Why Are So Many People Debating About Gay Marriages? You've All Got It All Wrong!

Originally posted by newsoul
Definition of prejudice:
-" the injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregards of one's rights." No one has been injured or damaged by my actions or beliefs. I have not disregarded anyones rights. Homosexuals have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. That is the definition of marriage. The union of a man and a woman. But they want to change the definition to include same sex marriage. They want a concession made for them, they want special rights.
Merriam Webster's definition of special: "distinguished by some unusual quality"; especially: being in some way superior" "readily distinguishable from others of the same category "
The heterosexual couples in this country who choose not to marry, are not screaming for the same rights as married couples. It is their choice.

Again I find your post less than HONEST.
1. Denying a "marriage" creates an unfair advantage for some, 2nd class status for others. That hurts people while condoning the hate they often receive - via the political system. THAT hurts even more. And when their most loved person in the world is dying or crosses a boarder... OMFG ouch.
2. Marriage definition is secularly a "PERSONAL PARTNERSHIP". Inflicting a religious definition by law is pharasee at best.
3. Superior? what better than sanctified heterosexuals? socially the 'least among us' are the eunics (gays, nuters, hermaphrodites, etc).
4. Hetero-couples unmarried? That's called "Common Law marriage" and usually happens because of poverty not being able to afford the lawyers and court fees to execute divorces and govt approved marriages... so they just live together ignoring the governments sanctification. My bro did that (RIP 2008).
5. Not screaming for the same rights? Bro had no cash couln't afford "divorce/marriage licensing" did his best and hated the sanctimounous govt. He'd scream alright... I'd best not say what he'd say.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


I 've found that "straight" people who get their panties in a twist over what gays are doing are simply fighting a battle against inner perceived demons. It's okay if someone think's their friend of the same sex looks cute... really. People only get mad about what concerns them.

Why people care what other people do when it does not effect them or anyone else will most likely confound me to death and maybe beyond. Sex preferences, drug experimentation (or dedicated utilization), religious views... can't people just relax and deal with energy / population and economics?

reply to post by toochaos4u


And when you actually read any of my posts you will see that I have not used the bible or religion as my argument.

Originally posted by Baddogma
reply to post by tothetenthpower

 

I 've found that "straight" people who get their panties in a twist over what gays are doing are simply fighting a battle against inner perceived demons. It's okay if someone think's their friend of the same sex looks cute... really. People only get mad about what concerns them.

Why people care what other people do when it does not effect them or anyone else will most likely confound me to death and maybe beyond. Sex preferences, drug experimentation (or dedicated utilization), religious views... can't people just relax and deal with energy / population and economics?

edit on 4/6/2012 by Baddogma because: more clarity

edit on 4/6/2012 by Baddogma because: -

And I find that people in this thread who want harmony and equal rights for all, are the last ones to afford that to another person whos view are different from theirs. They can not tolerate another person with a different belief. It is a conundrum.

I have always heard that with age, comes wisdom. That obviously doesn't apply to everyone.

Originally posted by newsoul

Originally posted by Baddogma
reply to post by tothetenthpower

 

I 've found that "straight" people who get their panties in a twist over what gays are doing are simply fighting a battle against inner perceived demons. It's okay if someone think's their friend of the same sex looks cute... really. People only get mad about what concerns them.

Why people care what other people do when it does not effect them or anyone else will most likely confound me to death and maybe beyond. Sex preferences, drug experimentation (or dedicated utilization), religious views... can't people just relax and deal with energy / population and economics?

edit on 4/6/2012 by Baddogma because: more clarity

edit on 4/6/2012 by Baddogma because: -

And I find that people in this thread who want harmony and equal rights for all, are the last ones to afford that to another person whos view are different from theirs. They can not tolerate another person with a different belief. It is a conundrum.

see thing is
your view is that a section of the population
that you have nothing to do with
should not be allowed to do something that does not effect you

surely you understand why people react with hostility to this position

also, i asked several pages ago
and kaylaluv also asked about a page ago, though far better worded than mine
and i still see no one rushing to answer....
can you please tell me
what will happen to our fair planet when this scourge of gay acceptance takes hold?
when the natural order is thrown screaming out of equilibrium
what terrible fate will befall us?
i ask because you genuinely appear to believe that it's upsetting the natural balance and something bad will happen....
i guess i'm saying if you could tell me what you fear will happen then i could maybe understand where you are coming from
but so far you have not really clarified that
and it's kinda the crux of the whole thing right

Originally posted by newsoul

And I find that people in this thread who want harmony and equal rights for all, are the last ones to afford that to another person whos view are different from theirs. They can not tolerate another person with a different belief. It is a conundrum.

