I seriously don't understand what's so wrong about being gay/bi or whatever label people want to put. What makes it so inferior to heterosexual couples?
-
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
olie that is atrocious. Gay people are deserving of all of the same rights as other people, not most. Also, gay people being nice has absolutely zero bearing on this, as rights should be a guarantee to everyone, unless they do something to be stripped of those rights (such as murder).
You are right about one thing: Allowing gay marriages doesn't affect heterosexuals in the least.
You are right about one thing: Allowing gay marriages doesn't affect heterosexuals in the least.
Mormoopid, I stated that Gay people are just like you and I, but in the opinion of myself, and many others, marriage between gay people and straight people should not be called marriage. They are free to love each other, raise children, and do anything else that heterosexual married couples do, but in my view, it should not be called marriage, just a relationship. This does not defer any of the rights straight couples recieve.
The only comment I'm going to make about your statement is that a gay couple who is devoted and united in love is more than just a "relationship".
Agreeing fully with Misty.
Agreeing fully with Misty.
Thanks Misty for saving me the trouble of posting this. I've always believed that marriage shouldn't be regulated by the state anyway.
I wouldn't vote in favor of prop. 8, but I suspect Proposition 8 will likely be passed.
There are a couple issues at play here.
First off, I would vote against this simply based on the tactics being used. The proponents of Prop 8 are trying to convince people that by not voting, somehow their children are in danger (like, teaching about gay sex and marriage in school will be mandatory), which is an outright lie. There are a number of statements being made by the proponents to this bill that are outright lies.
Second, this is a (state) constitutional amendment that is designed to do one thing only: limit the right of a specific group of people. That is prejudiced by every definition of the word, and an absolute corruption of justice and what constitutions are supposed to stand for. Additionally, the only (US) constitutional amendment to limit people's freedom is also the only constituional amendment ever to be repealed (prohibition), showing that this is clearly not the way to go.
Third, it's a ludicrous issue in the first place. Imagine, if you will for a second, that a religion existed that forbade opposite-sex couples to be involved or marry. If they tried to impose this belief, through the government, on other people, they'd be laughed right out of the country. Why then is this situation any different? Just because more people are Christian and less people are Gay? That is ridiculous and just plain wrong. They're still people, and they can no more choose who they love than you can. Go on, try it. Stop loving your significant other because someone else thinks it's wrong. Yeah, I didn't think so. No one is being hurt by these people being able to live and love the way they want to. The only hurt going on is that someone is trying to prevent them from doing this.
And don't give me this "defense of marriage" crap either. 50% of all straight marriages end in divorce. Doesn't sound so sacrosant to me.
First off, I would vote against this simply based on the tactics being used. The proponents of Prop 8 are trying to convince people that by not voting, somehow their children are in danger (like, teaching about gay sex and marriage in school will be mandatory), which is an outright lie. There are a number of statements being made by the proponents to this bill that are outright lies.
Second, this is a (state) constitutional amendment that is designed to do one thing only: limit the right of a specific group of people. That is prejudiced by every definition of the word, and an absolute corruption of justice and what constitutions are supposed to stand for. Additionally, the only (US) constitutional amendment to limit people's freedom is also the only constituional amendment ever to be repealed (prohibition), showing that this is clearly not the way to go.
Third, it's a ludicrous issue in the first place. Imagine, if you will for a second, that a religion existed that forbade opposite-sex couples to be involved or marry. If they tried to impose this belief, through the government, on other people, they'd be laughed right out of the country. Why then is this situation any different? Just because more people are Christian and less people are Gay? That is ridiculous and just plain wrong. They're still people, and they can no more choose who they love than you can. Go on, try it. Stop loving your significant other because someone else thinks it's wrong. Yeah, I didn't think so. No one is being hurt by these people being able to live and love the way they want to. The only hurt going on is that someone is trying to prevent them from doing this.
And don't give me this "defense of marriage" crap either. 50% of all straight marriages end in divorce. Doesn't sound so sacrosant to me.
the idea of not calling it marriage is stupid unless you want to change the function of gay marriage which would be discriminatory.
marriage serves as an assertation of love (tradition, church) as well as state benefits (function, state)
so yeah:
not to say that the state doesnt need questioning.
marriage serves as an assertation of love (tradition, church) as well as state benefits (function, state)
so yeah:
this is probably the best way to handle it and will really discredit the church xD
not to say that the state doesnt need questioning.
Have to agree with Misty, marriage is a religious institution, and therefore because of separation of Church and State should not be recognized by the government. The government can allow unions where gay couples and straight couples are allowed to file joint tax returns, and the other benefits that currently go with being married. Let the Church, whether it be Catholic, Jewish, etc, decide what marriage entails in their religion.
