-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
LGBT Smashers
- Thread starter SU_Remo
- Start date
- Status
.:~*Momo*~:.
Smash Ace
Hmmm... who's my favorite male video game character? O.o Such a hard question...
Cloud Strife... Jin Kazama... Kilik... and I think there are a few more... ^^; Or more than a few... hmmm... maybe if I had to choose ONE I'd choose... Jin Kazama?... Yeah yeah that's good. >=3
And that last question asked scares me... people actually DON'T know the problems gays have to face? ^^; Well I guess I shouldn't be surprised... but it's still scary. =/
Cloud Strife... Jin Kazama... Kilik... and I think there are a few more... ^^; Or more than a few... hmmm... maybe if I had to choose ONE I'd choose... Jin Kazama?... Yeah yeah that's good. >=3
And that last question asked scares me... people actually DON'T know the problems gays have to face? ^^; Well I guess I shouldn't be surprised... but it's still scary. =/
.:~*Momo*~:.
Smash Ace
Sorry this was an accidental double post... stupid slow computer. ;_; I'll try to prevent it from happening again...
adumbrodeus
Smash Legend
*sigh*
Nice of you to do exactly what you are accusing another person of doing, being ignorant.
Don't make overreaching generalizations like that, please.
And in any discussion, nothing is self-evident, not even something that has been proven many many times, anything can be questioned because something might have been overlooked, so provide a source.
It should be quite easy to find examples of discrimination.
darkatma
Smash Hero
Au Contraire sir,
What I said wasn't a generalization, it's actually quite true. Empirical and social evidence suggests that that is the case, that catholic and christian churches either omit the sticky discussion or make defamatory and debasing bigoted remarks. Now, obviously there are exceptions, a friend of mine mentioned a southern church that allows same sex marriages, but otherwise, most churches lean towards the westborough church ideology moreso than that of ideas of forgiveness and nonjudgement.
And furthermore i never said all. I said most, because 'most' is the current state. And this can be epitomized by a remark from one of the most devout christian's that i know.. someone normally very nonjudgemental, but in this case, quietly admitted that he couldn't stand the sight of two men holding hands or doing anything of the sort. That. That is what the church preaches, and that is what people absorb, what people soundly believe, and what people act upon. Because you know, since God is always right, then a Church under God must always be right, and the pastor or preacher of that Church is also blameless and right. Such is the ideology of the majority.
Anything else you wanted to accuse me of?
Andydark
Smash Journeyman
Aside from my mother, I've not been the subject of much bias aside from the very metro boyfriend of a friend of mine. Asks questions with a hint of hostility.
And I'm a big fan of Zelos Wilder and Jade Curtiss from Tales of Symphonia and Tales of the Abyss respectively.
And I'm a big fan of Zelos Wilder and Jade Curtiss from Tales of Symphonia and Tales of the Abyss respectively.
adumbrodeus
Smash Legend
There is evidence that Christians lean towards bigotry against gays in larger proportions then non-theists, however that's not the same as being clueless and uneducated, there is a difference between having a poor viewpoint and being clueless and uneducated.
Furthermore, if you hadn't separated Catholics out, simply saying that the majority of Christians are bigoted in this regard might've been able to stand, but not Catholics, ultra-conservative Catholics are the exception, not the rule, granted greater bigotry ratio then non-theists still.
Christians in general I will still agree with, the majority is probably bigoted.
That said, it's just greater then 50%, hence the point about generalizations, it's more an issue of not assuming that every Christian you meet is bigoted, it depends greatly on the denomination, and the school of thought.
That's actually a more subtle issue then even religious bigotry, and it permeates our entire culture, not just religion.
But that's not being uneducated and clueless, that's having a subconscious bias towards or against something.
Think about it, how come Asian guys rarely get acting roles that involve anything sexual relative to guys of other ethnic groups? How come long island is the most segregated area in the country? How come women have a glass ceiling in business?
Subconscious bigotry, my friend, it's not ignorance or cluelessness, it's psychology.