So, you are admitting that you don't want harmony and equal rights for all, as you are the other person whose view is different from ours. Glad to see that you finally admit it.

There's really no conundrum here. If I hear a person speaking ill of blacks, saying they don't deserve equal rights, they are inferior to whites, and their existence just messes this whole planet up -- you better believe I'm gonna tell that person they are a racist, bigot, and a few choice other words.

You see, prejudice is a belief that should NEVER be tolerated. One may deny that they are prejudiced, but the rest of us can see the truth. Using the "natural law" argument as one's rationale for being against gays' rights to marry the one they love, is like someone else using the Bible as their rationale. Those of us that see through this are simply calling you on it.

reply to post by newsoul


Generally there is 4 arguments:

1. The biggest argument..My religion says gay people are evil or confused. The definition of marriage is one man, one woman (except the original definition is as many women as the man could afford to pay fathers for. Or if we take the Native American culture they paired up with whomever they wanted and they were here before any bible carrying pharisee stepped onto the continent.) They don't need marriage! What they need is a religious psychologist to fiddle with their self-worth till they kill themselves or pretend to be straight for a while(at least in public).

2. Like the OP...Marriage should not be setup by the state at all but, by churches...But no course of action by current married people to rectify this. I know several churches that would do this but, they want the gays to hop on that fire. So those who just went to the local courthouse to obtain a marriage license one day will open a paper and say, "OMG the gays are trying to have our marriages annulled!"

3. When I see gays I feel all funny inside and it makes me feel weird. (whatever)

4. Marriage is something lame straight people do. -from some gays that have no intention of ever settling down. But, they do when their youth runs out and grey hair runs in lol.

Which is your argument?


A better argument would be for the churches to get together and have the gov marriage for everyone be renamed "Civil Union" but, then again people like me have had a "church wedding" so I am married. Then the people like mom and pop that have been married for 45 years by a document at a courthouse can say, "OMG the churches are trying to have our marriages annulled!"

Originally posted by newsoul
I have always heard that with age, comes wisdom. That obviously doesn't apply to everyone.

I will say this...

You have a wonderful knack for Irony!

Originally posted by decepticonLaura

Originally posted by newsoul

Originally posted by Baddogma
reply to post by tothetenthpower

 

I 've found that "straight" people who get their panties in a twist over what gays are doing are simply fighting a battle against inner perceived demons. It's okay if someone think's their friend of the same sex looks cute... really. People only get mad about what concerns them.

Why people care what other people do when it does not effect them or anyone else will most likely confound me to death and maybe beyond. Sex preferences, drug experimentation (or dedicated utilization), religious views... can't people just relax and deal with energy / population and economics?

edit on 4/6/2012 by Baddogma because: more clarity

edit on 4/6/2012 by Baddogma because: -

And I find that people in this thread who want harmony and equal rights for all, are the last ones to afford that to another person whos view are different from theirs. They can not tolerate another person with a different belief. It is a conundrum.

see thing is
your view is that a section of the population
that you have nothing to do with
should not be allowed to do something that does not effect you

surely you understand why people react with hostility to this position

also, i asked several pages ago
and kaylaluv also asked about a page ago, though far better worded than mine
and i still see no one rushing to answer....
can you please tell me
what will happen to our fair planet when this scourge of gay acceptance takes hold?
when the natural order is thrown screaming out of equilibrium
what terrible fate will befall us?
i ask because you genuinely appear to believe that it's upsetting the natural balance and something bad will happen....
i guess i'm saying if you could tell me what you fear will happen then i could maybe understand where you are coming from
but so far you have not really clarified that
and it's kinda the crux of the whole thing right

I would be more than happy to answer your question.

