Gay Marriage to be legalized in the UK

[AGX-17]

Meh... don't really care.

 

 

Personally I consider marriage to be (by defintion) a union between a man and a woman.

I don't have anything against gay couples having an union, I'd just prefer if it was called differenlty. But then again, definitions of words do change over time....

 

 

That said...

I don't consider homosexuality "normal" (for a given definition of normal) or a beneficial thing for the human race.

Natural? Maybe ... but natural is a very, VERY broad category.

 

You can start your attacks on me now.

Marriage is a socio-economic contract. It originated in ancient times as a purely economic transaction between two families, family groups or tribes. Things like dowries and bride prices existed and still exist in the developing world based on the economics of the loss or gain of an individual and the economic value placed on that individual. What conservatives think is that legalization of gay marriage means big bad government will storm their churches with the national guard and force them at gunpoint to conduct gay marriages (which is idiotic.)

 

Legalization of gay marriage is about the civil, governmental, bureaucratic rights that come with marriage. It's not about religion, although conservatives want it to be so they can force their social values on everyone else on the grounds that it somehow intrudes on their "freedom" to give other people the same freedoms and equal treatment under the law. Just like how the Catholic church wants to dominate the social behaviors even of people who aren't a part of their church by influencing government policies in various countries. Notable examples like Ireland's Catholic-driven ban on abortions recently causing the death of an Indian woman whose life would have been saved by an abortion.

 

No homosexual, contrary to conservative beliefs, "chose" to be homosexual. After all, if anyone believes it's a choice, I ask, when did you choose to be a heterosexual? Do you make that decision every day? Because it only stands to reason that if it's a choice, both options must be equally appealing to you.

 

Homosexuality is a natural occurrence, it has been seen in many species (the most noted example being in sheep, with an even higher rate of homosexual behavior than is known in humans.) From a biological perspective, yes, it is not a "correctly functional" sexual orientation in that it does not, under natural circumstances, result in reproduction and the propagation of the DNA code driving the behavior. Besides, modern society and science have overcome those hurdles in several ways and more are being developed as we write (there is active research into allowing two women to reproduce sexually through artificial means.)

 

And sexual reproduction is not the only method of reproduction. Asexual reproduction came before sexual reproduction, after all, and there are species of amphibians and reptiles capable of Parthenogenesis, which is when a female produces offspring without the involvement of males. While the resulting offspring are genetically identical to the mother, they are still a propagation of her DNA. This occurs in situations where there is a lack of males in the environment, thus allowing for the preservation of the mother's DNA through time, until such a time as sexual reproduction becomes available as an option again. After all, it's better to reproduce in any way possible rather than have your genetic lineage die out, from a natural biological perspective.

 

Even more bizarre/interesting is the fact that there are some amphibians which can change their sex in response to environmental conditions (a severe imbalance in sexes in the community,) with males becoming fully-functional females and vice-versa.

 

All that said, the fundamental issue is that of the law and the rights granted by the law for wedded couples. It's about human relationships and the rights of individuals to certain benefits exclusively restricted to marriage as a legal institution, not a religious institution.

 

 

Gay couples are not provided the same rights as straight couples, and that is a major injustice.

 

I would agree, and while I'm not a fan of governments involving themselves with the headache that is marriage politics, as long as being married is the standard for couples it should be open to both homosexual and heterosexual couples - with both being provided the full rights and privileges that this conveys.

 

 

Like I said, the fundamental issue is the legal institution of marriage, not the religious one. Anyone can get "married" religiously, with or without an organized religion's involvement, but the government grants certain benefits and rights to people married under the law. A marriage under the law can be undertaken even without any form of ritual ceremony or religious hullaballoo. It's about those legal rights and benefits. Because one of the US government's primary roles is to enforce/guarantee compliance in contracts made between individuals and/or groups of any kind (be they businesses, community groups, private clubs, corporations, governmental bodies or any other that can legally make a contract,) the institution of marriage naturally falls under their purview.

 

Besides, the government's involvement is implicit when you use the term "marriage politics." After all, if the government weren't involved, gay marriage would have no hurdles to overcome (except possible hate crimes perpetrated by social conservatives,) and heterosexual couples would have no special rights or privileges granted to them under the law.

