Gays and Marriage

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Gays and Marriage

1 | ... | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26

1168 posts

Uber Geek

#667093 3-Aug-2012 16:57

mattRSK: You are taking what I said about being an exception out of context.

I don't think so. I read you post and I would have been offended if someone had said what you did about me.

Didn't anybody tell you I was a hacker?

mattRSK

822 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#667099 3-Aug-2012 16:57

crackrdbycracku:
mattRSK:
kyhwana2:

As I, other people and David have been saying, you can't make a moral judgement of sexuality, because sexuality isn't a choice.

And I am saying sexuality is a choice.

In the context of this debate why does it matter?

The debate is about changing the definition of marriage which I am opposed to for the reasons I have stated already.

kyhwana2

2566 posts

Uber Geek

#667106 3-Aug-2012 17:05

mattRSK:
kyhwana2:

As I, other people and David have been saying, you can't make a moral judgement of sexuality, because sexuality isn't a choice.

And I am saying sexuality is a choice.

If sexuality is a choice, there must have been a point when you thought "Hmm, you know what, I think i'll be straight". So when was that moment and why did you choose to be straight?

crackrdbycracku

1168 posts

Uber Geek

#667107 3-Aug-2012 17:06

mattRSK:

The debate is about changing the definition of marriage which I am opposed to for the reasons I have stated already.

OK, first let us be clear. We are talking about legal marriage. Nobody is saying how anybody defines marriage in terms of whatever deity they choose to worship will be forced to change.

That also presupposes that allowing people to legally, that distinction is important, marry who formally did could not changes the definition of marriage. Personally, I fail to see how South Africa allowing black people to legally marry white people changed the definition of marriage but anyway.

Now, into the main bit. The closest I can come to understanding you would be this:

If someone is born gay then there is not choice. No choice means there is no responsibility, it isn't their fault. As it is not their fault we can go a little easier on them despite that what they are doing is wrong. So they may have a stronger, but not convincing case to marry.

The converse is true, if it a choice they bear the full responsibility and therefore have no 'excuse'.

Come on, whether a person chooses to be gay or is born that way it does not matter. They should have the same access to marriage as any other NZ adult.

Didn't anybody tell you I was a hacker?

kyhwana2

2566 posts

Uber Geek

#667109 3-Aug-2012 17:10

crackrdbycracku:
mattRSK:

The debate is about changing the definition of marriage which I am opposed to for the reasons I have stated already.

OK, first let us be clear. We are talking about legal marriage. Nobody is saying how anybody defines marriage in terms of whatever deity they choose to worship will be forced to change.

Ahh, but to these people the fact we're talking about legal marriage doesn't matter.
They're all kneejerk "OMG, they want to join my club and I hate them and don't want them in my club!"

Also, most of them will be religious (Usually Christian, but muslim too) and since their diety says their way is the only way to go, it's their God Given Right to force their religious views about what marriage is onto the rest of us.

crackrdbycracku

1168 posts

Uber Geek

#667110 3-Aug-2012 17:13

kyhwana2:
crackrdbycracku:
mattRSK:

The debate is about changing the definition of marriage which I am opposed to for the reasons I have stated already.

OK, first let us be clear. We are talking about legal marriage. Nobody is saying how anybody defines marriage in terms of whatever deity they choose to worship will be forced to change.

Ahh, but to these people the fact we're talking about legal marriage doesn't matter.
They're all kneejerk "OMG, they want to join my club and I hate them and don't want them in my club!"

Also, most of them will be religious (Usually Christian, but muslim too) and since their diety says their way is the only way to go, it's their God Given Right to force their religious views about what marriage is onto the rest of us.

Yeah, sadly if they do this we are right back where we started calling them bigots.

Didn't anybody tell you I was a hacker?

mattRSK

822 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#667114 3-Aug-2012 17:17

Ok so I am a bigot for wanting to keep the definition of marriage to between a male and a female while giving same sex couples the same rights under civil unions.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

crackrdbycracku

1168 posts

Uber Geek

#667116 3-Aug-2012 17:24

mattRSK: Ok so I am a bigot for wanting to keep the definition of marriage to between a male and a female while giving same sex couples the same rights under civil unions.

