ciel999 Posted September 5, 2012 Report Share Posted September 5, 2012 Because really, if two people really love each other and are committed to each other, I don't see why society should prevent them from expressing that love and commitment, through marriage. Everyday, gay people contribute to society. They work, spend money, and pay taxes just like everyone else. To prevent them from getting married is to violate their rights. I don't understand why some people are complete homophobes and are just so against gay marriage! Why? Why are you against it? Is it because somebody else told you to be against it? For those of you who are against gay marriage because you want to protect the "traditional family." First of all, good for you. At least you have your own value. But for Heaven's sake, don't go around shoving it down other people's throat! Just because a value is important to you doesn't mean everyone else will like it as well. Even though I'm not gay, I really want to do whatever I can to support gay marriage. Organizing/participating in a protest sounds like a good idea. Being a female, I thought I could grab a female friend and we could go and makeout on the front lawn of a Catholic Church on a Sunday morning for the whole congregation to see. Get guys to bring their buddies and do the same thing too. That would be fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elarXi Posted September 5, 2012 Report Share Posted September 5, 2012 Although I perfectly agree with you and I personally too support gay marriage, I believe your argument for the case is flawed. I think formulating it as a matter of personal which does not affect the well-functioning of the rest of society and promotes mutual acceptance is a better formulation. Based on your argument, however, if a member of society pays taxes and contributes to society he should be allowed to get married irrespective of his views on marriage; take the case of polygamy and Mormons, then... following from your argument, this should be allowed as well but is shunned even more so than gay marriage.... why? I reckon that the true reason educated people wish to eschew gay marriage (and any marriage non-2-people-heterosexual) is to preserve the traditional, arguably a natural aspect of a heterosexual family. Centuries have been built on tradition, and there is no escaping that it is a powerful (although oft misguided) force. That's how people have aggregated together, based on common beliefs, and that's what the driving force behind ostricising those who don't share the common values. If you took evolution, it's very similar to stabilizing selection, really. As for protesting, I wouldn't imagine why you would wish to do that. Especially for those who are deep into religion, they would turn a blind-eye to you, and, worse yet, treat you with even less respect than they do those who truly are homosexual. Edit: I just read that thread you posted about "manliness" and you used the word "gayness"... considering your views in this thread, I'm at loss as to how you manage to both take on a pro-gay-rights perspective in this thread, but use the word "gay" in another thread as a derogatory term... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thehockeykid Posted September 5, 2012 Report Share Posted September 5, 2012 NOT THIS AGAIN. The whole argument is already discussed way too much, why are u bring this up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gg173 Posted September 5, 2012 Report Share Posted September 5, 2012 Why r u even bringing this up? Gay marriage in Canada was legalized in 2005..this is a non-issue for Canadians ...unless you're referring to the upcoming American presidential election in November? Sadly, this is still a "hot-topic" in the US.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ciel999 Posted September 5, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 5, 2012 Based on your argument, however, if a member of society pays taxes and contributes to society he should be allowed to get married irrespective of his views on marriage; take the case of polygamy and Mormons, then... following from your argument, this should be allowed as well but is shunned even more so than gay marriage.... why? This will change if Mitt Romney becomes President. There's this Mormon guy who I go to school with and he thinks polygamy is perfectly acceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhoenixFlare500 Posted September 5, 2012 Report Share Posted September 5, 2012 Edit: I just read that thread you posted about "manliness" and you used the word "gayness"... considering your views in this thread, I'm at loss as to how you manage to both take on a pro-gay-rights perspective in this thread, but use the word "gay" in another thread as a derogatory term... One word: Troll Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ciel999 Posted September 5, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 5, 2012 Edit: I just read that thread you posted about "manliness" and you used the word "gayness"... considering your views in this thread, I'm at loss as to how you manage to both take on a pro-gay-rights perspective in this thread, but use the word "gay" in another thread as a derogatory term... That thread was meant to be light-hearted. This one's serious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ciel999 Posted September 5, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 5, 2012 I reckon that the true reason educated people wish to eschew gay marriage (and any marriage non-2-people-heterosexual) is to preserve the traditional, arguably a natural aspect of a heterosexual family. Centuries have been built on tradition, and there is no escaping that it is a powerful (although oft misguided) force. That's how people have aggregated together, based on common beliefs, and that's what the driving force behind ostricising those who don't share the common values. If you took evolution, it's very similar to stabilizing selection, really. Okay, I can understand if a group ostracizes others simply because they are gay. It's the whole procreation deal. Because if everyone became gay, then the human species would eventually die out. What I don't understand is, how can a group of "educated" people ostracize others simply because they don't believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross for their sins, and thus gave them a chance for eternal life, among other things? This doesn't sound like an educated reason to ostracize someone else. In fact, it just shows that people are ostracized for not believing in the stupid, irrational, fairy tale-like stories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LifeIGuess