Your stance on gay marriage

[Neo Art]

I have never once understood this nonsensical need to try and define things as “natural” only to then bring up this bizarre proposition that “natural” must mean “good” in such a way to define homosexuality as “not natural” thus being “not good”.

We see it taken to the utmost extreme of “oh, so if anything a human being does is natural, that means the Holocaust was natural, so you like the holocaust, huh? HUH??”

It’s fucking stupid. A more general and proper definition of “natural” would be “occurring without intelligent intervention”. Sexuality thus is perfectly natural in that it occurs without specific intervention, we are who we are. A house is not “natural”, it doesn’t occur without intelligent intervention, i.e. someone fucking building it.

But so what? The chemotherapy that saved my life is certainly not natural. It was developed by the good men and women of Glaxo Smith-Klein in a lab using compounds that do not occur in nature. It was purely a human made invention. Nothing “natural” about it, unless we stretch the word “natural” to the obscene limits of “but it’s made of molecules!”

On the other hand, cyanide is perfectly natural. As was the tornado that killed a dozen people in Springfield last month. As is the Plague. All very natural things. All very deadly things. All things I’d just as soon avoid.

So let’s get over this obsessive need to categorize things as “not natural” and “natural” in order to somehow laud the “natural”. It’s stupid. Nature will fucking kill you.

[DaWoad]

I have never once understood this nonsensical need to try and define things as “natural” only to then bring up this bizarre proposition that “natural” must mean “good” in such a way to define homosexuality as “not natural” thus being “not good”.

We see it taken to the utmost extreme of “oh, so if anything a human being does is natural, that means the Holocaust was natural, so you like the holocaust, huh? HUH??”

It’s fucking stupid. A more general and proper definition of “natural” would be “occurring without intelligent intervention”. Sexuality thus is perfectly natural in that it occurs without specific intervention, we are who we are. A house is not “natural”, it doesn’t occur without intelligent intervention, i.e. someone fucking building it.

But so what? The chemotherapy that saved my life is certainly not natural. It was developed by the good men and women of Glaxo Smith-Klein in a lab using compounds that do not occur in nature. It was purely a human made invention. Nothing “natural” about it, unless we stretch the word “natural” to the obscene limits of “but it’s made of molecules!”

On the other hand, cyanide is perfectly natural. As was the tornado that killed a dozen people in Springfield last month. As is the Plague. All very natural things. All very deadly things. All things I’d just as soon avoid.

So let’s get over this obsessive need to categorize things as “not natural” and “natural” in order to somehow laud the “natural”. It’s stupid. Nature will fucking kill you.

the tl;dr version
I have never once understood this nonsensical need to try and define things as “natural” only to then bring up this bizarre proposition that “natural” must mean “good”
It’s fucking stupid.
Nature will fucking kill you

[The Halbetan Union]

I have never once understood this nonsensical need to try and define things as “natural” only to then bring up this bizarre proposition that “natural” must mean “good” in such a way to define homosexuality as “not natural” thus being “not good”.

We see it taken to the utmost extreme of “oh, so if anything a human being does is natural, that means the Holocaust was natural, so you like the holocaust, huh? HUH??”

It’s fucking stupid. A more general and proper definition of “natural” would be “occurring without intelligent intervention”. Sexuality thus is perfectly natural in that it occurs without specific intervention, we are who we are. A house is not “natural”, it doesn’t occur without intelligent intervention, i.e. someone fucking building it.

But so what? The chemotherapy that saved my life is certainly not natural. It was developed by the good men and women of Glaxo Smith-Klein in a lab using compounds that do not occur in nature. It was purely a human made invention. Nothing “natural” about it, unless we stretch the word “natural” to the obscene limits of “but it’s made of molecules!”

On the other hand, cyanide is perfectly natural. As was the tornado that killed a dozen people in Springfield last month. As is the Plague. All very natural things. All very deadly things. All things I’d just as soon avoid.

So let’s get over this obsessive need to categorize things as “not natural” and “natural” in order to somehow laud the “natural”. It’s stupid. Nature will fucking kill you.

That's a keeper.

[Tekania]

Go ahead and ask that question of the gay couples who have tried that method and been turned away at the hospital. Ask the partners who have been denied the right to see their dying partner because the hospital didn't recognize the legality of their relationship. This shit is in the news all the damn time. Do a freaking Google on it.

I can't even begin to imagine the heartbreaking anguish one would feel at being turned away like that. The complete helplessness and grief that would wash over you. Even being the person in the hospital, spending your dying moments wondering why your partner wasn't next to you. Recognition of the relationship for circumstances like this should be allowed, even if marriage is not.