Karen and Sally have been best friends since high school. They are straight. Karen can't get insurance through her work so Sally agrees to marry her. End of problem, no one gets hurt and she is helping her friend. Except it is a problem, it is insurance fraud. We would have to rewrite the legislature on that, because there would be no way to prove fraud.

Would it then be legal for a woman to marry her disabled son, so that she could keep him insured? I know, I know, that's not legal. It is against the law for her to marry her son. But she only wants whats best for him because she loves him more than life itself. Why is it against the law for her to marry her son, why can't concessions be made for them, it isn't hurting anyone.

Would a preacher or clergyman be sued if he refused to marry a gay couple because it goes against his religious views. Could he be sued for discrimination for not going against his faith?

There are people who like to be naked all the time. They go to nude beaches and hang out at home naked. If they had their way, they would be naked everywhere. At the mall, the grocery, the park. In dentists offices and doctors offices, they would take their kids to school naked. Because they think it is natural. And it is, we ARE born that way. But it is not considered acceptable behavior in our society. Do you think that we should change that law? Shoud the minority of nudists be allowed to change our laws? They wouldn't be hurting anyone and it is natural.

I have only scratched the surface, but I think that is a good starting point for the possible implications.

reply to post by Helmkat


The REAL irony in this thread has been lost on you.

I just saw your edit and had to respond. If you have read even a small portion of this thread, and have seen some of the things that have been said to me, you would realize that you are preaching to the wrong poster.

Originally posted by toochaos4u
reply to post by newsoul

 

Generally there is 4 arguments:

1. The biggest argument..My religion says gay people are evil or confused. The definition of marriage is one man, one woman (except the original definition is as many women as the man could afford to pay fathers for. Or if we take the Native American culture they paired up with whomever they wanted and they were here before any bible carrying pharisee stepped onto the continent.) They don't need marriage! What they need is a religious psychologist to fiddle with their self-worth till they kill themselves or pretend to be straight for a while(at least in public).

2. Like the OP...Marriage should not be setup by the state at all but, by churches...But no course of action by current married people to rectify this. I know several churches that would do this but, they want the gays to hop on that fire. So those who just went to the local courthouse to obtain a marriage license one day will open a paper and say, "OMG the gays are trying to have our marriages annulled!"

3. When I see gays I feel all funny inside and it makes me feel weird. (whatever)

4. Marriage is something lame straight people do. -from some gays that have no intention of ever settling down. But, they do when their youth runs out and grey hair runs in lol.

Which is your argument?


A better argument would be for the churches to get together and have the gov marriage for everyone be renamed "Civil Union" but, then again people like me have had a "church wedding" so I am married. Then the people like mom and pop that have been married for 45 years by a document at a courthouse can say, "OMG the churches are trying to have our marriages annulled!"

edit on 6/4/12 by toochaos4u because: (no reason given)

I am not trying to sound rude, but we are 23 pages into this thread, my argument has been explained at length. But I can tell you that if the government sent me a letter telling me that my marriage was no longer valid and that I am now part of a civil union, I would be a bit upset.

reply to post by newsoul


"Karen and Sally have been best friends since high school. They are straight. Karen can't get insurance through her work so Sally agrees to marry her. End of problem, no one gets hurt and she is helping her friend. Except it is a problem, it is insurance fraud. We would have to rewrite the legislature on that, because there would be no way to prove fraud. "


Karen and Tim have been best friends since high school. They are straight. Karen can't get insurance through her work so Tim agrees to marry her. End of problem, no one gets hurt and he is helping his friend. Except it is a problem, it is insurance fraud. We would have to rewrite the legislature on that, because there would be no way to prove fraud

Originally posted by newsoul


I would be more than happy to answer your question.

Karen and Sally have been best friends since high school. They are straight. Karen can't get insurance through her work so Sally agrees to marry her. End of problem, no one gets hurt and she is helping her friend. Except it is a problem, it is insurance fraud. We would have to rewrite the legislature on that, because there would be no way to prove fraud.