When this comes up on my voting screen I am skipping it because to me neither side is "correct" and the real issue is that there needs to be reform in the thing we call marriage.
When this comes up on my voting screen I am skipping it because to me neither side is "correct" and the real issue is that there needs to be reform in the thing we call marriage.
There is no such thing as marriage for gay people, unless you want to change the definition. I believe gays have every right to have exactly the same rights as any married heterosexual couple, and I know gay love can be love just like any other love, but why change the definition of marriage, so people will think gay love is just as legitimate as hetero love? Whether you call it gay marriage or not, no one's view on the legitimacy of gay love is going to change, so why piss off those who want to keep the definition the way it is? It's like me moving to France and demanding that I have the right to be called French, even though I'll never be French by definition, I'll just be a citizen of France, unless said definition is changed, which would just piss off those who are actually of French descent. I could give a damn whether it's called marriage or not though.
Ok, yea basically on the same page as Misty/Zerowing
Ok, yea basically on the same page as Misty/Zerowing
Skiddle I'm being totally serious when I ask this, and I would like the Christian perspective here:
Why does it matter if it's called marriage? It just seems kind of stupid to me. I don't have a problem with any sort of religion, but honestly it seems really retarded to deny gays equal rights based on semantics. You can say "the bible says it's wrong" but that doesn't seem like any reason to stop the state from marrying them...so at that point is there really any reason besides the word "marriage"?
Why does it matter if it's called marriage? It just seems kind of stupid to me. I don't have a problem with any sort of religion, but honestly it seems really retarded to deny gays equal rights based on semantics. You can say "the bible says it's wrong" but that doesn't seem like any reason to stop the state from marrying them...so at that point is there really any reason besides the word "marriage"?
Well I'm not really sure, but since the definition of marriage is derived from the Bible, changing it to include something seen as "sinful" would be... er... sacrilegious.
Like I said, I'm on the fence. Personally, I don't like it, but it's a lifestyle choice, and if you're homosexual and want to get married, go ahead. I'm just... well, fearful of the consequences. Most older, more traditional church-going folk would blow a gasket over this... and as if Christians don't have a bad enough rep already (crusades anyone) I don't want to get lumped in with them.
It's frustrating... I hate being a majority. As a white, straight, christian north american, everyone assumes I am racist, sexist, spoiled, selfish, intolerant and violent. Adding "homophobic" to that already huge list would make me look worse than I already do in the eyes of minorities.
Like I said, I'm on the fence. Personally, I don't like it, but it's a lifestyle choice, and if you're homosexual and want to get married, go ahead. I'm just... well, fearful of the consequences. Most older, more traditional church-going folk would blow a gasket over this... and as if Christians don't have a bad enough rep already (crusades anyone) I don't want to get lumped in with them.
It's frustrating... I hate being a majority. As a white, straight, christian north american, everyone assumes I am racist, sexist, spoiled, selfish, intolerant and violent. Adding "homophobic" to that already huge list would make me look worse than I already do in the eyes of minorities.
I have to agree with Misty and zerowing also. They explained it all, so I have nothing else to say.
gay love is just as legitimate as hetero love.
youre giving up before even trying
becasue theyre wrong
so gay people just moved into the world and demanded rights? thats not really how it is working out. some are but they arent demanding anything that they dont deserve. your analogy is bad.
what basis do you have for thinking it is wrong. it was in the bible because they didnt consider anything behind homo sex which was naive.
what is sacred? nothing in the entire world should be immune to questioning
thats stupid. youre taking it for granted that everything in the bible is right forever. if you arent willing to question your current set of knowledge your ignorant one way or another.
notice how weve gotten smarter as time goes by
your belief has no basis excapt *the bible told me and i cannto question it* youre scared of gaining knowledge because it means admitting you're wrong and you are too proud to do that
youre spineless
its not a fucking choice, its how you feel.
questioning knowledge should NEVER be sinful
you dont like it because you dont like the idea of 2 dudes doing it. heres an idea, dont think about it.
what consequences, telling idiots that theyre ignorant and tehm going NOOOO ;___;
deal with it.
i tihnk youre a coward that is too worried about what people think of you to actually express yourself.
You can't vote yes on this proposition and not be a (yes, Decknight) bigoted jerk. It's insane. It is, as people have pointed out, specifically adding text to the state constitution to discriminate against a specific group of people. It's 'miscegnation' all over again.
