Gay marriage is not a 'human right': European ruling torpedoes Coalition stance

reply to post by Decronite

I definitely know my identity, I just wish you would stop insinuating that I don't. I figured that all out - eventually - when I was 25 with a lot of interference.

Identity is not a static thing. It's not a record of your past but a template for your future. Many people make the mistake of attempting to cement their identity out of an analysis of their past.

I'm not saying you are or aren't who you claim to be. I'm simply giving you food for thought.

I have to say your american grammar (I guess) is very difficult to read properly.

Perhaps. I have a, generally, unorthodox manner of speech. My context is usually quite deliberate and no one statement is intended to be taken alone, even if it appears to be conflicting with the rest.

Binge drinking for the first time, and coming to terms with being gay is hardly the same

I pay close attention to my peers. I watched as they snuck sex and kept any discussion of it suppressed. Five years later, they are shouting from the rafters about it to gain social approval. I watched as the same exact thing happened with alcohol; under-the-table discussions and gossip that all collapsed in the same liver-massacring display.

Sexuality whether gay or straight runs its course, and usually does not change, although I have heard of one case in my local gay community. But by the same token, it happens with heterosexuals as well. Practically all people I knew that have come out have usually always known they were gay or bisexual, and when children are involved, it creates massive problems.

If you are convinced that is what you are - then why would you be anything else?

The desire to be something else is powerless to resolve or resignation that you are a certain way. Even if a person wants to change their preference/orientation because of the conflicts it causes in their life - they are going to be incapable of doing it if they are in a status of accepting they are of that preference/orientation.

Thankfully in England it is taught in schools that sexuality is not just a male/female thing, and that the new generation of gay, bisexual and transgender people get the help and support they need from an earlier age, which stops a lot of them killing themselves, and developing a more happy and healthier lifestyle as a result.

I think the focus should be on encouraging people to develop healthy relationships, in general; whatever the sexes involved are. In America, too much emphasis is placed on "don't get diseased or pregnant" and not enough is placed on: "this is what stability is; this is how you know you have it." I know logic and rationale is not exactly known for guiding the actions of teenagers - but they can't utilize tools they don't have.

That said - we are adults, now. We should be able to discuss the benefits, detriments, and facets of our lifestyles and choices in life without it being Highschool Redux.

thats exactly my way of thinking!

My "imaginary friend" became a crux for my concept of God. I have a lot of fun around fundamental religious groups. "... He believes like a Christian, thinks like a pagan, and talks like an atheist... what do we do with him?"

Also thank you for sharing your own personal relationship issues that you had (and still have in your own way). I respect your openess on that immensely. We all have those issues to deal with.

I appreciate it. I will admit I have a very vexing way of dealing with people. Some weird elitist-Socratic-servant chimera of confusion. I'll bend over backwards for people while telling them they are being dumber than a box of rocks from my perspective.

I'm certainly not at the mercy of the way I was born, I am simply saying that I am at the mercy of those that can and do affect my life on the basis of my sexuality.

I'm not quite sure I am following?

You are at the mercy of how others see you or decide to treat you?

Ultimately, you cannot decide how others treat you. Right or wrong in their actions, though, you are still the only one who can assign self-worth and value to yourself. And you are the only one who can stand for yourself.

Forgive the reference - but there is a character in a popular anime series who exemplifies this almost perfectly. I'll bypass the obvious character reference, and go to a more obscure (though still popular) character within that series: Hinata Hyuuga. The girl is epic. I don't have room to describe exactly why (plus, it would be a tad off-topic) - but her character and development highlights the importance of identity, integrity, and resolve.

Originally posted by Aim64C
Identity is not a static thing. It's not a record of your past but a template for your future. Many people make the mistake of attempting to cement their identity out of an analysis of their past.

I'm not saying you are or aren't who you claim to be. I'm simply giving you food for thought.

Does this make any sense?

I'm confused.

reply to post by Annee

Does this make any sense?