No, making ignorant-sounding generalizations will do nicely.
darkatma
Smash Hero
Ahh i see.
subconscious bigotry, the dump-all bucket of all social relations, biases, and disparities.
Just saying that the church instigates and supports the actions of such individuals. Now it is labeled 'racist' when african americans are discriminated against, because society has formed a social check, a net per se, that keeps the majority from falling too far into a vice. Such is not the case with homosexuality, and won't be until churches stop propagating hatred. Granted, racism isn't diminished, nor may it ever be. But there should be some form of check on discrimination of homosexuals (not that this is plausible, due to further otherization and further schism). Just dreaming
Subconscious psychological process exists, but is mainly spread and exacerbated by the church and for the church(to increase it's power over people by having a unifying purpose to fight against a group, or in many cases, persecute a group)
That being said, I apologize and retract my earlier statements anyways, because I realized they were unfair/incorrect from the moment I posted them, but seeing as your logic is sound, I can have nothing to say on the matter.
formality is a vice xP
subconscious bigotry, the dump-all bucket of all social relations, biases, and disparities.
Just saying that the church instigates and supports the actions of such individuals. Now it is labeled 'racist' when african americans are discriminated against, because society has formed a social check, a net per se, that keeps the majority from falling too far into a vice. Such is not the case with homosexuality, and won't be until churches stop propagating hatred. Granted, racism isn't diminished, nor may it ever be. But there should be some form of check on discrimination of homosexuals (not that this is plausible, due to further otherization and further schism). Just dreaming
Subconscious psychological process exists, but is mainly spread and exacerbated by the church and for the church(to increase it's power over people by having a unifying purpose to fight against a group, or in many cases, persecute a group)
That being said, I apologize and retract my earlier statements anyways, because I realized they were unfair/incorrect from the moment I posted them, but seeing as your logic is sound, I can have nothing to say on the matter.
formality is a vice xP
darkatma
Smash Hero
............... ridiculous triple post
darkatma
Smash Hero
.................smashboards is lagging
So, I just started school yesterday for the first time in like almost a year. It sucks and I hate it as well as most of the people there, but there's this one guy who hangs out with my sister and he's absolutely gorgeous! <3<3<3 He has these awesomely pretty eyes that just twinkle and it's just..oooh~<3 He's soooo beautiful and awesome... Second day and I might already have someone I like!
...but it's kinda creepy because he's a freshmen and I'm a junior. But it's weird because he looks like he'd be a senior/junior.
...but it's kinda creepy because he's a freshmen and I'm a junior. But it's weird because he looks like he'd be a senior/junior.
SU_Remo
Remo Knows
Aww, that's really cute, Yukichu, hehe. Good luck with that~
Okay, who can get same-sex marriage? Do you get what I'm saying? What other groups can? They aren't denied anything anyone else has. Sure, some people do not like them, but aside from behavioral things, which people don't have accept, period, what are we talking about? Is it because some one is simply gay? Maybe in some cases, but what 'rights' are being infringed upon?
There is hate crime against plenty of people. See, I'm not so sure we are always talking about the same level here. Are we so sure we're not asking for special rights for a group of people instead of standard rights?
I think you were/are assuming way too much.
In the end is it really bad if I think inside of church? Do you have any objective standard? Can you account for logical absolutes? Rationalize moral stances?
I'm really quite interested to see your response. Really.
You're just phrasing the issue in a way that makes it seem that there are "equal rights". You can do the same thing with the laws against miscegenation too - you can say "Well, black people and white people have equal rights - they're all free to marry someone of the same race!" That's just phrasing the issue in a misleading way, just playing games with words.
No there are not equal rights. There is not justice.
