Finally, a convincing, if twisted, argument to convince people who hate gay marriage that the breeders are to blame. With this kind of snake-eating-its-tail logic, we may eventually achieve what was once only a dream: equal bigotry for all, against all. God bless America.
-
Kem | 01/22/2012 flag |
Your second point was the one that I thought deserved an in depth response, so I'll answer it first.
You're conflating negative rights with positive rights.
The right to have a marriage recognized by the government (along with the legal and social benefits that affords) is a positive right. The right to purchase a vehicle if you have the financial means and/or credit score to do so is a negative right.
The government cannot infringe on your right to go to your local car dealership, enter into a loan, and drive a car off of the lot unless you pose a threat to the safety or property of others. If you don't carry liability insurance, can't drive for crap, or like to booze it up before getting behind the wheel, the government can restrict that right. If you aren't paying for your vehicle registration and license renewal fees (necessary to help fuel the bureaucracy that monitors whether or not you pose a threat to public safety or private property), the government can infringe upon your negative right to use your money to buy a car and drive that vehicle home. If further proof of that is needed, consider for a moment how ridiculous it would sound if the government denied a driver's license based on sexual orientation.
We're talking about apples and oranges here.
In Prop 8, the issue here is whether or not the government can grant a positive right to a specific traditionally privileged class of citizens based on their sexual orientation while denying it to others. Semantics aside, let's be real.
Should it be a positive right? Not really, no. It's a legal contract, certainly, but the government doesn't step in on every legal contract and say who can or cannot enter into them. You don't need Uncle Sam's sanction to click "I Agree" on the EULA or create a will.
There is a vocal minority of American citizens who feel very strongly that framing this debate as a negative rights issue (you know, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness with equal protection under the law) is a losing battle for their traditionally protected privileged status. By framing marriage between a man and a woman as a positive right, they hope to get around the uncomfortable truth that there is *NO* threat to public safety or private property posed by gay and lesbian Americans enjoying the same union rituals that heterosexual Americans enjoy.
As far as your first point goes, every movement has its misguided revolutionaries who feel that nonviolent protest isn't effective enough. Just because Malcom X advocated violence doesn't mean he was wrong about the inequalities in society and the need for change. You're engaging in an informal fallacy, specifically, a red herring, and more specifically, guilt by assoiciation. ("Violent radicals support gay marriage, therefore, gay marriage is wrong.") Non-violent, thoughtful citizens are also in favor of gay marriage. And your red herrings don't impress us. -
Messner Milk | 01/17/2012 flag |
I see a lot of enraged people waving banners that tout words like “hate” and “love.” The truth is that this issue has nothing to do with either. Incidentally, many of the gay protesters who are upset by the passing of Prop 8 have vowed to use violence to let people know how unfair they’re being treated. Does that sort of duplicity concern anyone besides me? Read this article for an idea of how much hatred is being bred in the pro-homosexual-marriage population: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/6081
Many people are comparing this battle with the racial-based civil rights movements of the mid-century, but there is one key difference: marriage is NOT an inalienable civil right (such as riding a public bus or drinking from a public fountain, which are natural and immutable rights.) Discrimination exists when rights and civil liberties are actually taken away from an individual or group. In the case of Proposition 8, no rights whatsoever have ever been removed from the homosexual community. The State of California provides Section 297-297.5 and 299 to ensure that homosexual couples receive all of the same “rights” as heterosexual couples. The language included on the ballot for Proposition 8 was greatly misleading, as marriage is not a “right”, but is a concessional institution (That’s why it requires approval and performance by a civic or ecclesiastical leader. The same way a Drivers License is not a “right”, it is a privilege. While “rights” are endowed to all people, certain criteria must be met to obtain privileges such as these.) It is a privilege that not all couples qualify for. Does that sound discriminatory or outrageous?
Can something be unfair, but right? Remember: deep breaths. You can still be gay. -
Cave Johnson | 09/04/2011 flag |
I've seen a lot of crap on the Internet, just in this one day. Than you for restoring at least a fraction of my concept of sanity for the human race.
-
Jess | 07/17/2011 flag |
Thanks for the support, Kem. :)
-
Kem | 07/16/2011 flag |
Jess,
For what it's worth, I agree, and jumped in here not because you need the help, but because you've made excellent arguments that deserve some harmony. I spent most of my mid-twenties engaging in online debates, and occasionally found that I was in the wrong. I'm not sure what my life would be like if I hadn't taken that time and had people who were patient with me. Two things are certain. I wouldn't be with the man I love, and I would still be conflicted about issues that now cause me no stress at all. So, for myself, I'm going to say this is a worthwhile thing. Thanks for your contributions. -
Kem | 07/16/2011 flag |
Alber,
I'm glad you understand where I'm coming from more, although I suspect that your immediate movement to a red herring means that this is just a stock phrase that you use in online debates to say you get it without actually taking the time to empathize. Think again about that gay soldier breathing his last breath knowing that his partner back home will receive no survivor benefits, no grief counselling, no recognition for the sacrifice of his partner-- even though they're committed to each other and have been together for longer than some of the married men and women in his unit.