A person who looks at what they have done in order to answer: "Who am I?" is not really answering the question.

A person is more than a collection of experiences. A person has goals, dreams, and vision. That is more a part of their identity and character than the actions they have taken in the past.

Because of that - I cannot tell you who you are. That is something only you can ascertain. What do you want out of this experience called life? Only you can answer that, and only you can determine whether or not your behavior satisfies your character.

I'm confused.

It's okay, Annee. We're used to it.

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by Annee

 

Does this make any sense?

A person who looks at what they have done in order to answer: "Who am I?" is not really answering the question.

A person is more than a collection of experiences. A person has goals, dreams, and vision. That is more a part of their identity and character than the actions they have taken in the past.

Because of that - I cannot tell you who you are. That is something only you can ascertain. What do you want out of this experience called life? Only you can answer that, and only you can determine whether or not your behavior satisfies your character.

I'm confused.

It's okay, Annee. We're used to it.

I'm not confused.

Your post was confusing.

reply to post by Annee

I'm confused.

reply to post by Annee

I'm not confused.

Um... 'kay.

I think it's contagious.

Your post was confusing.

My posts, generally, are an affront to things one holds to be true and a critical thinking challenge. They, generally, are not supposed to give you the answer but simply pose the question.

And, sometimes, they're just supposed to be random and induce laughter. Sometimes, though, I'm the only one laughing... which is a tad awkward... but I carry on conversations with myself and talk to inanimate objects... so, I've grown accustomed to living in my own little world that briefly collides with and welcomes the interaction of others.

Originally posted by Decronite
reply to post by petrus4

 

Just be glad you don't have one to contend with, you know, like being burned at the stake, and then people trivialising that.

If you actually knew me, you'd know that I have plenty of my own justification for viewing myself as a member of a persecuted minority. You'd also know, that while not gay, I actually do have an orientation (poly hetero) that is both non-mainstream, and has caused other people sufficient pain, both in terms of my own life, and several relatives, that it is necessary for me to be completely celibate because of it. I also had an autistic diagnosis in 1993, and have gone close to being murdered on two seperate occasions, as well as experiencing a residential arson attempt, because of it.

If you want to know why I resent the hell out of homosexuals, that is why; because I actually do have most of the same problems that you do, but I don't spend the majority of my existence wallowing in self-pity and victimhood. I also take personal responsibility for my own libido, and the genuine harm that it can cause other people. I don't expect the entirety of the rest of human society to change, purely in order to accomodate me.

A very large number of homosexual people are self-centered, immature, and fundamentally personally irresponsible. In particular, most of you behave as though celibacy as a concept, quite simply does not exist; as if you have absolutely no control whatsoever, over the use of your genitals.

This planet and the people on it, do not owe you a single damn thing. You're going to get other people attacking you, irrespective of who you are; whether you are gay, straight, white, black, yellow, red, or whatever religion. The correct response is to grow a spine and learn to survive, rather than constantly attempting to subvert the legal system to favour you over the entirety of the rest of the population.

Originally posted by petrus4

A very large number of homosexual people are self-centered, immature, and fundamentally personally irresponsible.

Just like everyone else.

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere


The best thing any homosexual couple, heterosexual couple, polygamous group, resource sharing roommates, whoever can do to work against it is to ignore it. Stop believing in it's power and it will die. Then we'll be free.

OR, have the U. S. Supreme Court rule that it is unconstitutional to ban same same-sex marriages, on the grounds of discrimination. It worked for interracial marriages.

You're asking it to police itself. Never happens. Sure, they slap labels over their wrongdoings and promise not to repeat them but they always do. Just under different guises. There is no righteousness in government. Not at any level.

The fact that I have to go down to a government office and ask the government for permission to participate in the manufactured institution of marriage it has created in the form of a "marriage license" is proof of the fact that the SCOTUS ruling is worthless. Further, proof of the fact that government sanctioned marriage is an abomination and an affront to any spiritual, religious, or personal worth that marriage as defined by the parties taking part has.