You can define marriage any way you want.

But that isn't what you are trying to do.

You are trying to say: "person X and person Y do not have the right to get legally married by the State because I disagree with the way they live their life".

In effect you are trying to force your definition of marriage on others.

Did South Africa allowing whites and blacks to marry change the definition or marriage? Probably for some people it did.

You could start a group which defines marriage a certain way and refuse to recognise marriages which don't conform to this definition but the State as to see all people as the same. It protects all of us, including you.

Didn't anybody tell you I was a hacker?

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#667121 3-Aug-2012 17:29

crackrdbycracku:
Did South Africa allowing whites and blacks to marry change the definition or marriage? Probably for some people it did.

The definition of marriage clearly states man and woman. It has for hundreds of generations. Got nothing to do with the persons skin colour.

While on the topic of SA, gay marriage is not culturally accepted there. Legally maybe. And please don't use South Africa as a democratic example. Its a failed state, I know all about it, if from there.

ajobbins

5052 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#667122 3-Aug-2012 17:32

surfisup1000: I find it intriguing how anyone who may disagree with a gay persons viewpoint is immediately labelled a bigot.

I labelled you this, but I'm not gay - So it's not just a 'gay persons viewpoint. There have been many of us (straight people) here in this thread defending this ineqaulity

Mauricio Freitas is the site admin, and a willing participant in supporting this behaviour. Mauricio made a rule that no name calling is allowed, but he is quite happy to allow it when it suits his own agenda (by fact he has not removed or banned the posters from using this language).

Actually, if you go back and look at the post you will see that the site admin edited my post and reworded the remark

AJROBBINs paraphrases a good example of this righteous anger as follows...

"My view is that the vast majority of arguments against marriage equality I have seen appear to be (poorly disguised) fronts for peoples prejudices and religious agendas."
ie, you agree with me or your a prejudiced bigot (and likely a racist paid up KKK member too).

Firstly, get my name right. Secondly - Your 'paraphrase' of what I said is total nonsense, my comment doesn't even begin to imply what you suggest. I clearly stated it was my opinion and the analysis of my observations.

Agreeing with me or not doesn't make someone a bigot - a bigot is "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance". The last part is the clincher, it's the people on here treating the members of a group (homosexuals) with hatred and intolerance I consider to be bigots.

This is despite some gay people themselves disagreeing with gay marriage -- does that also make them prejudiced bigots too?

Potentially, yes.

For those such as AJ ROBBINS , Mauricio, and Kynamar2 I suggest you read the following link ...

http://dooleyblog.dailymail.co.uk/2012/07/why-to-be-against-gay-marriage-is-not-bigoted.html

I'm more interested in this 'bigot' labelling phenomenon than the actual gay-marriage debate.

Despite the title, that article made no argument about why those against marriage equality shouldn't be labelled bigots. It was clearly one sided and pushed the 'procreation' argument - which I consider completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Twitter: ajobbins

crackrdbycracku

1168 posts

Uber Geek

#667125 3-Aug-2012 17:34

BraaiGuy:
crackrdbycracku:
Did South Africa allowing whites and blacks to marry change the definition or marriage? Probably for some people it did.

The definition of marriage clearly states man and woman. It has for hundreds of generations. Got nothing to do with the persons skin colour.

While on the topic of SA, gay marriage is not culturally accepted there. Legally maybe. And please don't use South Africa as a democratic example. Its a failed state, I know all about it, if from there.

But I take it you don't disagree that at one point in South African history white people and black people were not allowed to legally marry and then at after a change in law they were. In effect the legal definition of marriage changed.

I'm not going to get into a discussion about SA, off topic and it would take all day, but I do hope to go there on day. I have had friends, co-workers, bosses and dive buddies from SA. Some of the best people I have ever met come from there.