I'll ask again, since you dodged it the fist time. Do you think that's right? Is that the way you would want a soldier dying for his country to leave this world?
But, to address that red herring (which I typically don't in any debate, but whatever), there are strong arguments to be made for the social stigma against incest. Incest rarely occurs with adult family members... it's typically a product of early adolescence and sometimes childhood. We call that rape where I come from. Not sure what your definition is. And, on the off chance that they do begin after the age of consent, they can pit the extended family against one another, which is harmful to the children in that offspring. A basic understanding of 9th grade biology (assuming your teacher wasn't busy teaching "alternate theories" about the age of the earth) also gives a strong reason to avoid keeping it in the family, too. Rare genetic disorders become much less rare when the gene pool is shallow. Civil rights activists for gay and lesbian couples aren't arguing for incest rights.
You seem very fixated on the slippery slope argument. I can only guess this is because you really don't know any gay or lesbian friends who are in committed relationships and want to get married. They really have nothing in common with child abusers or animal abusers. -
Jess | 07/15/2011 flag |
Ivan, thanks for the kind words, but I disagree that I am wasting my time. I believe that through reasoned debates like these ones, change can take place. I can understand your anger, but calling people names only makes the other person feel more justified in his or her own opinions.
Also, keep in mind, there are other people reading this debate who may not be participating in it. So I haven't only given Alber some food for thought, I've also given everyone reading this thread some points to consider as well. At least, I hope I have!
It may seem futile, but I think baby steps like these ones are necessary on the road to change. -
Jess | 07/15/2011 flag |
Alber,
2.a) I find it funny that after making a point of reposting my entire response, you then go on to ask what marriage equality means, when I have made that quite explicit in my argument. I’ll explain it again since I guess you didn’t read it the first time, and would rather put words in my mouth as to what I meant by the word “equal”: in the case of same-sex marriage, marriage equality means that a marriage between two people of the same gender should be EQUAL to a marriage between two people of opposite genders.
b) You said, “It's not a matter of equality, it's a matter of gays wanting their lifestyle inserted into the law.”
“Lifestyle” … now what exactly does that mean? I’ll acquiesce that under the broad definition of the term, being part of a same-sex relationship could be considered part of one’s lifestyle. However, I believe that the term is used in reference to living openly with one’s homosexuality by opponents to this behavior in order to belittle it. Calling it a lifestyle seems to imply a certain frivolity to it, as well as a choice. The only choice that those living openly with their homosexuality made is to not suppress a fundamental part of themselves that they could never change. And unlike a murderer or a pedophile, who maybe can’t change themselves either, a homosexual person should not want to change, because there is nothing wrong with homosexuality: it doesn’t hurt anyone or anything. Some religions may condemn it, and it may make some people uncomfortable, but that should have no bearing on the law. So, by saying that “gays” (also an offensive term, though I’m not sure you’re aware of it: how about gay or homosexual people?) want their “lifestyle inserted into the law,” you seem to be likening it to wealthy people wanting more tax breaks because it’s better for their “lifestyle”, or heroin being legalized because using it is part of some people’s “lifestyle.”
Same-sex marriage being legalized does not require you to accept it, Alber. You obviously think that homosexuality is wrong, yet it is not illegal to live in an open homosexual relationship, or to have homosexual sex. Do you believe that you had to “accept” homosexuality in order for it to be legal? I think that though the law permits one thing, you can go right ahead and continue to be unaccepting of it. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Along the same lines, do you accept every heterosexual marriage that takes place? Do you approve of the drunken Vegas marriages, the 48 hour marriages, the forced marriages, and the abusive marriages? I don’t want to make assumptions, but I’ll venture a guess and say no. All of those marriages are perfectly legal, with or without your acceptance.
c) You also said, “By the gay definition of equality, as I'm understanding it, we would have to make marriage available to opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples, polygymouse, plyandrous, polyamourous, incetuous or bestial unions, right?”
Wrong. Those of us who are fighting for marriage rights for same-sex couples are not implying that every other conceivable union should be allowed marriage rights as well. Each of these is a separate issue and requires a separate debate. When we talk about “marriage equality” within the confines of a debate about same-sex marriage, we mean marriage equality for same sex couples. Maybe not everyone you’ve discussed this with has been clear on this point, but allow me to dispel any possible confusion about what I am arguing here: same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, and, under the law, those marriages should be equal to heterosexual marriages. I am NOT saying that every possible union you could dream up should be allowed marriage rights as well: those are issues to be discussed in separate debates. -
Ivan | 07/15/2011 flag |
Jess people like you give humanity hope. I admire your restraint and your ability to be so diplomatic. Kudos to you. But you are wasting your time with an imbecile.
