-
Smogon Premier League is here and the team collection is now available. Support your team!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Prop 8
- Thread starter Kristy Haruka
- Start date
- Status
Ahaha
What a great post.
I have to say: can it really be so hard to comprimise? If God is merciful, then he's hardly going to 'shun' you because you tolerated gays. In fact, the bible says love thy neighbour.
I'm an atheist and am tolerate of gays, even though I don't share their beliefs. Some people need to realise that they are people too. >_>
EDIT: I think it's the religious people that need to comprimise, TAY, not the gays. Homosexuals deserve the same treatment as hetrosexuals.
lmao tell that to black people in the first three quarters of the 20th century. "Separate but Equal" was a great compromise, huh?
This has nothing to do with beliefs. If a gay Buddhist couple wants to get married, why should they legally have to conform to christian standards? That seems to go against the idea of separation of church and state.
This has nothing to do with beliefs. If a gay Buddhist couple wants to get married, why should they legally have to conform to christian standards? That seems to go against the idea of separation of church and state.
Obviously not.
But the issue is that right now marriage is viewed as being the same for everyone.
So allowing gay marriage, to someone opposing it, is to them imposing a view of marriage that they simply cannot accept(of course the system does that now by banning gay marriage)
Honestly, the tone of this thread is becoming less about "solving the problem" and more about "sticking it to social conservatives"
What they "can't accept" shouldn't be relevant at all in deciding laws. It's not something that harms them or even affects them in any way. It would make sense if they "can't accept" something that affects them somehow, but there lives are exactly the same if this is or isn't allowed, and it does affect the gay couples.
I think the real debate here shouldn't be "should gay marriage be allowed", it should be "does the common person have too much power".
I think the real debate here shouldn't be "should gay marriage be allowed", it should be "does the common person have too much power".
Not to sound like a Communist here or anything, but allowing a majority vote for everything is a flaw of democracy. See, allowing the majority to decide inevitably leads to discrimination against minority groups (due to the general effect of in-group favoritism), and thus sometimes this can lead to people voting in a biased fashion on things that don't really affect them whatsoever.
Exhibit A:
This is a family. It has a mother and a father.
Exhibit B:
Depicted here is a child without a mother.
Exhibit B is clearly inferior to exhibit A, unless you believe that a father and a second father and a mother are interchangable in every respect. That is what you support if you support gay marriage. You are arguing that it is perfectly legitimate and of equal value for a child to grow up without a mother or father.
And I really don't give a shit about all the insults, labels, and trolls. The fact is America does not support gay marriage, and gay marriage initiatives have passed in 30 out of 30 states where they have been tried.
Stare into Exhibit B for a while. That is what you support. A Child without a Mother. A Stable society is built upon stable, loving families with both a mother and a father. Call me a bigot, I don't care. You have no understanding of history and your quest for "equality" among two clearly unequal things is a farce.
Mating does not equal marriage. Birds mate for life, but you could hardly consider them married.
Deck Knight, please prove that children need a parent of both sexes to be raised favorably. Because I know my life would have been a hell of a lot easier if my parents had been a gay couple. No 'lol gay is wrong the bible says so', no 'get your ass to church and no contradicting the youth leader', no 'you can't do this you are the wrong gender', no 'conform to society because I tell you to'.
Then go out and campaign against divorce and single parents before you attack gays because using your logic and common fucking sense you can tell those are more damaging to a child's life.
Then go out and campaign against divorce and single parents before you attack gays because using your logic and common fucking sense you can tell those are more damaging to a child's life.
ignoring the part where you think "Exhibit B" is a pair of monstrous perverts...
the problem here is that not all man-woman couples are as happy and beautiful as your "Exhibit A" is supposed to be. now I'm not going to say that all gay couples are brilliant but what is better, a honest gay couple, or a straight couple in which the father beats up the mother after coming home drunk every night? the answer is not very hard. now I really don't have statistics about domestic violence, but the very existance of this shows that "quality" of couples isn't related to what gender the people engaged are.