Didn't anybody tell you I was a hacker?

nate

6473 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#667128 3-Aug-2012 17:36

Just hidden a post and warned a user for a personal attack.

We are getting very close to the wire on some of these posts, if you feel someone has stepped over the FUG please PM me so I can check it out.

I'm very keen for this discussion to continue, however if we keep this up, the thread will be locked again in no time and not re-opened.

Thank-you.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79250 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#667131 3-Aug-2012 17:39

surfisup1000: I find it intriguing how anyone who may disagree with a gay persons viewpoint is immediately labelled a bigot.

Mauricio Freitas is the site admin, and a willing participant in supporting this behaviour. Mauricio made a rule that no name calling is allowed, but he is quite happy to allow it when it suits his own agenda (by fact he has not removed or banned the posters from using this language).

Bigot: Merriam-Webster "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"

It's no name calling.

m2geek

143 posts

Master Geek

#667136 3-Aug-2012 17:47

ajobbins:
surfisup1000: I find it intriguing how anyone who may disagree with a gay persons viewpoint is immediately labelled a bigot.

I labelled you this, but I'm not gay - So it's not just a 'gay persons viewpoint. There have been many of us (straight people) here in this thread defending this ineqaulity

Mauricio Freitas is the site admin, and a willing participant in supporting this behaviour. Mauricio made a rule that no name calling is allowed, but he is quite happy to allow it when it suits his own agenda (by fact he has not removed or banned the posters from using this language).

Actually, if you go back and look at the post you will see that the site admin edited my post and reworded the remark

AJROBBINs paraphrases a good example of this righteous anger as follows...

"My view is that the vast majority of arguments against marriage equality I have seen appear to be (poorly disguised) fronts for peoples prejudices and religious agendas."
ie, you agree with me or your a prejudiced bigot (and likely a racist paid up KKK member too).

Firstly, get my name right. Secondly - Your 'paraphrase' of what I said is total nonsense, my comment doesn't even begin to imply what you suggest. I clearly stated it was my opinion and the analysis of my observations.

Agreeing with me or not doesn't make someone a bigot - a bigot is "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance". The last part is the clincher, it's the people on here treating the members of a group (homosexuals) with hatred and intolerance I consider to be bigots.

This is despite some gay people themselves disagreeing with gay marriage -- does that also make them prejudiced bigots too?

Potentially, yes.

For those such as AJ ROBBINS , Mauricio, and Kynamar2 I suggest you read the following link ...

http://dooleyblog.dailymail.co.uk/2012/07/why-to-be-against-gay-marriage-is-not-bigoted.html

I'm more interested in this 'bigot' labelling phenomenon than the actual gay-marriage debate.

Despite the title, that article made no argument about why those against marriage equality shouldn't be labelled bigots. It was clearly one sided and pushed the 'procreation' argument - which I consider completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Wise man This ajobbins person..

I as a gay man support the gay marriage thing, gay people have just as much right to be miserable together as all you married straight people are. The stories I could tell you about married men on the likes of NZDating/Gaydar/Grindr would throw a lot of you into a fit of Denial - Denial is not just a river in egypt yaknow :P

Civil Union just sounds like a cheap knock-off - like fake Prada. You also have to Explain to people what a civil union is - marriage you don't, its pretty much universal language wise.

ajobbins

5052 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#667138 3-Aug-2012 17:51

BraaiGuy: The definition of marriage clearly states man and woman. It has for hundreds of generations. Got nothing to do with the persons skin colour.

Who's definition? There is not single source of the meaning of a word, nor are laws written by some dictionary's definition.

While on the topic of SA, gay marriage is not culturally accepted there. Legally maybe. And please don't use South Africa as a democratic example. Its a failed state, I know all about it, if from there.

We are not talking about cultural acceptance (or religious acceptance for that matter), those are different issues. What we are taking about is legal acceptance, and is what the bill under discussion seeks to change - which as you pointed out in SA it did.

Twitter: ajobbins

1 | ... | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26