-
Jess | 07/15/2011 flag |
Alber,
1.a) This is just getting tedious. Can we agree that maybe sometimes people abbreviate by saying “Gay people don’t have the right to marry”, when what they really mean is “No one has the right to marry someone of the same gender, and many gay people want the right to marry someone of the same gender.” No one is going to argue with you when you say that everyone, gay people included, has the right to marry someone of the opposite gender. Can we move on from this point now? I feel like this is a bit of a waste of time, and I’d really rather be discussing the actual issues at stake here.
b) You said, ‘I believe the issue is in it’s basic form is, "What is marriage?"’
I don’t really understand what you mean by this. Could you clarify?
c) Yes, we agree that you can’t marry someone else’s wife while she is someone else’s wife. Yes, this point is MOOT (not mute).
I agree with you that the argument "I should be able to marry anyone I want to or anyone I love” is poorly worded. Absolutes (words like “anyone”) rarely belong in making a point, because they are too easy to falsify, as you’ve shown.
So let me make that statement more explicit: “Two consenting human adults should be allowed to marry as long as neither party is currently married, and the adults are not related to one another.” This, at least, is what I believe.
d) Yes, perhaps my wording was poor there. The point I was really trying to make is that just because there are cases where straight people may not be able to marry the person they love does not mean that it is just that two people of the same gender cannot marry. As I said above, I agree with you that “Everyone should be able to marry the person they love” is a weak argument, so I understand why you wanted to demonstrate that it does not work. I want to demonstrate that this is really not the issue we’re discussing.
As you did, I will move on to point 2 in a separate post. -
Alber | 07/15/2011 flag |
Kem, so I understand your viewpoint better, do you believe that two connecting adults, that are brothers or brother and sister, should have the right to marry so they too could enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals?
-
Kem | 07/15/2011 flag |
I hate it when a post is cut short... there was a lot more to that, but it's late.
Long and short of my post: Equality is simply the legal condition that does not discriminate against *TWO CONSENTING ADULTS* who want to enjoy the same rights that heterosexuals have. It may make it less socially acceptable to frown upon homosexuality, but it cannot force acceptance. You retain your right to view any behavior as immoral, just as Fred Phelps retains his right to spew his hatred. That truly is a choice, and this is a free country.
Just think carefully about this. When a gay soldier dies, his "spouse" isn't treated the same way that a heterosexual soldier's spouse would be treated. And really, is that fair?
Food for thought. -
Kem | 07/15/2011 flag |
Alber,
I'm generally pretty hesitant to hop into these debates, too. Cognitive dissonance generally doesn't lend itself well to an open-minded debate. But, occasionally, it does. And you seem to be trying. And I've learned a fair amount from listening to people I disagree with, things that have helped me to reconcile issues that troubled me in the past. So I'll take the time with you, to try and make this very simple to understand.
In my past, abstract arguments didn't always help me to understand the issues as well as concrete examples. So here's an anecdotal response, point for point, to your last post.
Marriage equality. What exactly does that mean? Because if we say that it means I should have equal rights to marry just like anyone else, then we already have that.
>
To be sure, there are plenty of people who would be unhappy if their children married outside of their race or creed. Fortunately, their discomfort does not strip others of their rights in the case of heterosexual marriage.
-
Alber | 07/14/2011 flag |
Jess,
I have posted your second issue in full. I believe it's better to read it over again to understand it best.
Your issue:
2. You claim that gay people want "special rights" by being given the right to marry members of the same sex.
This is incorrect. Marriage equality is about two members of the same sex being granted the same right to marry as two members of the opposite sex. Straight people would have just as much of a right to marry members of the same sex as gay people would. Of course, I'm guessing that most straight people would choose not to, just as most gay people choose not to marry members of the opposite sex!
You suggest that maybe members of the same sex should be allowed to enter into unions that are equal to marriage except in name, but this sounds far more like "special" rights to me. Marriage equality is not about separate but equal; marriage equality means that a marriage between two people of the same gender is the same as a marriage between two people of opposite genders.
My answer:
Marriage equality. What exactly does that mean? Because if we say that it means I should have equal rights to marry just like anyone else, then we already have that.
But equality isn't really what is being asked for, is it?
It's not a matter of equality, it's a matter of gays wanting their lifestyle inserted into the law.
That's called acceptance, not equality.
By the gay definition of equality, as I'm understanding it, we would have to make marriage available to opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples, polygymouse, plyandrous, polyamourous, incetuous or bestial unions, right?
If not, what am I missing in the word equality? -
Alber | 07/14/2011 flag |
Jess,
Regarding your point #1:
I am going to break this one up into sections as they are different issues you have addressed.
a) You said, '..., but surely you understand that what is meant by this claim is...'
I do understand what the argument actually is, but I will not assume that they understand what it actually is.
If they want to argue that gays do not have the same rights as straight people, then they will lose that argument.
It's too hard to know what people actually mean if what they type says something different. I can't read thier face, or body language so I have to take what they type as they type it. If they don't mean what they typed, then they should spend more time, such as you have, to read what they typed and correct it to mean what they type.