I do, however, have sympathy for the position that marriage is a religious structure, and therefore the state has no control over it - the flipside is that the state shouldn't recognise marriage as meaning anything, and only acknowledge civil unions. In that case, gays would find it hard to get married (They'd have to find a church that was okay with it), but they'd have the same civil rights as everybody else.
The problem is that marriage is so integrated into law in so many countries that removing it and making civil unions the same basic idea would be tricky. As a stopgap - or even long-term solution, allowing gays to marry is the right idea. If churches want marriage to be a state-recognised concept, they have to recognise that there is the flipside that the state has some level of control.
Actual statistics on the proportion of people who are gay or lesbian are limited, but the standard estimate is 'about 10%', not 2%. And there are plenty of homosexuals who want to get married.
But then, I'm sure you think Rosa Parks was 'whiny'.
I do, however, have sympathy for the position that marriage is a religious structure, and therefore the state has no control over it - the flipside is that the state shouldn't recognise marriage as meaning anything, and only acknowledge civil unions. In that case, gays would find it hard to get married (They'd have to find a church that was okay with it), but they'd have the same civil rights as everybody else.
The problem is that marriage is so integrated into law in so many countries that removing it and making civil unions the same basic idea would be tricky. As a stopgap - or even long-term solution, allowing gays to marry is the right idea. If churches want marriage to be a state-recognised concept, they have to recognise that there is the flipside that the state has some level of control.
Actual statistics on the proportion of people who are gay or lesbian are limited, but the standard estimate is 'about 10%', not 2%. And there are plenty of homosexuals who want to get married.
But then, I'm sure you think Rosa Parks was 'whiny'.
Pardon me if you're trolling, but I think my long time mentor and his life partner of 15 years would love to hear how their relationship, which is apparently all about sex, isn't rock solid enough to meet the rigorous example of marriage...
Did it not even cross your mind that perhaps sex, not "love", is the gender-dependent thing? So my mentor fell in love with someone he was sexually attracted to and male...
The Misty point is one I agree with though I see no problem using the same name for two different things.
God is such a prankster. First he makes it a sin to love someone who is the same gender as you, and then has roughly 10% of the human population naturally fall in love with someone of the opposite gender. I can't think of what he'll do to the Bonobo chimpanzee.
Oh wait, sorry, it's only /acting/ on that love that's a sin - so you're allowed to be gay, you just have to be sad, alone, and celibate. Or pretend you're heterosexual.
Regardless,
Some opinions don't deserve respect. For example, "Bicycles are an evil metod of locomotion", "Jews are evil", "Homosexuals shouldn't have the same rights as heterosexuals"
what does allowed to think what i want mean? it basically means rejecting other viewpoints when its convenient for you.
absolutely. it would be hard to face but id realize i was wrong if i was any kind of smart
if you have a wrong opinion im not going to respect it sorry.
are you really questioning your own gods intentions? isnt that prideful in the extreme?
youre saying you think gays are wrong but you wont tell anyone about it. youre a coward
lol what are you putting up with. gays are literally not harming you at all. excet youre stupid about them and thats coming up itt.
ps if im being "rude" im sorry i guess but i think it is merited
Marriage is only 'sacred' in a religious sense. So either:
a) Let it stay religious, in which case it has nothing to do with the state and the state should not recognise it. Civil union if you want the legal benefits associated with marriage. Marriage if you believe in it / want the traditional ceremony to make it concrete to everyone you love each other.
b) It stays as part of the state, in which case it must be open to same-sex couples as well, as it becomes a government institution and the only reason to bar gay people from getting married is based in religion, which is separate from the state.
Marriage is just a name. I don't see the need to have it except for tradition's sake, and tradition is hardly my priority, but gay people should be allowed to have it too. Its definition is based on religion. Religion has no place in being what the law is formed upon, especially not in a country with so many cultural groups as the USA. Marriage itself is flawed anyway because nobody seems to be able to make up their minds on whether it's a state thing or an affair churches handle.
Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Spain, South Africa, and soon Norway all beg to differ. And, yes, I do want to change the definition. You cannot have it both ways. Either the state regulates it and ignores religious protestations or the church has it and the state doesn't have to do jack shit about it.
You're looking at it the wrong way. Even in countries where marriage is 'between a man and a woman' -- for example, Australia -- there are plenty of people who already see it as just as legitimate. In fact, on Smogon, from what I've seen, the majority see it as legitimate. Obviously Smogon isn't representative of society as a whole but changing the definition won't necessarily change anyone's opinions. It doesn't matter at all. That's not the reason for changing the definition. The issue at hand isn't what heterosexual people think; they are not more 'elite' than us, this decision isn't solely up to them, and it isn't just what religious people think either that counts here.
