Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 RiTides wrote:
As many have noted, marriage is a religious idea in and of itself. I have no problem with this, but it does make using the term more broadly a bit inaccurate.

It really isn't. Plenty of friends of mine had non-religious ceremonies, and they're not any less married than I am. And religious people I know don't consider those people who got non-religious ceremonies any less married.

This whole thing about marriage being a religious thing really is something people just made up recently.

The end result is the same, equal recognition and rights for all... but using the term "marriage" is going to continue to be a huge stumbling block to getting equal rights for all unions sooner.

True, but ultimately, beyond simply granting people the exact legal rights, there is something to be said for social inclusion. That telling people you get the stuff we get, but you have to call yours a different name really isn't good enough.

 Crablezworth wrote:
It's 2014, sometimes girls like girls and boys like boys. Who cares?... Some. Sadly, but they're dying off, hell the head of the westboro baptist church is in the ground and plenty of other old timers who are outraged by "the gays" will likely join him in the ground before ya know it.

Young people don't care, they really don't give a damn, even the hardcore conservative youngsters don't seem to care. More and more independent denominations of the church don't even care, their numbers are dwindling anyway, a lot of them can't afford to care. Any pr executive on the planet will tell you where this is "trending" and what side to be on.

If you don't like gay marriage, marry someone of the opposite sex then. Seems simple. Gay marriage has been legal in canada for almost a decade. The only people who cared were the same ones who take pictures of taco bell and try and pass them off as abortions.

Welcome to Russia.
It is the exact opposite here. The older Soviet generation is a lot more tolerant towards gays than the young generation, church membership is growing by the day and Putin aims to become the Champion of Conservatism and good old-fashioned family values to fight against the evil, decadent West, passing a whole lot of laws against gays, with overwhelming support of the people.
Now someone make a Russian reversal joke about it.

If the West truly wants to help homosexuals in Russia, they should outlaw gay marriage and become very anti-gay. Than we shall see how quickly Putin and Russia start championing gay rights

 d-usa wrote:
Letting everybody marry would mean that they don't determine who you marry though.

It's called liberty..

 d-usa wrote:
To me, getting rid of "marriage" and using another term just feels like a "if we can't keep it for ourselves then nobody can have it" solution.

Not saying that denying marriage to gay couples would be the motivation for everybody that argues against marriage, but to me it would still feel like a win for the anti-gay marriage crowd.

That is NOT what I've argued. In principle, the state simply shouldn't care. If two brothers live in the same household and support eachother they should be able to file a joint tax return. They shouldn't have to, but the option should be on the table. From the government perspective, it shouldn't matter who you are plowing. What should matter is who lives in your household and who contributes to it functioning properly.

And yes... I realize it's not really an argument against same-sex marriage as much as it is an argument against regulation of marriage in and of itself. The biggest problem with this topic is the waters are muddied which is causing people to ask the wrong question. The REAL question is whether or not the way the government regulates this is right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 RiTides wrote:
But that's getting a bit far afield particularly in a thread about non-religious considerations for gay marriage. As a strictly civil issue, it has broad support, even from most religious people I know. But that's strictly as a civil / equal rights issue, which is all that really matters regarding government involvement.

Wedding rings are a pagan tradition iirc..

Exactly, Derek.

And sebster, the idea of religious marriages being a recent idea is pretty hilarious. There are lots of non-religious marriage ceremonies, sure, but to say religious ones are a recent idea... Lol. Both have been around a long time is much fairer to say, I think.

I agree with Derek, if I decide to live with a sibling I should get tax breaks, just like a couple. Why not? The issue gets muddied because of a word (like "marriage") which has vastly different meanings for people. Civil rights is the issue, so pass a civil rights law. It's the fastest way. In this country, my state already approved this (and I voted for it). But to get support nationally, focusing on the civil rights issue is the winning argument, imo.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
...with non-religious reasoning. I never quite understood it, and I have only seen religious reasons used.

"Ewww, gross."