That this happens is proof positive that same-sex marriage opponents are all sadistic bastards.

[Soheran]

No, I don't want rich guys abusing the system and getting joint tax filing. Think of two rich CEO dudes getting married. They don't have to have sex to be married, they don't even need to see each other. They get married and exploit the system to reduce the money they pay for taxes and divorce whenever it stops being profitable for them.

"[T]wo rich CEO dudes" who make similar incomes would not benefit at all from joint income tax filing, and often would be hurt by it. Marriage and its relationship to taxation is not as simple as people sometimes think.

Marriage doesn't really benefit poor people as much as the rich anyways the way it stands now.

This is probably true in absolute dollar terms (as with basically everything else in our society), but there are some benefits to marriage that are more beneficial to poor people than to rich people. One of them Bottle has already referenced: it gives them easy access to a range of next-of-kin rights that rich people can get by hiring lawyers. Also, "two rich CEO dudes" are likely to both have health insurance, but for couples where one spouse has health insurance and the other doesn't, marriage makes it easier for one spouse to cover the other. (This is no substitute, of course, for universal health care, especially given the many married people who can't get or can't afford health insurance either themselves or through their spouse, but it's something.)

[DaWoad]

No, I don't want rich guys abusing the system and getting joint tax filing. Think of two rich CEO dudes getting married. They don't have to have sex to be married, they don't even need to see each other. They get married and exploit the system to reduce the money they pay for taxes and divorce whenever it stops being profitable for them.

"[T]wo rich CEO dudes" who make similar incomes would not benefit at all from joint income tax filing, and often would be hurt by it. Marriage and its relationship to taxation is not as simple as people sometimes think.

more importantly, this isn't the 18th century. Woman can . . .you know. .. work now? And become CEOs? Even if this were an issue (it's not) it owuld be utterly freaking irrelevant when it comes to gay marriage.

Marriage doesn't really benefit poor people as much as the rich anyways the way it stands now.

This is probably true in absolute dollar terms (as with basically everything else in our society), but there are some benefits to marriage that are more beneficial to poor people than to rich people. One of them Bottle has already referenced to: it gives them easy access to a range of next-of-kin rights that rich people can get by hiring lawyers. Also, "two rich CEO dudes" are likely to both have health insurance, but for couples where one spouse has health insurance and the other doesn't, marriage makes it easier for one spouse to cover the other. (This is no substitute, of course, for universal health care, especially given the many married people who can't get or can't afford health insurance either themselves or through their spouse, but it's something.)

this

[Tekania]

Or have marriage for all, and those religions which would solemnize it for members of their faith can do so.

Why is this so difficult for people to understand? And I haven't heard of any straight couples whose marriages have dissolved or become meaningless or "defiled" because some gay couple got married.

Worse, the solution admits that certain "group [x]" can call it marriage, such as when the UUA in such a case would be calling same-sex partners "married". Which pretty much sums up the non-specialness of the word making the contention of creating the separate terms pointless at its own premise.

[Samuraikoku]

Or have marriage for all, and those religions which would solemnize it for members of their faith can do so.

Why is this so difficult for people to understand? And I haven't heard of any straight couples whose marriages have dissolved or become meaningless or "defiled" because some gay couple got married.

*CENSORED* religious marriage, damnit! When will people finally understand?

[Marlboro Kid]

Give people and politics some time to accept that gay marriage will not ruin their life or collapse the society.

Not that long ago, black people were subspecies in USA.
Not that long ago women couldn't vote in most of the Western countries.

Meanwhile roar your voice, put pressure on the politicians.

Seek for a consensus too. Like it or not, a majority in America thinks gays are sinning and committing something immoral. For them homosexuality is close to paedophilia.
Walk in those people their shoes, would you accept enhanced rights for paedophiles?

They are wrong, but you can't assume that you can change a view on morals and ethics in one night.

I still don't care. Civil rights are above "supposed" morals or ethics.

Morals and ethics are not real? Or YOUR morals and ethics are above the ones of another?

It's a bit more complicated than stating civil rights are above morals or ethics.

If it was then accept the DOMA. The passage of the Defense of Marriage Act (1996) says that a marriage was explicitly defined in federal law as a union of one man and one woman.

[Soheran]

Morals and ethics are not real? Or YOUR morals and ethics are above the ones of another?

Morality is real, and important. Prejudice dressed up as "morality," however, is unworthy of deference.