That's the most half-assed attempt I have ever seen at trying to justify 'Well, I'm tolerant ^_^;;; but I like the status quo! It's 100% OK to deny them their rights just so we don't piss off people like me who aren't tolerant but don't want everyone jumping them and calling them a bigot!' And, yeah, it is. People become more tolerant over time, not just as individuals but as a society. Years and years ago gay lit would be banned or not even published and people 'committing' sodomy would be hanged. That was, what, just over a century ago? It is changing and we cannot cling to archaic ways if we want it to be part of a progressive state.
That is very flawed. a) You'll never be French, but only by the existing definition. b) Blood is entirely different from sexual disposition. I can choose to go have a French kid if I want, but I can't choose to have a gay kid. I can never become of French descent [which is different to being French because being of French descent is your biology and being French is a definition] because none of my ancestors as far as I know are French, but I can be able to marry by heading off to Belgium, etc., or by the law changing. I can c) You're assuming all of France would be pissed off.
Speaking of which, if you're going to believe something, throw your all into it. Sitting on the fence is stupid. If you're uneasy about homosexuality, good for you, but don't go saying things like 'Well, gay people are A-OK, but being gay is wrong!!' I agree with Gorm too in that nothing should be strictly sacred. Sacred to the religious, perhaps, but a country like the USA is meant to be governed secularly if it's going to claim its state is separated from the Church. And the practice of not challenging knowledge or the foundations of society due to fear of 'stepping too far' is cowardly. We can't ever progress if we're never going to be brave enough to question.
a) Let it stay religious, in which case it has nothing to do with the state and the state should not recognise it. Civil union if you want the legal benefits associated with marriage. Marriage if you believe in it / want the traditional ceremony to make it concrete to everyone you love each other.
b) It stays as part of the state, in which case it must be open to same-sex couples as well, as it becomes a government institution and the only reason to bar gay people from getting married is based in religion, which is separate from the state.
Marriage is just a name. I don't see the need to have it except for tradition's sake, and tradition is hardly my priority, but gay people should be allowed to have it too. Its definition is based on religion. Religion has no place in being what the law is formed upon, especially not in a country with so many cultural groups as the USA. Marriage itself is flawed anyway because nobody seems to be able to make up their minds on whether it's a state thing or an affair churches handle.
Mr_Goodbar said:
Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Spain, South Africa, and soon Norway all beg to differ. And, yes, I do want to change the definition. You cannot have it both ways. Either the state regulates it and ignores religious protestations or the church has it and the state doesn't have to do jack shit about it.
You're looking at it the wrong way. Even in countries where marriage is 'between a man and a woman' -- for example, Australia -- there are plenty of people who already see it as just as legitimate. In fact, on Smogon, from what I've seen, the majority see it as legitimate. Obviously Smogon isn't representative of society as a whole but changing the definition won't necessarily change anyone's opinions. It doesn't matter at all. That's not the reason for changing the definition. The issue at hand isn't what heterosexual people think; they are not more 'elite' than us, this decision isn't solely up to them, and it isn't just what religious people think either that counts here.
That's the most half-assed attempt I have ever seen at trying to justify 'Well, I'm tolerant ^_^;;; but I like the status quo! It's 100% OK to deny them their rights just so we don't piss off people like me who aren't tolerant but don't want everyone jumping them and calling them a bigot!' And, yeah, it is. People become more tolerant over time, not just as individuals but as a society. Years and years ago gay lit would be banned or not even published and people 'committing' sodomy would be hanged. That was, what, just over a century ago? It is changing and we cannot cling to archaic ways if we want it to be part of a progressive state.
That is very flawed. a) You'll never be French, but only by the existing definition. b) Blood is entirely different from sexual disposition. I can choose to go have a French kid if I want, but I can't choose to have a gay kid. I can never become of French descent [which is different to being French because being of French descent is your biology and being French is a definition] because none of my ancestors as far as I know are French, but I can be able to marry by heading off to Belgium, etc., or by the law changing. I can c) You're assuming all of France would be pissed off.
Speaking of which, if you're going to believe something, throw your all into it. Sitting on the fence is stupid. If you're uneasy about homosexuality, good for you, but don't go saying things like 'Well, gay people are A-OK, but being gay is wrong!!' I agree with Gorm too in that nothing should be strictly sacred. Sacred to the religious, perhaps, but a country like the USA is meant to be governed secularly if it's going to claim its state is separated from the Church. And the practice of not challenging knowledge or the foundations of society due to fear of 'stepping too far' is cowardly. We can't ever progress if we're never going to be brave enough to question.
There's no pride to be found
When you follow sheep around
and no future here, no future
For us in this town
think for your fucking self
- Status