Understanding is key to presenting our thoughts online.
b) You said, 'what is meant by this claim is "Gay people do not have the right to marry members of the same sex."'
I don't entirely agree with this either as being at the root of what the issue is.
I believe the issue is in it's basic form is, "What is marriage?"
Until we understand that, everything else must wait its turn to be discussed.
c) You stated, "By the way, yes, you do have the right to marry someone else's wife if she divorces her husband."
This was why I asked the question, "Would you consider a woman that gets a divorce to still be considered that man's wife?"
To which you replied, "Obviously not. She entered into a legal contract with that man which made her that man's wife."
My question, I think, made your thoughts clearer to understand.
I agree with you completely; If I'm single (no currently married), I do have the right to marry someone who has been divorced. This means she no longer is contractually tied to her husband.
But again, this is a semantics issue. I don't assume. I take what you wrote and agrue from that point.
So do we both agree that no one do not have the right marry someone else wife?
If so, this point is mute.
This is really an issue regarding the poorly worded and technically false statement that "I should be able to marry anyone I want to or anyone I love."
Again, gays and straights have the same rights in this regard.
d) And lastly, "Two members of the same sex can never get married, as long as there are laws in place that do not allow for same-sex marriage."
Yes, I agree with that.
Then you said, "And wait, what exactly were you trying to prove by that argument anyways? That straight people equally don't have the right to marry the person they love? If so, you've failed."
I'm not sure which argument you were meaning here and how it failed. I might need a little more information to answer this one.
I will post this one and then go on to #2 in a different post so that it's a little more readable. -
david | 07/14/2011 flag |
I love this sign! It was actually passed around on facebook lol.
http://www.foodnservice.com -
Alber | 07/14/2011 flag |
I understand that my requests mean nothing to you. I'm fine with that.
Not sure what your Ps. is referring to. It sounds to me that you are saying that "If someone looks gay, smells gay and acts gay, they must be gay."
Is that right? -
Ivan | 07/14/2011 flag |
I will call you what ever the hell I want to call you. However, I will keep your regards in mind. Please remember that your requests mean nothing to me.
Ps. If it looks like a dog, smells like a dog and acts like a dog, it JUST MAY be a dog.
Food for thought. -
Alber | 07/14/2011 flag |
Ivan,
I'm sorry if I have offended you in anyway. That was never my intention.
I will respect your wish of leaving you alone as long as you will agree with my request that you will no longer throw insults at me.
And yes, I consider calling me a Neanderthal as an insult as well because it does not base itself in reality. You don't know me from anyone else so you can't call me something that you don't know that I am.
Best Regards,
Alber -
Ivan | 07/14/2011 flag |
I really have nothing to say. It's become something like beating a dead a horse. It goes beyond agreeing. Please leave me alone. Bother someone else who has the time and patience to argue with Neanderthals like you.
-
Alber | 07/14/2011 flag |
Ivan,
Could you expound on your anger in an other way than to throw insults?
I feel that I have been fair in what I have said and I am open to discussing the issues.
Just because we don't agree does not mean we should just through insults at each other. That doesn't get anyone anywhere. -
Ivan | 07/14/2011 flag |
My anger comes from people like you.
-
Jess | 07/14/2011 flag |
Alber, sorry if I misinterpreted your reason for bringing up your religion. I did notice that you had not brought up religion in your previous posts, and I am glad that you will not be "playing the religion card". I guess I just don't really understand what relevance the driving force behind your arguments has in this discussion if you want to discuss the issues for their own merits. I mean, aren't you just admitting that you are biased against gay rights?
-
Alber | 07/13/2011 flag |
Ivan, why do you have so much anger?
-
Alber | 07/13/2011 flag |
Jess, thanks for the additional information. Lots to chew on. I am glad that you too, believe we can discuss this even if we are on opposite sides of the argument.
By the way, I didn't mean to bring in my faith other than just to let you know that it is one of the driving forces behind what I am discussing. I have been trying to work through this discussion without bringing religion into it. I hope you have noticed that from my posts.
I believe that if we are to make intelligent arguments, they must come from a common source, the evidence. To play a religion card, to me, isn't showing people that there are other issues at stake here. It's not a I believe this so you should to type of issue. It's an issue that should be discussed for it's merits.
I'm still formulating my replies as there is much on this plate.
Again, thanks for the information. It helps a lot. -
Ivan | 07/13/2011 flag |
Alber and Barry... Go fuck yourselves.
-
Jess | 07/13/2011 flag |
Hi Alber,
1. Would you consider a woman that gets a divorce to still be considered that man's wife?
Obviously not. She entered into a legal contract with that man which made her that man's wife. She can break that contract in order to enter into one with you to become your wife. You can still marry the woman you love. There is no legal contract a gay person can break in order to marry a person of the same sex. In other words, in the U.S. as a whole, there is no way a gay person can legally marry the person he or she loves.
