NationStates Jolt Archive

well the title says it all, post if ur either against gay marrige or ur ok with it

Well, I'm for homosexual couples being able to get the same rights as hetrosexual couples.

Bah, again?

This is silly, you are just trying to make another "Intolerance square"

Bah, again?

This is silly, you are just trying to make another "Intolerance square"
i got bored and decided to create a thread, nothin wrong wit that

Just look at how Canada solved the problem, and apply that everywhere.

Just look at how Canada solved the problem, and apply that everywhere.
wat did canada do?

I am in favor of equal rights for all people, regardless of sexual orientation, and thus if civil marriage exists for straight couples, it should exist for gay couples as well.

And the thread that already exists on this subject was insufficient for the OP because?

Because he's a lazy, little bugger, too slothful to do a search before he creates a new thread, that's why.

wat did canada do?
Legalize civil marriage, and let every Church decide for themselves whether they want to marry same-sex couples or not.

So gays and lesbian can get married by a judge, civil servant, or (if applicable) a priest whose Church approves of blessing same-sex unions. The roman catholic church can still refuse to marry them as it sees fit, and so can any other denomination opposed to same-sex marriage.

Gays get all the legal benefits, protections, and respect of status normally granted by marriage, just like everyone else. Churches still get to be backwards and retrograde. Everyone is happy.

i got bored and decided to create a thread, nothin wrong wit that

It is when there are already several topics debating the exact same thing still on the first page of the forum - unless of course you start the topic with some deep and well thought out post detailing your own position on the issue, complete with backing arguments.

That being said: in favour of adults being allowed to marry the adult they love.

unless of course you start the topic with some deep and well thought out post detailing your own position on the issue, complete with backing arguments.

How many "deep and well thought out posts" have there ever been on the subject?

Bah, again?

This is silly, you are just trying to make another "Intolerance square"

Beating another dead horse! It's the NS General Way!

Beating another dead horse! It's the NS General Way!

Indeed. What else do we do, aside from beating live horses dead?

Beating another dead horse! It's the NS General Way!

Its not a dead horse. The debate still exists and will always exist until gays can get married or gays are taken and killed until there are none left.

Well, then please add something new to the debate.

there's a sticky right up there about this

Never mind homosexual marriage, the real issue at stake is left-handed marriage (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=487790).[/shamelessly whores thread]

well the title says it all, post if ur either against gay marrige or ur ok with it

Yay! Yet another thread on gay marriage! :rolleyes:

Never mind homosexual marriage, the real issue at stake is left-handed marriage (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=487790).[/shamelessly whores thread]
left handed marrige is pretty bad

left handed marrige is pretty bad

Like this thread, you mean?

Like this thread, you mean?
ouch, that wasnt nice

How many "deep and well thought out posts" have there ever been on the subject?

A few - though the other type is vastly in the majority.

Legalize civil marriage, and let every Church decide for themselves whether they want to marry same-sex couples or not.

So gays and lesbian can get married by a judge, civil servant, or (if applicable) a priest whose Church approves of blessing same-sex unions. The roman catholic church can still refuse to marry them as it sees fit, and so can any other denomination opposed to same-sex marriage.

Gays get all the legal benefits, protections, and respect of status normally granted by marriage, just like everyone else. Churches still get to be backwards and retrograde. Everyone is happy.

coming from someone who considers himself a christian, i think that's the best idea i've heard yet. You cynnacisim in the last sentence is a bit on the offensive, however. Freedom for each organization to choose how they want to run their organization. Wonderful : )

I am in favor of equal rights for all people, regardless of sexual orientation, and thus if civil marriage exists for straight couples, it should exist for gay couples as well.
QFE.
And I agree.

A few - though the other type is vastly in the majority.

What's there to think deeply about?

coming from someone who considers himself a christian, i think that's the best idea i've heard yet. You cynnacisim in the last sentence is a bit on the offensive, however. Freedom for each organization to choose how they want to run their organization. Wonderful : )

...Isn't his last sentence "Everyone is happy"?

The people of Rome demand a poll!

coming from someone who considers himself a christian, i think that's the best idea i've heard yet.

