The "Gaystapo"

[Zaras]

the problem is that people can politically or religiously decide to remove certain rights from other people.

This. So much this. Rights are never given willingly, they're fought for.

[Grave_n_idle]

Then this post was just trolling?

viewtopic.php?p=7618125#p7618125

"It's a religous institution and a religous celebration".


You're not even being consistent. Even when you constantly go back and revise your posts.

It is a religous celebration.

No, it's not.

Atheists can marry.

Theists or Atheists can marry in non-religious ceremonies in non-religious venues.

It is categorically - and obviously - not inherently or intrinsically religious.

[Farnhamia]

And what are you doing to get government out of marriage?

This is a discussion, not a place for me to divulge my political ambitions or activities.

It's a perfectly appropriate question. You say the government should be out of the business of approving marriages and, I assume, bestowing benefits. What are you doing to make that happen? If nothing, all you're doing is blowing hot air. Marriage as it currently exists is purely civil in this country. The religious ceremony is icing on the cakes and is not necessary.

[Galla-]

I'm not implying anything.
I'm flat out stating that marriage has been around longer than (specifically the Christian) church has, thus marriage simply can't solely be a religious tradition.
Unless Jesus was also a time traveller but I don't recall anyone mentioning a Tardis in the Bible.

Yes it is a RELIGOUS CEREMONY. That is the fundamental point. It is a religous ceremony. I don't need to pay my taxes towards some ridiculous government institutiont hat doesn't even work. Let the religous institutions do what they want, as long as they pay taxes. I don't care. Not my business. Government shouldn't be involved.

I'd honestly be fine with it if civil unions were treated equally with marriage. Marriage is an archaic institution anyway.

[Arrakis Dune]

Second, ending the 'state monopoly' on marriage doesn't solve the problem, if the problem is that people can politically or religiously decide to remove certain rights from other people. Indeed, a 'state monopoly' on marriage is arguably the only realistic way to assure such rights.

What rights? You aren't FORCED to marry. Anyone can set up a union between people. What rights are being taken away?

Piece of paper
Witnesses
Legal contractor
Sign

Job done. There isn't a monoploy. You write what you claim a marriage to be, you sign it, you carry it out. If you break it, the marriage is nulled and divided by whatever you agreed upon.

What rights are being infringed when almost anyone can carry this out?

[Arrakis Dune]

the problem is that people can politically or religiously decide to remove certain rights from other people.

This. So much this. Rights are never given willingly, they're fought for.

Stop talking like an angsty little leftist. You aren't forced to be married. Our rights are already being infringed by a government which dictates what marriage is. If they had no monoploy, anyone can sign to whatever they want.

It's called choice, personal responsibility. There is a monetary incentive for legal contractors. They certify the document and see that it is carried out, much like how a business arrangement is carried out anyway. They aren't going to not serve homosexuals or different races. They should be able to if they want but there is no proft in turning away customers.

[Farnhamia]

Second, ending the 'state monopoly' on marriage doesn't solve the problem, if the problem is that people can politically or religiously decide to remove certain rights from other people. Indeed, a 'state monopoly' on marriage is arguably the only realistic way to assure such rights.

What rights? You aren't FORCED to marry. Anyone can set up a union between people. What rights are being taken away?

Piece of paper
Witnesses
Legal contractor
Sign

Job done. There isn't a monoploy. You write what you claim a marriage to be, you sign it, you carry it out. If you break it, the marriage is nulled and divided by whatever you agreed upon.

What rights are being infringed when almost anyone can carry this out?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States

[Grave_n_idle]

Second, ending the 'state monopoly' on marriage doesn't solve the problem, if the problem is that people can politically or religiously decide to remove certain rights from other people. Indeed, a 'state monopoly' on marriage is arguably the only realistic way to assure such rights.

What rights? You aren't FORCED to marry.

I'm not sure how, in your head, those two things are logical counterparts.

Anyone can set up a union between people. What rights are being taken away?