2. Polygamy
I'm glad you brought up laws in Canada, because I am a proud Canadian, and I am especially proud of the freedoms my country provides to all. In case it’s relevant, I am living in the U.S. right now, so it’s not as though I’m an outsider chiming in on this issue. Yes, there is currently a court case going on in Canada for the legalization of polygamy, and same-sex marriage is being used as a precedent where the traditional definition of marriage was changed. However, this is as far as that precedent goes. All it does is demonstrate that the definition of marriage can be changed, but it doesn't mean that it will be changed. The court is examining evidence to determine whether or not polygamous marriage is inherently harmful, abusive to women, or detrimental to society. None of these issues have any association to gay marriage, and so that is where the precedent of the redefinition of marriage falls short.
By the way, I don't think that it's a bad thing that Canada's Supreme Court is examining this issue. I believe in the importance of personal and religious freedom, both of which are possibly at stake in the criminalization of polygamy. Of course, if the practice of plural marriage is shown to be harmful, this would trump the violation of freedoms, but we shouldn't be quick to jump to conclusions.
There is another major difference between same-sex and plural marriages, and bringing it up will require me to retract one of my earlier statements, but I think it's worthwhile. I said before that the debate about whether or not homosexuality is a choice does not belong in the debate about same-sex marriage. Well, perhaps, in this case at least, I was wrong. Because I strongly believe that being gay is not a choice, and this is one place where the case is far stronger for the legalization of same-sex marriage than for the legalization of plural marriage. One can choose whether or not to be polygamous; one cannot choose which gender one is attracted to. “But gay people do have a choice!” some will argue. “They can choose not to act on their desires! They can marry someone of the opposite gender, just like everyone else!” Yes, and probably cause psychological damage to themselves, their spouses, and their children because they are denying a fundamental part of themselves. Therapies that purport to change one’s sexual orientation do not work: this has been shown many times over.
The APA agrees with me:
http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx
I know you think the APA is a “pro-gay” organization, but I’ll reiterate what I said before: they are a scientific association that conducts research and publishes their findings. They are only pro-gay so far as their research (research motivated by scientific discovery, not by religion or morality) has shown them that being gay is not a choice, that perceiving homosexuality as a disease is harmful to those who are gay, and that trying to change one’s sexual orientation is not only impossible, but also detrimental to one’s psychological health.
Moving on: oh boy, religion is finally being dragged into this little exchange. I was wondering when it was going to rear its head. Alber, if you are a Christian, that’s wonderful, good for you. However, your religion should have nothing to do with the reasons for or against the laws in this country. Church and state are supposed to be separate, right? You say you believe pedophilia is wrong—well, yes, of course, I do too! I hate to repeat myself, but I guess I have to: pedophilia is illegal because it is abusive toward children. Homosexuality is not illegal in the U.S. because it was decided many years ago that it was not harmful, and that making it illegal was an unnecessary violation of personal freedoms. In the same vein, same-sex marriage should not be illegal because it is not harmful to anyone, and is an unnecessary violation of personal freedoms. If your religion tells you that homosexuality is immoral, there probably isn’t much I can say to change your mind. I know that there are Christians out there who would disagree with you and would love to debate about different interpretations of your religion, but I am not one of them. I am not a Christian, so I don’t feel it’s my place to argue about whether or not you can be Christian and still believe that homosexuality is not as sin (as many do). And it doesn’t have any relevance here anyhow. What your religion deems is right and wrong should have nothing to do with federal laws.
I’m glad to hear that you are open to discussing ideas that differ from your own and willing to change your convictions. I feel the same way: I believe that we experience gut reactions that tell us whether an argument is right or wrong, but that we must overcome these instincts and use intellect to examine each argument carefully to determine its validity.
I’m looking forward to reading your response. -
Alber | 07/13/2011 flag |
Candee, you are really okay with whatever people do as long as it is the privacy of their own home?
That might be fine, but fighting for gay marriage isn't keeping it private and in their own home. Gays want it to be out in the open and for everyone to be accepting of it.
Doesn't sound too private to me. -
Candee | 07/13/2011 flag |
Well, ignorance is still alive and well...these type of people should e shot on site...And I'm not gay...what people do in the privacy of their home is nobody else's business...
-
Alber | 07/13/2011 flag |
Jess,
Very fine arguments. I can tell you took the time to read through all the posts.
I'm going to ask for a little bit of time to look through all of your arguments so that I 1) understand exactly what you are meaning, and 2) so I formulate the best possible answers.
Couple of follow up questions to help me understand what you are meaning:
1) You said, "By the way, yes, you do have the right to marry someone else's wife if she divorces her husband."
Would you consider a woman that gets a divorce to still be considered that man's wife?
2) You wrote: "You also suggest that legalizing same sex marriage will open the door to legalizing polygamy."
In Canada, they have what is called equality marriage. This allows men to merry men and women to merry women. One of each, mind you. But currently, there is a court case that has been going on in Canada that is trying to get polygamy accepted along the same lines as equality marriages had done 6 years ago.
The equality marriages have been around now for almost five to six years. The gays have gotten the acceptance there that the gays in America are now fighting for. So it's just a matter of time before marriage will be redefined to allow anything society wants.