Um, that's what gay marriage advocates have always proposed. That, in fact, is the arrangement that exists for heterosexual civil marriages today. No one forces Orthodox Jewish rabbis, for instance, to conduct marriages between Jews and non-Jews.

coming from someone who considers himself a christian, i think that's the best idea i've heard yet. You cynnacisim in the last sentence is a bit on the offensive, however. Freedom for each organization to choose how they want to run their organization. Wonderful : )
Well, yeah, I admit I was a bit cynical. I really DO think they're being backwards on this; but on the plus side, I acknowledge their right to be backwards about it in the privacy of their own churches. As long as they accept that the rest of society, and more importantly the law, doesn't need to do the same.

Freedom of religion is important too. It's just too bad some religions forget the initial message of love they were founded upon, and instead adopt a monologue of rejections and condemnation.

Here's something new for your old tired debate.... Policy to be enacted restricting government agencies from giving out any benifits to married couples, including tax deductions, inheritance privliages, medical benifits.. what have you. Married couples should have the rights of single individuals. The state should offer no favoritism to those seeking wedlock.. and that would make this entire debate moot.

Um, that's what gay marriage advocates have always proposed. That, in fact, is the arrangement that exists for heterosexual civil marriages today. No one forces Orthodox Jewish rabbis, for instance, to conduct marriages between Jews and non-Jews.
Or forces the roman catholic priests to remarry people who have been divorced.

ouch, that wasnt nice

I've never been accused of being nice. ;)

a little off topic but im wonderin how will reggie bush do this year, im thinkin of gettin him for a back up for my fantasy football team

a little off topic but im wonderin how will reggie bush do this year, im thinkin of gettin him for a back up for my fantasy football team

Who is Reggie Bush?

a little off topic but im wonderin how will reggie bush do this year, im thinkin of gettin him for a back up for my fantasy football team


A little?

Who is Reggie Bush?
i might have his first name wrong but hes the rookie from usc that plays for new orleans, i might not get him since the new orleans line sucks

What's there to think deeply about?

Considering many people seem to think it "evil", some philosophy on how one determines what good and bad are would be nice. Some decent debate on the role that religion has and/or should have in determining policy could be interesting. If it is preferable to listen to the will of the majority or to repsect the wishes of the individual is a question that could be debated. Should education on issues like these should be improved and be compulsory ? If it becomes possible, should we use medication to "cure" people with different sexual orientations ? Or different preferences than mainstream (in e.g. clothes, music, art, sports, tv shows, politcal parties...) ?

Or we could just remain at the "GAYZ are SATAN !" level.

i dnt know perhps reggie bsh (Who the hell is Reggie Bush anyway?) can mke a nce playsh thes years.

i alro thnk it is a bit of topic but its ok as the lak of punctuation and spelling and pertienence on ths thread has ben reachin an spectacular lvl.

i dnt know perhps reggie bsh (Who the hell is Reggie Bush anyway?) can mke a nce playsh thes years.

i alro thnk it is a bit of topic but its ok as the lak of punctuation and spelling and pertienence on ths thread has ben reachin an spectacular lvl.

Mi nwe favuorite potsre! :D

Considering many people seem to think it "evil", some philosophy on how one determines what good and bad are would be nice. Some decent debate on the role that religion has and/or should have in determining policy could be interesting. If it is preferable to listen to the will of the majority or to repsect the wishes of the individual is a question that could be debated. Should education on issues like these should be improved and be compulsory ? If it becomes possible, should we use medication to "cure" people with different sexual orientations ? Or different preferences than mainstream (in e.g. clothes, music, art, sports, tv shows, politcal parties...) ?

Or we could just remain at the "GAYZ are SATAN !" level.
Medication? This reminds me a lot of X-men 3. There always was a definite gay metaphor for those mutants.

I'm right behind those who brandished signs saying "We don't need your stinking cure".