Piece of paper
Witnesses
Legal contractor
Sign

Job done. There isn't a monoploy.

Interesting. Inconsistent (again), but interesting. Earlier you were arguing it WAS a monopoly.

You write what you claim a marriage to be, you sign it, you carry it out. If you break it, the marriage is nulled and divided by whatever you agreed upon.

What rights are being infringed when almost anyone can carry this out?

If 'marriage' was just 'hey, let's stay together', you might have a point. But, realistically, it's not.

Hospitals may or may not let you visit, and/or, make important decisions for your significant other, depending on your 'marital' status - just for example.

Or your immigrant partner may or may not be accorded access to certain types of status, depending on their gender.

These are, obviously, examples - but they are real examples of how 'marriage' matters in terms of 'rights', and how individual contracts don't address the current reality on the ground.

[Arrakis Dune]

Interesting. Inconsistent (again), but interesting. Earlier you were arguing it WAS a monopoly.

Now you are just misqutoing me. I said there wasn't a monopoly AFTER state involment has ceased.

If 'marriage' was just 'hey, let's stay together', you might have a point. But, realistically, it's not.

Hospitals may or may not let you visit, and/or, make important decisions for your significant other, depending on your 'marital' status - just for example.

And those can be addressed within the agreement. You are still married. It makes no different. It's legal, it's simply a different contract settled outside of government involvement.

Or your immigrant partner may or may not be accorded access to certain types of status, depending on their gender.

That's an immigration issue. Again, it makes no difference. It's still a deal between two people. An immigration issue.

[Grave_n_idle]

Now you are just misqutoing me. I said there wasn't a monopoly AFTER state involment has ceased.

You're arguing that it's not a monopoly when it's not a monopoly?

Preparing to step back in amazement.

In amazement.... step back.

And those can be addressed within the agreement. You are still married. It makes no different. It's legal, it's simply a different contract settled outside of government involvement.

Did you not read the post? Or are you going to ignore the bits you don't like?

If a hospital won't let you visit your significant other, or make important decisions for them - that's entirely NOT a thing that is addressed within the agreement UNLESS some external force (government, for example) forces others to adhere to your PERSONAL contract.

That's an immigration issue. Again, it makes no difference. It's still a deal between two people. An immigration issue.

"That's an immigration issue". Yes. Hence the use of the word 'immigrant'.

Not sure how that actually addressed the point. 'Rights' are still accorded within parameters decided by marital status - in international arenas, in national arenas, and at a local level.

[Arrakis Dune]

You're arguing that it's not a monopoly when it's not a monopoly? Preparing to step back in amazement. In amazement.... step back.

Are you trying to be a pain in the arse? I have said that the state runs a monoploy on marriage, if they were not involved, they wouldn't have a monopoly.

If a hospital won't let you visit your significant other, or make important decisions for them - that's entirely NOT a thing that is addressed within the agreement UNLESS some external force (government, for example) forces others to adhere to your PERSONAL contract.

Hospitals will adhere to this anyway. How is it a significant problem? They are married. How does this change anything? What is the difference between a union made by government of the people? It's still a union, it's still a marriage. It does not change anything. Why does government need to get involved? So hospitals will suddenly stop letting you see your significant other because the government ins't involved? Is that your point?

Not sure how that actually addressed the point. 'Rights' are still accorded within parameters decided by marital status - in international arenas, in national arenas, and at a local level.

And how does this change anything? Marriage isn't a deciding factor on citizenship, it is part of it. An independent union between these two people is still part of what will be looked into as an agreement of citizenship.

Like I said it's an immigration issue. You think we can solve problems by creating more when we cna solve them by eliminating the problem altogether.

[Zaras]

You aren't forced to be married. Our rights are already being infringed by a government which dictates what marriage is.

No, rights are being infringed by a government who dictates what marriage is in order to disadvantage a certain sector of the population. You may not be forced to marry, but the government can forcefully deny you the right to marry for idiotic reasons like how your sexuality doesn't appeal to them.

