Music Banter - View Single Post

adidasss · 01-09-2007, 06:45 AM

Ok, I got to about page 4 of this crap and couldn't be bothered to read more. It's insane that a thread about gay marriage once again turned into a religious debate. I don't know why I bothered making these posts if even those who support gay people don't bother to read them ( I completely understand why someone like Oojay would turn a blind eye).

There is no rational explanation to why gay marriages are not allowed in most countries, including most states of the U.S. if you extract religion from the issue. The state is supposed to be a civil institution, separated from religion, and western societies love to flaunt this theorem when trying to prove how muslim societies are backward. Hypocracy at its best. By not allowing gay people to marry, they ( we ) are being denied one of the essential human rights.

There is a concensus on at least one thing, that homosexuality is not a psychiatric condition, an illness. If we are not harming others and are with full mental capacity, there is no other reason for denying us equal rights as other people. Most constitutions are now based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and still have the audacity to proclaim that "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights". Yes we are all born equal, but we become unequal as soon as someone finds out he "fancies" the same sex. "The concept of not denying people their rights unless you can show a compelling reason to deny them is the very basis of the American ideal of human rights." - Scott Bidstrup's essey on gay marriage

There are reoccuring arguments whenever this issue is being discussed , so let's adress some of them.

1. "The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State." ( as proclaimed by article 16. point 3. of the Universal Declaration of Human rights.

This is one of the essential arguments anti-gay marriage politicians drag up, that by allowing people of the same sex to marry, who cannot reproduce the "normal way", they are somehow threatening the "institution" of marriage, as if heterosexual people would be so offended by gay people having the same rights as them, that they would not marry any more or have children. Absolutely rediculous. The second point of this argument is that gay people and their union simply cannot be allowed to be on the same level ( as far as the name and the rights this institution would include ) as one of the "fundamental group units of society". I assume, purely on the basys of principle ( there is no other rationale to justify such a distinction, once again, if you exclude religion from it, a family can consist of two people of the same sex ). I am deliberatly avoiding the issue of gay couples adopting children as that is a completely different matter.

If one of the essential purposes of marriage is procreation, infertile couples shouldn't be allowed to marry either.

2. Homosexuality is morally wrong and therefore shouldn't be sanctioned.
"There is such in a thing in the United States as the separation of Church and State. America is not based on one particular faith, nor on a single moral code, but on a plurality of creeds. Your feelings as a member of a particular religious community notwithstanding, you have a responsibility as a citizen to support the extension of the same civil rights you yourself enjoy to everyone equally. Race, sex, religion, and sexual orientation must not affect the even application of civil rights. Homosexuality is not morally wrong, but even if you believe it is, you must not oppose the right of any person to claim equal privileges under the law." - http://www.soyouwanna.com/

3. "The suggestion that homosexuals can be 'married' is absurd, since marriage is, by definition, a union between a man and a woman."

"There has never been any fixed, traditional definition of marriage. The idea of marriage is constantly changing according to the changing needs of society. The world we live in today is very different from the world of a hundred or fifty years ago and our institutions must be altered to reflect these changes. There is no evidence to suggest that same-sex marriage would be harmful to society." - http://www.soyouwanna.com/

"Some argue that marriage is defined narrowly as only being between a man and a woman, so gays can’t possibly marry. The fact is, though, that the nature of marriage has changed in definition and make-up many times over the centuries. Marriage today isn’t at all like what it was two millennia or even two centuries ago. The changes in marriage have been broad and fundamental, so what are traditionalists really trying to defend? What is “traditional” about modern marriage?

Most of these changes have moved power in marriage away from the families and to the couples, as well as making women more equal. Let’s look at just a few of the most significant changes in marriage in the West over the past centuries:

Legalization of divorce
Criminalization of marital rape (and recognition that the concept even exists)
Legalization of contraception
Legalization of interracial marriage
Recognition of women’s right to own property in a marriage
Elimination of dowries
Elimination of parents’ right to choose or reject their children’s mates
Elimination of childhood marriages and betrothals
Elimination of polygamy
Existence of large numbers of unmarried people
Women not taking the last names of their husbands
Changing emphasis from money and property to love and personal fulfillment" - Austine Cline