One value is intrinsic. The other extrinsic. One value is true relatively speaking. The other artificially imposed. It's disturbing that as far as people have come to cast off so many superstitions and spooks the ghosts still linger. Government sanctioned marriage being the spook we're discussing here.

The "right to marry" is the wrong fight. It's basically begging the government to slap chains around your wrists. The fight we should be all having is the one that banishes government from having any opinion whatsoever on the interpersonal relationships of consenting adults.

Originally posted by My_Reality

You are misunderstanding me. I did not make my post to claim some sort of sanctimonious superiority as you seem to think. I created it to illustrate the point that the majority of gay marriage advocates simply refuse to compromise on the term marriage.

Why should they have to compromise? You are not having to compromise anything. You get to marry who you want, you can get a marriage license, you can call yourself married. How are you compromising anything regarding your marriage?

The point that I was trying to make is that a "traditional" marriage has been between man and woman for thousands of years. I don't see the point you are trying to make. I also never said anything about wanting to ban marriages, at all. I honestly think you are putting words into my mouth so you can create an argument.

Are you refuting the points that I made about the goals of marriage? Certainly, there are people that marry for ulterior motives. That doesn't make the goals I listed about traditional marriages untrue.

You just made my point. The fact that people marry for ulterior motives doesn't affect those who marry for more traditional reasons, right? If two gays marry, that doesn't in any way affect two heterosexuals who marry. Nothing changes.

No one faction owns the traditional marriage.

No one "owns" marriage, period. No one has the right to tell gays they need to compromise on the word marriage.

Apparently a lot of people feel strongly about preserving what most people think a traditional marriage should be. So, by giving an inch they could gain a mile and yet, they refuse to do so because of whatever reason. It is also mildly amusing that so many gay people complain that they are not treated fairly in the marriage debate. Yet, they seem to have no consideration for the convictions of others. Cute double standard.

Please explain to me how gays getting married (and calling it a marriage) in any way affects heterosexual "traditional" marriage. Are gays saying that heterosexuals should no longer be able to get married? Are gays trying to exclude heterosexuals from having a traditional marriage? Is anything going to change for traditional marriages just because gays call their union a marriage? Has anything ever changed for traditional marriages because some people don't marry for traditional reasons?

I understand that it is human nature to resist change (read the book "Who Moved My Cheese"), but change happens - that is inevitable. Some changes are good, some changes are bad, some changes are neutral. The change of allowing gays into the marriage business is scary for some, but it really is a neutral change for them.
Traditional marriages of a man and a woman will continue on, for as long as men and women want them to.

If it means so much to gays to be included 100% in this relationship we call a marriage, and it doesn't affect the rest of us, what exactly is the problem?

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

The fight we should be all having is the one that banishes government from having any opinion whatsoever on the interpersonal relationships of consenting adults.

Nail hit squarely on the head there.
It's pretty straight forward really isn't it.

Unfortunately there are far too many people who seem determined, for various reasons, to use governments as a tool to impose their own moral values on other people.

Originally posted by Aim64C
And, sometimes, they're just supposed to be random and induce laughter. Sometimes, though, I'm the only one laughing... which is a tad awkward... but I carry on conversations with myself and talk to inanimate objects... so, I've grown accustomed to living in my own little world that briefly collides with and welcomes the interaction of others.

LOVES IT!

Oh wait - - my TV didn't like my last frustrating and colorful expletive. It says it feels abused.

reply to post by Annee

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by My_Reality
reply to post by Annee

 

Why should they? They could then get the majority of what they seek by compromising.

Compromise is F'n Bull Pucky.

Why the hell should they compromise. That is insane.

And it is NOT Equality.

Thank you for reinforcing my points. You take very small portions of what I say, choose which parts you can best use to create controversy and do so.

You ignored my position on the subject. I stated that I believe that this issue is not about equality -- my position was that this is an issue of definition. Specifically, the definition of marriage.