[Arrakis Dune]

You aren't forced to be married. Our rights are already being infringed by a government which dictates what marriage is.

No, rights are being infringed by a government who dictates what marriage is in order to disadvantage a certain sector of the population. You may not be forced to marry, but the government can forcefully deny you the right to marry for idiotic reasons like how your sexuality doesn't appeal to them.

''rights are being infringed by a government who dictates what marriage is''

And my entire point has been simple. Get government out of marriage. They wont have a monopoly. Government defines what it is so eliminate it. Let people decide create their own unions.

[Sidhae]

So how are homosexuals made second-class citizens? If they go about rubbing their sexual preferences in everyone's face and aggressively demanding acceptance (which is not the same as tolerance), obviously they will be treated like shit, and frankly, rightly so - not for being gay, but for being obnoxious assholes. Sure, they have a right to be gay, but other people too have a right to not know or want to know anything about it.

The thing with LGBT movements and left-liberal movements in general seems to be that they are only friendly and tolerant as long as you agree with them. As soon as they encounter opposition, especially one they cannot easily debunk, they resort to name-calling and attempts of personal discrediting, apparently for the lack of better arguments. Needless to say, their self-proclaimed standards of tolerance rarely if ever apply to themselves.

I get the feeling that many of these gay rights activists are really just pathetic people with a massive inferiority complex, which they try to compensate by aggressively pushing everyone to acknowledge that they are normal and force everyone to accept them (or at least show acceptance in public). Very much like what the Gestapo would do - "if you don't agree with us, then we will make you agree".

This doesn't really answer my question. Perhaps a better question is how do you oppose homosexuality? You seem to draw a distinction between "tolerance" and "acceptance" so if you can, could you explain how you oppose homosexuality in a way that is tolerant, but not accepting? Pardon me if I don't quite understand what you're trying to say with those two terms.

Well, for a start, it's not homosexuality per se that I and many others oppose. Homosexuality is a disorder, so opposing it per se makes no more sense than opposing, say, C hepatitis. It is the promotion of homosexuality as something normal or even cool, that people oppose.

Tolerant opposition would, in practice, appear simply as refraining from physical violence and verbal abuse, while at the same time making very clear that the ideas these people promote are unacceptable and will not be accepted. Be a homo all you want if you so insist on it, but live with the fact that it doesn't mean the rest of society has to pretend they like you.

[Farnhamia]

This doesn't really answer my question. Perhaps a better question is how do you oppose homosexuality? You seem to draw a distinction between "tolerance" and "acceptance" so if you can, could you explain how you oppose homosexuality in a way that is tolerant, but not accepting? Pardon me if I don't quite understand what you're trying to say with those two terms.

Well, for a start, it's not homosexuality per se that I and many others oppose. Homosexuality is a disorder, so opposing it per se makes no more sense than opposing, say, C hepatitis. It is the promotion of homosexuality as something normal or even cool, that people oppose.

Tolerant opposition would, in practice, appear simply as refraining from physical violence and verbal abuse, while at the same time making very clear that the ideas these people promote are unacceptable and will not be accepted. Be a homo all you want if you so insist on it, but live with the fact that it doesn't mean the rest of society has to pretend they like you.

Don't much care if you like me. Homosexuality is only a disorder in your eyes. I'm a natural-born citizen of the US and I want to be able to marry the person I love, just as you can. Why is that hard to understand?

[Zaras]

Homosexuality is a disorder.

That is not right... that is not even wrong.

[GeneralHaNor]

Homosexuality is a disorder.

That is not right... that is not even wrong.

Indeed, DSM_IV specifically says this wrong
The APA is in fact an authority on what is and is not a disorder.

[Marcheria]

Well, for a start, it's not homosexuality per se that I and many others oppose. Homosexuality is a disorder, so opposing it per se makes no more sense than opposing, say, C hepatitis. It is the promotion of homosexuality as something normal or even cool, that people oppose.