Edited February 7, 2013 by AGX-17

[Deadly_Nightshade]

 

 It's about those legal rights and benefits. 

 

I agree, hence this part of what you quoted: "...as long as being married is the standard for couples it should be open to both homosexual and heterosexual couples - with both being provided the full rights and privileges that this conveys." I'm not sure if you were expounding on what I said or under the false impression that I disagree with you, but I agree that the real issue is the legal rights and benefits and that they should be extended to homosexual couples as well as heterosexual couples. I don't care about the religious meaning of marriage, but the gut-reaction of those who do make it harder to achieve equal rights as long as that is the term used (a solution, although not one that would likely get any traction, would be to make civil unions for all - getting the government out of the discussion of marriage and fixing the real issue, the lack of the rights and protection for homosexual couples). That said, if marriage is going to be the term used by the government, then it should extend to homosexual couples as well as heterosexual ones. I feel like I'm repeating myself here... As I've been saying that the entire time. 

[alanschu]

At this point the problem is more that people associate the term marriage as a declaration of lifelong partnership and dedication to the other individual.  They want to be able to expressly state that, and I think in some cases people don't even care about many of the overt legal benefits of doing so.

Edited February 8, 2013 by alanschu

[BruceVC]

 

Meh... don't really care.

 

 

Personally I consider marriage to be (by defintion) a union between a man and a woman.

I don't have anything against gay couples having an union, I'd just prefer if it was called differenlty. But then again, definitions of words do change over time....

 

 

That said...

I don't consider homosexuality "normal" (for a given definition of normal) or a beneficial thing for the human race.

Natural? Maybe ... but natural is a very, VERY broad category.

 

You can start your attacks on me now.

Marriage is a socio-economic contract. It originated in ancient times as a purely economic transaction between two families, family groups or tribes. Things like dowries and bride prices existed and still exist in the developing world based on the economics of the loss or gain of an individual and the economic value placed on that individual. What conservatives think is that legalization of gay marriage means big bad government will storm their churches with the national guard and force them at gunpoint to conduct gay marriages (which is idiotic.)

 

Legalization of gay marriage is about the civil, governmental, bureaucratic rights that come with marriage. It's not about religion, although conservatives want it to be so they can force their social values on everyone else on the grounds that it somehow intrudes on their "freedom" to give other people the same freedoms and equal treatment under the law. Just like how the Catholic church wants to dominate the social behaviors even of people who aren't a part of their church by influencing government policies in various countries. Notable examples like Ireland's Catholic-driven ban on abortions recently causing the death of an Indian woman whose life would have been saved by an abortion.

 

No homosexual, contrary to conservative beliefs, "chose" to be homosexual. After all, if anyone believes it's a choice, I ask, when did you choose to be a heterosexual? Do you make that decision every day? Because it only stands to reason that if it's a choice, both options must be equally appealing to you.

 

Homosexuality is a natural occurrence, it has been seen in many species (the most noted example being in sheep, with an even higher rate of homosexual behavior than is known in humans.) From a biological perspective, yes, it is not a "correctly functional" sexual orientation in that it does not, under natural circumstances, result in reproduction and the propagation of the DNA code driving the behavior. Besides, modern society and science have overcome those hurdles in several ways and more are being developed as we write (there is active research into allowing two women to reproduce sexually through artificial means.)

 

And sexual reproduction is not the only method of reproduction. Asexual reproduction came before sexual reproduction, after all, and there are species of amphibians and reptiles capable of Parthenogenesis, which is when a female produces offspring without the involvement of males. While the resulting offspring are genetically identical to the mother, they are still a propagation of her DNA. This occurs in situations where there is a lack of males in the environment, thus allowing for the preservation of the mother's DNA through time, until such a time as sexual reproduction becomes available as an option again. After all, it's better to reproduce in any way possible rather than have your genetic lineage die out, from a natural biological perspective.

 

Even more bizarre/interesting is the fact that there are some amphibians which can change their sex in response to environmental conditions (a severe imbalance in sexes in the community,) with males becoming fully-functional females and vice-versa.