To be honest, I just don't care. And I think it's stupid how some people are overreacting about it, or too me theyre overreacting. Why are some people so obsessed with keeping gays from marrying? I mean, whats the problem, too guys wanna do eachother for the rest of theyre lives, we'll good for them I hope they have fun! But why is that such a bad thing for the rest of us that we have that one priest who goes too the funeral of gay soldiers and yell too the family that he's burning in hell for being gay? ANd even if being gay is a sin why should anyone care, if they burn in hell thats theyre problem, isn't it a good thing that sinners burn in hell? and besides, if we ban the marriage thing they just won't bother with marriage and live together anyway and if they don't like it they just leave. We'll be making gayness easier for them. What's with all this hatred and bigotry over the dumbest issue in our countr. Does this post even make sense anymore?

Medication? This reminds me a lot of X-men 3. There always was a definite gay metaphor for those mutants.
maybe thats y they wear spandex

Considering many people seem to think it "evil", some philosophy on how one determines what good and bad are would be nice.

But, see, that isn't the issue. The people who are opposed to gay marriage have two main rationales: "gays are icky" and "this book says gay sex is an abomination, so it is."

You can't argue deeply with that.

Some decent debate on the role that religion has and/or should have in determining policy could be interesting. If it is preferable to listen to the will of the majority or to repsect the wishes of the individual is a question that could be debated. Should education on issues like these should be improved and be compulsory ? If it becomes possible, should we use medication to "cure" people with different sexual orientations ? Or different preferences than mainstream (in e.g. clothes, music, art, sports, tv shows, politcal parties...) ?

Now, these are things you can have actual rational arguments about, but they're all sidelines to the gay marriage issue.

Considering many people seem to think it "evil", some philosophy on how one determines what good and bad are would be nice. Some decent debate on the role that religion has and/or should have in determining policy could be interesting. If it is preferable to listen to the will of the majority or to repsect the wishes of the individual is a question that could be debated. Should education on issues like these should be improved and be compulsory ? If it becomes possible, should we use medication to "cure" people with different sexual orientations ? Or different preferences than mainstream (in e.g. clothes, music, art, sports, tv shows, politcal parties...) ?

Or we could just remain at the "GAYZ are SATAN !" level.

This is fine, but we should take it much farther... how much more peaceful would our society be if everyone thought the same way, and belived in the same things... This freedom of speach is all well and good, but look at the tensions created, the violent eruptions, and wars fought over differences of opinion... An ordered society controled through structured "education" programs should would be a much more peaceful solution... (if everyone is brainwashed, no one will disagree)

maybe thats y they wear spandex
Gotta love Wolverine's tight leather pants ;)

Or that Prince lookalike mutant.

This is fine, but we should take it much farther... how much more peaceful would our society be if everyone thought the same way, and belived in the same things... This freedom of speach is all well and good, but look at the tensions created, the violent eruptions, and wars fought over differences of opinion... An ordered society controled through structured "education" programs should would be a much more peaceful solution... (if everyone is brainwashed, no one will disagree)

Better freedom than peace.

Medication? This reminds me a lot of X-men 3. There always was a definite gay metaphor for those mutants.

I'm right behind those who brandished signs saying "We don't need your stinking cure".

So the question then becomes: when should one call an "aberration" a disease and attempt to cure it ?
Considering some Christians already send their gay children to brainwash camp to torture them back to "normality" and would probably be convinced that using such a cure if it existed would be the right thing to do, it already is relevant for this discussion. But obviously the implications reach much further. Should we "cure" left handedness as mentioned in that other topic ? Should we "cure" emos and goths ? People that do not like to watch football on tv ? People that pray to the "wrong" thing, or even not pray at all ? Kids that actually like to go to school ?

Yes, determining when an aberration should be cured and when it shouldn't is quite important. And yes, the X-men movie definately made a political statement.

So the question then becomes: when should one call an "aberration" a disease and attempt to cure it ?

If the person wants to be cured, then attempt to cure him.

If he doesn't, leave him alone.

Better freedom than peace.

Not a very humanitarian response...

(That would be a very interesting response if you were anti-bush ~_^)

If the person wants to be cured, then attempt to cure him.

