Do you believe same sex marriage is okay?

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

Wow. While I strongly disagree that most learn of homosexuality at that age, lets say it is true(I'm not saying you're wrong). The educational environment is different, and children would take it in different than a gay couple holding hands which would last for a few seconds, or seeing it on TV. Because while it's rare a child may come across such things, even if they had, it wouldn't be implemented, as opposed to seeing it in a book and learning it in school.

Teenaged

I don't even agree with Teenaged on this one, what's wrong with kids learning about it at any age? I would disagree with them learning about the sexual side of it at a young age, but I don't see the problem with kids knowing about it at a young age. Like I said, parents can tell their children whatever they want about it, but what's the harm in children knowing, "Oh, those men are married?"

Right, I know, I'm jst saying I don't see the problem learning about homosexuality in general at any age.

Why not? I learned about sex in like 4th or 5th grade... IF anything this may prevent the immense accepted biggotry that goes towards homosexuals.sSubZerOo

Then how do you explain couples that are fine with it? Specifically in other countries, since the APA doesn't apply to those.LikeHaterade

I don't see how gay couples in other countries matter when debating about gay marriage in the U.S. Moreover, just because there are couples that are fine with civil unions does not mean that it doesn't have a detrimental effect on those in the gay community who want to get married. There are plenty of women who are completely, 100%, happy and at peace with being a house wife - that doesn't mean a damn thing when debating whether or not women should be allowed to venture from out of the kitchen. Not everyone wants to get married(that includes gays and straights) - but there is a detrimental effect on those who do want to get married but cannot because their partner happens to have the same genitals as they do.

Anti gay marriage isn't bigotry. The US is actually open to the homosexual lifestyle, with the exception of actual bigots. Bigotry would be me being intolerant of the homosexual lifestyle in general, which isn't the case for most of America.

LikeHaterade

The majority of the U.S. is open to the homosexual lifetyle up until the point when those living said lifestyle seek marriage. Someone who is so intolerant to the idea of gays getting married, that they are fine with implementing policies that reduce the psychological well-being of gays who want to get married is someone who holds bigoted views.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

:roll: Oh my....

I never said that no moral is fitting to create a law did I? :roll:

Nice straw man there.

LJS9502_basic

Just because you say I do doesnt make it true.

There you go again presenting things as simple as possible in order for it to suit your argumentation.

Really? Morals collectively either are or arent valid for the law? So you are saying that for instance either all morals in the Bible should be made into laws or none of them?

Care to imagine that just for a while and see what sort of society you have visualised?

Right, I know, I'm jst saying I don't see the problem learning about homosexuality in general at any age.

theone86

gay marriage will happen in the entire US eventually. Most modern countries have accepted gay marriage, the US will follow.
It might disgust you because of your religion or your cultural background, but that isn't going to stop equal rights for homosexuals.
There.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

I don't even agree with Teenaged on this one, what's wrong with kids learning about it at any age? I would disagree with them learning about the sexual side of it at a young age, but I don't see the problem with kids knowing about it at a young age. Like I said, parents can tell their children whatever they want about it, but what's the harm in children knowing, "Oh, those men are married?"

The harm is that the parents are against their children learning in school for whatever moral reason that drives them to believe so. If most of society believes that it's best that children learn about homosexuality on their own when they're older and more mature, so be it. It shouldn't have to be taught in school then.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]I dont want to disagree with their morals in order for them to change them. I cant force them to change their views on things and I obviously cant.

What is imperative though is that they refrain from imposing them via laws.

My morals (I dont know if I would ever call them better) are not affecting others in a tangible way like their morals affect me. Therefore they are deffinetely different and have different effects.

And yes you have because you over simplify my posts. If somethingisnt clear ask me to clarify. I have no problem to do so.

Teenaged

When it comes down to it....it's just the morality you disagree with that you find wrong.

If you had read the thread you would see that I didnt say that laws are independent from morals. An idea for a law does start from a moral code and from then it should be checked if its suitable to become a law.

Simple by repeating that laws are influenced by morals doesnt mean that any moral is suitable to be imposed by law. By far.

When it comes down to it its just the morality you agree with that you find that it should be imposed by law.

See it goes both ways. The difference is on who can adequately support their morals.

gay marriage will happen in the entire US eventually. Most modern countries have accepted gay marriage, the US will follow.
It might disgust you because of your religion or your cultural background, but that isn't going to stop equal rights for homosexuals.
There.

