teamosil
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2009
- Messages
- 6,623
- Reaction score
- 2,226
- Location
- San Francisco
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
In some societies, "consent" means nothing, this may even apply to ours. Marriage should be between two humans of opposite sex.Stop. Your argument is ridiculous and does not help. A 9 year old cannot consent to marriage. A coma patient cannot consent to marriage. A chihuahua cannot consent to marriage. You are choosing irrelevant examples that do NOT fit the circumstances.
Then the vast majority of Americans are (by your definition) bigoted. The big question is why people should care. It's kind of stupid way to think of bigotry.
Why is it that some people feel entitled to certain rights and privileges while feeling justified in denying those same right/privileges to others?
Yes, a person can. I just haven't seen it yet.
I am asking the people who are pro gay marriage this question..........
Are you talking about congress? I agree if you are. Get rid of them! They have a ratio of rich like 40 times above the norm. It is a direct conflict of interest to be creating the laws making you rich.
Why not? If an entire society supports prison or death for homosexuals, the entire society is bigoted, easy as that.
Such as? Besides the ones cap mentioned
Um, prison/death for homosexuality is not the same thing as opposing same-sex marriage.
I don't know what Orius was referring to but here's some copypasta from an argument I had on Facebook:
Basically, that deciding to change the definition of something that has been the same for its whole existence of thousands of years opens up a can of worms wherein people can suddenly make marriage whatever they want it to be, such as incest, polygamy, bestiality, etc. In other words, that traditional society, which has been slowly evolving to better fit human needs for a long long time, is a more reliable source than a bunch of people arbitrarily morphing an institution because they think their way is better. I happen to disagree with parts of this argument, but it's certainly more compelling than "God hates fags".
I voted 'no', but with some explanation. There is no legitimate reason to oppose gay marriage. Denying gay people marriage rights hurts gays and has no impact whatsoever on heterosexuals. So, supporting gay marriage bans could not be motivated by anything other than a desire to hurt gay people. That is clear cut bigotry.
That said, I do believe that there are people out there who haven't thought the topic through all the way through. So, I guess opposition to gay marriage could be motivated by ignorance rather than bigotry, but with a big issue like this that directly effects people's lives and deals with fundamental principals of our constitution and whatnot people have a deep obligation to educate themselves about it.
I know, I was responding to "Gay marriage wasn't even an issue until very recently. I somehow doubt that everyone who existed before the mere possibility of allowing gays to marry came up were bigots." I'm saying that entire society were bigoted. Do you disagree?
My main issue with that is that marriage has not been the same for thousands of years. Polygamy was the standard for quite a while, and where the woman and man fit into the relationship has changed over time too.
Please explain to me how people historically WEREN'T bigoted towards gays. Either you're bigoted or you're not. There's no relativity here.Well that's hard to say... I don't think we should apply modern judgments on past time periods... there's probably a lot of things that both you and I support that will be considered bigoted or barbaric or something in the future.
In 60 years, when gay marriage is legal everywhere, I might think of considering those who want to abolish it as bigots. For now, they just don't see why this issue has so suddenly arisen in the first place.
Western marriage, or at least marriage in Christian cultures, has been the same for thousands of years. The roles of the man and woman, assuming that's what you're talking about, have nothing to do with the definition of marriage itself.
Please explain to me how people historically WEREN'T bigoted towards gays. Either you're bigoted or you're not. There's no relativity here.
Now you're redefining terms.
In some societies, "consent" means nothing, this may even apply to ours. Marriage should be between two humans of opposite sex.
A union of two or more can be for just about anything. Lets have this for the man and his dog; or for two homosexuals.
Lets keep marriage as it is, between a man and a woman....is that so hard ?
Stop. Your argument is ridiculous and does not help. A 9 year old cannot consent to marriage. A coma patient cannot consent to marriage. A chihuahua cannot consent to marriage. You are choosing irrelevant examples that do NOT fit the circumstances.
All you have to do is look at the history of America and you will see that overall we are a very bigoted country.
You dont seem to be looking very hard. Wasnt there a vote on this recently? What were the viewpoints involved?
I speaking of anyone who believes that they are somehow entitled to rights/privileges while believing that they are somehow justified in denying those same rights/privileges to others.
.
I do not think being opposed to same-sex marriage necessarily makes someone a bigot. I think some people just want to preserve what they know to be true about marriage. Those are the rare breed though in the opposition to same-sex marriage, most just have something against gays and they express it through law.
What I never understood is why a person would feel they need to impose that on an entire population of people by promulgating it into law. Maybe their marriage should be put to a 50 + 1 vote. I bet there would be more than enough reason to dissolve their marriage.
Would heterosexuals be alright with having their marriage put to a vote by the people?
I am asking the people who are pro gay marriage this question..........
Call me whatever you like: Gay marriage is an absurd invention of the extreme left.
Although conservatives are staunchly opposed to homosexuality on the grounds of it being irrefutably immoral, conservatives are not "anti-gay."
Conservatives believe that gays should not be discrimnated against, and should be allowed the basic rights afforded to normal people, but the idea that a man and a man can be called a "married couple" is so preposterous that one has to wonder at how insane liberal policy in American can go.
Next, I suppose liberals are going to be storming the streets for the right of animals to marry...:doh
As others have pointed out, there are sensible arguments for opposition to gay marriage. But instead of those arguments, we get a whole bunch of "it's just wrong" and unseemly preoccupation with buttsex.
What I never understood is why a person would feel they need to impose that on an entire population of people by promulgating it into law. Maybe their marriage should be put to a 50 + 1 vote. I bet there would be more than enough reason to dissolve their marriage.
Would heterosexuals be alright with having their marriage put to a vote by the people?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?