starcraft said:
WessleWoggle said:
starcraft said:
WessleWoggle said:
|
starcraft said:
As for wesslewoggle. You're the one that wants to change status quo. Propose an argument why the beliefs of many many billions founded on millenia of precedent, love and feeling are wrong. Propose a reason why they should be changed so that in addition to completely equal rights, a minority can feel they have won a tokenistic victory over the religious right at the expense of everyone else.
|
My argument for changing the status quo is, the status quo sucks. It's not fair, and it should be made as fair as possible. Do you think it's fair for straight people to be able to marry someone they're attracted to, when gay people cannot?
Why do you think the government should not legalize gay marriage? Just because of the fact that some people will get offended? That's less of a problem with legalizing gay marriage, and more of a problem with their own personal hang ups.
Anyways goodnight I guess.
|
Ultimately, as I am not arguing that we restrict any gay rights, all you're saying is that we should allow gays to marry because some will be offended if we do not.
In that context, there will be offense on at least one side. So it is best to offend only a few instead of many, not to mention that billions of people are already married, and many would feel their committment is lessened.
But yeah, goodnight mate.
No hard feelings.
|
But gays aren't just offended that they can't get married, there's also an injustice being done upon them. If we legalized gay marriage lots of people would be offended. But you've got to ask yourself, is satisfying the majority, who have no real reason to be against gay marriage except their own subjective views on what marriage should be, fairer than satisfying gay people, who just want equal rights?
What if I want to get married? Why should I be forced to call it something else just to mentally satisfy those with some stupid complex about how marriage is sacred? It's their problem, not mine. This would be a good thing for the gay community. We could feel like normal citizens, instead of second class citizens.
|
I got rid of the last two paragraphs. They were based once again on your assertion that my view is bigoted, yours is not, and that this bares any relation to the race debate, which again is simply a leftist association falsely generated in an attempt to frame the debate.
So....bolded one. Do you not realise what you're doing? Because of YOUR own SUBJECTIVE views, you wish to change marriage from something it has been for millenia, devaluing it for billions of people around the world.
Bolded two. It has already been established that homosexuals (under the model I am discussing, which exists in some countries) have the same rights as heterosexuals do. You can argue that they want more, but on paper their rights are completely equivelant.
Bolded three. I thought this last line was extremely interesting. Are you suggesting that too feel normal- that for a homosexual person to feel normal- they must see themselves as being accepted into an inherently heterosexual institution? There are a great many things that would be a good thing for the gay community, ninty per cent of which I support. But the one you're suggesting is one you fight for simply to score some tokenistic victory over the religious right. And as someone who values marriage as it stands, along with the views of the vast majority of human beings on this earth, I don't believe you're political pointscoring is worth giving up something that is extremely important to a whole lot more people, when there is no practical advantage to be gained for homosexuals.
|
When did I say my view wasn't bigoted? I said I was bigotted against anti-gay-marriage people. You have to draw the bigot line somewhere, and I draw it at the actual bigots, not the bigots of the bigots.
Why do you choose to draw the line at me, the bigot of the bigot, instead of drawing the line at those who actually want to inhibit homosexuals rights? I just want things to be fair, but for some reason you think marriage being traditional is better than it being fair. I don't see how that's logical.
Yes, my views are subjective too. But I think my views are better, since they're not based in keeping an injustice around. My views are based in trying to rid us of that injustice, trying to please gay people by giving them 100% equality, not 99% equality by calling their marriages something else. Your views are trying to keep traditional marriage around just to please people who think gays shouldn't be allowed to get married, how can you honestly thing that's a more noble goal then bring about equal rights?
You say on paper their rights are equivilant? You obviously wrote it down wrong then. Heterosexuals can marry anyone they're attracted to, bisexuals and homosexuals can not. I want that right, damn it.
MARRIAGE IS NOT INHERENTLY HETEROSEXUAL. There's been many cultures that allowed gay marriage. There's native tribes today that allow gay marriage. Why should we follow the example of the intolerant societies that disallowed gay marriage, instead of the more open societies that allowed it? There's no logic in that. It's simply ignorant.
We deserve to be able to get married to someone we're attracted to, it doesn't matter what you think marriage is, all that matters is what marriage should be. It should be between and two consenting adults, there's no reason it should only be between a man and a woman, other than silly old traditions. If traditions suck there's no reason to keep them around.
I don't believe your 'marriage is sacred' complex is worth giving up something that is extremely important to a whole lot of gay people, when there is no disadvantage to be gained for straight people.
