But our rights are decided on regardless, so why not let the people vote instead of politicians?
President Obama Endorses Gay Marriage
- Thread starter Naffa
- Start date
But our rights are decided on regardless, so why not let the people vote instead of politicians?
Fair enough. Put it like that, I can't really argue. Bit scary that actuallyI've just always believed that marriage should be between a man and a woman, I've grown up believing that.
I am all for traditions but not for those that are unjustifiably discriminatory.
My nerves are completely untouched, for this subject I just feel a little disappointed more than anything else.
How are your rights impacted by allowing gay people to marry?
I used the child point because it already exists in certain parts of the world and used to exist in this country. The reasons for it changing were probably as superficial as the ones allowing gay marriage.
Now the ending of child marriage was/is a demonstrably good one (no death or damage through childbirth with an immature body, education rather than motherhood).
The existence of the duality of marriage up to this point has been demonstably good, although now I would say it has been fatally undermined in other areas.
I don't see what gay marriage will do in terms of added value, other than appease the equal rights of one group in defiance of another group.
Polygamy rights are ignored, or like you point out, cousins can't marry.
Equally allowing marriage for these groups adds nothing to the value of marriage as an institution so why bother?
Personally I see marriage failing at the same point Christianity falls out of sight, gays will then have the right to marry at the same time nobody bothers getting married anymore because it's meaningless. Whether this contributes to that situation or not I don't know, but I doubt it helps it.
In a real democracy where the people decide on the issue sure why not, as it will effect us either way (I would vote to allow them btw). People can make their case for an issue and against it, then let the people vote. If they don't like it they have the option to leave (just like if they banned same sex marriage I would leave).
Let's take a look at Iceland, the people were giving the vote to pay the bankers or not and the people said no, so the government stuck with the decision, over here we never had that option and unlike the Icelandics we are worse off.
Fair enough. Put it like that, I can't really argue. Bit scary that actually
I'd be very interested as to how he came to the decision for this annoucement.
p.s. I know when I put the word 'evil' in, it hadn't been used...just obviously I touched some nerves.
That's fine if that's what marriage is for you. But why does it matter to you that it's a man and a woman when it's other people? That seems to be you trying to control others lives, with no reason other than your own personal preferences. Controlling other people's lives, when it's not for good, is for evil. It is however a great big long stretch to get from you not wanting gay marriage to you being evil, and while I see the steps on the way I don't think it would be proportionate to call you evil.
When you said you don't command their lives... that's what you do by denying them marriage. The neutral position is to allow gay marriage.
As to what I'd do? I'd remove marriage from everything legal, I'd end the status of it. Civil partnership would replace it in the legal sense and anybody wanting to get married could have whatever service they wanted, or none, and get the civil partnership on top.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
When you say (or agree with the statement that) you don't think being gay is "right" are you surprised that it gets some people's backs up? To use the mixed-race relationship example again, how does it sound when someone says they don't think white and black people having a relationship is "right"?
The word 'right' implies some kind of moral judgement on the people you are talking about. When you say you don't mind gay people you just don't agree with homosexuality, you are essentially making the 'love the sinner hate the sin' argument. The problem with this argument is it fails to recognize that homosexuality is part of the gay person, not separate to them.
You cannot disagree with something that defines someone as a person and then claim you still like the person.
I added a bit onto my post that you may have missed. Apologies.
Whose rights are being defied here though? Allowing gay marriage has no negative impacts on anyone's rights.
I don't think you're replying to the correct person. I have no opinion on other people's sexualities. It's just as fine to be heterosexual, as it is to be bisexual or homosexual. I don't view it as a sin.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 12,681
- Location
- Tyneside
[TW]Fox;21877276 said:It seems somewhat odd how gay marraige and abortion are two of the biggest issues in American politics
Yes indeed.
Forget they have a train wreck economy drowning in debt, military presence in numerous countries around the world and instigated two wars that cost eye watering amounts of money and lives.
The US will drop smart bombs like confetti in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya in the name of supposed democracy and to ensure people can be free to choose how to live their life but they go ape at the prospect of gay marriage.
Democracy doesn't just mean that everything should be decided on the whim of a majority. It requires the free enfranchisement of all citizens of that state to take part in its political system, one that enfranchises them. That is not something that can be put to a vote.
Sure, but it would have to be to ban marriage for all, or for none, and not bar those rights from certain minorities.
Us majority heterosexual shouldn't impose different rules on the minority homosexuals. Same can be said for majority whites ruling over minority blacks.
So going on the original topic: You believe it to be a distraction for the media/general public?
Clearly you didn't read my post, have a look at the Iceland vote that I mentioned.
I think it has to be a big issue for gay people - effectively what's being said is that your love isn't as good as everybody else's. That's quite an attack...
I don't think it's right to brush it under the carpet and say there's more important stuff going on.