Would it then be legal for a woman to marry her disabled son, so that she could keep him insured? I know, I know, that's not legal. It is against the law for her to marry her son. But she only wants whats best for him because she loves him more than life itself. Why is it against the law for her to marry her son, why can't concessions be made for them, it isn't hurting anyone.

Would a preacher or clergyman be sued if he refused to marry a gay couple because it goes against his religious views. Could he be sued for discrimination for not going against his faith?

There are people who like to be naked all the time. They go to nude beaches and hang out at home naked. If they had their way, they would be naked everywhere. At the mall, the grocery, the park. In dentists offices and doctors offices, they would take their kids to school naked. Because they think it is natural. And it is, we ARE born that way. But it is not considered acceptable behavior in our society. Do you think that we should change that law? Shoud the minority of nudists be allowed to change our laws? They wouldn't be hurting anyone and it is natural.

I have only scratched the surface, but I think that is a good starting point for the possible implications.

Karen and Sally situation.....Straight folk already have been doing this for years. Sally gets married to Juan so he can become a citizen. Sally marries John so they can combine households for tax and insurance benefits....happens. One of my friends a very unusual woman has been married about 12 times. She has married for a multitude of reasons. Helped two men become citizens, married one man for money, married one man for bedroom abilities etc etc. ..Even a gay and lesbian couple that lived next door to each other that criss crossed marriages to secure benefits.

Marry a disabled son....lol. The disabled already have all kinds of benefits (if you know where to look) so marriage is really not needed. Kinda a silly argument too.

A preacher/clergy are able to disapprove of anyone they wish. I've seen some churches that will not re-marry people because he/she thinks that more that one marriage is adultery or they were unequally yolked (sometimes that means different beliefs or even for racist reasons...doesn't believe in race mixing). Who would want to get married in a church that thinks you are evil anyway? Churches have always refused marriages whenever they wish with the straight population so gays will be no different.

Nudist camps have no bearing on me but, for hygiene reasons I don't want to accidentally sit on on their crabs, herpes scabs, or their old dingle berries. For hygienic reasons that will probably not happen at least in the general population. I don't have any fear of seeing a nude body though.

Originally posted by newsoul

Karen and Sally have been best friends since high school. They are straight. Karen can't get insurance through her work so Sally agrees to marry her. End of problem, no one gets hurt and she is helping her friend. Except it is a problem, it is insurance fraud. We would have to rewrite the legislature on that, because there would be no way to prove fraud.

That's funny - I see arguments from the likes of you on this site all the time that homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals in that they may marry a member of the opposite sex. Since homosexuals cannot be attracted to marry the opposite sex, this would then be fraudulent also hmm?

Would you like me to piss on your other examples?

reply to post by newsoul


The last bit was sarcasm (a joke) related to the obnoxious reasons why we can't get married. If thechurch wants that power to yea or nay marriages let them have it kind of poking fun the same way people lay out that gays should be rallying getting gov out of marriages. If gov is out of marriages then people that were not married at church will have fraud marriage licenses.

The same way I joke about wanting many wives the same way as the original TM definition of marriage.

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by newsoul

And I find that people in this thread who want harmony and equal rights for all, are the last ones to afford that to another person whos view are different from theirs. They can not tolerate another person with a different belief. It is a conundrum.

So, you are admitting that you don't want harmony and equal rights for all, as you are the other person whose view is different from ours. Glad to see that you finally admit it.

There's really no conundrum here. If I hear a person speaking ill of blacks, saying they don't deserve equal rights, they are inferior to whites, and their existence just messes this whole planet up -- you better believe I'm gonna tell that person they are a racist, bigot, and a few choice other words.

You see, prejudice is a belief that should NEVER be tolerated. One may deny that they are prejudiced, but the rest of us can see the truth. Using the "natural law" argument as one's rationale for being against gays' rights to marry the one they love, is like someone else using the Bible as their rationale. Those of us that see through this are simply calling you on it.

edit on 6-4-2012 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-4-2012 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)

So what you're saying is that if someone doesn't agree with YOUR view or beliefs they are wrong. You are saying that you are not prejudice, yet YOU are intolerant of my beliefs.