If he doesn't, leave him alone.
On the other hand, if the person happens to be female, her desires on the subject are utterly irrelevant. :)

So the question then becomes: when should one call an "aberration" a disease and attempt to cure it ?
Considering some Christians already send their gay children to brainwash camp to torture them back to "normality" and would probably be convinced that using such a cure if it existed would be the right thing to do, it already is relevant for this discussion. But obviously the implications reach much further. Should we "cure" left handedness as mentioned in that other topic ? Should we "cure" emos and goths ? People that do not like to watch football on tv ? People that pray to the "wrong" thing, or even not pray at all ? Kids that actually like to go to school ?

Yes, determining when an aberration should be cured and when it shouldn't is quite important. And yes, the X-men movie definately made a political statement.
Ever read Aldous Huxley's novel "An ideal world"? It's work of fiction with the world's society being controlled with intensive brainwashing starting in the womb, and all through everyone's life. Kinda makes me think of this.

Everyone is happy, thanks to conditionning and a happiness-inducing drug called soma. However... no one is free. I would never accept to live in such a society. Human beings just need to stop wearing their ass for a hat, and accept the fact that differences exist, and that those differences are a strenght. Diversity is desirable. Conformism is a form of death.

On the other hand, if the person happens to be female, her desires on the subject are utterly irrelevant. :)

Retarded doublestandard.

seems reasonable

Legalize civil marriage, and let every Church decide for themselves whether they want to marry same-sex couples or not.

So gays and lesbian can get married by a judge, civil servant, or (if applicable) a priest whose Church approves of blessing same-sex unions. The roman catholic church can still refuse to marry them as it sees fit, and so can any other denomination opposed to same-sex marriage.

Gays get all the legal benefits, protections, and respect of status normally granted by marriage, just like everyone else. Churches still get to be backwards and retrograde. Everyone is happy.

If the person wants to be cured, then attempt to cure him.

If he doesn't, leave him alone.

And if the aberration can be shown to be harmful to society - like e.g. having a tendency to blow up buildings with people inside them ?

Not a very humanitarian response...

(That would be a very interesting response if you were anti-bush ~_^)

I am very anti-Bush. The Iraq War has absolutely nothing to do with promoting freedom. But that is another thread.

As for "humanitarian," brainwashing and indoctrination seem extremely anti-humanitarian to me.

And if the aberration can be shown to be harmful to society - like e.g. having a tendency to blow up buildings with people inside them ?
I know you're not about to compare homosexuality to blowing up buildings.

And if the aberration can be shown to be harmful to society - like e.g. having a tendency to blow up buildings ?

If the person commits or attempts to commit a crime, like any criminal, you restrain him from committing any more by putting him in prison. If, while in prison, he seeks a cure for his "aberration," then attempt to cure him.

How is it that the first page is all people complaining that we have another gay marraige thread, but after about the second page everyone carries on as normal?


Also, the fact that the OP spelled retarded wrong amuses me greatly.

Ever read Aldous Huxley's novel "An ideal world"? It's work of fiction with the world's society being controlled with intensive brainwashing starting in the womb, and all through everyone's life. Kinda makes me think of this.

Everyone is happy, thanks to conditionning and a happiness-inducing drug called soma. However... no one is free. I would never accept to live in such a society. Human beings just need to stop wearing their ass for a hat, and accept the fact that differences exist, and that those differences are a strenght. Diversity is desirable. Conformism is a form of death.

What good is freedom if it causes nothing but hardship, tension, and death ? Why should a society seek such things.... we should look for things that make us stronger, more ordered, cohesive, because it makes us.. as a people better. Such a society could taut things like zero crime, no violence, equal rights. Things which are only a fantasy land in the "Free" world.

How is it that the first page is all people complaining that we have another gay marraige thread, but after about the second page everyone carries on as normal?

It's the circle, the ciiiiirrccle of liiiiiiiife.

I know you're not about to compare homosexuality to blowing up buildings.

Why not ? Both things are considered evil by some people. As I said: we should define some consensus as to determine when something is evil and when it is not. When it is something that should be stopped or cured and when not.