I would like to see your response on this for your #3 argument to see how we would proceed with this one.
Your #3 argument is a major issue for me as I am a Christian and consider not only pedophilia and the like to be morally wrong, but homosexuality as well. So we can discuss this issue in light of our other arguments as well.
If you think you’re right and you are not open to considering other alternatives, then your mind is closed, or narrowed considerably, and therefore you are closed-minded or narrow-minded, regardless of how expansive your view seems to be.
If, however, you have your convictions for good reasons but you’re willing to engage alternate ideas and weigh them, and believe them or discard them as evidence allows, then you’re not closed-minded, or narrow-minded; you are open-minded. So in this regard, I am open-minded to discuss alternate ideas and weight them. Though you might find that I have a narrow view of things. I'm not narrow-minded, but I do hold to a narrow view. Narrow-minded has nothing to do with the view; it has to do with the way you hold the view.
Again, allow me the time to go over what you have written and I will be able to better present my thoughts to your well constructed arguments.
Thanks again for taking the time. I think these issues are vital to how we live in our society. -
kiki | 07/13/2011 flag |
come to think of it..thats true..see we are all godschildren... who we sleep with in private...keep it clean and tidy...cut the grass, love your animals, children, and seek the calm that comes from inner peace and connection with the universe
-
Jess | 07/12/2011 flag |
I usually find that getting myself involved in these debates is pointless since it is highly unlikely that any of the participants will actually change their opinion, but after reading the whole thread, I just have to bite.
Alber, you say that you are open to discussion, and I'm curious to see just how open you are.
1. You claim that gay men and women do have equal rights since they have just as much right as anyone else to marry a member of the opposite sex.
True, when people claim "Gay people don't have the right to marry", this is poorly worded and technically false, but surely you understand that what is meant by this claim is "Gay people do not have the right to marry members of the same sex." So why are you wasting time arguing about semantics? You obviously know what this argument is actually about.
By the way, yes, you do have the right to marry someone else's wife if she divorces her husband. Two members of the same sex can never get married, as long as there are laws in place that do not allow for same-sex marriage. And wait, what exactly were you trying to prove by that argument anyways? That straight people equally don't have the right to marry the person they love? If so, you've failed.
2. You claim that gay people want "special rights" by being given the right to marry members of the same sex.
This is incorrect. Marriage equality is about two members of the same sex being granted the same right to marry as two members of the opposite sex. Straight people would have just as much of a right to marry members of the same sex as gay people would. Of course, I'm guessing that most straight people would choose not to, just as most gay people choose not to marry members of the opposite sex!
You suggest that maybe members of the same sex should be allowed to enter into unions that are equal to marriage except in name, but this sounds far more like "special" rights to me. Marriage equality is not about separate but equal; marriage equality means that a marriage between two people of the same gender is the same as a marriage between two people of opposite genders.
3. You frequently liken gay marriage to giving pedophiles rights, allowing bestiality, and allowing peeping toms to peep away.
The biggest difference between gay marriage and the actions of pedophiles, people that participate in bestiality, and peeping toms? Gay marriage is something that takes place between TWO CONSENTING ADULTS! Sorry to use the whole caps, yelling thing, but I feel like this point really needs to be emphasized. Pedophilia is about an adult abusing a child, bestiality is about a human abusing an animal, and a peeping tom abuses the person he or she is peeping on, whether that person knows it or not (i.e. a violation of someone's privacy is abuse, whether the person knows their privacy has been violated or not). The marriage between two members of the same sex is not inherently abusive to either of these TWO CONSENTING ADULTS! (Sorry, had to do it again.)
You also attempt to counter the argument that gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone by claiming that this is not necessarily true. I could possibly be persuaded to believe you if the example you used was not so poor: parents being "devastated" because their child has come out? Really? Other than the fact that this example is about coming out, and not about gay marriage, it is completely useless in proving anything. Children have been disappointing their parents for eons, that doesn't mean that everything someone does that is a disappointment to his or her parents is wrong. Some parents are "devastated" when their child announces they want to be a journalist instead of a doctor. That doesn't mean that there is something morally wrong with being a journalist! Maybe some parents need to stop having so many expectations for their children, and instead, love their children for who they are.
4. You claim that it is dangerous to redefine marriage to include marriages between people of the same sex because this opens up marriage to more redefinitions that would eventually render the word meaningless.
In reading through your arguments, I get the impression that you see this as your most important reason for being against gay marriage. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but marriage has been redefined many, many times over the course of history--gay marriage is not the first. To name a few:
-Legal marriages were, until relatively recently, completely secular and could not be carried out by religious clerics (they performed marriage ceremonies before this, but they had no legal meaning).
-Divorce was once generally considered to be immoral, one of the worst sins, until King Henry VIII came along and decided to change things.