I suppose thousands of children around the world do just fine without either the mother or the father. I was raised by two women, my aunt and my mother (of course not a couple lol, but this still applies), but I've done fine without a father. another argument against you: the idea of stereotypical gender roles is falling down.
summarizing, the amount of love and care in couples should be put before their gender. The problem is that tradition gives a man and a woman the rights to get married and raise children, while it takes those away from same-sex couples. it is pretty clear that this tradition needs changing.
probably not for very long
It doesn't even have to be that extreme when you consider the possibility that, say, the mother in "Exhibit A" gets home from work at 11pm each night, or has no legs. There are like a million different scenarios of varying absurdity that would have to be accounted for if Deck Knight seriously wanted to bring up "child raising" as a legitimate anti-gay argument.
and also what spies said
Yes, I find nothing wrong with Exhibit B as opposed to Exhibit A. Of course I don't actually know anything about the people in either picture so I'm judging purely based off appeatance, but as long as the caregivers of the child are loving, their gender isn't particularly important. This also applies to cases of single-parent families, families mixed due to divorce, other relatives taking custody of children due to death etc. The "one father, one mother" as the only acceptable family is an outdated and moronic concept. It isn't always practical for one thing, and families with a father and mother are often riddled with problems as much as "non-traditional" families.
How is it that I do not understand history? Do you truly believe that gay families will be the end of civilization? That has to be one of the more idiotic conclusions you've reached. And my goal of having equality among people of differing sexual orientations isn't a farce because they are equal.
It's been said already, but comparing two families comes down to a million things more important than the sexes of the parents. I would be inclined to argue that homosexual parents are more likely to do a good job raising a child since they're on average more comfortable with themselves and more open about society/culture/change. All research about gay parenting points to homosexual parents being equal or better than the average parent in most ways (gays also have to jump through more hoops to become a parent so in most cases a gay couple with a child wanted one pretty badly, whereas in an average "traditional" family this is not always the case).
The FACT IS, America is moving towards supporting equal rights to homosexuals, just like we did for AFRICAN-AMERICANS and WOMEN. I'd bet in the next 20 years or so all of these laws will be changed, and we'll all look back and think "wow, I can't believe our country ever discriminated against gays" just like most of us are saying right now about women/african-americans. By "us" I don't necessarily mean anyone in particular, I mean the country as a whole.
The FACT IS, America is moving towards supporting equal rights to homosexuals, just like we did for AFRICAN-AMERICANS and WOMEN. I'd bet in the next 20 years or so all of these laws will be changed, and we'll all look back and think "wow, I can't believe our country ever discriminated against gays" just like most of us are saying right now about women/african-americans. By "us" I don't necessarily mean anyone in particular, I mean the country as a whole.
This is the best response to DK's example.
Also, not every man-woman marriage is happy, many of them are a living hell for the children on so many aspects, sexual abuse and some other kind of abuse is still present on marriages with heterosexual parents. That could happen with gay marriages as well, but not because they are gay, these are problems of certain individuals and not gender or sexual orientation.
So all that kind of stuff doesn't belong here, that's a completely different problem, when a marriage doesn't work it just doesn't work.
How is Exhibit B clearly inferior? Not only is there nothing clearly superior or inferior just from looking (both seem to be reasonably happy situations, the children in both seem fairly happy), but your support for that statement is that it is only not true if one believes something that, once again, has nothing to do with the pictures that are your 'exhibits'. A stable society is built on not having disorder and tyranny, not the family structure. Some societies have far more family oriented societies than ours and are all reasonably of the same stability.
Not only that, but by your logic, the United States is inferior - we cut out the mothers of the mothers and fathers of the fathers from direct contact! If the family structure is so important, then ours surely is a depraved society that has become too selfish and closed off from our relatives.
Not only that, but by your logic, the United States is inferior - we cut out the mothers of the mothers and fathers of the fathers from direct contact! If the family structure is so important, then ours surely is a depraved society that has become too selfish and closed off from our relatives.
Deck Knight, you are begging the question. Exhibit B is only clearly inferior if you presume that it is. For all you know, the father in the first pic is a pedophile and the mother an alcoholic crack-whore.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parentingWikipedia said:
- Status