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.
Fishboy wrote: With the Legal precedence in the U.S. Allowing gay marriage the groups that believe in beastiality, pedophiles, etc are already using that Supreme Court decision as a spring board to prove validity in their lifestyle. Again I ask you....where do we draw the line? Your opinion may vary based on your moral compass but you asked for opinions and reasoning and it was time for someone that voted nay to speak up.
THIS is ridiculous. Comparing a willing union between two people to having relations (or a "relationship") with an animal or a very young person, who is unable to voice consent, is a strawman argument at best. It's the one everyone uses though, but to me it's analogous to "well, I punched a guy and got off with minor charges and saw no jail time. Isn't killing him just 'a bit worse'?"
Not attacking you in particular, just the people who think one thing justifies another (peripherally related) thing.
Verviedi wrote: Dakka is one of the most conservative forums I've seen, honestly.
Dakka is very left, actually, given the feedback of users on most political topics. As others said, it's mostlly an age thing. I'm in my mid-and-closer-to-end-than-I-would-like-to-thirties and deeply conservative, but a lot of people here are young and thus more open to stuff like homosexual marriage. Moderation also plays a part into it.
I'm pretty sure it is mostly a European thing, given the large European population of Dakka and the traditionally more socially liberal attitudes of said nations (especially compared to Americaland), it is no wonder that Dakka might seem "liberal" to someone from the new world.
The only real thing that makes me kind of sad about this topic is, sometimes I forget. I don't consider it gay marriage, I just consider it... marriage.
Like, I don't nap in my my gay bed with my gay cats and think about gay food...
I don't wake up of a morning and put on my gay hat*, and think about what objects I can rub my rainbow flags on.
I wake up and I think, "Is it sunny? Oh hey, there's that person I quite like living with."
Sometimes I think, "I hate how much your snoring keeps me awake." but I'm pretty sure that's not gender-specific.
The other day a friend of mine pointed out two guys holding hands in a cafe and said, "Aww!"
And I thought, "...? That's nice... This really shouldn't be a noteworthy occasion though."
It's absolutely not directly comparable, but consider how odd you'd feel if your friend was pointing out two folk of different race holding hands publicly. I use the example because it used to be considered daring, now it's day to day life.
Meandering back to point, I'm all for recognition and celebration of the hardship and the fighting folk go through to earn their rights, but I don't feel like the marriage itself should be regarded as any more special or noteworthy than other marriages, if I'm being serious.
I look forward to the day when it isn't. Well, I hope there is one. It's sometimes hard to imagine.
I post from this side of the table, not because I particularly want to be recognised as anything, but 'cause I figure sometimes it's easy to forget the people you're taking about aren't all just hypothetical or "the gays".
*Okay, sometimes I totally do. But you would too, if you saw it.
Fishboy wrote: With the Legal precedence in the U.S. Allowing gay marriage the groups that believe in beastiality, pedophiles, etc are already using that Supreme Court decision as a spring board to prove validity in their lifestyle. Again I ask you....where do we draw the line? Your opinion may vary based on your moral compass but you asked for opinions and reasoning and it was time for someone that voted nay to speak up.
THIS is ridiculous. Comparing a willing union between two people to having relations (or a "relationship") with an animal or a very young person, who is unable to voice consent, is a strawman argument at best. It's the one everyone uses though, but to me it's analogous to "well, I punched a guy and got off with minor charges and saw no jail time. Isn't killing him just 'a bit worse'?"
Not attacking you in particular, just the people who think one thing justifies another (peripherally related) thing.
Leave gay relationships alone, but also allow religious and community groups to refuse to participate in marriage ceremonies without penalty
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
I don't have any issues whatsoever with the concept. I've never had that compunction myself, but as with just about anything I assume that the more people of differing thoughts, feelings, values and opinions you add to a situation, the more difficult it gets. That is to say, even if all three (or more!) of you are perfectly happy at the onset of the relationship, I don't think it would take long for jealousy to come out. Real or imagined, it matters little.
Basically, I don't think people are hard-wired for monogamy just as I don't think they're hard-wired for heterosexuality. Monogamous heterosexuals merely seem to be the most common of sexual desires.
