couples are given the privilege of marriage, and becasue of that, I do believe it is unfair not to give it to gays.
If that is your position, then the will of the majority doesn't matter. The majority doesn't have any relevance when it comes to the decision of two people to get married.
You really thik the will of the majority has no say when it comes to the decision of 2 people getting married? Seriously?! Marriage is handled by the states. The states decide who can marry based on laws governing the act. The laws are written and voted upon by state representatives, who are elected by and represent the majority of people in any given state. - The will of the majority matters, even if it is unfair, and that's exactly why gays cannot marry. Accept it or not, but that is reality. It's the last thing I'll say about it.
farrell2k wrote:You really thik the will of the majority has no say when it comes to the decision of 2 people getting married? Seriously?! Marriage is handled by the states. The states decide who can marry based on laws governing the act. The laws are written and voted upon by state representatives, who are elected by and represent the majority of people in any given state. - The will of the majority matters, even if it is unfair, and that's exactly why gays cannot marry. Accept it or not, but that is reality. It's the last thing I'll say about it.
You miss my point entirely. I know how it currently works. It's just that I see a major flaw in it - the current laws that we have in place do nothing but discriminate. They do nobody any good, and are in fact harmful. It does not make sense to have such a thing 'governed' at all. If two people love each other and want to get married, that's all that should matter. They should be able to go and fill out the paperwork regardless of the gender of either party involved. The will of the majority is fine when it comes to regulating things that have a bearing on the general public, but not somebody's personal life. It's not that I think the majority has no say - they obviously do have their way under the current system. It's that they shouldn't have a say.
Marriage is a symbol of love, by denying gays the right to marriage, it's essentially saying, "Homosexuals can't love each other because only people of the opposite sex can."
Sometimes I hear voices does that mean that they're really there?
Marriage is a symbol of love, by denying gays the right to marriage, it's essentially saying, "Homosexuals can't love each other because only people of the opposite sex can."
Sometimes I hear voices does that mean that they're really there?
I was going to say that that's a poor analogy, but I dont think that would even qualify as an analogy. If you're going to argue, please do so intelligently.
homosexuality is a mental disease just like schitzophrenia. You sometimes know you've seen or heard something even if it's not really there, same with homosexulity you may think you love someone but not really. Would you be for my right to marry a voice in my head if it's another consenting adult?
I think there insane, therefore they are unfit to think for themselves.
Branding something (or someone) as "insane" is a brilliant way to try to supress something you don't like. It's been done hundereds of times before to try to supress an idea that the ruling class finds distateful or threatening.