Tolerant opposition would, in practice, appear simply as refraining from physical violence and verbal abuse, while at the same time making very clear that the ideas these people promote are unacceptable and will not be accepted. Be a homo all you want if you so insist on it, but live with the fact that it doesn't mean the rest of society has to pretend they like you.

You see, it's the people like you that have royally fucked this world over. I have seen no scientific evidence that homosexuality is a disorder, mentally, genetically or otherwise. And yet millions of ignorant people still think it is, even when they've been shown clear evidence to the contrary. You, sir, are a troll, a real-life troll. And it is normal to be a homosexual, just as it is normal to be straight. Prove it to me otherwise.

[Reactionary Vanguard]

Obvious troll is obvious.

You shouldn't be so "progressive"

That sounded like sarcasm/satire to me. You shouldn't be so reactionary.

[Reactionary Vanguard]

Well, for a start, it's not homosexuality per se that I and many others oppose. Homosexuality is a disorder, so opposing it per se makes no more sense than opposing, say, C hepatitis. It is the promotion of homosexuality as something normal or even cool, that people oppose.

Tolerant opposition would, in practice, appear simply as refraining from physical violence and verbal abuse, while at the same time making very clear that the ideas these people promote are unacceptable and will not be accepted. Be a homo all you want if you so insist on it, but live with the fact that it doesn't mean the rest of society has to pretend they like you.

You see, it's the people like you that have royally fucked this world over. I have seen no scientific evidence that homosexuality is a disorder, mentally, genetically or otherwise. And yet millions of ignorant people still think it is, even when they've been shown clear evidence to the contrary. You, sir, are a troll, a real-life troll. And it is normal to be a homosexual, just as it is normal to be straight. Prove it to me otherwise.

The fact that their mental faculties do not promote reproduction? They are naturally a vestigial segment of the population meant to expire and disappear. Or have you not read Darwin?

[Marcheria]

You see, it's the people like you that have royally fucked this world over. I have seen no scientific evidence that homosexuality is a disorder, mentally, genetically or otherwise. And yet millions of ignorant people still think it is, even when they've been shown clear evidence to the contrary. You, sir, are a troll, a real-life troll. And it is normal to be a homosexual, just as it is normal to be straight. Prove it to me otherwise.

The fact that their mental faculties do not promote reproduction? They are naturally a vestigial segment of the population meant to expire and disappear. Or have you not read Darwin?

Of course they promote reproduction, plenty of homosexuals want kids.

[Zaras]

You see, it's the people like you that have royally fucked this world over. I have seen no scientific evidence that homosexuality is a disorder, mentally, genetically or otherwise. And yet millions of ignorant people still think it is, even when they've been shown clear evidence to the contrary. You, sir, are a troll, a real-life troll. And it is normal to be a homosexual, just as it is normal to be straight. Prove it to me otherwise.

The fact that their mental faculties do not promote reproduction? They are naturally a vestigial segment of the population meant to expire and disappear. Or have you not read Darwin?

Because we all know everything's about the reproduction. What about the celibate? Or the asexual? Are they disordered too?

[Reactionary Vanguard]

The fact that their mental faculties do not promote reproduction? They are naturally a vestigial segment of the population meant to expire and disappear. Or have you not read Darwin?

Of course they promote reproduction, plenty of homosexuals want kids.

Adoption, not reproduction

[Reactionary Vanguard]

The fact that their mental faculties do not promote reproduction? They are naturally a vestigial segment of the population meant to expire and disappear. Or have you not read Darwin?

Because we all know everything's about the reproduction. What about the celibate? Or the asexual? Are they disordered too?

Yup-a-roo

[Marcheria]

Of course they promote reproduction, plenty of homosexuals want kids.

Adoption, not reproduction

Not necessarily. There's surrogates with in vitro sperm from one of the males in a gay relationship, or donated sperm for lesbian couples.