NationStates

Yankeesse wrote:Because there have been cases of Clergymen refusing to perform such "marriages as it is against their beleifs ad they get sued over it.

First and foremost, source? Secondly, a church is a private institution, so add a clause that states it does not need to perform same sex marriages. Marriages are civil first and foremost, so the state can marry them just fine.

Because Marriage is about setting up the foundations of a family which same sex couples cannot do in any natural way.

So adoption is unnatural?

So surrogates are unnatural?

So infertile heterosexual couples can't marry?

So old heterosexual couples can't marry?

So heterosexual couples not wanting kids can't marry?

Or do you just hate gays?

Why should people want to take part in a tradition of Union when it has historically excluded them anyway?

Because marriage holds a tremendous amount of weight in society. It means a great deal. And if marriage is to exist at all, it must be available to all.

God Kefka wrote:Since I'm not gay and I don't live in NJ... it scarcely matters to me...

Good for the gays and good for the liberals... bad for the conservatives and certain religious types I guess.

But myself... I see no reason to really care. Doesn't affect me so...

It's not bad for the conservatives and religious, it doesn't affect their lives.

God Kefka wrote:Since I'm not gay and I don't live in NJ... it scarcely matters to me...

Good for the gays and good for the liberals... bad for the conservatives and certain religious types I guess.

But myself... I see no reason to really care. Doesn't affect me so...

But you do care enough about how little you care to let others know how little you care.

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:

God Kefka wrote:Since I'm not gay and I don't live in NJ... it scarcely matters to me...

Good for the gays and good for the liberals... bad for the conservatives and certain religious types I guess.

But myself... I see no reason to really care. Doesn't affect me so...

But you do care enough about how little you care to let others know how little you care.

Be careful around him, you might hurt yourself around all that edge.

The Scientific States wrote:

God Kefka wrote:Since I'm not gay and I don't live in NJ... it scarcely matters to me...

Good for the gays and good for the liberals... bad for the conservatives and certain religious types I guess.

But myself... I see no reason to really care. Doesn't affect me so...

It's not bad for the conservatives and religious, it doesn't affect their lives.

Well they would argue that it's somehow bad for the moral order, for society at large, and by extension for them too...

But shrugs...

People believe whatever they want. I'm not going to be excited way or another over something that doesn't affect me personally and happens in a place I've never even set foot on... (heck I don't think I even know a single person from NJ)... =)

God Kefka wrote:

The Scientific States wrote:It's not bad for the conservatives and religious, it doesn't affect their lives.

Well they would argue that it's somehow bad for the moral order, for society at large, and by extension for them too...

[...]

Or that it's bad for the people involved....

God Kefka wrote:

The Scientific States wrote:It's not bad for the conservatives and religious, it doesn't affect their lives.

Well they would argue that it's somehow bad for the moral order, for society at large, and by extension for them too...

But shrugs...

People believe whatever they want. I'm not going to be excited way or another over something that doesn't affect me personally and happens in a place I've never even set foot on... (heck I don't think I even know a single person from NJ)... =)

I for one care mainly because its essential to human rights, and I'm a LGBT person myself.

The conservatives and the like can argue all they want about how it harms society, but it doesn't mean they're right.

God Kefka wrote:

The Scientific States wrote:It's not bad for the conservatives and religious, it doesn't affect their lives.

Well they would argue that it's somehow bad for the moral order, for society at large, and by extension for them too...

But shrugs...

People believe whatever they want. I'm not going to be excited way or another over something that doesn't affect me personally and happens in a place I've never even set foot on... (heck I don't think I even know a single person from NJ)... =)

EVERYONE LOOK! I'M BEING APATHETIC! LOOK AT MY LACK OF CARING ABOUT THIS SUBJECT!

The Godly Nations wrote:

Yankeesse wrote:I think you just failed to tie Fascist aesthetics to homosexuality/pedophilia and just made yourself sound like a pedophile.

Good job.

I think I just succeeded, which is why you are reacting by calling me a paedophile. Good show, lad, good show.

No, I never called you a pedophile I said your tone of words in that scenario made you sound like one.

Blasveck wrote:Theorizing and studying is technically acting upon something, so....

And Breathing, clicking on a remote control, chewing food and having an abnormal Heartbeat is technically physical actvity but in a practical sense, on someone that is told they need to be managing their health with phyiscal activity by a doctor it is not.

