Thread: If It's All The Same To You, Why Deny Others?

I voted to say that it shouldnt be legal...

Am I opposed to homosexuality...my social mind says well i dont care i guess...my religious mind says its not right...

but the main reason I dont feel it should be legal is because this may cause a trend of people that arent really homosexual to marry just for benefits like health insurance, tax breaks, stuff like that. And now that DOES affect me because my tax dollars are paying for it.

Originally Posted by erictski

I voted to say that it shouldnt be legal...

Am I opposed to homosexuality...my social mind says well i dont care i guess...my religious mind says its not right...

but the main reason I dont feel it should be legal is because this may cause a trend of people that arent really homosexual to marry just for benefits like health insurance, tax breaks, stuff like that. And now that DOES affect me because my tax dollars are paying for it.

Finally, someone mentioning a rational argument for being against.
I am not agreeing with you, but at least you have an argument that makes sense.

I don't think it would be a big problem, because I don't see it happening in big numbers, any more than gay couples are intermarrying other gay couples for the perks.

Suppose I were single, would I marry by best friend for the benefits? No. I would not marry him, because I don't think it would improve my chances of picking up a single woman .

Even if I wanted to arrange for a bogus marriage, I would seek a female friend for doing so. Because all things being equal, I'd rather be fake-married to a woman than fake-married to a man (on account of me being straight).

In short, I think that the people who would abuse the system are already doing so now, and the persons who would marry would predominantly be the ones actually wanting to marry their significant other.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Finally, someone mentioning a rational argument for being against.
I am not agreeing with you, but at least you have an argument that makes sense.

I don't think it would be a big problem, because I don't see it happening in big numbers, any more than gay couples are intermarrying other gay couples for the perks.

Suppose I were single, would I marry by best friend for the benefits? No. I would not marry him, because I don't think it would improve my chances of picking up a single woman .

Even if I wanted to arrange for a bogus marriage, I would seek a female friend for doing so. Because all things being equal, I'd rather be fake-married to a woman than fake-married to a man (on account of me being straight).

In short, I think that the people who would abuse the system are already doing so now, and the persons who would marry would predominantly be the ones actually wanting to marry their significant other.

Thanks ... you know thinking about what you said you are probably right...those that want to abuse the system will no matter what...they will find a way...

Originally Posted by honedright

Shouldn't we consider the value in some things remaining taboo?

Not good.

not good according to who? you? the masses have spoken and the majority of people like it. i realize our country was founded by prudes and puritans escaping from all the exciting sexuality going on in europe but seriously, it's a pretty recent idea that the human body is inherently naughty and seeing it is in any way bad.

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

It might be semantics but that's the way life is. Mariage is for a man and a wife, not a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

If they want to make a civil contract, or a promise to each other or a covenant with each other that's just fine. But it'll never be a mariage because a mariage is a union between a man and a wife.

that's not what marriage IS, it's what you have arbitrarily defined it as. you're a cool guy and all, but just because you think something is, don't make it so. marriage is different for every instance of it. marriage means something totally different to me and my wife than it did to either set of our parents, and we're just garden-variety breeders!

Originally Posted by Rajagra

Maybe an analogy might help. Homosexuals wanting marriage is like non-Jews wanting Bar Mitzvahs. Sure it does little harm to allow it, but what's the point?!

the point is that arbitrarily outlawing it, even if it seems silly to YOU, is nothing short of tyranny and is an assault upon personal liberty.

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

And then your SON joins a cult that does, and he's selected to be sacrificed.

You USED to not have a problem with the fact that it was legal. But now you think it is.

The very thing that Jockeys gave as an illustration (what if in the future gay couples become majority and decide that straight mariages aren't lawfull) becomes their fear. So of mariage is left for what it is, a union between a man an a woman, that fear leaves.

1. if my son is of consenting age, and is that dumb, he can go right ahead and kill himself, he's making the world a better place.
2. if you legally define marriage as 1 man and 1 woman, you are setting a precedent to make legal decisions about marriage in general. your point seems the opposite of valid here. writing it down in the law books opens the door for the whims of majority to control it in the future. deciding that the gov't shouldn't be involved AT ALL is the only way to preserve freedom for future generations regardless of their preference.

Originally Posted by erictski

but the main reason I dont feel it should be legal is because this may cause a trend of people that arent really homosexual to marry just for benefits like health insurance, tax breaks, stuff like that. And now that DOES affect me because my tax dollars are paying for it.

i could make the argument that everyone with more than 2 kids is also making my health insurance premiums go up, but if you tried to argue that having a lot of kids ought to be illegal, you'd get lynched. and i certainly know people that have had children just for the write-off. there will always be ways to "game the system" you can't realistically prevent that. what about straight couples that shack up doing this? are you implying that straight marriage shouldn't be allowed either, just because a few people abuse it for their own gain? i'll be honest, one of the biggest reasons my wife and i are married instead of just living together is the tax breaks and shared benefits. should we not be allowed to be married?

It took about 38 posts but someone finally fed you the red meat you were looking for Brad.

