Same-Sex Marriage: Point of View

[Hathradic States]

For the sake of playing devil's advocate, what defines ethics and morality? For you and I they probably aren't the same, and they also aren't the same for Flagsia. With many, the argument of "No, you thinking this is immoral is in itself immoral" just won't work.

And I'm also not going to get into a discussion of what defines ethics and morality. Though your question is a fair one, it goes even further off the track of the topic than we've already gone, and that's a rather long way as it is. If he chooses to discriminate based upon the values he's expressed, then I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince him otherwise, at least in this forum.

It never works to try to change someones mind on this forum. *nods*

[Yumyumsuppertime]

And I'm also not going to get into a discussion of what defines ethics and morality. Though your question is a fair one, it goes even further off the track of the topic than we've already gone, and that's a rather long way as it is. If he chooses to discriminate based upon the values he's expressed, then I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince him otherwise, at least in this forum.

It never works to try to change someones mind on this forum. *nods*

I don't know if it never works, but without some basic shared values, experience on this forum and similar ones has shown me that it's often an exercise in futility.

[Grenartia]

It never works to try to change someones mind on this forum. *nods*

I don't know if it never works, but without some basic shared values, experience on this forum and similar ones has shown me that it's often an exercise in futility.

I've seen it happen before, to be honest. So it can work.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I don't know if it never works, but without some basic shared values, experience on this forum and similar ones has shown me that it's often an exercise in futility.

I've seen it happen before, to be honest. So it can work.

Without basic shared values? I mean, I've changed the minds of others, and been persuaded myself, but there was usually some sort of common belief involved, like "Children shouldn't be molested", or "Outright murder, while tempting at times, is a bad thing", or "It's not good to discriminate against people just because they're in a minority".

[Tsuntion]

If homosexuality is natural we all would be doing it , not just a few .

If red hair is natural we would all have it, not just a few.

If being a woman is natural we would all be girls, not just a few.

Get it?

And we would all be extinct now .

Gay uncle blah de blah.

And all the above posted about animals , are you an animal . Do you act like animal . If you want to copy animals than don't copy just one of their characteristic ,copy all of them , like some animals eating their young why don't you say it is natural and do it too.

Animals can have hair on their heads. If I have hair on my head, I'm like an animal. Quick, shave everything!!

Animals can eat food like, say, tomatoes. If I eat tomatoes, I'm like an animal. Quick, no more veg!!

Animals can move from one place to another. If I move from one place to another, I'm like an animal. Quick, ban walking!!

[Hathradic States]

I don't know if it never works, but without some basic shared values, experience on this forum and similar ones has shown me that it's often an exercise in futility.

I've seen it happen before, to be honest. So it can work.

Only on things where you have a similar base value. Like I couldn't convince you that Trans* is a lie, even if I tried for years, and you couldn't convince me that communism is good, even if you tried for years.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I've seen it happen before, to be honest. So it can work.

Only on things where you have a similar base value. Like I couldn't convince you that Trans* is a lie, even if I tried for years, and you couldn't convince me that communism is good, even if you tried for years.

And that's where I stand on trying to convince whatshisname that it's bad to discriminate against people just because they're in a minority. I gave him a suggestion on where to begin in terms of the modern history of poor treatment of minority groups. If he doesn't get it from there, then there's no point.

EDIT: Flagsia. That's his name.

[Hathradic States]

Only on things where you have a similar base value. Like I couldn't convince you that Trans* is a lie, even if I tried for years, and you couldn't convince me that communism is good, even if you tried for years.

And that's where I stand on trying to convince whatshisname that it's bad to discriminate against people just because they're in a minority. I gave him a suggestion on where to begin in terms of the modern history of poor treatment of minority groups. If he doesn't get it from there, then there's no point.

EDIT: Flagsia. That's his name.

That is where I am, as well.

[Grenartia]

I've seen it happen before, to be honest. So it can work.

Only on things where you have a similar base value. Like I couldn't convince you that Trans* is a lie, even if I tried for years, and you couldn't convince me that communism is good, even if you tried for years.

True.

[Hathradic States]

Only on things where you have a similar base value. Like I couldn't convince you that Trans* is a lie, even if I tried for years, and you couldn't convince me that communism is good, even if you tried for years.

True.

Sometimes, it is just best to let them be bigots.

[Novus Niciae]

Complaining that someone else's marriage offends your religion make just as much sense as complaining that is offensive when someone eats a doughnut when you are on a diet.

[Hathradic States]

Complaining that someone else's marriage offends your religion make just as much sense as complaining that is offensive when someone eats a doughnut when you are on a diet.

When they do it infront of you it is.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

True.

Sometimes, it is just best to let them be bigots.

I quoted this earlier in the thread, and it's advice that I decided to take for myself:

"Never teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." -Robert A. Heinlein.

[Hathradic States]

Sometimes, it is just best to let them be bigots.

I quoted this earlier in the thread, and it's advice that I decided to take for myself:

"Never teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." -Robert A. Heinlein.

Wise call.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Complaining that someone else's marriage offends your religion make just as much sense as complaining that is offensive when someone eats a doughnut when you are on a diet.

Succinctly put.

[Essos]

Restrain people from doing certain acts=forced to do other acts. Way to say the same thing with different words. Should gays not be permitted to have sex or marry, because it offends your idea of religion?

I do not believe that homosexuals should be restrained from "marrying." Homosexuals are not being compelled to do or not to do anything. On the other hand, they wish to compel society to do something for them: to recognize their relationships.

DO you read the things you say before you say them? Seriously? Seriously? At all? Seriously?