The name escapes me but I remmber a documentary on some philosoper thats supposed to be considered a major authority on relationships in some circles of academia even though he was never able to maintain a long time relationship with anyone and died alone.

The differance between theoretical possibility and practical probability is immense.

The Nuclear Fist wrote:

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:
But you do care enough about how little you care to let others know how little you care.

Be careful around him, you might hurt yourself around all that edge.

Implying it existed.

Menassa wrote:

God Kefka wrote:
Well they would argue that it's somehow bad for the moral order, for society at large, and by extension for them too...

[...]

Or that it's bad for the people involved....

Many marriages do end in divorce, but that doesn't mean that there aren't happy married couples. LGBT people don't want to be "protected" from marriage, they want to experience it.

Geilinor wrote:

Menassa wrote:Or that it's bad for the people involved....

Many marriages do end in divorce, but that doesn't mean that there aren't happy married couples. LGBT people don't want to be "protected" from marriage, they want to experience it.

My point wasn't concerning marriage per say.

Yankeesse wrote:No, I never called you a pedophile I said your tone of words in that scenario made you sound like one.

'I didn't say that you are look like a dirty fucking f*g, I just said you look and act like one.'

The Scientific States wrote:

God Kefka wrote:
Well they would argue that it's somehow bad for the moral order, for society at large, and by extension for them too...

But shrugs...

People believe whatever they want. I'm not going to be excited way or another over something that doesn't affect me personally and happens in a place I've never even set foot on... (heck I don't think I even know a single person from NJ)... =)

I for one care mainly because its essential to human rights, and I'm a LGBT person myself.

The conservatives and the like can argue all they want about how it harms society, but it doesn't mean they're right.

I completely understand if you are LGBT.. of course you would care.

But it's probably not essential to human rights. I mean, it's probably entirely possible to come up with a different formulation of ''human rights'' that doesn't involve recognizing LGBT marriage and indeed such definitions are thrown around all the time. Neoconservatives will talk about spreading ''human rights'' to the Middle East and I'm pretty sure their definitions usually don't involve LGBT marriage. Heck... the doctrines of ''human rights'' were founded decades and decades ago... and at the time they seemed coherent enough and didn't even include mentions of LGBTs at all (by the UN etc).

It's certainly essential to a particular understanding of human rights, and one that is increasingly popular among ''progressive'' elements of society, a lot of vibrant young people especially.

But who knows, it could change either way in the future. Everything's constantly being re-defined... =)

God Kefka wrote:

The Scientific States wrote:
I for one care mainly because its essential to human rights, and I'm a LGBT person myself.

The conservatives and the like can argue all they want about how it harms society, but it doesn't mean they're right.

I completely understand if you are LGBT.. of course you would care.

But it's probably not essential to human rights. I mean, it's probably entirely possible to come up with a different formulation of ''human rights'' that doesn't involve recognizing LGBT marriage and indeed such definitions are thrown around all the time. Neoconservatives will talk about spreading ''human rights'' to the Middle East and I'm pretty sure their definitions usually don't involve LGBT marriage. Heck... the doctrines of ''human rights'' were founded decades and decades ago... and at the time they seemed coherent enough and didn't even include mentions of LGBTs at all (by the UN etc).

It's certainly essential to a particular understanding of human rights, and one that is increasingly popular among ''progressive'' elements of society, a lot of vibrant young people especially.

But who knows, it could change either way in the future. Everything's constantly being re-defined... =)

I would like to point out that me being bisexual is not the main reason I care, it's more because I want equality for everyone.

Right to Marriage is almost always described as a human right, so I don't see why it wouldn't apply to LGBT people.

Liriena wrote:

Threlizdun wrote:Enjoy being prevented from seeing your dying loved one in the hospital, having no joint adoption rights, not being able to see your children being born, and not knowing if any tragedy befalls them until you see them in the obituaries.

But... my (sociopathic concept of) freedom!

I had to zoom in 500 percent to read that because I couldn't highlight it and I was too stupid to just quote it xD

Yankeesse wrote:
And Breathing, clicking on a remote control, chewing food and having an abnormal Heartbeat is technically physical actvity but in a practical sense, on someone that is told they need to be managing their health with phyiscal activity by a doctor it is not.

The name escapes me but I remmber a documentary on some philosoper thats supposed to be considered a major authority on relationships in some circles of academia even though he was never able to maintain a long time relationship with anyone and died alone.

