I have endeavoured to stay neutral in my points made, regardless of my personal opinion on the subject matter and posters.
Collapsable Box
Tempz:
Quote
"Gay rights or "Same Sex Relationship" has been recognized by several countries. Some of the places that recognize same sex relationship/marriages include Spain, Argentina, Canada, and 5 US states. Many places like New York however recognize same sex relationship but has yet to put it a marriage certificates.
Many countries are more open and liberal about same sex marriage and why not. If you love someone enough why can't you just marry them; that's where it gets into a gray area. Many people consider same sex marriage unethical and wasteful as they can't have children. My opinion however is that becuase they have to adopt children most of the time ergo less orphans. That and the fact that becuase once the law is in place they will be a major surge of marriages stimulating the economy. Many conservatives believe that a marriage should be between a man an a women. I don't find it right that becuase two people are just different allows them more rights then a same sex couple who truly love each other. Many however argue that the social aspect of parenting requires both a mom and a dad so that they can get a male and female authority figure. Many kids and teenagers put into this situation usually have a social indifference. In my opinion it just makes your social morales stronger becuase you are grown up more liberal. However the biggest argument towards same sex couples is the religious aspect of it. Some religions have always been more open to same sex marriage/relationship. But other religions like some sects of Christianity don't allow it becuase of the fact its immoral. The immorality roots from the unproductive sex that won't create children. Its a difference between right of marriage and right of religion.
Obama has even recognized same sex marriage but he is rather neutral about the situation. I would suspect that he doesn't want to lose some of his voters that are strongly against same sex marriage but he has acknowledge it. Same sex marriage hasn't been recognized on the federal level yet but as we grow as a civilization and as a people as a whole we won't judge as much anymore but there will always be someone conservative and be prude to the idea.
My two cents... your thoughts?"
Many countries are more open and liberal about same sex marriage and why not. If you love someone enough why can't you just marry them; that's where it gets into a gray area. Many people consider same sex marriage unethical and wasteful as they can't have children. My opinion however is that becuase they have to adopt children most of the time ergo less orphans. That and the fact that becuase once the law is in place they will be a major surge of marriages stimulating the economy. Many conservatives believe that a marriage should be between a man an a women. I don't find it right that becuase two people are just different allows them more rights then a same sex couple who truly love each other. Many however argue that the social aspect of parenting requires both a mom and a dad so that they can get a male and female authority figure. Many kids and teenagers put into this situation usually have a social indifference. In my opinion it just makes your social morales stronger becuase you are grown up more liberal. However the biggest argument towards same sex couples is the religious aspect of it. Some religions have always been more open to same sex marriage/relationship. But other religions like some sects of Christianity don't allow it becuase of the fact its immoral. The immorality roots from the unproductive sex that won't create children. Its a difference between right of marriage and right of religion.
Obama has even recognized same sex marriage but he is rather neutral about the situation. I would suspect that he doesn't want to lose some of his voters that are strongly against same sex marriage but he has acknowledge it. Same sex marriage hasn't been recognized on the federal level yet but as we grow as a civilization and as a people as a whole we won't judge as much anymore but there will always be someone conservative and be prude to the idea.
My two cents... your thoughts?"
> SD rules state that topic creators should start with an argument or claim to be defended, rather than asking for discussion on a subject. Tempz doesn't put forth any particular argument or claim, but just says what he thinks about it and then asks for everyone else's thoughts. The topic should have been closed here.
Next three posts aren't part of the discussion but aren't necessarily bad, as they were clarifying a point in the OP.
FaZ-:
Quote
"I've yet to see a legitimate argument put forth by a conservative as to how two men marrying each other could be harmful to them at either an individual, state, or national level. Mostly it's "more like one group trying to control another group. In other words, business as usual in America."
Even if it's a choice/unnatural/whatever, it still doesn't hurt anyone, so I still don't give a shit."
Even if it's a choice/unnatural/whatever, it still doesn't hurt anyone, so I still don't give a shit."