Originally posted by newsoul
reply to post by Helmkat

 

The REAL irony in this thread has been lost on you.

I just saw your edit and had to respond. If you have read even a small portion of this thread, and have seen some of the things that have been said to me, you would realize that you are preaching to the wrong poster.

edit on 6-4-2012 by newsoul because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-4-2012 by newsoul because: grammar

If nothing else you are predictable. You always flip the argument. You say that Homosexuality is unnatural, posters respond that clearly it is not. So you then say that nature is full of behavior you don't approve of and link Homosexuality to infanticide etc. etc. Then you call out that Homosexulaity isn't right because the universe is all male+female. Posters call you out that this also is not the case and then you say "Well its that way for Humans". Now I say that you have a knack for irony and you have to come back and say that I have missed the -real- irony, the implication being that you are the martyr in this thread, carrying on with chin held high, holding back the tears as you are attacked over and over again. Well just like your perception of homosexuality, your perception of your martydom is not based in reality. Then again you did say you wanted control of the laws of nature...

reply to post by kaylaluv


Intolerance of intolerance still equals intolerance.

Also, you are confusing discrimination with prejudice; while they might have similarities in meaning, one can be done with the use of logic and reason while the other cannot.

It is sometimes in our best interests to discriminate against ideas, things and even people. For example, let's say I am interested in hiring two potential employees for my business. Both have relatively equal experience and skills. Would I be wrong in deciding to choose the one who has better presentation over the one whose presentation is poor? Discrimination in this case would serve my business well.

I agree that prejudice should not be encouraged in any form because it is devoid of logic and reason.

---

What does this all have to do with Gay Marriage? Some of us in this thread have provided logic and reason to illustrate why we oppose Gay Marriage. Yet, because you disagree with these views, you are assuming we are prejudiced and intolerant.

Originally posted by Helmkat

Originally posted by newsoul
reply to post by Helmkat

 

The REAL irony in this thread has been lost on you.

I just saw your edit and had to respond. If you have read even a small portion of this thread, and have seen some of the things that have been said to me, you would realize that you are preaching to the wrong poster.

edit on 6-4-2012 by newsoul because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-4-2012 by newsoul because: grammar

If nothing else you are predictable. You always flip the argument. You say that Homosexuality is unnatural, posters respond that clearly it is not. So you then say that nature is full of behavior you don't approve of and link Homosexuality to infanticide etc. etc. Then you call out that Homosexulaity isn't right because the universe is all male+female. Posters call you out that this also is not the case and then you say "Well its that way for Humans". Now I say that you have a knack for irony and you have to come back and say that I have missed the -real- irony, the implication being that you are the martyr in this thread, carrying on with chin held high, holding back the tears as you are attacked over and over again. Well just like your perception of homosexuality, your perception of your martydom is not based in reality. Then again you did say you wanted control of the laws of nature...

edit on 6-4-2012 by Helmkat because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-4-2012 by Helmkat because: Grammar gods help me!

You have not read my posts. I have not linked homosexuality to infanticide. I have said that animals eat their young, should humans also do that? That is not linking the two. You are confused.

In order to keep a natural balance, the universe has male and female. That is what I said. I also said that if you can show me a human that can reproduce asexually, I will discuss that.

I have already said that I am not the victim, I don't want to be portrayed as the victim in this thread. I am simply pointing out the fact that everyone in this thread wants understanding and love and tolerance, but no one here can seem to give any of those things to another person who doesn't share their beliefs. I will not shed tears for any of you, there is no need to cry, I am firm in my beliefs. I have expressed my opinion in a rational and civil manner, I have not personally attacked anyone, and as you put it "I have been attacked over and over again." My perception of reality is perfectly fine, does it agree with your perception of reality, apparently not. So automatically that makes me the one in the wrong. IRONY.

I have never said that I wanted to control the laws of nature. Can you possibly point me to that post?