Anything more complicated than that can be accurately summed up as "I'm a repulsive bigot, but I don't want to admit that I'm a repulsive bigot so I'll make up a bunch of nonsense so I don't have to state my reasons openly".

Quoted For Truth.

Otherwise why else are all common examples two men, not two women? Fratboy homophobia, that's why..

 RiTides wrote:
Exactly, Derek.

And sebster, the idea of religious marriages being a recent idea is pretty hilarious. There are lots of non-religious marriage ceremonies, sure, but to say religious ones are a recent idea... Lol. Both have been around a long time is much fairer to say, I think.

Actually, during the Late-Middle Ages is when marriage became a "religious" thing. It originally started out as a power play.... It used to be, especially among the nobility, that marriages were used to unite two houses, expand land borders, secure peace treaties, etc. Along came this idea that kings/queens had a "Divine Right" to be the king/queen. So someone got it in there head, that they would get the local priest to say that God had condoned/blessed the union, and therefore secured the divinity of this "Right". Pretty soon, minor lordlings, knights and just about anyone who could claim to be a noble was doing the same thing. Eventually, the Church (since at this time there was still really only the one kind) realized that they were sitting on a great racket, and they began sort of, charging for the service of a wedding to create "holy matrimony".... That was all starting round the 1200s or so. Eventually arriving to a point where every wedding *had* to be performed at the local church by a priest, or else it was viewed as being a sacrilege.

Fast forward a bit, and now the Church has a bit less "power" but the State now realizes that the church has had sole domain of this racket, and creates a marriage license, thus creating their own racket (as well as jumping in on the one the church has had for a few hundred years). So really, in the whole of human history, the idea that a marriage is religious actually IS pretty recent, given the length of time we're discussing.

 RiTides wrote:
Exactly, Derek.

And sebster, the idea of religious marriages being a recent idea is pretty hilarious. There are lots of non-religious marriage ceremonies, sure, but to say religious ones are a recent idea... Lol. Both have been around a long time is much fairer to say, I think.

I agree with Derek, if I decide to live with a sibling I should get tax breaks, just like a couple. Why not? The issue gets muddied because of a word (like "marriage") which has vastly different meanings for people. Civil rights is the issue, so pass a civil rights law. It's the fastest way. In this country, my state already approved this (and I voted for it). But to get support nationally, focusing on the civil rights issue is the winning argument, imo.

It depends what you call recent. Religious marriages were imposed in the UK in the mid 18th century.

As regards the tax issue, there is a reasonable argument that everyone should be taxed as an individual. If you decide to shack up with your brother, cousin, a friend or a marriage partner, it should not affect your tax status at all. Why should you get a tax break?

The reasoning behind the tax breaks for married people is firstly that children are best produced within a stable married life and secondly that couples who get formally married are registered, which allows the state to administer tax breaks for them. (Not that the tax breaks are that good in the UK anyway.)

Agreed regarding what the issues are KK, and it looks like we've got a lot of issues mixed together here. Because we were discussing it in light of Judaism earlier, here is a quick page on the origin of marriage in that particular culture / religion:

http://www.reformjudaism.org/brief-history-marriage

Obviously, how countries, societies, religions all over the world recognize marriage is going to be different. Speaking only for myself, the state of Maryland giving me a certificate is not what made me consider myself married.

This is why, in my view, I only really care what the government does about this regarding civil rights- and those rights should extend to all unions. I think the vast majority of people are pretty well agreed upon that, at least, which is great.

But how marriage is viewed (as a religious, state, or simply personal arrangement) is probably too broad a topic to accurately summarize, as there are so many different facets to it depending on country/religion/worldview, as several of you have rightfully pointed out. A few have done so in quite different ways, though, which makes sense given that we're all coming from different starting points (and different countries, which is also great). The responses here illustrate how differently the term is viewed by different people, which makes it challenging to make any kind of broad statements about it.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Otherwise why else are all common examples two men, not two women? Fratboy homophobia, that's why..

