The Gay Marriage debate!

:: http://podkopayevaandpiskun.wordpress.com/pro-bono-charity-projects/

I might ask them for a job. ::

 

The thing that is amazing, regardless of your personal thoughts, is how society eventually accepts anything.

 

Yes. For instance, if the Germans had halted the Americans and British in 1944, the World would have eventually accepted it, preferring to turn its attentions and energies to driving back the Soviets. Shit only becomes accepted after it becomes acceptable. Once its acceptable, anything is possible.

Governments know this shit only too well. Thats why when a referendum gets sent back, defeated, the people behind it bide their time, and try and try again.

As I say, the single most reliable reason to support Gay Marriage is by merely looking at the people who DON'T support Gay Marriage. Take it a little further, and look at the people who not only don't accept it, but virulently oppose it to the point of violence, and the point is made all the stronger. If a religious fundamentalist burped after drinking soda, I might well give up drinking soda, so as to avoid their way of doing things. People who say that homoze should be dropped from a great height are not people whose opinion I wish to mimic, in as many ways as possible.

If two homos want to refer to each other as man and wife, despite being man and man or woman and woman or man/woman and man/woman, then what do I care, so long as they behave themselves.

Where the matter becomes fuddled is on children etc...but that is an argument for another day.

 

dude don't bring this shit onto my facebook!

still thanks for the message.

 

But again, eventually completely accepted.

Some day mabye pedophilia too. Seems absurd, but flash back 75 years and the thought of gay marriage even being debate, let alone legal, would have also seemed absurd.

 

:: did you delete it? ::

 

75 years is a long long time in the mechanized age, and the rate at which communications are proceeding is incredible.

That said, the NAMBLA set all need to be imprisoned, re-educated and then gassed.

 

On the other hand, pedophilia (as we know it) WAS accepted for thousands of years in Greece and Rome before church came and somehow mankind survived that. Christian belief strengthened 'sexual morals', then again the rights of women and races went backwards from what they had been. Moral laws are never eternal, every era has its own views

 

Thanks, Feebs

 

Goddamn, LOOK at that THING!!!! That is one ugly motherfucker

 

Good stuff. It's all a distraction, man

 

Yup. This is the shit drummed up in think tanks to get people fired up about things that have almost no actual, tangible effect on them while they ignore all of the things that do.

 

We're doomed ::

 

:l2: looks that way

 

yeah buts its the homos that make it an issue. as long as they get the same rights as heterosexuals why are they bringing up this "drummed up shit"

 

No... That is simply not accurate. To try and say this is an issue created by one side is simply ridiculous. When the president of the United States uses the limited time of his State Of The Union address to address "a constitutional definition of marriage" , it is ABSURD to say that this is some problem caused by homosexuals agitating.

MORE ACCURATELY, it is a small issue blown up by it's opponents to create a distraction and an "issue" by which to hoodwink morons into voting for people who on every economic and fiscal issue represent the worst and most self-defeating option for them.

Don't believe the hype.

There's no army of deviants at the gates of Rome, but go ahead and keep thinking about that crap, you are doing what the Heritage Foundation is banking on.

 

I still don't get why you give a fuck. Rights extend beyond the law. The right to call their union the same thing as everybody else & not be marked out as apart from the rest of us for instance.

 

Exactly. It is like forcing black people to call their marriage something else than others even though they have the sane rights. You can be sure there would be outrage

 

Hold on a second here......the union of man and woman is a unique union. The union of man and man or woman and woman is an accommodation made to give people a quality of life and a status amongst society that does not leave them out in the cold or subject to discrimination when it comes to taxes, pensions etc.

But Gay Marriage should always be called that. GAY. MARRIAGE.

Forcing black people to call their marriage something else would be perverse. Black men and women are supposed to get married. Men and women are supposed to get married. Men and Men are not. But we accommodate them. For our own selfish interests, perhaps, but the accommodation is made.

Legally, the Gay Marriage must carry with it the same rights and obligations.

Socially, I am under NO OBLIGATION at all to bestow any recognition on it at all.

 

As long as you recognize you only feel that way because you're an asshole, I see what you're saying.

 

An asshole wouldn't reach the stage of accommodation in the first case. An asshole would seek to subject people to some "untouchable" status from jump street. Often, the sign of an asshole is that they can't even make decisions which SUIT them in the long-term, because they prefer to push somebody else around in the short-term.

In addition, the Gay Marriage lobby have, at least in Ireland, conducted their affairs in an antagonistic, confrontational and exclusive fashion, with snide attacks on the religious and conservative mainstream. Thats not how to go about it.

I say give them the same basic "rights" as everybody else. It is perverse to accept accommodation but then sneer at it or think less of it because the person accommodating you won't do it for the reasons you want them to do it. That's thick. Do they want to be thick or do they want to get married?

Furthermore, there are people in society who wish to get married but cannot do so because of religious bigotry or financial concerns, from within or without. Shia cannot marry Sunni, Catholic cannot marry Protestant, poor cannot marry poor because it makes more sense to stay legally single, or face losing housing benefits or tax credits. Instead, these people are forced into a state of limbo. Queers act like its just them that have this problem. Its not.

 

Maybe they wanna be accepted for what they are like everyone else & the marriage debate is just a crucible for that.

 

I say give their marriage the benefit of law.

Hell, Roman Catholic Unions conducted in Church between man and woman involve the Priest asking a bunch of people he's never met if any of them have a problem with any of this.

I'm not obliged to like Gay Marriage. Thats the essence of tolerance- not liking it but putting up with it anyways.

As I say, do they want tolerance or adulation and worship? As Mickey Duff told Honeyghan..."there's nothing in our contract that says I have to like you"....didn't make the contract any less of a contract, did it? :dunno:

 

I reckon those subject to bigotry have a right to hope people gonna grow out of it, even it's unrealistic in the short term. Sorry by the way I edited your post to fix the silly spelling mistake in your quote of mine. Have to keep o the straight and narrow with Ike around ::

 

Right. And as long as you recognize that you don't like it because you're an asshole, I see what you're saying.

 

This makes no sense. For instance, I can disagree with my daughter marrying a man of the same race, same nationality, same social background....and the rest of the family will decide that I am an asshole. Yet my decision is my own and can objectively be seen to stand soundly on its own logic {chap is a poor earner, has bad judgment, carries a dominant gene for a particular disease, has debts, has a short life expectancy, whatever} A fortiori, where I disagree with the marriage for these reasons but do not seek to veto it, and in due course afford it the same legal regard as my own, then I should at the end of the day be allowed to retain some degree of personal opinion regarding the union, having already assisted and permitted its formation.

There is no obligation for ANY man to like what he does so long as he does it in good faith that it betters the majority.

First comes the legal respect, then comes social respect. If I pave the way legally so that others who come after me might socially accept that which I legally accepted, then I consider my duty done.

 

Your daughter's life should actually matter to you though. There's really only one reason to not like gay marriage between two men you don't know - you're an asshole.

It's not a big deal. Legally you recognize their rights and I respect that.

 

I don't have to like the concept. :dunno: What's the problem?? I'm not a huge fan of civil-registrations either, but......I respect them. Nobody is an asshole for instinctively disliking something, but instinctively also realizing that they need to, and can, accommodate and work around the issue.

I don't like gay marriages any more than I like the Sun shining in my eyes. But the Sun has to shine, so I wear shades, and humans need accommodating, so I play along.

 

not analogous. The correct analogy would be pork lovers asking for kosher pork

 

Destruction of Gayhems has Spoken!!! WHO DARES TO DIS-A-GAY???