Of course, "let people do what they wish as long as they do not harm others" works quite well here in principle; but it seems a huge part of the US population opposes that for some reason. So let them state their alternatives. Let them show they are capable of rational thought, instead of mindless parotting.

What good is freedom if it causes nothing but hardship, tension, and death ? Why should a society seek such things.... we should look for things that make us stronger, more ordered, cohesive, because it makes us.. as a people better. Such a society could taut things like zero crime, no violence, equal rights. Things which are only a fantasy land in the "Free" world.

Cuz humans are masochistic like that.

If the person commits or attempts to commit a crime, like any criminal, you restrain him from committing any more by putting him in prison. If, while in prison, he seeks a cure for his "aberration," then attempt to cure him.

I think the most importand thing above all else is preservation of freedom. The only time it should be stopped is when ones will interferes with anothers will for life liberty and the persuit of happyness

If the person commits or attempts to commit a crime, like any criminal, you restrain him from committing any more by putting him in prison. If, while in prison, he seeks a cure for his "aberration," then attempt to cure him.

Problem: many people claim that "being gay" or engaging in gay sex should be crimes.*I* do not see why - but that doesn't mean I should dismiss those peoples opinions offhand.

We needen't fear brainwashing, or propoganda.. critics say it simply creates a culture based on an illusion... but the freedoms we have now are in of themselves illusions.. because no freedom is limitless.. no matter how much we belive it maybe. Today, we live the illusion.. only in a world of pain.. why not embrase the illusion, and create true bliss!!!

On the other hand, if the person happens to be female, her desires on the subject are utterly irrelevant. :)

Not to me. Just to sexist idiots, of which there are an unfortunately high number.

Ever read Aldous Huxley's novel "An ideal world"? It's work of fiction with the world's society being controlled with intensive brainwashing starting in the womb, and all through everyone's life. Kinda makes me think of this.

Everyone is happy, thanks to conditionning and a happiness-inducing drug called soma. However... no one is free. I would never accept to live in such a society. Human beings just need to stop wearing their ass for a hat, and accept the fact that differences exist, and that those differences are a strenght. Diversity is desirable. Conformism is a form of death.

Brave New World is the title. It came to my mind, too.

What good is freedom if it causes nothing but hardship, tension, and death ? Why should a society seek such things.... we should look for things that make us stronger, more ordered, cohesive, because it makes us.. as a people better. Such a society could taut things like zero crime, no violence, equal rights. Things which are only a fantasy land in the "Free" world.

Freedom (for everyone, not for a privileged elite) is the only good. Zero crime, no violence, equal rights, strength, coherence, order... all of those things are worthless without freedom, and they're only beneficial to the degree that they promote freedom. Without freedom, life is worthless. A rock has no value, and a society of human automatons would have no value, either.

We needen't fear brainwashing, or propoganda.. critics say it simply creates a culture based on an illusion... but the freedoms we have now are in of themselves illusions.. because no freedom is limitless.. no matter how much we belive it maybe. Today, we live the illusion.. only in a world of pain.. why not embrase the illusion, and create true bliss!!!

Problem: many people claim that "being gay" or engaging in gay sex should be crimes.*I* do not see why - but that doesn't mean I should dismiss those peoples opinions offhand.

Ethics is rather hard to argue about when there is no common ground.

We needen't fear brainwashing, or propoganda.. critics say it simply creates a culture based on an illusion... but the freedoms we have now are in of themselves illusions.. because no freedom is limitless.. no matter how much we belive it maybe. Today, we live the illusion.. only in a world of pain.. why not embrase the illusion, and create true bliss!!!

freedom is not an illusion. To say it is means the freeing of african american slaves means nothing.

Freedom (for everyone, not for a privileged elite) is the only good. Zero crime, no violence, equal rights, strength, coherence, order... all of those things are worthless without freedom, and they're only beneficial to the degree that they promote freedom. Without freedom, life is worthless. A rock has no value, and a society of human automatons would have no value, either.