Regarding your earlier statement: "Separate But Equal - - is NOT Equal."

I do not see your point here. Let's say that marriage is recognized as a union between a man and a woman. Now, let's say that the term "kinship"(used only as an example of a term) is recognized as a union between a man and a man or a union between a woman and a woman.

Now let's say that the man/woman union, man/man union and woman/woman union all have the same rights. Rights including but not limited to legal, medical information, social status, ETC.

In this little thought experiment....the terms marriage and kinship are separate. However, there is no distinction in regards to equality in these two terms. Both uses of the term provide exactly the same "rights". How are they not equal? So what if there are two separate terms for one single concept. That in no way makes one superior to the other.

This again illustrates the point I have been making since I first posted on this thread. The above is a good example of how gay marriage advocates could compromise and receive what they want. Sadly, it is their unyielding opposition for compromise that prevents this. This also antagonizes people that want marriage to be strictly defined as between man and woman. Whether one wants to accept this or not, the traditional marriage advocates do have a legitimate argument. The gay marriage advocates simply do not care about the arguments of their opponents.

I have stated my reasons for why marriage should be defined as between man and woman. I provide reasons for my belief backed by the fact that marriage has always been between man and woman -- throughout all cultures in history. Oddly enough, despite the VAST differences between the highly numerous cultures on this planet, the concept of marriage is the same. That in itself is telling. I DO NOT provide any religious reasons because religion and marriage are not related. Yes, religions have influenced many aspects of marriage depending on the culture one is in. However, they do not go hand in hand.

All I hear from gay marriage advocates is that I am a hateful, ignorant fool that wants to deny them their "equality". They say that I, and a multitude of others, must change our beliefs regarding marriage and if we don't do so we are trampling on their rights while being a hateful monster. In short, all I hear is nonsense and dramatics.

Can I perhaps hear a point of view on why marriage should include gays? A point of view that is not based on assumptions, rhetoric, drama. Most important of all, a point of view that does not revolve around the perception that your equality rights are being massacred.

reply to post by kaylaluv


First off...thank you for cherry picking the quotes of what I have said. Your questions make a lot of sense in the out of context way in which you posted my quotes.

So, essentially you are saying that I am resisting change and that gay marriage is inevitable. Perhaps it is, perhaps it is not. It also seems that you are saying that gay marriage would not affect the traditional view of marriage. You are probably right in that respect but that is not related to what I have been saying.

I have maintained two points during my posts:
1) Gay marriage advocates do not compromise
2) That marriage is defined as between a man and a woman

So, the traditional marriage advocates are the villains because we do not wish to recognize a marriage between two individuals of the same sex. I suggest the medium of compromising so everyone can be relatively happy about the situation.

You are seeking to redefine a term, a bond, an institution. Throughout hundreds of cultures over thousands of years marriage is defined as between man and woman. Do you not see that some people will resist what you are trying to do? You say that I am resisting change. No...I am resisting the fact that you want the definition of marriage to include gay couples. I am more than happy to support your cause. I only ask that you stop trying to redefine marriage. Why should you compromise? If you do, you will get what you want and people like me will get what they want. Win-Win situation.

Why are you so hell bent on having what you seek classified as marriage? How will you be negatively affected by adopting a different term that will provide you with exactly 100% of what a marriage would provide you with? Is it pride? Vanity? A perceived slight to your equality? Why do you seem to NOT CARE about what people like me want? I do care about your goals and I want them to succeed. I only ask that you leave the term marriage to what it has meant since the dawn of civilization. I truly do not think that I am being cruel for that very simple request.

Originally posted by My_Reality

2) That marriage is defined as between a man and a woman

Marriage has not always been defined as between a man and a woman.