Why are you so intolerant of fratboy homophobia?

I think you can find homosexuality immoral without having to be "homophobic". From a non-religious perspective, I find it to be abnormal, deviant behavior that is immoral. That isn't to single it out either. I find voyeurism and sadomasochism to be abnormal and deviant as well. That is how i'd categorize it. Does that make me a bigot for thinking it's immoral? no.. What would make me a bigot is whether or not i'd discriminate base on that which I most certainly do not advocate.

Bigotry is defined as..

stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

Having an opinion isn't what makes one a bigot. It's being intolerant of others that have a different opinion. In fact, an example of bigotry would be to attack religion and religious people for believing that homosexuality is immoral. Being intolerant of religion is much more politically correct than being intolerant of homosexuality in the USA today.

I would argue that there are way more bigoted comments in here than most people realize...





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
As regards the tax issue, there is a reasonable argument that everyone should be taxed as an individual. If you decide to shack up with your brother, cousin, a friend or a marriage partner, it should not affect your tax status at all. Why should you get a tax break?

Why should income be taxed in the 1st place? Why not have all taxes be consumption based?

dereksatkinson wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Otherwise why else are all common examples two men, not two women? Fratboy homophobia, that's why..

Why are you so intolerant of fratboy homophobia?

I think you can find homosexuality immoral without having to be "homophobic". From a non-religious perspective, I find it to be abnormal, deviant behavior that is immoral. That isn't to single it out either. I find voyeurism and sadomasochism to be abnormal and deviant as well. That is how i'd categorize it. Does that make me a bigot for thinking it's immoral? no.. What would make me a bigot is whether or not i'd discriminate base on that which I most certainly do not advocate.

Bigotry is defined as..

stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

Having an opinion isn't what makes one a bigot. It's being intolerant of others that have a different opinion. In fact, an example of bigotry would be to attack religion and religious people for believing that homosexuality is immoral. Being intolerant of religion is much more politically correct than being intolerant of homosexuality in the USA today.

I would argue that there are way more bigoted comments in here than most people realize...





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
As regards the tax issue, there is a reasonable argument that everyone should be taxed as an individual. If you decide to shack up with your brother, cousin, a friend or a marriage partner, it should not affect your tax status at all. Why should you get a tax break?

Why should income be taxed in the 1st place? Why not have all taxes be consumption based?

They get to tax you twice now. Two smaller taxes are easier pills to swallow then huge price hikes on consumptions. Not to mention that this would be terrible for your export. People from the US would just start buying stuff from other countries.

That is why.

"why have an income tax" is probably a topic for it's own thread...

 Ouze wrote:
The other argument is that the state has an interest in perpetuating itself and so has a bias towards recognizing marriages that will produce offspring....It's a gakky argument, obviously, since plenty of couple marry and don't have kids, or people who have had hysterectomies or vasectomies or are just barren or whatever still get married, but you asked and there it is.

I'm not looking for gakky arguments that fall apart as soon as you at them. As you point out, this argument is non-starter.

Ouze wrote:
Since straight marriage is so much more common, it's rare that anyone should ask me, "how do you feel about straight people getting married"; but I assure you my answer would be the same: that marriage is a private covenant between two consenting adults and does not require government participation.

Do you support expanding marriage to gays? Your position on marriage is completely unrealistic and nonsensical, so it's not even an option under consideration nor will it ever be. So my question is: Given that straight people will continue to be allowed to marry and gain all the benefits of marriage, and given that taking state recognition of marriage from straight people is not a viable option, do you continue to oppose expanding the franchise to include gays?

Because as I said, refusing to expand the franchise to include gays on the grounds that straight people shouldn't be allowed to get married either is an intellectually dishonest argument. The consequences of acting on such a position are that straight people continue to enjoy marriage rights and gay people don't, and pretending the consequences are otherwise is disingenuous..


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dereksatkinson wrote:
I think you can find homosexuality immoral without having to be "homophobic". From a non-religious perspective, I find it to be abnormal, deviant behavior that is immoral.... Does that make me a bigot for thinking it's immoral?