Fishboy wrote: With the Legal precedence in the U.S. Allowing gay marriage the groups that believe in beastiality, pedophiles, etc are already using that Supreme Court decision as a spring board to prove validity in their lifestyle. Again I ask you....where do we draw the line? Your opinion may vary based on your moral compass but you asked for opinions and reasoning and it was time for someone that voted nay to speak up.
THIS is ridiculous. Comparing a willing union between two people to having relations (or a "relationship") with an animal or a very young person, who is unable to voice consent, is a strawman argument at best. It's the one everyone uses though, but to me it's analogous to "well, I punched a guy and got off with minor charges and saw no jail time. Isn't killing him just 'a bit worse'?"
Not attacking you in particular, just the people who think one thing justifies another (peripherally related) thing.
How about polygamy?
So if multiple consenting adults want to get married, whats the problem?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/27 00:57:33
Verviedi wrote: Dakka is one of the most conservative forums I've seen, honestly.
Dakka is very left, actually, given the feedback of users on most political topics. As others said, it's mostlly an age thing. I'm in my mid-and-closer-to-end-than-I-would-like-to-thirties and deeply conservative, but a lot of people here are young and thus more open to stuff like homosexual marriage. Moderation also plays a part into it.
I'm pretty sure it is mostly a European thing, given the large European population of Dakka and the traditionally more socially liberal attitudes of said nations (especially compared to Americaland), it is no wonder that Dakka might seem "liberal" to someone from the new world.
I would say that their input still is more to the right of the norm. It's an expensive hobby, so those with more money and interests regarding it will be more frequently turning up, particularly among games with older target audiences, i.e. historicals.
Still, there are plenty of youngsters as well.
BlapBlapBlap: bringing idiocy and mischief where it should never set foot since 2011.
BlapBlapBlap wrote:What sort of idiot quotes themselves in their sigs? Who could possibly be that arrogant?
Fishboy wrote: With the Legal precedence in the U.S. Allowing gay marriage the groups that believe in beastiality, pedophiles, etc are already using that Supreme Court decision as a spring board to prove validity in their lifestyle. Again I ask you....where do we draw the line? Your opinion may vary based on your moral compass but you asked for opinions and reasoning and it was time for someone that voted nay to speak up.
THIS is ridiculous. Comparing a willing union between two people to having relations (or a "relationship") with an animal or a very young person, who is unable to voice consent, is a strawman argument at best. It's the one everyone uses though, but to me it's analogous to "well, I punched a guy and got off with minor charges and saw no jail time. Isn't killing him just 'a bit worse'?"
Not attacking you in particular, just the people who think one thing justifies another (peripherally related) thing.
How about polygamy?
If it's between consenting adults, who gives a feth?
I know a few people in polyamorous relationships. I have to give those people credit for their time-management skills. It's... impressive.
Leave gay relationships alone, but also allow religious and community groups to refuse to participate in marriage ceremonies without penalty
I have yet to see a law, anywhere, that forces any religious official to perform a ceremony of any kind that violates their beliefs. That bakery in Oregon? They violated a state law. They would have been in just as much trouble if they had refused service to someone who was Black, or who was old, or who was a different religion than they are, because all of those things are protected classes in both State and Federal law. In Oregon, sexual orientation is also a protected class.
And why did they lose their business? Because regular Oregonians did not want to do business with bigots. Welcome to Capitalism.
It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised.
Fishboy wrote: With the Legal precedence in the U.S. Allowing gay marriage the groups that believe in beastiality, pedophiles, etc are already using that Supreme Court decision as a spring board to prove validity in their lifestyle. Again I ask you....where do we draw the line? Your opinion may vary based on your moral compass but you asked for opinions and reasoning and it was time for someone that voted nay to speak up.
THIS is ridiculous. Comparing a willing union between two people to having relations (or a "relationship") with an animal or a very young person, who is unable to voice consent, is a strawman argument at best. It's the one everyone uses though, but to me it's analogous to "well, I punched a guy and got off with minor charges and saw no jail time. Isn't killing him just 'a bit worse'?"
Not attacking you in particular, just the people who think one thing justifies another (peripherally related) thing.
How about polygamy?
If it's between consenting adults, who gives a feth?
I know a few people in polyamorous relationships. I have to give those people credit for their time-management skills. It's... impressive.