 

All that said, the fundamental issue is that of the law and the rights granted by the law for wedded couples. It's about human relationships and the rights of individuals to certain benefits exclusively restricted to marriage as a legal institution, not a religious institution.

> 

Gay couples are not provided the same rights as straight couples, and that is a major injustice.

 

I would agree, and while I'm not a fan of governments involving themselves with the headache that is marriage politics, as long as being married is the standard for couples it should be open to both homosexual and heterosexual couples - with both being provided the full rights and privileges that this conveys.

Like I said, the fundamental issue is the legal institution of marriage, not the religious one. Anyone can get "married" religiously, with or without an organized religion's involvement, but the government grants certain benefits and rights to people married under the law. A marriage under the law can be undertaken even without any form of ritual ceremony or religious hullaballoo. It's about those legal rights and benefits. Because one of the US government's primary roles is to enforce/guarantee compliance in contracts made between individuals and/or groups of any kind (be they businesses, community groups, private clubs, corporations, governmental bodies or any other that can legally make a contract,) the institution of marriage naturally falls under their purview.

 

Besides, the government's involvement is implicit when you use the term "marriage politics." After all, if the government weren't involved, gay marriage would have no hurdles to overcome (except possible hate crimes perpetrated by social conservatives,) and heterosexual couples would have no special rights or privileges granted to them under the law.

 

 

 

Wow, I'm  really impressed with your knowledge and ability to articulate your view. Nice one

I can't agree more with you, you make some salient and irrefutable points on this topic. I would hate to have to debate you if I disagreed with you.

[Guest The Architect]

Yeah, you'll cop an earful from an aspie if you say something incorrect around them.

[BruceVC]

Yeah, you'll cop an earful from an aspie if you say something incorrect around them.

  I wasn't sure what an aspie was so I looked it up, http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Aspie

 

I would say that is an accuate description for Agx

[alanschu]

Eh...

 

Unless he's explicitly admitted it, suggesting that someone suffers from Asperger's Syndrome (a form of autism) is probably one of the lesser cool things one can do.

 

I have written walls of text as well, but am reasonably confident I am not autistic.

[BruceVC]

Eh...

 

Unless he's explicitly admitted it, suggesting that someone suffers from Asperger's Syndrome (a form of autism) is probably one of the lesser cool things one can do.

 

I have written walls of text as well, but am reasonably confident I am not autistic.

 

 

I hear you but I don't see it as bad thing, from the definition I linked its someone who is highly intelligent but lacks certain social skills.

 

And the description clearly says " aspie is an affectionate term, and is not meant as a put down"

[Malcador]

Not really an affection term in my experience, hardly a really mean insult in any case but people are like paper these days.  Wonder if they'll allow homosexuals to divorce, I recall that was a funny problem when it was legalized here.

[NOK222]

At this point the problem is more that people associate the term marriage as a declaration of lifelong partnership and dedication to the other individual.  They want to be able to expressly state that, and I think in some cases people don't even care about many of the overt legal benefits of doing so.

 

Probably, but some people just realllyyy want to stick it to the establishment. So would I honestly. 

[obyknven]

http://youtu.be/F4hQ4J4BFOM
 

[TrashMan]

I'm actually fairly liberal, but the number of people I know personally who get onto the bandwagon of 'if you're not a minority then shut up because you're privileged and cannot understand or comment on anything' has gotten to the point that I'm tired of it. If people want to claim they're normal, fine. But they shouldn't expect everyone to be happy when they try to cram that belief down everyones' throats... Sigh... I guess this turned into more of a personal rant and got slightly off-topic, but I am just sick of the political correctness and reverse discrimination that is going on when the more radical, and most vocal, members of these groups try to push their agenda onto everyone else (and then cry privilege and discrimination if anyone disagrees). It's also late and I've had a day where I had to deal with said people, so I'm likely being harsher than I normally would be... Although not by much, at least not until I don't have to deal with people like that on a regular basis (and, because of the situation, it's hard to call them out without causing even more drama because, obviously, unless you're a member of the minorities in question you cannot say anything because of your privilege - although that only seems to go one way as they're perfectly fine when someone is supporting them).