> No argument made, just a statement of his opinion. Same as the OP basically, in that no argument was being made.
Tempz:
Quote
"Well the conservatives are prudes trying to preserve the old ways.
They argue that gay people spread disease but they spread it as much as any other straight couple."
They argue that gay people spread disease but they spread it as much as any other straight couple."
> First statement is somewhat ad hominem, although he never goes on to argue anything based on his statement, so it probably classifies as offtopic/flaming. Second statement has a statement which is beyond common knowledge, and should have been supported with sources. Still no arguments being made, yet.
Next two posts don't have anything wrong except that again, no arguments are being made, just statements of opinion.
Kame:
Quote
"Gay marriage should be entirely deregulated. I do believe that a wedding is a religious - or at least a spiritual - event between the two people in the presence of whatever god(s) (or lack there of, obviously) they want present. The state really should have no say in it, because I think its more an expression of love between two people. Now, on the other side of this, I think that if a gay couple approached a priest and asked him to marry them, and he said no, he should not face penalties. At that point I think you're asking him to compromise his beliefs...and this becomes a messy case of gay rights versus religious rights. And then we get into the rights to refusal of service. But where does it get us? Honestly, I do not think the gay couple is being harmed because they cannot be married by that particular pastor/priest/holy man.
A domestic contract, though, I'm all for that. Anyone can sign a domestic contract with anyone they want. It just makes sense. Even if two guys are heterosexual life partners, I am okay with it. But...they have to be prepared to make the full commitment to each other that would come with marriage as we see it today. Can it be abused? Of course! But marriage is abused already. Gold diggers marrying rich old guys for the security, best friends marrying because its convenient...this is not what marriage is meant for to begin with! I already know a couple of couples who are in "open" marriages to some degree. I don't consider that abuse of the system though, because they both knowingly accepted these terms and are okay with each others actions. I'll be honest. If a guy and his wing man want to sign a domestic contract, promising all the fun stuff that comes with it to each other, so be it. What they'd have to ask themselves is, "Is this the person I want next to my hospital bed when I'm dying?" If the answer is truthfully yes, go for it! And this isn't a contract that can be lightly made and broken - though that already happens anyways if you have the right lawyer.
Overall I guess I'm trying to say that marriage needs to be entirely deregulated. Domestic contracts between any two people of majority should become the norm. And if those two people for religious purposes (ie recognized by the church) or otherwise choose the have a ceremony so be it. I consider myself possibly one of the most conservative members on this board but I don't really see any problem with a gay couple promising themselves to each other."
A domestic contract, though, I'm all for that. Anyone can sign a domestic contract with anyone they want. It just makes sense. Even if two guys are heterosexual life partners, I am okay with it. But...they have to be prepared to make the full commitment to each other that would come with marriage as we see it today. Can it be abused? Of course! But marriage is abused already. Gold diggers marrying rich old guys for the security, best friends marrying because its convenient...this is not what marriage is meant for to begin with! I already know a couple of couples who are in "open" marriages to some degree. I don't consider that abuse of the system though, because they both knowingly accepted these terms and are okay with each others actions. I'll be honest. If a guy and his wing man want to sign a domestic contract, promising all the fun stuff that comes with it to each other, so be it. What they'd have to ask themselves is, "Is this the person I want next to my hospital bed when I'm dying?" If the answer is truthfully yes, go for it! And this isn't a contract that can be lightly made and broken - though that already happens anyways if you have the right lawyer.
Overall I guess I'm trying to say that marriage needs to be entirely deregulated. Domestic contracts between any two people of majority should become the norm. And if those two people for religious purposes (ie recognized by the church) or otherwise choose the have a ceremony so be it. I consider myself possibly one of the most conservative members on this board but I don't really see any problem with a gay couple promising themselves to each other."
> Good post, I disagree but it made something of an argument at long last and was well stated. Perhaps it could have been supported by sources, somewhat? Can't complain really. The argument was not direct enough, in my opinion, but that is perhaps just my opinion.