Leave gay relationships alone, but also allow religious and community groups to refuse to participate in marriage ceremonies without penalty
I have yet to see a law, anywhere, that forces any religious official to perform a ceremony of any kind that violates their beliefs. That bakery in Oregon? They violated a state law. They would have been in just as much trouble if they had refused service to someone who was Black, or who was old, or who was a different religion than they are, because all of those things are protected classes in both State and Federal law. In Oregon, sexual orientation is also a protected class.
And why did they lose their business? Because regular Oregonians did not want to do business with bigots. Welcome to Capitalism.
That bakery also Doxxed that gay couple, just to add to it.
Diversification by spreading an individual's genetic information among multiple partners gives a more diverse genetic pool, ergo increasing the likelihood of having genetically viable offspring. It's a natural phenomenon.
BlapBlapBlap: bringing idiocy and mischief where it should never set foot since 2011.
BlapBlapBlap wrote:What sort of idiot quotes themselves in their sigs? Who could possibly be that arrogant?
Iron_Captain wrote: You are right, but I did not miss the point. Exactly this is why I would like to see civil and religious marriage seperated. It will keep civil marriage as it is, and make it available to all people without reasonable objections from the different religions. At the same time, it will also make religious people happy as they can now have their covenant with God without being forced to accept homosexual people into it.
We already have religious and civil marriages in the US. They are separate, but considered equally valid in the eyes of the state. A clergy member can officiate a religious ceremony, sign your license, and send it to the state. No church or pastor or reverend can be forced to marry gay people, which is fine; no different than Catholic churches refusing to marry a Lutheran couple. No religion is being forced to recognize two gay people as being married either. The judge or other agent of the state that is authorized to perform marriages is forced to do so if called upon because he is acting in a civil, secular capacity.
I suspect that the situation in the US is the same as in the Netherlands, which means there is only one kind of valid marriage, which is civil marriage. Whether you want it or not, a marriage is a covenant with God in the eyes of the Church, and every (civil) marriage is seen as such (because there is no other kind of marriage allowed). Your marriage, whether you want it or not, carries significance in traditional Christian theology as one of the sacraments.
Again, I propose a seperation of these two concepts of marriage.
Your religious ceremony is considered valid to state because of the way marriage works in this country. It isn't and can't change
Gay people are not the same as straight people, otherwise there would not have been a distinction between gay and straight in the first place, and gay people would not have needed to fight for their rights.
Ah, but they are the same, just like black people and white people are the same. Everyone is the same and everyone deserves the same rights.
They are still people, just like you and me, but just as there are differences between you and me, there are differences betweem them and us. Not all people are the same.
I think all people deserve equal rights, but not acknowledging the differences between different groups of people is refusing to acknowledge reality.
Sorry mate, you're just flat out wrong. I'm not even going to argue with you about it. You're just wrong. So go ahead and whine and bitch about how I didn't respond. Frankly, my country already tried the separate but equal thing and we don't need to go back down that path.
I don't think Fishboy is a bigot for saying he is tired of the demands made by the LGBT community (altough I am curious to the reason why he is tired of this, if it does not personally affect him).
He's already told us why he's tired of it: they're immoral sinners that don't deserve to be treated the same as him. He made that point quite clear, really.
But even if he were a bigot, it is still wrong to start calling him out as such, because that shuts down any meaningful discussion and can only lead to conflict.
"You're intolerant of my intolerance." -said no reasonable person, ever.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
Iron_Captain wrote: You are right, but I did not miss the point. Exactly this is why I would like to see civil and religious marriage seperated. It will keep civil marriage as it is, and make it available to all people without reasonable objections from the different religions. At the same time, it will also make religious people happy as they can now have their covenant with God without being forced to accept homosexual people into it.
We already have religious and civil marriages in the US. They are separate, but considered equally valid in the eyes of the state. A clergy member can officiate a religious ceremony, sign your license, and send it to the state. No church or pastor or reverend can be forced to marry gay people, which is fine; no different than Catholic churches refusing to marry a Lutheran couple. No religion is being forced to recognize two gay people as being married either. The judge or other agent of the state that is authorized to perform marriages is forced to do so if called upon because he is acting in a civil, secular capacity.
I suspect that the situation in the US is the same as in the Netherlands, which means there is only one kind of valid marriage, which is civil marriage. Whether you want it or not, a marriage is a covenant with God in the eyes of the Church, and every (civil) marriage is seen as such (because there is no other kind of marriage allowed). Your marriage, whether you want it or not, carries significance in traditional Christian theology as one of the sacraments.