Originally Posted by jockeys

not good according to who? you? the masses have spoken and the majority of people like it. i realize our country was founded by prudes and puritans escaping from all the exciting sexuality going on in europe but seriously, it's a pretty recent idea that the human body is inherently naughty and seeing it is in any way bad.

Seems to me that Paul the Apostle wasn't too keen on it in the first chapter of the book of Romans a couple of thousand years ago.

To what masses are you referring ? In my state the referendum was soundly defeated. I voted in their favor BTW although I haven't voted in this poll.

As I stated FWIW in the other useless thread (IMO) on this same topic I am all for gays and lesbians having equal rights in civil unions. We all know what my being for it or against it is worth..... Nothing .

Just as bringing up these divisive issues in a forum devoted to straight razors and shaving is just stirring manure. If you stir it it stinks BTW. It ends up being a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.

I am going to go back to reading about straight razors and shaving with them. See ya'.

At one time there was no such thing as marriage and people didn't have last names. marriage was created for the benefit of royalty and the wealthy to pass on what they had including lineage and last names were created to collect taxes from people. Then the marriage idea filtered down to the upper middle classes and then the church got involved and mucked things up turning marriage into something it never was.

So when you say marriage is this and marriage is that its either your experiences and/or upbringing that has colored your thoughts to see marriage in whatever vein you see it as.

There is no absolute when it comes to marriage. Its not like you need oxygen to breath to stay alive or your heart must function to live.

Warning, monsterpost!

Originally Posted by Bruno

I am right.
Why am I right?
Because I say I am right.

No, that's NOT what I said. You asked who, I answered the question.

Humankind has a lot of things in its history that we thankfully abandoned.

Yes, just as human history has many things that we still maintain. Families are thankfully one of those. That is no argument what so ever either. So how about we both give up on that one?

Because then you have to maintain 2 complex legal concepts that affect a lot of things, instead of just one.

Even civil unions don't confer the same rights and duties as marriage atm, despite the fact that that is already existing for a long time. Creating yet another concept and updating all relevant legal and administrative texts is a metric ton of paperwork and overhead that is unnecessary because it doesn't change anything.

And if you allow for the concept of equal rights for civil unions, then the only difference would be to the people who are not affected by it, yet object to using the term 'marriage' on emotional grounds.

Actually you don't. Over here you can get a "registered partnership" which will legally grant you EXACTLY the same rights. It's not that big a problem, add a paragraph to the lawbooks which says something along the lines of "a registered partnership legally grants a person all the rights, obligations and priviledges (spelling?) which are granted unto a person that is lawfully married" and you're done.
As for emotional grounds, yes, we are human beings and are therefore EXTREMELY motivated by emotions. Do not underestimate the power of emotions. You seem to imply that emotions are a bad thing to be motivated by. Or am I misunderstanding this? Reacting to emotions is what makes us human instead of robots. I don't mind that.

Originally Posted by icedog

I thought someone would blurt out how if same sex marriage was legal (as it is in many countries) next people would want to marry their dog. I really thought that was going to be the far edge of ridiculousness. But Alex, here you topped that by a long shot! You are comparing same sex marriage to human sacrifice! Awesome, just awesome. We are talking about the joining of two consenting adults. The word marriage means any close joining or relationship. The flavors in a pot of soup marry. The pieces of a lawnmower are married to each other.

The funniest thing about your opposition to same sex marriage in the USA is that you live in the first country to legally recognize same sex marriage.

I don't really care for being called rediculous. I wasn't comparing gay ,ariage to human sacrifice. I was actually responding to your original question. Your question was: "if it doesn't harm you why should you care?" and I gave an example of why people care even if it doesn't affect them now. Because it could affect them in the future, or simply because they feel it is immoral.

As for marriage meaning nothing but a close joining, maybe it's like that in the english language but it's not the same in the other languages that I speak. In both Dutch and German a mariage can only happen to people. So how about we wipe that argument off the table as well since we're working with a very international group?

As for it being funny that I'm opposed to gay mariage since I'm living in the netherlands? I don't find that very funny at all. I happen to think that the whole of my government is made up out of a group of people that do not care what their population thinks one way or another, I have nothing but disrespect for those in parliament right now and most of those in parliament in past years. I don't agree with my government and probably won't on most things. I'm doubtfull that the gay mariage laws would have passed if those in power would actually have held a referendum or talked to the people that they're supposed to represent.

Originally Posted by jockeys

that's not what marriage IS, it's what you have arbitrarily defined it as. you're a cool guy and all, but just because you think something is, don't make it so. marriage is different for every instance of it. marriage means something totally different to me and my wife than it did to either set of our parents, and we're just garden-variety breeders!

Good for you, I respect you for having an opinion and having formed your own ideas, but so does everyone. So you're not quite unique in that. A lot of people during the forming of their opinion however find out that they agree with what their parent taught them.

the point is that arbitrarily outlawing it, even if it seems silly to YOU, is nothing short of tyranny and is an assault upon personal liberty.