Evidence exists that same-sex marriages were tolerated in parts of Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt. Artifacts from Egypt, for example, show that same-sex relationships not only existed, but the discovery of a pharaonic tomb for such a couple shows their union was recognized by the kingdom.

www.randomhistory.com...

reply to post by kaylaluv


OK...I read the link that you provided. It reinforces the points that I have been making. In fact, it seems that every one of the instances of same sex "marriage" had ulterior motives behind them...mainly political for the very powerful members of those societies that could essentially get away with anything they wanted.......ulterior motives that you yourself used as an argument to an earlier point of mine.

On top of that, one little picture of what appears to be two hieroglyphic men is flimsy, at best.

So...out of all the points that I raised and asked you sincere questions about....is this all that you are going to address?

I am aware that factors may have prevented you from taking the time to make a complete reply and this is why I asked my above question.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
The "right to marry" is the wrong fight. It's basically begging the government to slap chains around your wrists. The fight we should be all having is the one that banishes government from having any opinion whatsoever on the interpersonal relationships of consenting adults.

Absolutely, but we'll settle for equal chains till the rest of you decide to walk the walk.

reply to post by My_Reality


Excuse me? I have an ulterior motive for somthing sinister and other than love because I'd like to be legally married to my partner?

Do please tell me what this 'ulterior motive' is - I'm curious to find out what it is that you know about me that I don't.

Originally posted by My_Reality

I have maintained two points during my posts:
1) Gay marriage advocates do not compromise
2) That marriage is defined as between a man and a woman

So, the traditional marriage advocates are the villains because we do not wish to recognize a marriage between two individuals of the same sex. I suggest the medium of compromising so everyone can be relatively happy about the situation.

You are seeking to redefine a term, a bond, an institution. Throughout hundreds of cultures over thousands of years marriage is defined as between man and woman. Do you not see that some people will resist what you are trying to do? You say that I am resisting change. No...I am resisting the fact that you want the definition of marriage to include gay couples. I am more than happy to support your cause. I only ask that you stop trying to redefine marriage. Why should you compromise? If you do, you will get what you want and people like me will get what they want. Win-Win situation.

Why are you so hell bent on having what you seek classified as marriage? How will you be negatively affected by adopting a different term that will provide you with exactly 100% of what a marriage would provide you with? Is it pride? Vanity? A perceived slight to your equality? Why do you seem to NOT CARE about what people like me want? I do care about your goals and I want them to succeed. I only ask that you leave the term marriage to what it has meant since the dawn of civilization. I truly do not think that I am being cruel for that very simple request.

I would say this: You talk about the lack of compromise on the part of the gay marriage advocates, but my question to you is what type of compromise can they possibly give? As it currently stands, they have NO right to marry, and thus have nothing to offer as a bargaining tool. You give them nothing and want something back in return? That's absurd.

Historically, marriage has existed as a religious union between men and women, but the issue at hand isn't religious recognition, but rather LEGAL recognition. It's about affording them the right to be recognized as legal partners so that they may avoid inequities in benefits and protections. If religious institutions choose not to bless these unions that is their right, but those religious institutions shouldn't be empowered to dictate the legal benefits afforded to these people.

Just because history has generally defined marriage as a male/female only relationship doesn't mean that that practice is right or fair. History once said that the earth was flat and that slavery was acceptable, however we all know now that those assertions were wrong, and we've adapted our stance to support modern times. It's time that we do the same with marriage equality.

If you want compromise I'd suggest that people support civil unions, sanctioned by government, for all legal/non-religious purposes, and that marriage be reserved strictly for religious unions.

Originally posted by Garfee

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
The "right to marry" is the wrong fight. It's basically begging the government to slap chains around your wrists. The fight we should be all having is the one that banishes government from having any opinion whatsoever on the interpersonal relationships of consenting adults.

Absolutely, but we'll settle for equal chains till the rest of you decide to walk the walk.

edit on 24-3-2012 by Garfee because: arrgh

I see. So your actions are exclusively, and unavoidably dependent on the actions of everyone else?

Yes. That's consistent with the level of self-responsibility that I've come to expect from homosexuals.

reply to post by petrus4


No, but if you're not going to stand up and do something positive then get out of the way of those who are.