Yes, that makes you a bigot. A bigot is a person who believes that people like themselves are inherently superior to people not like themselves. If you believe that homosexuality is immoral, then you necessarily believe that heterosexuality is superior -- unless you want to make the utterly ridiculous claim that you don't believe being moral is superior to being immoral. That would be an absurd position to take.

The belief that homosexuality is immoral is itself an example of homophobia. There is no rational argument to support the position that homosexuality is immoral. Homosexuality in-of-itself harms no one, and a preference for members of the same sex over members of the opposite sex is no more moral or immoral than a preference for vanilla ice cream over chocolate, or a preference for metal over hip-hop. Morality certainly can come into play in relationships, and there are immoral ways to treat partners (rape, abuse, etc.) but those are all separate from the issue of the morality of homosexuality.

When you say its immoral, I would suggest that what you mean is that you find it gross or icky. This is not a rational position, but rather a position rooted in fear and ignorance. Hence, homophobia.

dereksatkinson wrote:
Why are you so intolerant of fratboy homophobia?

Because it is disgusting.

I think you can find homosexuality immoral without having to be "homophobic". From a non-religious perspective, I find it to be abnormal, deviant behavior that is immoral. That isn't to single it out either. I find voyeurism and sadomasochism to be abnormal and deviant as well. That is how i'd categorize it.

That's fine if you call that your "opinion" and you would be wrong. It is not abnormal, nor is it deviant. By labeling homosexuality as "abnormal and/or deviant" and then placing in a category that includes sexual fetishes (most of which are not abnormal or deviant and are merely one of the myriad of ways to explore the human sexual experience) you are then telling a gay person that they just think "incorrectly" which flies in the face of what is known about human homosexuality; it is a normal and natural variation of human sexuality.

The other troubling aspect of your views of homosexuality is you since you place with things you find "dirty" or "immoral," you are now positioning yourself above that person, marginalizing their existence because they aren't as "good" or as "pure" as someone with you upstanding morals.

Does that make me a bigot for thinking it's immoral?

Yes.

What would make me a bigot is whether or not i'd discriminate base on that which I most certainly do not advocate.

Bigotry is not only defined on how you act towards people, but in also in how you view them.

Having an opinion isn't what makes one a bigot. It's being intolerant of others that have a different opinion. In fact, an example of bigotry would be to attack religion and religious people for believing that homosexuality is immoral. Being intolerant of religion is much more politically correct than being intolerant of homosexuality in the USA today.

No, you and people like you like to play up the paradox of intolerance, which is to say that a truly tolerant person should tolerate everything, no matter what.

It is utter crap.

The reason is when you try to legislate using your intolerance by, for example, outlawing a marriage between two consenting adults. That kind of intolerance is not justified because it is now imposing on the liberty of citizens. We allow the KKK to have rallies and hold meetings (as long as they are peaceful) without repercussions from the government because it is a guaranteed right in this country, just like it is the right for you to say what you want about homosexuals without the fear of the government coming to your house and arresting you. However, legislating through the lens of racism or homophobia cannot be tolerated in a just society. Besides, the "attacking" of religions that claim homosexual is immoral is not actually attacking them. If your religion claims homosexuality is immoral, that's fine. Your church won't marry a gay couple, that's fine too; our freedom of religion allows that. It crosses the line in to "not fine" when churches pump money in to defeating ballot initiatives legalizing gay marriage (or as I like to call it, "marriage"). The right to religious liberty doesn't mean the right to impose what you believe on the minority.

The bottom line is this:
You want to claim that gays are an affront to Nature and a deviant stain on society? Fine.
You want to make anti-sodomy laws and tell who is allowed to marry who? Nope.

In fact, the idea that marriage equality is even on a ballot goes against the foundations of this country:
"One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." -Justice Robert Jackson, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943)

I would argue that there are way more bigoted comments in here than most people realize...