 

 

Preaching to the choir..

Over the years the attacks by the "Political Correctness White Knights" have gone way up. The same zeal and fanaticism one would usually find in religious fundamentalist you cna now find among these "new crusaders".

It is ironic how hatefull and intolerant the people caliming to fight for tolerance can be.

 

 

People get insulted over everything these days.

 

I got branded a chauvinist for using the term "fairer sex" (because apprently, fair implies pale skin and pale skin is a result of women being locked up in homes)

 

There was some article about a black cosplayer (cosplaying as Sailor Venus) that got offended because people notice the skin color.

Well, OK; there was more than that - there were some really hatefull comments there and such douchebags really need a good bump on the head.

The funny thing is that I agreed with most of the article - except for one part that branded the following comnet as racist:

"For a black cosplayer (not to be racist) she did an amazing job!"

Full article here:

http://www.xojane.com/issues/mad-back-cosplayer-chaka-cumberbatch

 

So the guy actually compliments her and she gets offended. Because he noticed that she's black and the character is white. It would be like me (who is almsot 2 meter tall) cospalying Tyrenn Lannister from TGOT (who is a midget) and then feeling insulted when some tells me I did a good job considering I'm not a midget.

 

My post was immediately deleted and the moderator was all high-and-mighty about me being racist. The same moderator that insulted me before when I posted about the trial of General Gotovina (and basicly called me a natzi and other things for suporting him) and never aplogized (after all charges were dropped and he was let free).

 

 

So noticing physical apperance or characteristic is considered hatefull these days?

Hate and insults are allowed, if they are aimed at "justified" targets?

 

I weep for humanity.

[Meshugger]

 

 

 

I am genuinely interested in the point that gay relationships are not normal and can't receive equal legal married rights

 

 

You'll have to get TrashMan to respond for, as I have said several times, I am not against gay marriage and the extension of equal rights under the law. My point was more, given that, according to the CDC, only 6% to 14% of people report to be homosexual or bisexual for an average of  9%, that while homosexuals should be given equal rights under the law, they should not expect to be treated 'normal'. They should not expect discrimination or harassment. They should have the same rights. I am simply saying that they shouldn't be catered to (e.g. crys of 'heterosexual privilege' are often things that are true because that is the majority). I feel like I'm not being very clear, and I'm sorry if this is getting confusing.

 

 

EDIT:

Also, when I agreed it was not beneficial - I meant that it is likely not beneficial or harmful, it's just a thing. So, in retrospect, I should not have agreed on both points with TrashMan - I'll blame lack of sleep for that one, sorry if that confused things. I really don't have issues with homosexuality or homosexuals, I just have issues with some of the more radical elements and, because of having to deal with them in my personal life, I'm a bit skittish when it comes to agreeing to normality.

 

EDIT the Second:

Here is an example of what I mean, while some are things that should be fixed, the fearing bodily harm and other things of that nature, most of the last are complaints that there is not enough 'gay-ness' in society. Maybe it's just me, but I don't think that artificially forcing minority groups into everything is a good idea. Sometimes people need to realize that they're not the majority and complaining about it will not make things any better (and this goes for all people, for example I'm a fairly nonreligious person and the quantity of religious media here in the US of A is sometimes annoying - but then I remember that there's plenty of other things and just because one radio station or movie is that way doesn't mean I cannot find something else to enjoy, or I might enjoy it anyways -even though I disagree with the premise-). The same is true of the assumption complaints, if you're a member of a fairly small minority it's natural that people are not going to assume that you're a member of that minority until there is evidence to the contrary. If you're a Scientologist most people aren't going to guess that, and that's not an issue as long as they accept things when they find out (although, in that case, some questioning might be in order - but I think you'll get what I was trying to say).   

 

"All people are equal, but some are more equal than others, which is not beneficial to anyone". That's what you're trying to say, i think?

[TrashMan]

 

Marriage is a socio-economic contract. It originated in ancient times as a purely economic transaction between two families, family groups or tribes.