Gays cannot get married to anyone that they would want to marry, they can't marry someone they love, that's why there's a difference. You know that's the real issue, you're just pretending like it isn't.
arrowhead
Smash Ace
that is just ridiculous. you actually think it's fair to not allow homosexuals to marry people of the same sex because heterosexuals can't either? how would you like it if it were reversed: you could only marry someone of the same sex. of course, according to your logic that would be completely fair too, since nobody would have any rights over anyone else.
people in the past did not accept blacks. do you think it was a bad idea to abolish slavery and give them rights? one could have argued they didn't deserve rights because they didn't count as 100% of a person. what people did then is just like what they're doing to homosexuals now. so what "rights" are they being denied? oh, i dunno. maybe the "right" to live peacefully without unjustified discrimination and the "right" to all the other rights straight people in this country have?
btw it seems as if you didn't even read the post you quoted
the difference is they do hate crimes BECAUSE they're gay. and maybe you don't get it yet, but it is NOT A CHOICE. being against gays is JUST AS BAD as being against blacks, *******, anyone with an inborn difference from the majority.
try to think fair for once. a democracy with no regards to minority rights isn't always the best choice. same with following out-of-context/misinterpreted sections from a 2000 year old book with no factual backing or evidence behind it.
No, I am not. Every person, has the same right. You are asking for something extra. No one has this right. Period.
We're not comparing the same thing here. See, a man and a woman is a man and a woman.
As if you know what justice is. As if you have any standard of justice. What is this? What you want to think? Emotion? This is the game people play. They think they are justice or something subjective is justice. It's empty and baseless. You cannot rationally tell me why your justice is better than Hitler's can you? You may think I'm being extreme, but it very much applies.
Only theists can have anything akin to justice. It's possible that they are wrong, or that they are blatantly wrong, but when it is subjective, no matter who it comes from it is as good as a turd on my lawn. Except the turd being there might be more rational.
Okay, well what about polygamists that love each other? What if a little child thinks they love somebody? What is love a justification for? Murder? Adultry? You may think these are worse but you don't have a objective moral standard period. Heck, I doubt you can rationalize why anything is right or wrong. Forget any other thing now, you are making a 'moral' proposition that you can't back up.
If you think I hate gay people you are dead wrong. You don't know what they hell you are talking about. I'm not saying this is what you think but maybe people need to think more.
darkatma
Smash Hero
To kix:
I neither have the time nor patience to pick apart your [unjustifiable] above comment right now, but since i'm here, I'm asking you to rethink what you just said, as you just made quite a few logical contradictions in that hunk of opinion above.
I neither have the time nor patience to pick apart your [unjustifiable] above comment right now, but since i'm here, I'm asking you to rethink what you just said, as you just made quite a few logical contradictions in that hunk of opinion above.
1) Oh you might think it is, but it's not.
If that's what marriage is, then that would be what it is. There are two genders. If we are talking rights, you are wrong. If you are talking morality, you are wrong. You have no standard to even counter. End of discussion.
2) No. Are you to argue morality here? Are you seriously trying to argue morality? You can't. Not rationally.
Okay what you're missing here is I'm not talking about someone just being "gay". Say it is however you would like, but that's not what I'm not saying. Behavior and action is what I'm referring to. If it's just "being gay" then that's not what I'm talking about.
3) ?
4) Okay, maybe it isn't usually choice. I've been studying and watching, I know a lot of people. Even so, you are not going to win the argument that people are "born" gay because that's not even what the most recent science is saying. If you want to bring something up I can make my point.
You don't get it though. What does that justify? Do you realize there are pedophiles that have argued the same thing?
5) Fair? Fair what? Democracy doesn't have to serve whoever wants something or endorse behavior. That's not what I'm talking about. Read my above points if you are still confused.
Also you are completely incorrect if you are referring to the Judeo-Christian scriptures. We have the manuscripts, we can confirm the people and places, the logic works out, as we can not only account for logical absolutes, which can be accounted for no other way and which you are using to type and do anything in life but also morality if we don't get into spiritual things. Although the transcendent nature of logical absolutes proves that there is something supernatural.
Fallacy in argumentation? Logical fallacy? I'll respond when I get time but go ahead and tell me. Are you going to bring up the argument about black and white people again? Be my guest!