01-09-2007, 06:45 AM	#221 (permalink)
adidasss Slavic gay sauce Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Abu Dhabi Posts: 7,993	Ok, I got to about page 4 of this crap and couldn't be bothered to read more. It's insane that a thread about gay marriage once again turned into a religious debate. I don't know why I bothered making these posts if even those who support gay people don't bother to read them ( I completely understand why someone like Oojay would turn a blind eye). There is no rational explanation to why gay marriages are not allowed in most countries, including most states of the U.S. if you extract religion from the issue. The state is supposed to be a civil institution, separated from religion, and western societies love to flaunt this theorem when trying to prove how muslim societies are backward. Hypocracy at its best. By not allowing gay people to marry, they ( we ) are being denied one of the essential human rights. There is a concensus on at least one thing, that homosexuality is not a psychiatric condition, an illness. If we are not harming others and are with full mental capacity, there is no other reason for denying us equal rights as other people. Most constitutions are now based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and still have the audacity to proclaim that "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights". Yes we are all born equal, but we become unequal as soon as someone finds out he "fancies" the same sex. "The concept of not denying people their rights unless you can show a compelling reason to deny them is the very basis of the American ideal of human rights." - Scott Bidstrup's essey on gay marriage There are reoccuring arguments whenever this issue is being discussed , so let's adress some of them. 1. "The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State." ( as proclaimed by article 16. point 3. of the Universal Declaration of Human rights. This is one of the essential arguments anti-gay marriage politicians drag up, that by allowing people of the same sex to marry, who cannot reproduce the "normal way", they are somehow threatening the "institution" of marriage, as if heterosexual people would be so offended by gay people having the same rights as them, that they would not marry any more or have children. Absolutely rediculous. The second point of this argument is that gay people and their union simply cannot be allowed to be on the same level ( as far as the name and the rights this institution would include ) as one of the "fundamental group units of society". I assume, purely on the basys of principle ( there is no other rationale to justify such a distinction, once again, if you exclude religion from it, a family can consist of two people of the same sex ). I am deliberatly avoiding the issue of gay couples adopting children as that is a completely different matter. If one of the essential purposes of marriage is procreation, infertile couples shouldn't be allowed to marry either. 2. Homosexuality is morally wrong and therefore shouldn't be sanctioned. "There is such in a thing in the United States as the separation of Church and State. America is not based on one particular faith, nor on a single moral code, but on a plurality of creeds. Your feelings as a member of a particular religious community notwithstanding, you have a responsibility as a citizen to support the extension of the same civil rights you yourself enjoy to everyone equally. Race, sex, religion, and sexual orientation must not affect the even application of civil rights. Homosexuality is not morally wrong, but even if you believe it is, you must not oppose the right of any person to claim equal privileges under the law." - http://www.soyouwanna.com/ 3. "The suggestion that homosexuals can be 'married' is absurd, since marriage is, by definition, a union between a man and a woman." "There has never been any fixed, traditional definition of marriage. The idea of marriage is constantly changing according to the changing needs of society. The world we live in today is very different from the world of a hundred or fifty years ago and our institutions must be altered to reflect these changes. There is no evidence to suggest that same-sex marriage would be harmful to society." - http://www.soyouwanna.com/ "Some argue that marriage is defined narrowly as only being between a man and a woman, so gays can’t possibly marry. The fact is, though, that the nature of marriage has changed in definition and make-up many times over the centuries. Marriage today isn’t at all like what it was two millennia or even two centuries ago. The changes in marriage have been broad and fundamental, so what are traditionalists really trying to defend? What is “traditional” about modern marriage? Most of these changes have moved power in marriage away from the families and to the couples, as well as making women more equal. Let’s look at just a few of the most significant changes in marriage in the West over the past centuries: Legalization of divorce Criminalization of marital rape (and recognition that the concept even exists) Legalization of contraception Legalization of interracial marriage Recognition of women’s right to own property in a marriage Elimination of dowries Elimination of parents’ right to choose or reject their children’s mates Elimination of childhood marriages and betrothals Elimination of polygamy Existence of large numbers of unmarried people Women not taking the last names of their husbands Changing emphasis from money and property to love and personal fulfillment" - Austine Cline __________________ “Think of what a paradise this world would be if men were kind and wise.” - Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle. Last.fm Last edited by adidasss; 01-09-2007 at 07:01 AM.