If it was then accept the DOMA. The passage of the Defense of Marriage Act (1996) says that a marriage was explicitly defined in federal law as a union of one man and one woman.

DOMA is unconstitutional, so I'm not sure what point you're making here.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

I still don't care. Civil rights are above "supposed" morals or ethics.

Morals and ethics are not real? Or YOUR morals and ethics are above the ones of another?

It's a bit more complicated than stating civil rights are above morals or ethics.

If it was then accept the DOMA. The passage of the Defense of Marriage Act (1996) says that a marriage was explicitly defined in federal law as a union of one man and one woman.

Morals and ethics are subjective. Therefore they have no usefullness to governance and law.

[Marlboro Kid]

Morals and ethics are not real? Or YOUR morals and ethics are above the ones of another?

Morality is real, and important. Prejudice dressed up as "morality," however, is unworthy of deference.

If it was then accept the DOMA. The passage of the Defense of Marriage Act (1996) says that a marriage was explicitly defined in federal law as a union of one man and one woman.

DOMA is unconstitutional, so I'm not sure what point you're making here.

So it's indeed about my morals are more worth than yours?

DOMA is unconstitutional? Aren't you mixing reality with wishful thinking?

[Tekania]

If it was then accept the DOMA. The passage of the Defense of Marriage Act (1996) says that a marriage was explicitly defined in federal law as a union of one man and one woman.

Yep, it does say that. It's also under assault for that definitions effect upon the equal protection clause, so while it is a passed law, it's status to remain such is looking more and more dubious. Why do you think there are so many repukes hell bent on attempting to protect DOMA from the courts now?

[Marlboro Kid]

If it was then accept the DOMA. The passage of the Defense of Marriage Act (1996) says that a marriage was explicitly defined in federal law as a union of one man and one woman.

Yep, it does say that. It's also under assault for that definitions effect upon the equal protection clause, so while it is a passed law, it's status to remain such is looking more and more dubious.

At the moment it's law. We'll see what happens in the future.

[Ludwig Drums]

I'm just going to throw this out there, after reading about a dozen or so pages of this drivel: why are you guys discussing this? The vast majority of you watch more porn than hitting the real thing, assuming you have ever had some fuzz, and I'd bet my left testicle that virtually all of you debating the issue (for or against gay marriage) have little idea what is involved in a committed relationship. For fuck's sake, it just seems bizarre for y'all to be debating an institution that you have no idea what it is about.

[Marlboro Kid]

Morals and ethics are not real? Or YOUR morals and ethics are above the ones of another?

It's a bit more complicated than stating civil rights are above morals or ethics.

If it was then accept the DOMA. The passage of the Defense of Marriage Act (1996) says that a marriage was explicitly defined in federal law as a union of one man and one woman.

Morals and ethics are subjective. Therefore they have no usefullness to governance and law.

There are countless laws which are arranging ethics and morality.

“Thou shall not refuse or fire an employee just because he’s gay” is one example.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

Morals and ethics are subjective. Therefore they have no usefullness to governance and law.

There are countless laws which are arranging ethics and morality.

“Thou shall not refuse or fire an employee just because he’s gay” is one example.

Civl rights=/=morality. Laws are about social cohesion, and not protecting a full 10% of the population from losing jobs over something as meaningless as sexual orientation is bad for social cohesion.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

I'm just going to throw this out there, after reading about a dozen or so pages of this drivel: why are you guys discussing this? The vast majority of you watch more porn than hitting the real thing, assuming you have ever had some fuzz, and I'd bet my left testicle that virtually all of you debating the issue (for or against gay marriage) have little idea what is involved in a committed relationship. For fuck's sake, it just seems bizarre for y'all to be debating an institution that you have no idea what it is about.

What? That's quite an assumption you're making there.

[Ludwig Drums]

I'm just going to throw this out there, after reading about a dozen or so pages of this drivel: why are you guys discussing this? The vast majority of you watch more porn than hitting the real thing, assuming you have ever had some fuzz, and I'd bet my left testicle that virtually all of you debating the issue (for or against gay marriage) have little idea what is involved in a committed relationship. For fuck's sake, it just seems bizarre for y'all to be debating an institution that you have no idea what it is about.

What? That's quite an assumption you're making there.

Since when was NSG populated by well-adjusted, happily married (or in a long-term committed relationship), older men?

[Ceannairceach]

I'm just going to throw this out there, after reading about a dozen or so pages of this drivel: why are you guys discussing this? The vast majority of you watch more porn than hitting the real thing, assuming you have ever had some fuzz, and I'd bet my left testicle that virtually all of you debating the issue (for or against gay marriage) have little idea what is involved in a committed relationship. For fuck's sake, it just seems bizarre for y'all to be debating an institution that you have no idea what it is about.