-Even more recently in the United States, if two people with different colored skin wanted to marry, they would not have been granted that right. And by the way, those who opposed interracial marriage made many of the same arguments you are making now: they have equal rights--they just have to marry someone of the same ethnicity as them; if we allow a black person and a white person to get married, we'll be opening the door to all kinds of things. Heck, a man and his dog could get married! Why not? ... Silly, right? Yeah, I think so too.
You also suggest that legalizing same sex marriage will open the door to legalizing polygamy. I fail to see the logic in this. Just because one thing is allowed does not mean that everything is allowed. What argument do you fear polygamists will use to further their movement if gay marriage is allowed? "Two guys can get married, so I should be allowed to have four wives"? If so, I don't think you have anything to worry about. The legalization of same sex marriage does not set a precedent that would allow all other definitions of marriage to be legalized. These are separate issues.
5. As usual, the debate about whether or not homosexuality is a choice has been incorrectly tied up in a debate about same sex marriage. Whether or not homosexuality is nature or nurture is an entirely different argument, so why are we going there? I thought we were talking about marriage.
BUT while I'm here, just briefly: to say that the APA is pro-gay suggests that they are biased. This is not true: they are a scientific association that publishes the findings of their studies. The fact that they have published results that are favorable to the gay rights movement does not make them pro-gay. Likewise, publishing results that are less helpful to the gay rights movement does not make them anti-gay.
6. Finally, your discourse on tolerance.
Alber, I agree with you, tolerance does not mean holding the same beliefs as someone; in fact, it implies the opposite. The word "tolerance" is frequently misused. Personally, I think our society could use less tolerance and more open-mindedness and acceptance, but that's just me.
So what I'd like to know is, will you open your mind and consider the possibility that legalizing same sex marriage will not threaten validity or importance of marriage between a man and a woman? Will you see how denying two consenting adults who have chosen to forge a lifelong commitment to each other the right to marry, with all its legal and symbolic implications, is denying them a basic right? I hope you will. -
Alfred | 07/12/2011 flag |
This sign is funny
-
Alber | 07/11/2011 flag |
For most of my life, I thought I knew what people meant when they used the word "tolerance."
But I have discovered that what the word once meant and what it means today are two drastically different things. The new meaning, which I'll refer to as the "new tolerance," stretches far beyond the dictionary's definition of the word.
This new meaning is enjoying widespread acceptance throughout our culture, and the implications are alarming.
Webster's defines the word "tolerate" as follows: "to recognize and respect [others' beliefs, practices, etc.] without sharing them" and "to bear or put up with [someone or something not especially liked].
This type of tolerance differentiates between a person's thoughts or actions and the person himself.
Unfortunately, the dictionary definitions of tolerance no longer capture the full meaning promoted by the "new tolerance;" at least not according to the majority of people and institutions using the term. And this is increasingly true among younger generations.
I would estimate that approximately 80 percent of the time that the word "tolerance" is used today - by teachers, the media, government officials, and perhaps even your own children - it is being used to mean the "new tolerance," which says that what every individual believes or says is equally right and equally valid.
In other words, all values, beliefs, lifestyles, and truth claims are equal.
Tolerance is a virtue of a man without convictions.
In order for a person to possess convictions about a belief, it is necessary, by definition, for the person to be convinced that his or her belief is true.
But if I sincerely consider everyone's beliefs, lifestyles, and truth claims as equal to my own (even when they contradict my beliefs, lifestyles, and truth claims), I can no longer claim any genuine conviction regarding my own beliefs.
The "new tolerance" requires me to admit that I may just as easily be as mistaken or misled as my neighbor.
If no truth is "more true" than any other "truth," then there is no truth worth defending. And if there is no truth worth defending, there is no room for conviction.
When faced with competing truth claims, the only way to arrive at a meaningful conclusion is by investigation. The careful observer must weigh the claims according to the evidence. If someone claims that something is true, we should be able to "test" that claim to determine if it is based on fact, not on opinion.
We want our kids to have solid convictions that will enable them to stand strong in today's culture, but it is vitally important that we help them to build those convictions on objective truth.
We can't tolerate someone unless we disagree with him. We don't "tolerate" people who share our views. They're on our side, there's nothing to put up with. Tolerance is reserved for those we think are wrong.
But believing someone else to be wrong does not mean we can't be respectful of their thoughts and ideas. It just means we believe them the be wrong.
We can all be civil. And we can all be respectful.
We can also be able to tell someone that we believe them to be wrong.
But when we do that, we must also be ready to present to them why we believe they are wrong.
And if we are living in this world, where people are screaming "be tolerant!", then we should allow others the chance to present their arguments as to why they believe we are wrong. Then we, as I stated above, need to take what they have said, compare it to the facts and see if they are correct. And if they are correct, then being in the tolerant world that we all so want, we must change our minds and side with them.