And you would be wrong... again.

friendlycommissar wrote:

dereksatkinson wrote:
I think you can find homosexuality immoral without having to be "homophobic". From a non-religious perspective, I find it to be abnormal, deviant behavior that is immoral.... Does that make me a bigot for thinking it's immoral?

Yes, that makes you a bigot. A bigot is a person who believes that people like themselves are inherently superior to people not like themselves. If you believe that homosexuality is immoral, then you necessarily believe that heterosexuality is superior -- unless you want to make the utterly ridiculous claim that you don't believe being moral is superior to being immoral. That would be an absurd position to take.

Umm actually there is nothing about morality that suggests superior/inferior. You have your definitions mixed up. I already provided the definition of bigotry and you are throwing that term around pretty damn loosely.

immoral means..

not conforming to accepted standards of morality

Morality means..

a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.

Morality is a system of values and principles of conduct.. Think about that for one moment.. Every single person has a variance in what they believe to be right and wrong.

friendlycommissar wrote:
When you say its immoral, I would suggest that what you mean is that you find it gross or icky. This is not a rational position, but rather a position rooted in fear and ignorance. Hence, homophobia.

Homophobia means..

irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality

I do not fear or discriminate against homosexuality. I consider it a form of sexual deviance and it has no basis on how I view the value of an individual. All that sexual deviance is that it's different from societal norms which it most certainly is. In fact, by being unwilling to accept that people's beliefs can deviate from your own and actively trying to say that no one else is entitled to their own opinion, you are displaying a textbook case of bigotry. Heterosexuals do not have to accept homosexuality as "right" any more than homosexuals have to accept heterosexuals as "right". Morality is extremely subjective and intolerance of the morality of others is 100% bigotry.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
blah blah blah lots of misrepresentation.. homosexuality isn't sexually deviant..

When it comes to medical classifications, it most certainly is. There are currently 549 paraphilias. Don't think homosexuality is being singled out because sexual deviance is widespread and not really all that big of a deal. You are being defensive when there is no need to be.

I am tolerant of your point of view.. it's very disappointing that you are unable to be tolerant of someone's opinion that differs from your own.

dereksatkinson wrote:
Umm actually there is nothing about morality that suggests superior/inferior.

That is an utterly ridiculous assertion. That which is moral is superior to that which is immoral. This is so obvious and integral to the very concept of morality that to claim otherwise is absurd. When you find yourself arguing that " there is nothing about morality that suggests superior/inferior" it's time to stop, step back from the keyboard, and completely re-asses your entire worldview.

Morality is a system of values and principles of conduct.. Think about that for one moment.. Every single person has a variance in what they believe to be right and wrong.

Yes, but there are no people who think that what is right is not also superior to what is wrong. That would be absurd. To say it is right to do X and wrong to do Y is to say that X is better than Y. To argue otherwise is to be completely irrational and enter a world where up is down, left is right, black is white and evil is good. You enter a realm where no sense can be made.

dereksatkinson wrote:

Umm actually there is nothing about morality that suggests superior/inferior.

You mean aside from "good" and "not good"?

Morality is subjective was what I got from what he was saying.

 Crablezworth wrote:
Morality is subjective was what I got from what he was saying.

Exactly. Which it is... That is what tolerance is about. It's not about agreeing with people when it's convenient for you. It's about being able to accept views that are not your own that you find offensive.

Tolerance is..

the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with

Bigotry is...

intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

Google it... Use the words correctly.

 Crablezworth wrote:
Morality is subjective was what I got from what he was saying.

Yes, but that's not actually relevant.

Person A and Person B may think different things are right and wrong, but both Person A and Person B will agree that what is wrong is bad and what is right is good. This is essentially tautological -- what is right is what is good. We might disagree on what is right, but anyone who claims that what they believe is right is not also good, and that what is wrong is not also bad, then you really can't have a meaningful conversation with that person. They're speaking gibberish.