 

Marriage is a lot of things to a lot of people

 

 

 

No homosexual, contrary to conservative beliefs, "chose" to be homosexual. After all, if anyone believes it's a choice, I ask, when did
you choose to be a heterosexual? Do you make that decision every day?

 

Have I ever claimed otherwise?

 

 

 

 

Homosexuality is a natural occurrence, it has been seen in many species (the most noted example being in sheep, with an even higher rate of homosexual behavior than is known in humans.) From a biological perspective, yes, it is not a "correctly functional" sexual orientation
in that it does not, under natural circumstances, result in reproduction and the propagation of the DNA code driving the behavior. Besides,
modern society and science have overcome those hurdles in several ways and more are being developed as we write (there is active research into
allowing two women to reproduce sexually through artificial means.)

 

So is everything else that happen in nature. Like cannibalism. Pedophilia. Black widows devouring their mates. Lions killing cibs. Deseases. Etc..

 

 

 

All that said, the fundamental issue is that of the law and the rights granted by the law for wedded couples. It's about human relationships
and the rights of individuals to certain benefits exclusively restricted to marriage as a legal institution, not a religious institution.

 

And how does a name change prevent all that?

Even wihout the law, any competent lawyer could already form a contract that would basicly grant practicly all the same rights.

 

That said, religious institutions are free to do as they wish when it comes to their practices and rules.

 

[Hurlshort]

I'm not entirely sure what Trash man is arguing, but it sounds like he is upset about the aggressiveness of the LGBT rights movement.  That is a common argument, I know quite a few people who say they don't care if someone is gay but that doesn't mean they need parades to show it off.

 

But honestly, that is how human nature works.  For centuries gay people have been repressed and persecuted.  In the last 30 years that has been slowly changing, and we are really at the peak here where gay people are being allowed to openly embrace their identities.  So of course there is going to be some hypersensitivity, some that go overboard on the political correctness.  It is important to have voices of reason to combat that hypersensitivity, but it is so much better than the centuries of condemnation that came before the shift.

 

Let's also not fool ourselves, there are huge parts of the world and even developed nations like the US that continue to tar and feather anyone suspected of being gay.  As long as the word gay is still thrown around as an insult on the playgrounds of our nations, we have a long way to go.  Racial epitaphs used to be thrown around in the same way, and it took decades of social sensitivity to change that. 

Edited February 8, 2013 by Hurlshot

[rjshae]

Meh. My main concern is about retaining legal protections for the offspring of mated adults. As long as that remains in place, then I guess homosexual imitative marriages are just another harmless social convention.

[HoonDing]

Welcome to 2004.

[TrashMan]

I'm not entirely sure what Trash man is arguing, but it sounds like he is upset about the aggressiveness of the LGBT rights movement.  That is a common argument, I know quite a few people who say they don't care if someone is gay but that doesn't mean they need parades to show it off.

 

 

I'm upset about everything.

LGBT? It's not like they are the only ones.

 

Anyone fighting for or agaisnt something (racism, religion, sex, idea or principle) can go to extreems. He who fights monsters ends up seeing monsters everywhere.

 

 

 

 

Let's also not fool ourselves, there are huge parts of the world and even developed nations like the US that continue to tar and feather anyone

suspected of being gay.  As long as the word gay is still thrown around as an insult on the playgrounds of our nations, we have a long way to

go.  Racial epitaphs used to be thrown around in the same way, and it took decades of social sensitivity to change that.

 

The mening of words and their impact changes constantly.

I don't see "gay" being used as an insult going away anytime soon, altough I see it loosing most of it's sting. Once a word is overused, people tend to find another word.

[rjshae]

Welcome to 2004.

 

I think you have an old calendar. Time to throw it out.

[Guest The Architect]

 

Eh...

 

Unless he's explicitly admitted it, suggesting that someone suffers from Asperger's Syndrome (a form of autism) is probably one of the lesser cool things one can do.

 

I have written walls of text as well, but am reasonably confident I am not autistic.

 

 

I hear you but I don't see it as bad thing, from the definition I linked its someone who is highly intelligent but lacks certain social skills.