That is true tolerance. Not in ideas, but in attitude towards each other. -
David | 07/11/2011 flag |
Yo Melanie, America has one of the THE most tolerant societies when it comes to homosexuality. I thought I'd tell you that. There are still countires that exist where you can be stoned to death for being openly gay. Not to mention, the community can ostracize and attack you. America is one of the few places in the world where gay people can be gay and deal with a minor amount of prejudice. Prejudice is no good however you slice it, but to sit there and dump on America for having attacking gays is pretty ridiculous in itself. Try to realize how lucky we have it in America instead of wanting to feel opressed.
-
Algie | 07/11/2011 flag |
Intelligence quantity (quota?) on Earth is constant.
Number of people on Earth is rising.
(don't remember where it's from)
But:
Being nonreproductive, gay people do service to everybody else's children. Adopting, they provide loving home (and you can't convince me that it's healthier for the child to see how the straight parents fight their way to and through the divorce. In gay families child does not 'happen' accidentally)
Being reproductive demands some serious trouble and money, chances are good that product is 1. more treasured 2. better provided for.
I believe that EVERY potential parent should go through tutoring and earn a licence before being allowed to breed. Would be much better world. -
Juhbewdyz | 07/11/2011 flag |
This sign is so gay.
-
Kay | 07/10/2011 flag |
hahaha i must say someone posting ignorant comments on a site where people go to laugh at other people's ignorance and stupidity is rather ironic. dumb ass.
-
Rob | 07/10/2011 flag |
So a smart-ass sign that throws the bigotry back in the faces of those who oppose gay marriage yields comments which assimilate homosexuals with murderers, rapists, and... bestiality....??
Talk about DESPERATION to try and condemn something you know nothing about but are obviously INTERESTED IN enough that you put THAT MUCH THOUGHT into rationalizing it away.... Come out of the closet already! It's OK to be curious.... we won't "out" you, Barry xoxo ;) -
Barry | 07/10/2011 flag |
Yo Melanie... Murder is natural, your argument ... Well lets just say, do you have any evidence to back your claim? Do you know what separates us from the primates? They try to mate with what they can cuz they dont know any better. Animals mate with other species and cross breed , creating animal hybrids.... So since the animals do it, is it ok for you and I to breed with other species? .. Your dog, maybe a horse or chimpanzee ? Hey the animals do it, so lets all try to make it so you can marry your german shepard. Before you speak out against beastiality, try not to look like you are in the closet.
-
egearing82 | 07/10/2011 flag |
Only one problem with this sign. People aren't born gay. it is a choice they make.
-
Melanie | 07/09/2011 flag |
Yo Barry, Being gay is totally normal. And there are tons of studies that prove that more homophobic you are, the more you have homosexual tendencies. (fear what you don't understand...or don't want other people to know about you?) Homosexuality has been going on since the beginning of time, through every culture and every race. It is acceptable in many cultures...America is just silly, because we seem to have a lot of puritanism, fear and hellfire combined with crazy marketing, hedoism and repression. If you look at biology, every primate has about 10% of the population that shows homosexual behavior. Adult male apes have no problem having sex with other males, and no one seems to have a problem with it. Ever notice how those who speak so loud against it are usually the ones who are doing in private??
-
gloria | 07/09/2011 flag |
i dont agree with the sign
-
Barry | 07/09/2011 flag |
Liz, scroll down, read, educate yourself... Than comment...
-
liz | 07/09/2011 flag |
how is being gay not natural? it Is natural! many animals are gay or do homosexual acts with other animals. We are animals too and it is only natural that some people are born attracted to the opposite sex.
-
carrie | 07/08/2011 flag |
Wow... was I too subtle? My apologies, my sarcasm can be way too dry sometimes. I'll piecemeal it:
I was poking fun at Barry's less-than-scientific explanation while simultaneously pointing out what all this debate really is - just bigotry.
I don't really think bigotry is a "brain process." Bias, discrimination and narrow-mindedness are conscious decisions. And although thoughts are brain processes, we have the ability to control our actions even with those thoughts, so one cannot blame the "brain process" for acting on our opinions.
A "malfunction in brain processes" could explain having a lazy eye... but not a trait like being a homosexual. That's like saying someone with one blue eye and one green eye's brain processes malfunctioned because the eyes aren't the same color. We now know it's because of a genetic trait..... which is not a "process" of an organ.
That's all folks. Have a nice day sniping at each other because you're afraid of people who are different from you. -
Barry | 07/08/2011 flag |
Carrie, bigotry is insecurity mixed with bad decision making. I can see how that could be confused, but nobody has presented scientific evidence for the brain mapping of bigotry yet.... You could be THAT groundbreaking researcher..... Cait, that was sarcasm...
-
Barry | 07/08/2011 flag |
Cait, use you brain to form a complete thought before making an attempt at intelligent conversation. Read the rest of the post / posts so that you dont look the fool for taking a sarcastic remark seriously.... Wait, are you?.... No, I wont go there.... Lol
-
Alber | 07/08/2011 flag |
Carrie, You said, "Bigotry is a "malfunction in your brain processes" too."
How do you come to this conclusion? Is there evidence for your claim? -
carrie | 07/08/2011 flag |
Bigotry is a "malfunction in your brain processes" too.