TheFlush

Yes the genral rule applies. Are you saying that all morals should go unchecked into laws? Do you? How many times did humanity "check" its obsolete morals that affected laws? So yes the "check" does happen. Period.

Just because you say I do doesnt make it true.

There you go again presenting things as simple as possible in order for it to suit your argumentation.

Really? Morals collectively either are or arent valid for the law? So you are saying that for instance either all morals in the Bible should be made into laws or none of them?

Care to imagine that just for a while and see what sort of society you have visualised?

Teenaged

In some cases it's not so much that couples are fine with it, it's that it is better than nothing at all, and others may be fine with it, but they do not make up the majority by any means, otherwise the research wouldn't indicate that it is is an issue in the first place.

As far as your second point, if you dont think they should get married, that suggests some level of intolerance...

Lindsosaurus

The core argument for gay marriage is equal rights. If I was against marriage for gays specifically, I wouldn't have to be intolerant of gay couples' deserved equal rights.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

I don't even agree with Teenaged on this one, what's wrong with kids learning about it at any age? I would disagree with them learning about the sexual side of it at a young age, but I don't see the problem with kids knowing about it at a young age. Like I said, parents can tell their children whatever they want about it, but what's the harm in children knowing, "Oh, those men are married?"

LikeHaterade

The harm is that the parents are against their children learning in school for whatever moral reason that drives them to believe so. If most of society believes that it's best that children learn about homosexuality on their own when they're older and more mature, so be it. It shouldn't have to be taught in school then.

First off, you're saying that kids will be taught about it as if it's suddenly going to be an entire new course, and that it would also apply to ages where marriage isn't already discussed. It would just be saying, whenever children learn about marriage, that it's not limited to heterosexual couples. There's no values being instilled there, when those kids go hom their parents can say whatever they want to them, just like when a skinhead's kid goes home that skinhead can tell him that white people marrying black people is wrong. And again, learning about something=/=learning it as a value.

[QUOTE="TheFlush"]

gay marriage will happen in the entire US eventually. Most modern countries have accepted gay marriage, the US will follow.
It might disgust you because of your religion or your cultural background, but that isn't going to stop equal rights for homosexuals.
There.

sSubZerOo

With how easily the term gay is thrown around in a negative manner or any other related one.. I think most would agree they know about homosexuality and the like at a younger age.. There is alot of accepted biggotry towards gays in this country.sSubZerOo

I would have said 13 to 14, but most use the term gay in a negative fashion without even thinking about it. Not because they look down on being homosexual. Although, sad to say that's probably how it got started to begin with.

Yes, and this moral subject just so happens to be taught in schools. If the majority of parents are against their children learning about interracial marriages, they very well could.

LikeHaterade

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[By my example of it being as important as the fight for equal rights made by black people, I mean that what may be considered trivial by the standards of a past era is nowdays not trivial. That standards of importance do change.

As for democracy....

I am sure the majority of the people do not want to pay taxes. SHould democracy grant them their wish?

Of course you will say that there are reasons why we pay taxes and thats why taxes are imposed. But the same stands for gay marriage. There are reasons why it should be made legal and why it should be made legal despite what the majority says.

It is very simplistic and wrong to define democracy simply as "what the majority wants".

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

Yes the genral rule applies. Are you saying that all morals should go unchecked into laws? Do you? How many times did humanity "check" its obsolete morals that affected laws? So yes the "check" does happen. Period.

Just because you say I do doesnt make it true.

There you go again presenting things as simple as possible in order for it to suit your argumentation.

Really? Morals collectively either are or arent valid for the law? So you are saying that for instance either all morals in the Bible should be made into laws or none of them?

Care to imagine that just for a while and see what sort of society you have visualised?

LJS9502_basic

"They may vary by country and era but they are what they are at the time and place they exist."

So should we do nothing if a moral is obsolete? Just wait?

"There is a reason laws are from the collective of society and not one individual."

As I suppose there was a reason that 100 years ago there were laws that were regulating the lives of black people. No bigie right?

And you deffinetely havent responded to alllof my points.

gay marriage will happen in the entire US eventually. Most modern countries have accepted gay marriage, the US will follow.
It might disgust you because of your religion or your cultural background, but that isn't going to stop equal rights for homosexuals.
There.

TheFlush

I celebrate the republic when gay marriage is legalized with a majority vote in states.

[QUOTE="Lindsosaurus"]

In some cases it's not so much that couples are fine with it, it's that it is better than nothing at all, and others may be fine with it, but they do not make up the majority by any means, otherwise the research wouldn't indicate that it is is an issue in the first place.