So be it. Sometimes people do need to be told on what's allowed and what not. I know you don't agree on that but I personally think it's a good thing that there are laws for things such as these.

1. if my son is of consenting age, and is that dumb, he can go right ahead and kill himself, he's making the world a better place.
2. if you legally define marriage as 1 man and 1 woman, you are setting a precedent to make legal decisions about marriage in general. your point seems the opposite of valid here. writing it down in the law books opens the door for the whims of majority to control it in the future. deciding that the gov't shouldn't be involved AT ALL is the only way to preserve freedom for future generations regardless of their preference.

I don't believe you have any children do you? I know you're going to say that that doesn't matter but it does. Logically you might still say the same things about it if a situation had happened like that. However I seriously doubt that your feelings would agree, or those of the wife that you have to share a house with. To most parents their children are the world. And I don't think there are many parents out there in a situation such as that who'd be able to say "thank goodness he apparently was an idiot anyway, good riddance".



Gentlemen I thank you for your thoughts and hope you can hear mine out with the patience that I try to give to you.

[quote=LX_Emergency;367944]Warning, monsterpost!
I don't really care for being called rediculous.
No one called you ridiculous, at least not in writing in this thread.
As for marriage meaning nothing but a close joining, maybe it's like that in the english language but it's not the same in the other languages that I speak. In both Dutch and German a mariage can only happen to people. So how about we wipe that argument off the table as well since we're working with a very international group? I am discussing the denial of rights for citizens of the United States of America so let's not do any wiping off of any argument.

As for it being funny that I'm opposed to gay mariage since I'm living in the netherlands? I don't find that very funny at all. I think it's funny that you are opposed to people from another country on another continent having the same freedoms that your country was the first to grant. I think it is funny that you care at all. Alex, that is exactly the point of my initial question. Why would it cause you any stress if a gay couple in Flint, Michigan, USA wants to join together in a legally sanctioned marriage? I read Glennerator's statement that he doesn't have to have a reason, it just bugs him. Is distaste and/or dislike for a certain group of the population sufficient to deny those people equal rights? I happen to think that the whole of my government is made up out of a group of people that do not care what their population thinks one way or another, I have nothing but disrespect for those in parliament right now and most of those in parliament in past years. I don't agree with my government and probably won't on most things. I'm doubtfull that the gay mariage laws would have passed if those in power would actually have held a referendum or talked to the people that they're supposed to represent. So if you held the scepter of power would you then reverse the rules and deny people the freedoms they have been granted?

Brad

Originally Posted by icedog

No one called you ridiculous, at least not in writing in this thread.
I am discussing the denial of rights for citizens of the United States of America so let's not do any wiping off of any argument.

I think it's funny that you are opposed to people from another country on another continent having the same freedoms that your country was the first to grant. I think it is funny that you care at all. Alex, that is exactly the point of my initial question. Why would it cause you any stress if a gay couple in Flint, Michigan, USA wants to join together in a legally sanctioned marriage? I read Glennerator's statement that he doesn't have to have a reason, it just bugs him. Is distaste and/or dislike for a certain group of the population sufficient to deny those people equal rights? So if you held the scepter of power would you then reverse the rules and deny people the freedoms they have been granted?

Brad

No, you called my arguments rediculous which amounts to the same thing in the end.

I'm sorry, I didn't realise that this discussion was limited to your little corner of the world. You started the discussion as something about "if it doesn't affect you personally why would you care?"

I didn't know that there was a geographical location limitation on that. I forget sometimes that United Statians are the only ones that deal with real issues and that everything outside of the US doesn't count.

As for what I would do if I were in power I'd at least hold a referendum and put sanctions on those who wouldn't show up. Then if the outcome was different from the current laws I'd revoke those laws but keep past decisions legal. So if a gay couple had married in the past under legal supervision their mariage would still be valid. However mariage under my administration would not be possible for same sex mariage.

BUT, and this is a big one. ONLY if this is what the population chose for. Which hasn't happened in the Netherlands for most things and when it does the government finds some kind of way to surpass that anyway.

As for my personal opinion, I think that acts of homosexuality are wrong with a capitol W. This is my religious conviction. I know that many of you have a problem with that but that's my conviction. And nothing short of personal revelation from God will convince me otherwise.

I don't hate gay people, I just don't like their gay actions. Just like I don't hate smokers, just the fact that they smoke. We could get into a long discussion about whether that comparison works. For me it does. I have a gay friend, I love the guy very much but I don't love the fact that he's gay. Many will argue that that's "just the way he feels" that it's "In his DNA" etc etc.

Well the way I feel sometimes is that I'd like to bash someone's head in. But I don't. In my DNA is programmed that I need to be with as many women as possible according to the scientists, but I'm only with my wife. Those things are not any excuse to me. If a person can't control his/her actions that he/she has based on their feelings they might as well go out and live in the jungle with the other animals that respond purely to instinct and stimulation.

I'm a man, I chose what I do and I expect others to do the same. Just like "I fell in love with her" is no excuse for a man to have an affair. If it's that important let him end it with his wife, then he can pursue other relationships.