You can't say that homosexuality is immoral and then turn around and claim you aren't saying it's unethical, bad, morally wrong, wrongful, wicked, evil, foul, unprincipled, unscrupulous, dishonorable, dishonest, unconscionable, iniquitous, disreputable, corrupt, depraved, vile, villainous, nefarious, base, miscreant; sinful, godless, impure, unchaste, unvirtuous, shameless, degenerate, debased, debauched, dissolute, reprobate, lewd, obscene, perverse, perverted; licentious, wanton, promiscuous, loose; all of which are synonyms for immoral.

dereksatkinson wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
blah blah blah lots of misrepresentation.. homosexuality isn't sexually deviant..

When it comes to medical classifications, it most certainly is. There are currently 549 paraphilias. Don't think homosexuality is being singled out because sexual deviance is widespread and not really all that big of a deal. You are being defensive when there is no need to be.

I am tolerant of your point of view.. it's very disappointing that you are unable to be tolerant of someone's opinion that differs from your own.

Trying to use the paradox of in tolerance as a way to explain your bigotry is intellectually dishonest. It also makes you look like a fool. You cannot explain your point in any other way than, "You don't tolerate what I think dude!"

Besides, if you are going to try and sound smart and bring up medical classifications and paraphilias, you should understand homosexuality had been removed from the DSM in 1974 by the American Psychiatric Association (the largest association in the world). It isn't a mental disorder nor a sexual deviancy, it is well understood to be a normal variation of human sexuality. Typically, the only psychologists or psychiatrist who still try to classify homosexual as a sexual deviancy are the ones who are religious fundamentalists and are employed by far-right funded think tanks.

You are using your "Eww, that's icky!" feelings to try and legislate the rights of minority which is in stark contrast of the core principal of our Republic: liberty.

Try again, friend.

dereksatkinson wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Morality is subjective was what I got from what he was saying.

Exactly. Which it is... That is what tolerance is about. It's not about agreeing with people when it's convenient for you. It's about being able to accept views that are not your own that you find offensive.

Tolerance is..

the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with

Bigotry is...

intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

Google it... Use the words correctly.

I think dereksatkinson and people like him who make the "true tolerance means tolerating my intolerance" argument should be exiled from the internet and general society, sent to a labor camp, and worked to death. I and my friends are going to form a political action committee and raise money to support politicians who will help us realize this goal. Anyone who opposes us in this goal -- especially dereksatkinson -- is a bigot and should learn to be more tolerant of others.

EDIT: In case it's not obvious, I am satirizing derek's position. I don't really want to work him to death in a camp.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Trying to use the paradox of in tolerance as a way to explain your bigotry is intellectually dishonest. It also makes you look like a fool. You cannot explain your point in any other way than, "You don't tolerate what I think dude!"

It's not a paradox. It's called being consistent. If I find someone's belief's offensive, I don't have to like it. I don't expect you to understand (because you clearly don't understand the concept) but there is a major difference between tolerance and acceptance. You are trying to force acceptance of your beliefs on other people and I don't agree with that on principle.

friendlycommissar wrote:

I think dereksatkinson and people like him who make the "true tolerance means tolerating my intolerance" argument should be exiled from the internet and general society, sent to a labor camp, and worked to death. I and my friends are going to form a political action committee and raise money to support politicians who will help us realize this goal. Anyone who opposes us in this goal -- especially dereksatkinson -- is a bigot and should learn to be more tolerant of others.

Good luck with that. At least you are owning up to how you are actually authoritarian and can't tolerate the views that are different from your own. Gold star



Automatically Appended Next Post:

friendlycommissar wrote:

You can't say that homosexuality is immoral and then turn around and claim you aren't saying it's unethical, bad, morally wrong, wrongful, wicked, evil, foul, unprincipled, unscrupulous, dishonorable, dishonest, unconscionable, iniquitous, disreputable, corrupt, depraved, vile, villainous, nefarious, base, miscreant; sinful, godless, impure, unchaste, unvirtuous, shameless, degenerate, debased, debauched, dissolute, reprobate, lewd, obscene, perverse, perverted; licentious, wanton, promiscuous, loose; all of which are synonyms for immoral.