Posted September 5, 2012 Report Share Posted September 5, 2012 not addressing this specific thread but im curious why you even bring up non-issues or issues alike. do you formulate your final opinion based on the discussion in these threads?..are you afraid to discuss these with others in the open that you have to resort to the forums? does expressing an opinion and then arguing about it with others on this forum make you feel better about your own train of thought? just curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ciel999 Posted September 5, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 5, 2012 not addressing this specific thread but im curious why you even bring up non-issues or issues alike. do you formulate your final opinion based on the discussion in these threads?..are you afraid to discuss these with others in the open that you have to resort to the forums? does expressing an opinion and then arguing about it with others on this forum make you feel better about your own train of thought? just curious. No, no, and no. I just have a lot of free time on my hand, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GREGtotheHOUSE Posted September 5, 2012 Report Share Posted September 5, 2012 No, no, and no. I just have a lot of free time on my hand, I guess. must be nice to have mummy pay for all your shi t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elarXi Posted September 5, 2012 Report Share Posted September 5, 2012 What I don't understand is, how can a group of "educated" people ostracize others simply because they don't believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross for their sins, and thus gave them a chance for eternal life, among other things? This doesn't sound like an educated reason to ostracize someone else. In fact, it just shows that people are ostracized for not believing in the stupid, irrational, fairy tale-like stories. Educated people are those who back their beliefs by well-formed arguments as opposed to a sheer hatred of those unlike them. As for the later part of your comment, it's perfectly natural process of social cohesion to accept the values of the many over values of the few. This is, was, and always were the means by which society moves forward. To solidify this aspect, consider the anarchy that would exist if society did not adhere to a basic, limited, and strict rules of conduct (i.e. laws). There would be anarchy. Sure, it is perfectly reasonable to counter this argument with how society is much more fluid than laws are, and laws are often biased to the interests of a historical majority (in America's case, the whites); it is rather an un-educated viewpoint, however, to think that by using violence or flamboyantly expressing a dissatisfaction with the law (ex. rioting) that any reasonable compromise will result. To support this last statement, consider the situation currently in Egypt - true, violence has helped alleviate the country of a dictator; but, in the sudden vacuum of laws, Egypt has rapidly shed all that "westernization" that was acquired over the ages, and is on the brink of becoming an islamic state. The tl;dr version: laws cannot be amended by breaking them, as it is the historical majority and tradition that serves to uphold the laws; the only way laws can be mutated is through a thorough analysis and re-defining of what human rights principles hold at their core. But, then again, aren't these very same principles, these ideas and their fundamental establishment, in truth, the creation of man in the first place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeking1 Posted September 7, 2012 Report Share Posted September 7, 2012 On a related note, there has been a piece in the NY Times about how there has been a change in the medical profession with regards to its treatment of homosexual doctors: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/26/when-the-doctor-cant-say-hes-gay/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lolelol Posted September 13, 2012 Report Share Posted September 13, 2012 it is rather an un-educated viewpoint, however, to think that by using violence or flamboyantly expressing a dissatisfaction with the law (ex. rioting) that any reasonable compromise will result. To support this last statement, consider the situation currently in Egypt - true, violence has helped alleviate the country of a dictator; but, in the sudden vacuum of laws, Egypt has rapidly shed all that "westernization" that was acquired over the ages, and is on the brink of becoming an islamic state. First of all you just called Karl Marx uneducated, I whole-heartedly lol'ed at that. Now, when laws are so ridiculous and your government is so tyrannical, sometimes the only way to get your way is to flamboyantly/violently protest. To support my argument, I call attention to Egypt- true, violence helped alleviate the country of a dictator. That is what they wanted, that is what they got. At that point it is really a gamble- you either end up with another oppressive douchebag (the current outcome), or you end up with something better (the other outcome that didn't happen). Just because s**t went south it doesn't mean that people should obey all laws no matter how ridiculous waiting for that one non-extremist candidate to come forth, so we can all vote for him and then be surprised that he didn't get elected.... Now to actually support my argument I call attention to the wonderful city of Amsterdam- which for centuries has been protesting (violently and not), and the dutch government that has been caving in to their demands time after time. When you live in a country with a government so ridiculous and indoctrinated that it takes away rights that even a 5 year old can rationalize as being wrong (like banning women from universities), society's pretty much hit rock bottom and there isn't much way to go but up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trojjanhorse Posted September 13, 2012 Report Share Posted September 13, 2012 NOT THIS AGAIN. The whole argument is already discussed way too much, why are u bring this up? +1 This topic has been beaten to death and starting to get overrated. I was taking the bus yesterday and saw a chick who clearly was gay from her get up and style. What threw me off was her earring (in addition to many others) that was shaped in a triangle with the rainbow colours. I thought about it for a good while and the fact that she could barely fit that ornament amongst other earrings she had on...Seriously? I think everyone got the message, without the need of symbolism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.