Riney:
Quote
"
And Ive yet to see a legitimate argument made for the same sex as to why they should even bother marrying, when it is infact to reap the rewards of a proper marriage, usually to reduce the cost of insurance and such. If laws werent enacted then I believe everyone would be getting married, even for the shits and giggles."
Quote from name:FaZ-
I've yet to see a legitimate argument put forth by a conservative as to how two men marrying each other could be harmful to them at either an individual, state, or national level. Mostly it's "more like one group trying to control another group. In other words, business as usual in America."
Even if it's a choice/unnatural/whatever, it still doesn't hurt anyone, so I still don't give a shit.
Even if it's a choice/unnatural/whatever, it still doesn't hurt anyone, so I still don't give a shit.
And Ive yet to see a legitimate argument made for the same sex as to why they should even bother marrying, when it is infact to reap the rewards of a proper marriage, usually to reduce the cost of insurance and such. If laws werent enacted then I believe everyone would be getting married, even for the shits and giggles."
> Bad spelling/grammar/punctuation. No argument really being made, second sentence is somewhat incoherent/offtopic.
FaZ-
Quote
> This falls under the general SEN rule of spamming: "Please actually contribute to discussion. If you are posting merely because you can or because you feel an impulse to HAVE to say something, please post on a different website. Posts exhibiting a lack of effort or thought will be removed at moderation's discretion." While Riney may not have looked very hard, posting a link to LMGTFY is somewhat condescending and not helpful, as Faz could easily have explained quite quickly some of the benefits of marriage without posting the link like that.
Voyager:
Quote
"Why do straight couples get married?
The reasons are the same, barring shotgun weddings."
The reasons are the same, barring shotgun weddings."
> Doesn't explain what the reasons are; he seems to think the reason straight couples get married falls under the umbrella of common knowledge. This is somewhat up to the moderator's discretion, so this post isn't terrible but could be deleted without it being a wrong deletion, and left without being considering incorrectly left in the topic. I'm somewhat neutral on it, although I feel it could have been expounded on more.
Tempz:
Quote
"Well people marry for a piece of paper for the same satisfaction that you'd get from graduating high school. It doesn't seem like much but that piece of paper can mean a lot to people. But hey a lot of functional couples aren't married by paper like Gene Simmons."
> I'd say that's an unsubstantiated statement that falls beyond the umbrella of common knowledge and should have had sources to say that people do, in fact, marry for a piece of paper.
Centreri:
Quote
"I believe that gays deserve, on the whole, the same rights. However, I'm opposed to gay marriage, because of the tradition for thousands of years of marriage designating, specifically, a relationship between a man and a woman. I'm not opposed to a 'Union' offering the same legal and social benefits and drawbacks as marriage; it's the wording of it. I am undecided on allowing gay couples the right to adopt children; I haven't researched any studies on the effect such a relationship can have on their children."
> Opinion statement, no argument made.
Roy:
Quote
"Incorrect. We don't allow it because God says it is immoral. Like stealing, rape, extramarital sex, etc.
Quote from Jack
But other religions like some sects of Christianity don't allow it becuase of the fact they can't reproduce.
Quote from Riney
And Ive yet to see a legitimate argument made for the same sex as to why they should even bother marrying, when it is infact to reap the rewards of a proper marriage, usually to reduce the cost of insurance and such.
Quote from jjf28
In my personal opinion, they should be entitled to any rights that are given by marriage, but they should not be allowed to alter the rules of a religiously rooted institution (I support strengthening civil unions, not changing marriage).
I'm not religious by any means, but I can understand the issues many people have with "redefining" marriage (hell, I get irritated that news outlets commonly call a "/" in URLs a backslash). In reality, marriage in religion is not the same as marriage in the state. If you wanted a different terminology to be used for same-sex couples, then that same terminology should be used for straight couples in regards to being recognized by the state. Since the state already calls it "marriage," same-sex marriage would just be called marriage.