So when I say theft is immoral i'm actually saying it's promiscuous? LOL context matters kiddo.

dereksatkinson wrote:

friendlycommissar wrote:

I think dereksatkinson and people like him who make the "true tolerance means tolerating my intolerance" argument should be exiled from the internet and general society, sent to a labor camp, and worked to death. I and my friends are going to form a political action committee and raise money to support politicians who will help us realize this goal. Anyone who opposes us in this goal -- especially dereksatkinson -- is a bigot and should learn to be more tolerant of others.

Good luck with that. At least you are owning up to how you are actually authoritarian and can't tolerate the views that are different from your own. Gold star

There's only one person in this conversation who is actually and sincerely defending using the power of the state to deny people fundamental rights because he does not tolerate their difference. That person is you. If you want to define authoritarian in that way, then you just called yourself an authoritarian.

friendlycommissar wrote:

You can't say that homosexuality is immoral and then turn around and claim you aren't saying it's unethical, bad, morally wrong, wrongful, wicked, evil, foul, unprincipled, unscrupulous, dishonorable, dishonest, unconscionable, iniquitous, disreputable, corrupt, depraved, vile, villainous, nefarious, base, miscreant; sinful, godless, impure, unchaste, unvirtuous, shameless, degenerate, debased, debauched, dissolute, reprobate, lewd, obscene, perverse, perverted; licentious, wanton, promiscuous, loose; all of which are synonyms for immoral.

So when I say theft is immoral i'm actually saying it's promiscuous? LOL context matters kiddo.

Obviously not every synonym is going to apply in every context, but being pedantic doesn't make your position any less ridiculous. Those words are synonyms, and thus similar in meaning but not exactly the same. It is completely disingenuous to pretend that calling something immoral is not a negative value judgement.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:
One thing on taxes: tax advantages for married couples is a relic of the past. It made sense back then when a marriage was guaranteed to have numerous children growing up in a stable environment. The concept of marriage has changed a lot and lost most of its former value thus shouldn't be a reason for lower taxes. Actual parents, whether married or not, should get bonuses for giving birth to a child instead of just blandly handing those out to random people marrying each other.

Married, childless couples that both work tend to suffer a tax penalty for being married. The couples that gain the most tax benefit from marriage are traditional one working parent, one stay-at-home parent. So in most cases the issue you raise is not actually an issue -- people who are marrying for reasons other than child-rearing do not get subsidized, while couples marrying in order to provide a stable home for children do get subsidized.

If immoral is good why are morals good?
If immoral is good why is it you are against samesex marriage.
If immoral is bad then you do think samesex marriage is bad.
But why do you think it's immoral?

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

dereksatkinson wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
blah blah blah lots of misrepresentation.. homosexuality isn't sexually deviant..

When it comes to medical classifications, it most certainly is. There are currently 549 paraphilias. Don't think homosexuality is being singled out because sexual deviance is widespread and not really all that big of a deal. You are being defensive when there is no need to be.

I am tolerant of your point of view.. it's very disappointing that you are unable to be tolerant of someone's opinion that differs from your own.

Trying to use the paradox of in tolerance as a way to explain your bigotry is intellectually dishonest. It also makes you look like a fool. You cannot explain your point in any other way than, "You don't tolerate what I think dude!"

Besides, if you are going to try and sound smart and bring up medical classifications and paraphilias, you should understand homosexuality had been removed from the DSM in 1974 by the American Psychiatric Association (the largest association in the world). It isn't a mental disorder nor a sexual deviancy, it is well understood to be a normal variation of human sexuality. Typically, the only psychologists or psychiatrist who still try to classify homosexual as a sexual deviancy are the ones who are religious fundamentalists and are employed by far-right funded think tanks.

You are using your "Eww, that's icky!" feelings to try and legislate the rights of minority which is in stark contrast of the core principal of our Republic: liberty.