The differance between theoretical possibility and practical probability is immense.

So, a professor who knows more about the psychology of social interaction than some fellow off the street dies unmarried and never maintained a long term relationship...this discredits his work because...?

Instead of hiring qualified scientists to find the cure for cancer, let's let the cancer patients themselves find it, for these scientists are all intellectuals who do not have cancer, and doesn't understand the practicals of it, am I right?

The Nuclear Fist wrote:

Because Marriage is about setting up the foundations of a family which same sex couples cannot do in any natural way.

So adoption is unnatural?

A Homosexual couple trying to raise kids as a family unit is.

So surrogates are unnatural?

Yes

So infertile heterosexual couples can't marry?

So old heterosexual couples can't marry?

So heterosexual couples not wanting kids can't marry?

There's no point or societal benefit to it.

Or do you just hate gays?

I don't hate gays depedning on their individual behavior, although i do hate "gay culture".

Why should people want to take part in a tradition of Union when it has historically excluded them anyway?

Because marriage holds a tremendous amount of weight in society. It means a great deal.[/quote]

True and therefore the responsibilties and obligations one should have to commit t should be Grand as well.

And if marriage is to exist at all, it must be available to all.

And therefore should be available to those who give utility to the institution and benefit society as a whole.

Not just anybody who just wants one, just cuz of muh rights.

Yankeesse wrote:

The Godly Nations wrote:
I think I just succeeded, which is why you are reacting by calling me a paedophile. Good show, lad, good show.

No, I never called you a pedophile I said your tone of words in that scenario made you sound like one.

Blasveck wrote:Theorizing and studying is technically acting upon something, so....

And Breathing, clicking on a remote control, chewing food and having an abnormal Heartbeat is technically physical actvity but in a practical sense, on someone that is told they need to be managing their health with phyiscal activity by a doctor it is not.

The name escapes me but I remmber a documentary on some philosoper thats supposed to be considered a major authority on relationships in some circles of academia even though he was never able to maintain a long time relationship with anyone and died alone.

The differance between theoretical possibility and practical probability is immense.

Just because something has or doesn't have practical applications or probability does not mean it is worth nil.

The fact that you feel you must eliminate an idea (Intellectualism) because it doesn't immediately or directly act or contribute because you simply feel that it has to is extremely telling.

But I digress. We should end this threadjack.

Yankeesse wrote:

The Nuclear Fist wrote:
So adoption is unnatural?

A Homosexual couple trying to raise kids as a family unit is.

So surrogates are unnatural?

Yes

So infertile heterosexual couples can't marry?

So old heterosexual couples can't marry?

So heterosexual couples not wanting kids can't marry?

There's no point or soceital benefit to it.

Or do you just hate gays?

I don't hate gays depedning on their individual behavior, although i do hate "gay culture".

Why should people want to take part in a tradition of Union when it has historically excluded them anyway?

Because marriage holds a tremendous amount of weight in society. It means a great deal.True and therefore the responsibilties and obligations one should have to commit t should bGrand as well.

And if marriage is to exist at all, it must be available to all.
And therefore should be available to those who give utility to the institution and benefit society as a whole.

Not just anybody who just wants one, just cuz of muh rights.

I've seen this argument before, you're essentially saying that homosexual marriage doesn't benefit society, and that marriage is "so strong" gays marrying would somehow destroy traditional marriage. You mention that it's not a proper family with two dads. I don't see why it isn't, family values and the like are social constructs so its not harming anyone.

And why do opposite sex couples benefit to society but gay couples do not? Your logic here makes no sense whatsoever.

Yankeesse wrote:A Homosexual couple trying to raise kids as a family unit is.

And yet, this unnatural behavior was found amongst penguins. Unnatural degenerates.

Yes

wow

There's no point or societal benefit to it.

And society benefits from marriage because? Obviously we need to have a system of free love so that no one would ever be restricted by monogamy, and will be able to produce more children.

I don't hate gays depedning on their individual behavior, although i do hate "gay culture".

I don't hate gays, I just hate gays acting too gay. If they just kept quiet about it...

\True and therefore the responsibilties and obligations one should have to commit t should be Grand as well.

Like fidelity, or love, grand things that can exist in homosexual couples

And therefore should be available to those who give utility to the institution and benefit society as a whole.