 

And the description clearly says " aspie is an affectionate term, and is not meant as a put down"

 

 

I joked that he had it based on his overreaction to a joke someone made about females and lawyers being a bad combination in another thread, not because he writes walls of text. Then based on his reaction to my joke, I started to think he probably does have it. I like many of his long posts, especially the ones where he rips into Paultards.

Edited February 9, 2013 by The Architect

[alanschu]

 

"For a black cosplayer (not to be racist) she did an amazing job!"

 

That is a stupid comment and deserves to be chided.

 

It literally qualifies that the race of the individual has affected the assessment of how quality the job is.  In an ideal world, the idea that she was a "black cosplayer" would never come up.  But it did.  What exactly does it mean to say "For a black cosplayer?"

 

It's no different than saying "For a white person, this was pretty impressive."  It implicitly states that the colour of one's skin influenced the decision, and the implicit assumption is always going to be that had the skin colour been different, the result wouldn't have been impressive.

 

No one says "For a black cosplayer, she is pretty impressive" meaning "but had she been asian/white/whatever, it was HOLY CRAP AMAZING."

[BruceVC]

 

"For a black cosplayer (not to be racist) she did an amazing job!"

 

That is a stupid comment and deserves to be chided.

 

It literally qualifies that the race of the individual has affected the assessment of how quality the job is.  In an ideal world, the idea that she was a "black cosplayer" would never come up.  But it did.  What exactly does it mean to say "For a black cosplayer?"

 

It's no different than saying "For a white person, this was pretty impressive."  It implicitly states that the colour of one's skin influenced the decision, and the implicit assumption is always going to be that had the skin colour been different, the result wouldn't have been impressive.

 

No one says "For a black cosplayer, she is pretty impressive" meaning "but had she been asian/white/whatever, it was HOLY CRAP AMAZING."

 

I agree, there is an undertone of racist assumption. But I will disagree with one point you made, the comment "For a white person, this was pretty impressive"  doesn't mean other races wouldn't have been as impressive, what it says is that other races would have done it better and you are almost surprised that this racial group did it as well.

[alanschu]

 

But I will disagree with one point you made, the comment "For a white person, this was pretty impressive"  doesn't mean other races wouldn't have been as impressive, what it says is that other races would have done it better and you are almost surprised that this racial group did it as well.

 

 

Errr, that's just a typo on my part.  The example I stated in my last line is in line with what I meant (and what you said)

[BruceVC]

 

But I will disagree with one point you made, the comment "For a white person, this was pretty impressive"  doesn't mean other races wouldn't have been as impressive, what it says is that other races would have done it better and you are almost surprised that this racial group did it as well.

 

 

Errr, that's just a typo on my part.  The example I stated in my last line is in line with what I meant (and what you said)

 

 

Okay got it

[TrashMan]

 

"For a black cosplayer (not to be racist) she did an amazing job!"

 

That is a stupid comment and deserves to be chided.

 

It literally qualifies that the race of the individual has affected the assessment of how quality the job is.  In an ideal world, the idea that she was a "black cosplayer" would never come up.  But it did.  What exactly does it mean to say "For a black cosplayer?"

 

It's no different than saying "For a white person, this was pretty impressive."  It implicitly states that the colour of one's skin influenced the decision, and the implicit assumption is always going to be that had the skin colour been different, the result wouldn't have been impressive.

 

No one says "For a black cosplayer, she is pretty impressive" meaning "but had she been asian/white/whatever, it was HOLY CRAP AMAZING."

 

Bollocks. It is you who are assigning negative meaning to it - it is not inherent to the text.

 

What is is is an factual observation - the girl in question WAS a black cosplayer. In the real world the physical characteristics of individual - sex, height, skin color, hair color, weight, etc - DO affect cosplaying. Because the goal of cosplaying is to look like the character. So yes, the color of skin DOES influence it, because a darker skinned person will have a harder job to loook like a white character and vice-versa.

And no, it doesn't imply that it wouldn't be impressive otherwise.

 

If I were to notice that this is a guy playing a woman, am I being sexist?

 

Am I racist/sexist if I notice B looks closer to the character than A?

 

 

So no, if I were to dress like Samuel L. Jackson and you said "For a white person, this was pretty impressive" I wouldn't get offended.