Try again, friend.

Ya know, this may be one of the few times where I have agreed with Scotty on this site....

As others have said, Marriage ultimately comes down to the people directly involved (ie, the actual couple). Personally, the State shouldn't be allowed to call their licenses a "Marriage License" because it still drags up those old-timey feelings in the less open minded of people. Obviously the people are still going to say they're married, because to them, they are (whether some overly religious zealot type says, "You're gay, you cant be married because God said so!" tries to say otherwise or not).

friendlycommissar wrote:


Married, childless couples that both work tend to suffer a tax penalty for being married. The couples that gain the most tax benefit from marriage are traditional one working parent, one stay-at-home parent. So in most cases the issue you raise is not actually an issue -- people who are marrying for reasons other than child-rearing do not get subsidized, while couples marrying in order to provide a stable home for children do get subsidized.

Check my flag. DakkaDakka is an international forum.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
Exactly, Derek.

And sebster, the idea of religious marriages being a recent idea is pretty hilarious. There are lots of non-religious marriage ceremonies, sure, but to say religious ones are a recent idea... Lol. Both have been around a long time is much fairer to say, I think.

Actually, during the Late-Middle Ages is when marriage became a "religious" thing. It originally started out as a power play.... It used to be, especially among the nobility, that marriages were used to unite two houses, expand land borders, secure peace treaties, etc. Along came this idea that kings/queens had a "Divine Right" to be the king/queen. So someone got it in there head, that they would get the local priest to say that God had condoned/blessed the union, and therefore secured the divinity of this "Right". Pretty soon, minor lordlings, knights and just about anyone who could claim to be a noble was doing the same thing. Eventually, the Church (since at this time there was still really only the one kind) realized that they were sitting on a great racket, and they began sort of, charging for the service of a wedding to create "holy matrimony".... That was all starting round the 1200s or so. Eventually arriving to a point where every wedding *had* to be performed at the local church by a priest, or else it was viewed as being a sacrilege.

Fast forward a bit, and now the Church has a bit less "power" but the State now realizes that the church has had sole domain of this racket, and creates a marriage license, thus creating their own racket (as well as jumping in on the one the church has had for a few hundred years). So really, in the whole of human history, the idea that a marriage is religious actually IS pretty recent, given the length of time we're discussing.

Are you saying that all the records of people being married in religious ceromonies thousands of years before the late middle ages are false? I ask because it seems you are saying there was no such thing as religion sanctioned marriage until then, and it was solely for purposes of power.

I am surprised that this thread has made it this far.
As for my own 2 pennies worth, I have no idea why goverments are still thinking that same sex marriage is a bad thing. Its perfectly fine with me.

 master of ordinance wrote:
I am surprised that this thread has made it this far.
As for my own 2 pennies worth, I have no idea why goverments are still thinking that same sex marriage is a bad thing. Its perfectly fine with me.

It's seemed fairly civil, outside of a couple of incidents, which considering the nature of the topic, is indeed amazing. Kudos to all on both sides for not getting all uptight.

Relapse wrote:


Are you saying that all the records of people being married in religious ceromonies thousands of years before the late middle ages are false? I ask because it seems you are saying there was no such thing as religion sanctioned marriage until then, and it was solely for purposes of power.

They certainly did happen, but when you read of many of those types of marriages, they are powerful/famous people in some way during their time. Rarely have I read of the "common man" getting a religiously sanctioned wedding done, by a priest. I mean Romeo/Juliet didn't say, "we want to get married, so we need to go to [Freya's, Apollo's, Flying Spaghetti Monster's] temple so that it's a right and proper wedding"

And if you look at some of the power struggles, particularly in France when there were 'two' Popes, the Church certainly put pressure on the kings and other nobility to say, "God won't recognize your marriage, and you'll go to hell for intercourse out of wedlock, unless you pay one of my priests to do the ceremony"

Ultimately, it became both a power play, as well as a money grabbing scheme enacted by the Clergy and Nobility of the middle ages.