Quote from Centreri
I believe that gays deserve, on the whole, the same rights. However, I'm opposed to gay marriage, because of the tradition for thousands of years of marriage designating, specifically, a relationship between a man and a woman. I'm not opposed to a 'Union' offering the same legal and social benefits and drawbacks as marriage; it's the wording of it. I am undecided on allowing gay couples the right to adopt children; I haven't researched any studies on the effect such a relationship can have on their children.
> While Roy isn't particularly arguing anything here, his post isn't bad because it seeks to progress the discussion by informing others. However, some of what he says falls outside of common knowledge and could be sourced.
Faz:
Quote
"This whole issue is just because government was dumb and decided to borrow the Church's word.
Allowing gay marriage is obvious. Allowing gay matrimony is up to the church."
Allowing gay marriage is obvious. Allowing gay matrimony is up to the church."
> Unsubstantiated claim, flaming of the government, opinion stating, no argument being made.
Fire_kame:
Quote
"HAY YOU KNOW WHAT'S NEAT GUISE.
Not trolling.
But there are companies that recognize a full gambit of relationship status otherwise not recognized by the state. For one, Kaiser Permanente (health care) allows you to choose a life partner - it doesn't matter who they are. Where I work I get to give my discount (a grocer's) to my life partner but we don't have to be married or straight. We just would need to live together for two years and sign an affidavit affirming that we are each other's life partner.
I just think that there are parts that suck about not being able to be recognized by the government - but there are companies are who recognizing them on their own."
Not trolling.
But there are companies that recognize a full gambit of relationship status otherwise not recognized by the state. For one, Kaiser Permanente (health care) allows you to choose a life partner - it doesn't matter who they are. Where I work I get to give my discount (a grocer's) to my life partner but we don't have to be married or straight. We just would need to live together for two years and sign an affidavit affirming that we are each other's life partner.
I just think that there are parts that suck about not being able to be recognized by the government - but there are companies are who recognizing them on their own."
> If kame felt that someone was trolling, she should have reported the posts as opposed to bringing it up in the topic, as it is offtopic. Minor issue. The main paragraph is beneficial in that it informs others, although it is anecdotal. Last sentence is opinion stating, no argument/
Tempz:
Quote
"Well when you get down to it you always never can make a decision without pissing off one group of people; if you compromise then both parties are both pissed of. The best thing people in power can do is be neutral about the situation until we start to be more accepting. I believe preserving (conservative) is good becuase its apart of heritage but no set of rules is perfect because as times change then the rules need to be updated. e.g. (Gun laws - 4th amendment "Right to bear arms")."
> Unsubstantiated claims, opinion stating.
Centreri:
Quote
"I don't really care if they feel inferior because we use a different word for it. I have my opinion, which seems sufficiently fair from my point of view. I don't want to call a woman a man because of 'implications of inferiority', and I don't want to call a 'union' of gays a marriage. I realize that the religious term is not identical to the legal term, but, again - not my problem."
Quote from Roy
The terminology is important on both sides. Putting a different word on it will only lead to implications of inferiority.
> In case there was any doubt, Centreri confirms that he was indeed merely stating an opinion.
Tempz:"So is the impossibly hard decision of choosing a word; I agree somewhat that any word will have huge implications. Using the current words of straight marriage applied the same to gay marriage would make straight couples feel inferior. And a new word will make same sex couples feel inferior.
With the same categorization of atheism as it has many terms and definitions e.g. believes in god but not in religion."
> Unsubstantiated claims. "I agree somewhat that any word will have huge implications." could be considered common knowledge perhaps, but I personally agree with the statement which could colour my opinion of it.
I think that the situation should be remedied by enforcing the standard of the SD rules in SD; alternatively, if SD cannot be moderated at that standard, SD should become a closed forum and any discussion can take place in LD, where the rules are enforced better (enforced according to the set forth standard, that is.)
Red classic.
"In short, their absurdities are so extreme that it is painful even to quote them."
"In short, their absurdities are so extreme that it is painful even to quote them."