As far as your second point, if you dont think they should get married, that suggests some level of intolerance...

LikeHaterade

The core argument for gay marriage is equal rights. If I was against marriage for gays specifically, I wouldn't have to be intolerant of gay couples' deserved equal rights.

I've asked you this several times, but you haven't answered, what distinction do you make with this? You want homosexuals to have all the same rights as heterosexuals, correct? In ohter words, you're against the law as it stands now when pertaining to legal status? But you don't want them to be able to CALL it marriage, correct? But they CAN call it marriage, it's just not legally recognized as marriage, its legal recognition of marriage is a matter of equal legal status, which you said you were for.

no but the right to the pursuit of happiness kinda is, and being barred from getting married to the one you love.................well you could defintely argue that that certainly violates that right. Serraph105

Look I'm not arguing the general topic per se. Personally I find marriage to be avoided. But the arguments presented as a reason are not very well thought out.

[QUOTE="TheFlush"]

gay marriage will happen in the entire US eventually. Most modern countries have accepted gay marriage, the US will follow.
It might disgust you because of your religion or your cultural background, but that isn't going to stop equal rights for homosexuals.
There.

sSubZerOo

Exactly, my country (The Netherlands) hasn't changed since gay marriage became legal back in 2001.
It's a fact that there are gay couples out there, the only difference is that they have the opportunity to get the same social security like any other couple.
I don't see what's wrong with that. Or are heterosexual relationships "worth more" than homosexual ones?

You havent showed how my standard is an arbitrary one, have you? So dont go on capitalising the phrase just to emphasise something thats not there.

"They may vary by country and era but they are what they are at the time and place they exist."

So should we do nothing if a moral is obsolete? Just wait?

"There is a reason laws are from the collective of society and not one individual."

As I suppose there was a reason that 100 years ago there were laws that were regulating the lives of black people. No bigie right?

Teenaged

[QUOTE="Serraph105"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Marriage is not a constitutional right.....

LJS9502_basic

Look I'm not arguing the general topic per se. Personally I find marriage to be avoided. But the arguments presented as a reason are not very well thought out.

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival"

- Loving v. Virginia

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

You havent showed how my standard is an arbitrary one, have you? So dont go on capitalising the phrase just to emphasise something thats not there.

"They may vary by country and era but they are what they are at the time and place they exist."

So should we do nothing if a moral is obsolete? Just wait?

"There is a reason laws are from the collective of society and not one individual."

As I suppose there was a reason that 100 years ago there were laws that were regulating the lives of black people. No bigie right?

LJS9502_basic

Your rebutal does nothing to support your position that morals need not to be checked. You have just conceded to the situation and then say "who cares? it is what it is". Very convenient. I will remind you of this convo next time I see you disagreeing with a law.

[QUOTE="TheFlush"]

gay marriage will happen in the entire US eventually. Most modern countries have accepted gay marriage, the US will follow.
It might disgust you because of your religion or your cultural background, but that isn't going to stop equal rights for homosexuals.
There.

LikeHaterade

I celebrate the republic when gay marriage is legalized with a majority vote in states.

In the netherlands the law was just created, there was no voting involved.
This is no issue where the majority can vote for the rights of a minority.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

You havent showed how my standard is an arbitrary one, have you? So dont go on capitalising the phrase just to emphasise something thats not there.

"They may vary by country and era but they are what they are at the time and place they exist."

So should we do nothing if a moral is obsolete? Just wait?

"There is a reason laws are from the collective of society and not one individual."

As I suppose there was a reason that 100 years ago there were laws that were regulating the lives of black people. No bigie right?

Teenaged

Your rebutal does nothing to support your position that morals need not to be checked. You have just conceded to the situation and then say "who cares? it is what it is". Very convenient. I will remind you of this convo next time I see you disagreeing with a law.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Serraph105"] no but the right to the pursuit of happiness kinda is, and being barred from getting married to the one you love.................well you could defintely argue that that certainly violates that right. -Sun_Tzu-

Look I'm not arguing the general topic per se. Personally I find marriage to be avoided. But the arguments presented as a reason are not very well thought out.

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival"

- Loving v. Virginia

I would be happy to have your new car. Do I have a right to that? I would be happy not to pay taxes. Do I have a right to that?LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Marriage is not a right. Not everything that makes one happy is going to be given to you. I would be happy to have your new car. Do I have a right to that? I would be happy not to pay taxes. Do I have a right to that?

Look I'm not arguing the general topic per se. Personally I find marriage to be avoided. But the arguments presented as a reason are not very well thought out.