Again, I propose a seperation of these two concepts of marriage.
Your religious ceremony is considered valid to state because of the way marriage works in this country. It isn't and can't change
Gay people are not the same as straight people, otherwise there would not have been a distinction between gay and straight in the first place, and gay people would not have needed to fight for their rights.
Ah, but they are the same, just like black people and white people are the same. Everyone is the same and everyone deserves the same rights.
They are still people, just like you and me, but just as there are differences between you and me, there are differences betweem them and us. Not all people are the same.
I think all people deserve equal rights, but not acknowledging the differences between different groups of people is refusing to acknowledge reality.
Sorry mate, you're just flat out wrong. I'm not even going to argue with you about it. You're just wrong. So go ahead and whine and bitch about how I didn't respond. Frankly, my country already tried the separate but equal thing and we don't need to go back down that path.
I don't think Fishboy is a bigot for saying he is tired of the demands made by the LGBT community (altough I am curious to the reason why he is tired of this, if it does not personally affect him).
He's already told us why he's tired of it: they're immoral sinners that don't deserve to be treated the same as him. He made that point quite clear, really.
But even if he were a bigot, it is still wrong to start calling him out as such, because that shuts down any meaningful discussion and can only lead to conflict.
"You're intolerant of my intolerance." -said no reasonable person, ever.
^^This guy, I like the cut of his jib
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/27 02:00:35
Verviedi wrote: Dakka is one of the most conservative forums I've seen, honestly.
This.
I don't think that's true. I think it just has a relatively prolific group of posters that kind of skews the anecdotal "feel" of the site. Dakka is mostly fairly young people, and young people tend to be substantially less conservative. Mix in all the European users and I think it skews even further left.
I'd like to point to this gay marriage poll we are having this tangent in as proof (84% in favor) but truthfully I think even most conservatives at this point favor gay marriage so that may not be a good example.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/27 02:09:26
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Diversification by spreading an individual's genetic information among multiple partners gives a more diverse genetic pool, ergo increasing the likelihood of having genetically viable offspring. It's a natural phenomenon.
Diversification by spreading an individual's genetic information among multiple partners gives a more diverse genetic pool, ergo increasing the likelihood of having genetically viable offspring. It's a natural phenomenon.
I hear a lot of you saying this.
Yet, it's not legal in the US.
Why not?
the same reason gay marriage wasnt? If you are trying to make a point just say it, you are sounding like you are full of straw.
So far as polygamy goes, man, I think consenting adults should be free to make their own choices with other consenting adults, but personally I think one miserable marriage seems like enough per person.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Ouze wrote: So far as polygamy goes, man, I think consenting adults should be free to make their own choices with other consenting adults, but personally I think one miserable marriage seems like enough per person.
Diversification by spreading an individual's genetic information among multiple partners gives a more diverse genetic pool, ergo increasing the likelihood of having genetically viable offspring. It's a natural phenomenon.
I hear a lot of you saying this.
Yet, it's not legal in the US.
Why not?
Because Mormons used to practice it, and Mormons used to be attacked and killed by other Christian groups in 19th century US. As far as brands of Protestantism go, the LDS is one of the most-persecuted in American history.
It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised.
Krellnus wrote: This is an interesting question for me that I truthfully can't answer as a yes or no.
On one hand I have no qualms with gay people and don't want to see them discriminated against.
On the other, I think marriage as an institution gives waaaay too many legal rights at this point in time.
Thanks for giving something to do that isn't my assignment Dakka
That's the basis of the push for it equalitywise.
I'm for it, it's just annoying how everyone has to continually make a big deal to try to stop it from happening, especially Tony.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
welshhoppo wrote: I think we should get rid of marriage altogether and just bind people with legal contracts. Replace ministers with solicitors and so on so forth.
Not really, but you get the idea.
But, gay people aren't causing me any harm, they don't cause cancer or obesity. So why should I care, or even have an opinion, on what they do with their lives.
At the core that's actually what it is, just with religious meaning put into it.
Even then, marriage has been around a lot longer than any of the religions that we have today.
Ouze wrote: So far as polygamy goes, man, I think consenting adults should be free to make their own choices with other consenting adults, but personally I think one miserable marriage seems like enough per person.
well one of those arguments sounds logical.
