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

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.

Oh please Alex, don't say that. I actually have great respect for you at a personal level. You are clearly intelligent, talented, skilled in many areas and a loving father, husband and I would have to extrapolate(but hopefully not too far) to say friend too. To call you as a person ridiculous would be a foolish mistake if not outright lie. However, in the world of debate it is easy to make a ridiculous statement or argument. Bringing up human sacrifice in a discussion about same sex marriage is (in my opinion) ridiculous. If you'd like we can take a poll on it and see if I stand alone or if everyone else thinks so too.

Once again, the basic question of this thread was not specifically about gay marriage. It was about some people who want to control others. The thread morphed into the marriage thing which people can not argue logically against. The only argument has been purely emotional, "It bugs me." Now if we are discussing why folks of the same sex are not allowed to marry, we could not be discussing the Netherlands. Same sex marriage is allowed there. And in response to your snotty "your little corner of the world" comment, my "little corner of the world" is Connecticut. Same sex marriages are allowed in Connecticut. As Connecticut is on the other side of North America from California, we can be discussing neither my "little corner" nor my bigger corner.

Now how about my question regarding those who will not let other drivers pass on a two lane, bi-directional, limited access highway?

Originally Posted by icedog

Bringing up human sacrifice in a discussion about same sex marriage is (in my opinion) ridiculous. If you'd like we can take a poll on it and see if I stand alone or if everyone else thinks so too.

Once again, the basic question of this thread was not specifically about gay marriage. It was about some people who want to control others. The thread morphed into the marriage thing which people can not argue logically against.


Now how about my question regarding those who will not let other drivers pass on a two lane, bi-directional, limited access highway?

Which is what I responded to. The original question. One of the reasonings of the original question was that if it doesn't harm you, why should you have a problem with it? Then I gave an example of something that doesn't harm a person but could possibly harm them in the future.

THAT is what I responded to.

After that I went on to respond to the whole gay mariage thing. But my initial response was to the idea that something that doesn't harm you should be allowed. The response to that was with an example that does not harm a person but might in the future. Offcourse the example was out there. That way it could be clearer. It had nothing directly to do with gay mariage because that wasn't the topic of this discussion.

I wasn't comparing it to gay mariage because that wasn't the topic.


After that I went on to say some things about gay mariage, but that had nothing directly to do with gay mariage and human sacrifice. However the principal was the same. People would (and do) object to both because they fear it might harm then In the future.

It was an illustration of an idea. Not a comparison.

As for the fact that you're my friend, I agree

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

OH HEY! Good news everyone. I just read that if you don't like gay marriage, you don't have to have one. *whew*


...


...


...

Well, that solved that in a hurry now didn't it? Anybody for some scones? I bake them fresh myself.

X

You're a bit behind X, that answer has already been given. But I'm glad you confirmed that for those who weren't paying attention.

Originally Posted by xman

Well, that solved that in a hurry now didn't it? Anybody for some scones? I bake them fresh myself.

X

yeah, sounding better and better all the time.

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

One of the reasonings of the original question was that if it doesn't harm you, why should you have a problem with it? Then I gave an example of something that doesn't harm a person but could possibly harm them in the future.

That is an excellent point.

As a corollary, there is also a gray area of being harmed by something.

If you wore the worlds ugliest socks in the world tomorrow, it wouldn't effect me in the slightest degree. Not even by the most complex chain of cause and effect.

If you hopped on a plain tomorrow, and flew all the way to little Monmouth, OR - USA and performed a ritual sacrifice in my living room, that would have a HUGE effect on me.

The problem is that so often when these topics are debated, everybody views it as black and white. Either it has a huge meaningful effect directly on your life, or it shouldn't matter to you at all. But, it's a long way from wearing ugly socks on a different continent to performing a sacrifice in my living room, and somewhere in the middle, it get's pretty seriously ambiguous as to whether it's any of my business or not.

So many debates are a matter of gray area these days.

The abortion debate is a perfect example. Everyone in the civilized world (excluding crazy people) agrees that it is wrong to senselessly murder a child. The difficulty comes in because not everybody agrees on when an egg cell stops being partial genetic material, and starts being a child. AND, not everyone agrees on the definitions of "senseless" or "murder."

I know people who believe that the morning after pill is senseless murder, and other's who believe that it's perfectly reasonable, compassionate even, to abort a 5 month fetus because an amnio shows a 50% chance of a bad birth defect.

(I mention this particular debate because it's a good example of what I'm talking about, and it was mentioned in the opening post)

Originally Posted by VeeDubb65

The abortion debate is a perfect example. Everyone in the civilized world (excluding crazy people) agrees that it is wrong to senselessly murder a child. The difficulty comes in because not everybody agrees on when an egg cell stops being partial genetic material, and starts being a child. AND, not everyone agrees on the definitions of "senseless" or "murder."

I know people who believe that the morning after pill is senseless murder, and other's who believe that it's perfectly reasonable, compassionate even, to abort a 5 month fetus because an amnio shows a 50% chance of a bad birth defect.

Not to argue but only to comment: I've known a fair number of women who have decided to have abortions and none of them were happy about it. Sometimes people feel forced to take extreme positions in public debate ("It doesn't bother me at all") because they don't want the basic issue to be sidetracked but I think it would be fair to say that such decisions are not taken lightly and always involve choosing the lesser of two evils. In addition to knowing women who have aborted, I have also raised two adopted daughters and I can also tell you that giving up a child for adoption, as an alternative to abortion, and being an adopted child that was given up by her biological mother, are no beds of roses either.

There's also another aspect to both the gay marriage and abortion debate that I'm surprised no one else has mentioned. Parents who believe that the happiest way to live is to have a stable marriage and raise children are very worried about role models that glorify irresponsible sex.

The abortion debate is also about irresponsible sex. Parents worry that, if abortion becomes widely accepted and easy, their daughters will sleep around and it will be harder for them to marry, stay married and raise healthy children. I'm not arguing this, just explaining what some people think.

The gay marriage issue also has this aspect. True, there are gays in stable relationships but there are a lot of gays that have frequent anonymous sexual encounters in bath houses, bathrooms and parks in the dark. This is one of the theories about why AIDS spread so fast among gay males. Some people want to put gays in a ghetto to keep them out of sight of their children, not because they will be tempted to become gay, but to imitate a hedonistic lifestyle. Part of the fear of gay marriage is that gays will become mainstream, i.e., big gay weddings and photographs of happy couples kissing in the newspapers. Again, I'm not arguing this, but explaining where some of the emotion comes from. I know people who are literally nauseated when they see gay behavior.