LJS9502_basic

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival"

- Loving v. Virginia

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]But society HAS NOT deemed it obsolete dude. And that kills your argument right there....

LJS9502_basic

Your rebutal does nothing to support your position that morals need not to be checked. You have just conceded to the situation and then say "who cares? it is what it is". Very convenient. I will remind you of this convo next time I see you disagreeing with a law.

Oh well if it suits you to call 4's, 2's and 9's, 3's go ahead. Ignore any part that you want.

My posts are there.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Actually, marriage has been found to be an essential right by the Supreme Court.

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival"

- Loving v. Virginia

-Sun_Tzu-

I don't think the ruling is stating what you are interpreting it to mean. It ended all race based legal restriction. That is what it did and as such is not applicable to this topic.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Marriage is not a right. Not everything that makes one happy is going to be given to you. I would be happy to have your new car. Do I have a right to that? I would be happy not to pay taxes. Do I have a right to that?

Look I'm not arguing the general topic per se. Personally I find marriage to be avoided. But the arguments presented as a reason are not very well thought out.

LJS9502_basic

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival"

- Loving v. Virginia

But they said that marriage was a right, that's precedent. Based on that, they are denying that right to a group of people based on sexual orientation. Now the question turns to if they have the authority to do so, and I don't see the logic for that.

[QUOTE="Serraph105"]no but the right to the pursuit of happiness kinda is, and being barred from getting married to the one you love.................well you could defintely argue that that certainly violates that right. LJS9502_basic

Look I'm not arguing the general topic per se. Personally I find marriage to be avoided. But the arguments presented as a reason are not very well thought out.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Serraph105"]no but the right to the pursuit of happiness kinda is, and being barred from getting married to the one you love.................well you could defintely argue that that certainly violates that right. Serraph105

Look I'm not arguing the general topic per se. Personally I find marriage to be avoided. But the arguments presented as a reason are not very well thought out.

I don't think the ruling is stating what you are interpreting it to mean. It ended all race based legal restriction. That is what it did and as such is not applicable to this topic.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]That was a race based case. The Supreme Court has no made no determination on same sex.

LJS9502_basic

I don't think the ruling is stating what you are interpreting it to mean. It ended all race based legal restriction. That is what it did and as such is not applicable to this topic.

I don't see how gay couples in other countries matter when debating about gay marriage in the U.S. Moreover, just because there are couples that are fine with civil unions does not mean that it doesn't have a detrimental effect on those in the gay community who want to get married. There are plenty of women who are completely, 100%, happy and at peace with being a house wife - that doesn't mean a damn thing when debating whether or not women should be allowed to venture from out of the kitchen. Not everyone wants to get married(that includes gays and straights) - but there is a detrimental effect on those who do want to get married but cannot because their partner happens to have the same genitals as they do.-Sun_Tzu-

I thought it mattered, since it was a psychological perspective. The main message on gay marriage is for equal rights, so I wouldn't say it's detrimental if civil unions could equal marriages in rights.

The majority of the U.S. is open to the homosexual lifetyle up until the point when those living said lifestyle seek marriage. Someone who is so intolerant to the idea of gays getting married, that they are fine with implementing policies that reduce the psychological well-being of gays who want to get married is someone who holds bigoted views.

-Sun_Tzu-

Someone who is open to the homosexual lifestyle but is against gay marriage(not necessarily equal rights) is not a bigot.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I don't think the ruling is stating what you are interpreting it to mean. It ended all race based legal restriction. That is what it did and as such is not applicable to this topic.Hewkii

In the netherlands the law was just created, there was no voting involved.
This is no issue where the majority can vote for the rights of a minority.

TheFlush

The majority saying no to marriage isn't saying no to equal rights.

That is correct - and the court found marriage to be a right. They said blatantly, "Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man". Their ruling stated exactly what I am interpreting it to mean.-Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

I don't see how gay couples in other countries matter when debating about gay marriage in the U.S. Moreover, just because there are couples that are fine with civil unions does not mean that it doesn't have a detrimental effect on those in the gay community who want to get married. There are plenty of women who are completely, 100%, happy and at peace with being a house wife - that doesn't mean a damn thing when debating whether or not women should be allowed to venture from out of the kitchen. Not everyone wants to get married(that includes gays and straights) - but there is a detrimental effect on those who do want to get married but cannot because their partner happens to have the same genitals as they do.LikeHaterade

I thought it mattered, since it was a psychological perspective. The main message on gay marriage is for equal rights, so I wouldn't say it's detrimental if civil unions could equal marriages in rights.