Not just anybody who just wants one, just cuz of muh rights.

So, as long as our homosexual couples work and pay taxes as every other Americans, it would be A-Okay?

Blasveck wrote:

Yankeesse wrote:
No, I never called you a pedophile I said your tone of words in that scenario made you sound like one.



And Breathing, clicking on a remote control, chewing food and having an abnormal Heartbeat is technically physical actvity but in a practical sense, on someone that is told they need to be managing their health with phyiscal activity by a doctor it is not.

The name escapes me but I remmber a documentary on some philosoper thats supposed to be considered a major authority on relationships in some circles of academia even though he was never able to maintain a long time relationship with anyone and died alone.

The differance between theoretical possibility and practical probability is immense.

Just because something has or doesn't have practical applications or probability does not mean it is worth nil.

The fact that you feel you must eliminate an idea (Intellectualism) because it doesn't immediately or directly act or contribute because you simply feel that it has to is extremely telling.

But I digress. We should end this threadjack.

Fine im tired of this discussion anyway the argument so far seems to be.

Me: I don't support gay marriage because it offers no benefit to society as a whole and it sets a precedent that the societal bedrock of Tradition can be ignored so long as enough people complain which is harmful to society as a whole.

Opposition: Everyone should be aloud to get married (muh rights).

It's nice to get married why are you such a mean homphobe not wanting gay people to be alowed to marry.(sentiment).
Top lel

Yankeesse wrote:

Blasveck wrote:
Just because something has or doesn't have practical applications or probability does not mean it is worth nil.

The fact that you feel you must eliminate an idea (Intellectualism) because it doesn't immediately or directly act or contribute because you simply feel that it has to is extremely telling.

But I digress. We should end this threadjack.

Fine im tired of this discussion anyway the argument so far seems to be.

Me: I don't support gay marriage because it offers no benefit to society as a whole and it sets a precedent that the societal bedrock of Tradition can be ignored so long as enough people complain which is harmful to society as a whole.

Opposition: Everyone should be aloud to get married (muh rights).

It's nice to get married why are you such a mean homphobe not wanting gay people to be alowed to marry.(sentiment).
Top lel

You: No utility and against tradition

Everyone else in a civilized society: question whether people should be determined solely in terms of utility and questions tradition, and find those two criteria sorely lacking.

Yankeesse wrote:

Blasveck wrote:
Just because something has or doesn't have practical applications or probability does not mean it is worth nil.

The fact that you feel you must eliminate an idea (Intellectualism) because it doesn't immediately or directly act or contribute because you simply feel that it has to is extremely telling.

But I digress. We should end this threadjack.

Me: I don't support gay marriage because it offers no benefit to society as a whole

But it does. That's like saying repealing anti-miscegnation laws in the 60s offered no benefit to society as a whole. LGBT people are contributing members of society, so how does giving them rights do anything but benefit society? Human rights and inclusion are greatly beneficial for formerly oppressed groups of people.

Yankeesse wrote:A Homosexual couple trying to raise kids as a family unit is.

So why is it that children raised by LGBT parents turn out just as well as children raised by heterosexual parents?

http://www.bu.edu/today/2013/gay-parent ... ight-ones/
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/c ... .2013-0377
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... x/abstract
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peggy-dre ... 39166.html
https://www.apa.org/news/press/response ... rents.aspx
https://www.apa.org/about/policy/parenting.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_paren ... s_outcomes

Yes

Why?

There's no point or societal benefit to it.

The point is that two people who love each other and want to commit in the eyes of society should be allowed to do so. And the fact that married workers are typically more productive than their nonmarried counterparts certainly means there is a societal benefit.

I don't hate gays depedning on their individual behavior, although i do hate "gay culture".

"I don't hate gays, they just shouldn't have equal rights or be able to express themselves." does not strike me as not being homophobic.

True and therefore the responsibilties and obligations one should have to commit t should be Grand as well.

That didn't have anything to do with what I said. Are homosexual couples somehow less able to able to deal with said responsibilities and obligations? Because I'd love to see your evidence for that.

And therefore should be available to those who give utility to the institution and benefit society as a whole.

How are you measuring 'utility to institution and benefit to society'? How are you defining it?

And how does now allowing gays to marry do either?

Not just anybody who just wants one, just cuz of muh rights.

Human rights are more important than authoritarian circle jerking and 'B-but muh tradition!' claptrap.