So we shouldn't campaign for equal rights for a group simply because we won't be participating when the equality is reached?

[Ludwig Drums]

I'm just going to throw this out there, after reading about a dozen or so pages of this drivel: why are you guys discussing this? The vast majority of you watch more porn than hitting the real thing, assuming you have ever had some fuzz, and I'd bet my left testicle that virtually all of you debating the issue (for or against gay marriage) have little idea what is involved in a committed relationship. For fuck's sake, it just seems bizarre for y'all to be debating an institution that you have no idea what it is about.

So we shouldn't campaign for equal rights for a group simply because we won't be participating when the equality is reached?

No, you shouldn't campaign because you have no idea what you're talking about.

I mean, you can, there's no one stopping you. I just wanted you to know that it's bizarre to be talking about the "definition" of something you've never experienced. In effect, no matter what side you're arguing for, you end up telling people who have been married for longer than you've been alive what their marriage is really about.

Which, for the most obvious reasons, doesn't make a lick of sense.

[Ceannairceach]

No, you shouldn't campaign because you have no idea what you're talking about.

I mean, you can, there's no one stopping you. I just wanted you to know that it's bizarre to be talking about the "definition" of something you've never experienced. In effect, no matter what side you're arguing for, you end up telling people who have been married for longer than you've been alive what their marriage is really about.

Which, for the most obvious reasons, doesn't make a lick of sense.

Who said anything about telling people what their marriage is about? The entire point is to simply include homosexuals under the term of marriage; This wouldn't be telling anyone to redefine what their marriage means to them. This said, unless you have definitive proof that the majority of people on NSG aren't married, you are simply making assumptions.

[Intangelon]

Actually, they are lying when they define themselves as Christians. If you are a non-repenting sinner, you cannot preach to others the Word of God. It would be hypocritical. Homosexuals are not Christians, because they do not follow the Bible.

You are absolutely, patently, blatantly, undisputedly wrong.

Biblical arguments against homosexuality are laughable to anyone who has actually bothered to look further than godhatefags.com.

Leviticus does not apply to Christians.

Timothy and Corinthians are mistranslations.

Romans is out of context and refers to one specific group of former Christians.

Using the bible against homosexuality is as rational as using Harry Potter against homosexuality.

And I say that as a bisexual Christian.

For the motherfucking win. Bravo.

[The USOT]

No, you shouldn't campaign because you have no idea what you're talking about.

By that Logic, nobody should have campaigned to end slavery because those with the ability to campaign were not slaves themselves.
The womens rights movement? WOOOW you cant consider a politicaian supporting it? HES A MALE! He knows not of these things.

That is rediculous. Just because you yourself do not put up with persecution does not mean you cannot find it unjust or unfair.

[Intangelon]

I instintively recoil at the idea of gay marriage, even though I recognise there isn't a logical reason for this reaction. I feel as if it compromises my moral values. However, I also feel that we all need to respect otheres decisions and be more tolerant. I don't have a problem with gay people.

However I still oppose gay marriage. I see it as part as a long term shift of society. I feel that a heterosexual should still be the "ideal" relationship. I don't want to live in a society where heterosexual and homosexual relationships are truly equal, and by that I mean a society where the children I might have are watching their favourite Disney programme and suddenly Hannah Montanna or whatever suddenly runs off to be lesbian with her new girlfreind or I watch a film and am suddenly confronted by images of two men having sex. (Not that I condone heterosexual imagery either)

Nor do I want to live in a society where in a relationship gender is as irelevant as hair colour. People are not categorised as "gay, straight and Bi", most people lie somewhere in between (well.. I suppose that means most people are slightly bi). Our hedonist society has made it clear what it values. I worry that homocurious bisexuality will become the norm.

Not that I'm saying or even implying that allowing gay people to marry will cause all these things will suddenly happen. I just regard legalising gay marriage as another step in a bad direction.

So yeah, that's my argument.

But anyway, you could argue that it doesn't really matter at all. Here in Scotland 60% of children were born outside marriage. Marriage is apparently (though I disagree) becoming "outdated", "conservative" and "old-fashioned" and in decline. This issue is getting disproportianate attention from media and politicians when there are much worse problems in the world.

Your argument, if you'll pardon the simplistic and frank tone, sucks. You don't know why it offends you, it just does? Poppycock, and no way to be a responsible, considerate, and thoughtful human being. Even using religious arguments is better than that. Come on.