To be clear, I'm dividing "what I would like the law to be" from "my personal opinion", much like I do with abortion.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Another well-known example of a Church teaching changing is slavery. The Church came to a gradual understanding that slavery was immoral, and moved from a stance of condoning to condemning slavery. In this case, the foundational principle was the idea that humanity is made in imago Dei, the image and likeness of God. That principle never changed; it was expanded to include enslaved peoples once it was understood that they were entirely human.
Should we talk about Mormons and black people? What about Methodists allowing female pastors? Religions change as society changes. I know you aren't this obtuse so I am going to assume you are trolling.
Why do assume someone is trolling because he disagrees with you? ANd your article is what we call poopy.
Please cite a central Tenet that has changed in the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, Shiia or Sunni faiths?
I'd agree that my religion changes over time simply because revelations are received when we are ready for them. It's a lot like raising children you don't give more knowledge than they are ready for. In this way man receives new instruction from God as he is ready for it.
Another well-known example of a Church teaching changing is slavery. The Church came to a gradual understanding that slavery was immoral, and moved from a stance of condoning to condemning slavery. In this case, the foundational principle was the idea that humanity is made in imago Dei, the image and likeness of God. That principle never changed; it was expanded to include enslaved peoples once it was understood that they were entirely human.
Should we talk about Mormons and black people? What about Methodists allowing female pastors? Religions change as society changes. I know you aren't this obtuse so I am going to assume you are trolling.
Why do assume someone is trolling because he disagrees with you? ANd your article is what we call poopy.
Please cite a central Tenet that has changed in the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, Shiia or Sunni faiths?
I'd agree that my religion changes over time simply because revelations are received when we are ready for them. It's a lot like raising children you don't give more knowledge than they are ready for. In this way man receives new instruction from God as he is ready for it.
Fishboy wrote: With the Legal precedence in the U.S. Allowing gay marriage the groups that believe in beastiality, pedophiles, etc are already using that Supreme Court decision as a spring board to prove validity in their lifestyle. Again I ask you....where do we draw the line? Your opinion may vary based on your moral compass but you asked for opinions and reasoning and it was time for someone that voted nay to speak up.
THIS is ridiculous. Comparing a willing union between two people to having relations (or a "relationship") with an animal or a very young person, who is unable to voice consent, is a strawman argument at best. It's the one everyone uses though, but to me it's analogous to "well, I punched a guy and got off with minor charges and saw no jail time. Isn't killing him just 'a bit worse'?"
Not attacking you in particular, just the people who think one thing justifies another (peripherally related) thing.
How about polygamy?
Is just as good as HIPS plastic?
If it is between consenting adults i have no issues with but hey i am from then Netherlands Slaneesh galore
the same reason gay marriage wasnt? If you are trying to make a point just say it, you are sounding like you are full of straw.
There's no straw.
If we're going to offer any group protection under the law in regards to whom they enter the contract of marriage, we should allow all people. Polygamists should absolutely be afforded this opportunity. However, the same groups proffering so much support for homosexual marriages are incredibly silent in this regard.
cincydooley wrote: [ However, the same groups proffering so much support for homosexual marriages are incredibly silent in this regard.
The NRA also refuses to speak out on behalf of polygamy. It's almost like groups formed for one specific political lobby only focus on their one goal, hypocrites as they clearly are.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
the same reason gay marriage wasnt? If you are trying to make a point just say it, you are sounding like you are full of straw.
There's no straw.
If we're going to offer any group protection under the law in regards to whom they enter the contract of marriage, we should allow all people. Polygamists should absolutely be afforded this opportunity. However, the same groups proffering so much support for homosexual marriages are incredibly silent in this regard.
Ok, then what is your problem? Are you upset that the Pro Gay marriage community isn't fighting for polygomy? Your argument is full of straw and makes no fething sense.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/08/27 03:03:33
Ouze wrote: So far as polygamy goes, man, I think consenting adults should be free to make their own choices with other consenting adults, but personally I think one miserable marriage seems like enough per person.
well one of those arguments sounds logical.
To be clear, I'm dividing "what I would like the law to be" from "my personal opinion", much like I do with abortion.
We had a neighbor who had left a polygamist relationship, whose daughter would play with ours. It's an interesting thing to hear a 9 year old talk about wanting to be in a such a marriage when she grows up.