I'm so pissed off by your ignorance I can't even make a post that won't get me banned, other than this one.

[Arthuriana]

Okay, I'm about to tell you absolutely everything Jesus said on the subject of homosexuals. You ready? Okay, here goes:






Yep, that's about it. Jesus said not a word about homosexuals. Not one. He did not condemn them in any way, shape or form, and this is why I don't understand why some Christians seem to think they have a duty to treat homosexuals differently. Jesus is, by the teachings of Christianity, the carrier of the word of God. Since Jesus came after the Old Testament, it seems logical that wherever there is a clash between what Jesus said and what is in the Old Testament, what Jesus said should win out. Y'know what he did say? Love one another. We're all equal. Beggars, whores, thieves, tax collectors, priests and kings, we all deserve equal treatment.

Your church doesn't want to perform gay marriages? That's its own business. But kindly refrain from discussing "the church" as if there's only one. Also, don't spraff about "the definition of marriage" - the fact that your daughter is no longer obliged to marry her rapist is evidence enough that we've already done that.

[Lesbia]

> Says one cannot "force" religion on another
> "Forces" opinion on another

There's a difference. Anti-SSM activists are inherently forcing their views down the throats of every same-sex couple who wishes to marry.

On the other hand, SSM shoves NOTHING down the throats of ANYBODY. If you have an objection to same-sex marriage, you're in luck, because NOBODY'S forcing you to get one. If you're a member of the clergy, and you have an objection to performing same-sex marriages, again, you're in luck, because NOBODY'S forcing you to perform them.

You misunderstood. I was referring to the tone of how he said that. Someone stated their conservative opinion and he shot it down as forcing an opinion as truth but then went on to say "marriage is a union between any two people" as if that is fact as opposed to another opinion.

I'm conservative on most issues but I have no issue with same sex marriage. So don't try to spin it that way.

[Hushabagain]

the part about this debate that baffles me is that if two people are married and gay together, it has no impact on anyone else. The only possible financial impact would be a REALLY slight improvement in the economy as people buy more wedding gifts (?). The right to marry freely should fall under freedom of expression. We are not a Christian nation, never have been, and never will be.

[Grenartia]

There's a difference. Anti-SSM activists are inherently forcing their views down the throats of every same-sex couple who wishes to marry.

On the other hand, SSM shoves NOTHING down the throats of ANYBODY. If you have an objection to same-sex marriage, you're in luck, because NOBODY'S forcing you to get one. If you're a member of the clergy, and you have an objection to performing same-sex marriages, again, you're in luck, because NOBODY'S forcing you to perform them.

You misunderstood. I was referring to the tone of how he said that. Someone stated their conservative opinion and he shot it down as forcing an opinion as truth but then went on to say "marriage is a union between any two people" as if that is fact as opposed to another opinion.

I'm conservative on most issues but I have no issue with same sex marriage. So don't try to spin it that way.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[Fintanland]

the part about this debate that baffles me is that if two people are married and gay together, it has no impact on anyone else. The only possible financial impact would be a REALLY slight improvement in the economy as people buy more wedding gifts (?). The right to marry freely should fall under freedom of expression. We are not a Christian nation, never have been, and never will be.

Well, you COULD argue that countries with lots of benefits for married couples will have a slight, slight increase in expenses. But other than that, yeah.

[The Realm of God]

So nobody ought to do anything that would doom the species if everybody did it?

That's a remarkably stupid thing to say. For one thing, you've just denounced Jesus, as clearly the human race would die off if everyone was voluntarily martyred.

1. I am not saying that at all. I am just saying that it has been necessary for at least some people to be heterosexual. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is not necessary.

2. Being martyred is not something that someone does; it is something that happens to someone.

How not?

To quote Harvey Milk, "God knows we keep trying." Even gays and lesbians acknowledge that they cannot express their feelings for each other in the same way that heterosexual couples can.

I am heterosexual, having children is my idea of a nightmare. Using your argument of marriage is about reproduction, should I be able to marry?

[Nationalist Eminral Republic]

I'm a Christian too, and in my opinion, the state should give everyone the right to marry someone, whether the religion won't recognize it or not, it is up to them. But the state should be giving everyone the same right, regardless of whether they are straight or not.

[Great Nepal]

What is wrong with you , I am just giving my opinion in this matter.

He was using a straw man argument against you. While in disagreement with his argument, I cannot express how much I disagree with your statement.

Not at all.
He implied homosexuality was wrong because it was "not natural". Using the same logic, since laptops are "not natural", laptops are wrong.

Your laptop isn't natural. Get off it.

What is wrong with you , I am just giving my opinion in this matter.

And I just pointed out why "its not natural" is stupid argument because humans left nature behind when first caveman made fire and we have been drifting away from it ever since.

[LeokampoI]

It's a freedom....

The same as the freedom of speech or the freedom of religion. Don't like it? Who are you to judge? Church goers seem to think that if they don't like it then it should be illegal. Amazing the crass bigotry that happens amongst religious zealots. Maybe I don't like religious people always telling me what to do and how I should think or spend my time... Let's vote to make religion illegal... Hey, at least we will rid the world of the cause of most of the conflicts across the globe... Now that makes a lot more sense.

Be religious, just keep it to yourself... How about living life without infringing into everybody's private life...

This is why I hate religion... Perfect example of why I'll never believe that crap. I'd rather join the Nazi party than join some stupid gossip club full of a bunch of whiners. If you don't like the freedoms, go to any Muslim country that strictly enforces religious rights. I'll guarantee you'll never see more than ankles and eyeballs.