The majority of the U.S. is open to the homosexual lifetyle up until the point when those living said lifestyle seek marriage. Someone who is so intolerant to the idea of gays getting married, that they are fine with implementing policies that reduce the psychological well-being of gays who want to get married is someone who holds bigoted views.

-Sun_Tzu-

Someone who is open to the homosexual lifestyle but is against gay marriage(not necessarily equal rights) is not a bigot.

Someone who is against gay marriage believes that a group can be denied equal treatment under the law based on sexual orinetation, how is that not a bigot?

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

[QUOTE="Lindsosaurus"]

In some cases it's not so much that couples are fine with it, it's that it is better than nothing at all, and others may be fine with it, but they do not make up the majority by any means, otherwise the research wouldn't indicate that it is is an issue in the first place.

As far as your second point, if you dont think they should get married, that suggests some level of intolerance...

theone86

The core argument for gay marriage is equal rights. If I was against marriage for gays specifically, I wouldn't have to be intolerant of gay couples' deserved equal rights.

I've asked you this several times, but you haven't answered, what distinction do you make with this? You want homosexuals to have all the same rights as heterosexuals, correct? In ohter words, you're against the law as it stands now when pertaining to legal status? But you don't want them to be able to CALL it marriage, correct? But they CAN call it marriage, it's just not legally recognized as marriage, its legal recognition of marriage is a matter of equal legal status, which you said you were for.

While not me personally, but the majority yes. They can call it whatever they want to.

Someone who is against gay marriage believes that a group can be denied equal treatment under the law based on sexual orinetation, how is that not a bigot?

theone86

Someone who is against gay marriage doesn't mean they are against equal treatment. One person against gay marriage in particular could befriend gay people.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

The core argument for gay marriage is equal rights. If I was against marriage for gays specifically, I wouldn't have to be intolerant of gay couples' deserved equal rights.

LikeHaterade

I've asked you this several times, but you haven't answered, what distinction do you make with this? You want homosexuals to have all the same rights as heterosexuals, correct? In ohter words, you're against the law as it stands now when pertaining to legal status? But you don't want them to be able to CALL it marriage, correct? But they CAN call it marriage, it's just not legally recognized as marriage, its legal recognition of marriage is a matter of equal legal status, which you said you were for.

While not me personally, but the majority yes. They can call it whatever they want to.

So what exactly are you (or the majority, as you call it) against?

So what exactly are you (or the majority, as you call it) against?

theone86

Gay marriage. Not necessarily equal rights.

While not me personally, but the majority yes. They can call it whatever they want to.

LikeHaterade

That is if the argument doesn't turn to wording which can hinder the law. Anyway....that is my solution.

I thought it mattered, since it was a psychological perspective. The main message on gay marriage is for equal rights, so I wouldn't say it's detrimental if civil unions could equal marriages in rights.LikeHaterade

The opinions of gays who do not want to get married does not matter, especially those abroad when debating gay marriage in the U.S. Show me one gay couple that wanted to get married, anywhere around the world, but was not allowed to, that is perfectly fine with just a civil union, and has experienced no negative psychological effects.

And your opinion on the effect of implementing discriminatory policies is not congruent with pretty much every respectable sociological study.

Someone who is open to the homosexual lifestyle but is against gay marriage(not necessarily equal rights) is not a bigot.

LikeHaterade

I agree. I myself don't agree with the practice of generalizing people with words like "bigot" or "homophobe". I feel those are unwarranted and quite frankly, immature. But those who oppose gay marriage are guilty of having bigoted thoughts. That's just calling a spade a spade

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

While not me personally, but the majority yes. They can call it whatever they want to.

LJS9502_basic

That is if the argument doesn't turn to wording which can hinder the law. Anyway....that is my solution.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

I think we're having a semantics issue here. What do you consider a "very young age?"

LikeHaterade

8 to 10 years old.

Wow. While I strongly disagree that most learn of homosexuality at that age, lets say it is true(I'm not saying you're wrong). The educational environment is different, and children would take it in different than a gay couple holding hands which would last for a few seconds, or seeing it on TV. Because while it's rare a child may come across such things, even if they had, it wouldn't be implemented, as opposed to seeing it in a book and learning it in school.

If I find the link I will post it or send it to you.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]That is correct - and the court found marriage to be a right. They said blatantly, "Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man". Their ruling stated exactly what I am interpreting it to mean.LJS9502_basic