This entire idea is purposterous!! ... what benifits does freedom give us ? why do we seek it so ? We seek freedom because it is in freedom we belive happiness lyes. We belive that in the ability to do what we wish when we wish, we may find personal satisfactions... and yet in persuing this, we find often our freedoms clash with others.. as ideas conflict, and limited resources require limitations. You say all should be to promote personal freedom... I say personal freedom itself is an illusion which does not exhist.. No one has freedom, because true freedom means no security... and lacking security we then are consumed by fear which in of itself is a limitating element.

Through mind control true happiness is "Created" and so what you like, what you love, and what you truely want to do.. is laid out for you, and you may indulge yourself in these things... because you belive it is what you want (Weather this is truth or not)... and everyone can do this without conflict. This to me is undeniably harmony at its most pure form. Everyone working together and enjoying bliss while doing so. What good is freedom ?

Not to me. Just to sexist idiots, of which there are an unfortunately high number.

Hey, you're the one who thinks that the male pronoun should still be used when refering to the general "person." I've been under the impression that using the male pronoun as the default human pronoun went out of style back in the 1970s. :)

is there any one here that is against gay marrige? it seems to me no one is

is there any one here that is against gay marrige? it seems to me no one is
They may be over on one of the other 3 front-page threads about gay marriage.

is there any one here that is against gay marrige? it seems to me no one is

No, marry whomever you like. I don't care. I'm just against the ridiculous number of threads on the subject. Axe-grinding much? :rolleyes:

Hey, you're the one who thinks that the male pronoun should still be used when refering to the general "person." I've been under the impression that using the male pronoun as the default human pronoun went out of style back in the 1970s. :)

Oh, that. I could use "he or she," and I do sometimes, but that gets absurd eventually, I could use "she", but that's no better, or I could alternate, which I have no excuse for avoiding, except that I never remember and just gave up trying a long time ago.

So I suppose it is fair to say that I have not tried as hard as possible to rid myself of sexism in my pronoun use.

Why I missed your meaning the first time I do not know; it is probably the heat.

is there any one here that is against gay marrige? it seems to me no one is
No, we're a pretty intelligent group here[/hornblowing]

So I suppose it is fair to say that I have not tried as hard as possible to rid myself of sexism in my pronoun use.
Damn right, you sexist oppressor.

Honestly, just use "they." It used to be considered grammatically incorrect, but it's pretty well accepted for casual speech these days. Or, if you must, use "she" instead of "he," just to give the ladies a change of pace...we get to hear all of humanity refered to as male on such a regular basis that it's kind of nice when somebody remembers that 51% percent of the population is non-male.

If anybody gives you crap about using the female pronoun, you can always just point out that you're going with the majority. :)

They may be over on one of the other 3 front-page threads about gay marriage.
i think i got it, theres other threads wit the same subject

Damn right, you sexist oppressor.

Honestly, just use "they." It used to be considered grammatically incorrect, but it's pretty well accepted for casual speech these days.

However much I try, "they" indicates plurality to me.

Or, if you must, use "she" instead of "he," just to give the ladies a change of pace...we get to hear all of humanity refered to as male on such a regular basis that it's kind of nice when somebody remembers that 51% percent of the population is non-male.

If anybody gives you crap about using the female pronoun, you can always just point out that you're going with the majority. :)

Fair enough. I will make the attempt; the people it will annoy will mostly be people I already enjoy annoying, so there's no loss.

However much I try, "they" indicates plurality to me.

I'd use "it" but there seems to be a thing about that...

However much I try, "they" indicates plurality to me.

Yeah, blame it on the language. I'm disgusted that there is no singular, gender-neutral pronoun available. Well, except "it," but I've found that most human beings react somewhat negatively if you apply to them the same pronoun that you use for a chair or a toilet brush.


Fair enough. I will make the attempt; the people it will annoy will mostly be people I already enjoy annoying, so there's no loss.
Another excellent reason. :)

I'd use "it" but there seems to be a thing about that...

They should make it "se" or something, but none of those have ever caught on.

"One" works, but it requires awkward shifts in phrasing.

"One" works, but it requires awkward shifts in phrasing.
Also makes you come off like a snobby git in most situations...