I'm not trying to be hostile towards you, please understand. I'm not mad, I'm just trying to make a point. If it were just about how I wanted to feel I wouldn't even bother because it takes up my time.
arrowhead
Smash Ace
so if christianity was suddenly banned to everyone, you would support that? since in the end, nobody has that right and asking for christianity back would be asking for something extra?
and love is love. why do you think it's fair that it HAS to be between a man and a woman? just because the law says so?
technically, you can't rationally prove ANYTHING. but it doesn't mean some views are more justified than others. it's like saying "this leaf is green." The leaf looks green, so we assume it's a fact that it is green. there is always the possiblilty that everything is an illusion and the leaf isn't even a leaf or what not, but we disregard that because it's MOST logical to assume the leaf is green. this is just like our views. it's NOT fair to create laws that benefit only the majority and it's NOT fair to ignore the minority, especially when the minority did nothing to deserve the mistreatment. anyone should be able to see that.
i don't know what erimir thinks of you, but i think you just really need to walk in their shoes. if you were gay, i'd bet anything your views would be different
arrowhead
Smash Ace
1) just because "marriage between a man and a woman only" came first doesn't mean it's fair. ok fine. don't give homosexuals marriage. give them something identical and call it something else. and if you are seriously going to argue that it's something "additional" and "not needed", then you would probably agree that new legislation is pointless and needs to be stopped. since, all of those new propositions are just asking for something "additional" and not reforming law to meet the needs of the people
2) read my last post. you can't say your opinion is absolutely right, but you can say it's more fair than someone else's
4) i guess puberty is a choice then too. since you weren't born starting puberty.
you aren't born gay. you're born to become gay.
5) do you not agree to minority rights? please answer the question
edit: sorry king. i didn't mean to turn your thread into an argument about gay rights
1) You don't get it. There were two possibilities. First, you could have been talking legally, within the perimeters of the country. I am not talking about extra rights, but the same rights. You might as well just say you are asking for extra rights.
Then this begs the question. Are you trying to make this an argument of morality? This is something you can't even start.
2) Oh watch out, it's LOVE! Well guess what, maybe I love people because I talk about things on this forum like this? I mean, really, what is LOVE? What does it justify? Do you think most people even have true love? Not self serving? Not just an emotion? Not just sexual impulse? It's rare. Even straight people often shouldn't be getting married. It doesn't justify. You form the ways you love. If God is at the center things will be just.
3) Uh, yes you can. Like for instance, the transcendental argument is logical deduction using logical absolutes about logical absolutes. It rationalizes God's existence, period, unless you are irrational.
I'm not talking about possibilities. I'm talking about what is ontologically true. The non-falsifiable serves me no purpose. You can't find it in subjective morality. It is admittedly based on nothing that would rationalize why it would be the way it is stated to be. See, if that is the definition of green, and it fits that definition, then it is green.
I mean you and I could be a brain in a vat of chemicals but please. I'm not asking to ignore the minority. In fact I very much care for them, but that doesn't mean something is justified because they want it no matter how bad. I'm not talking about mistreatment. Just because you don't get what you want does not make it unjust or mistreatment.
4) My apathy meter has been known to be broken but seriously, what if I am gay right now? Would that change my logic here? We live in the same reality regardless of who and where we are truth is truth and that which is false is false.
Take care I have stuff to do.
solrac_krad
Smash Apprentice
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2007
- Messages
- 156
I agree, I mean, the "additional" askign thingis pretty stupid, commmon, that could be aply to every new law that someone asks to receive fair and equal rights as the others (In Kix opinion, woman should not vote, since they were nto allowed to and they were asking for something extra)
But I hate that poeple thinks that having the same rights but just call it differently its the same, alot of laws use the word "marriage", so calling it by a different legal name would be just wrong, besides, why should we ask for the same rights under a different name, I have the same value as everyone else, and is my right or should be to get MARRIED, not "insert another name' ed"
arrowhead
Smash Ace
1) you are avoiding my question
2)ok... so why make it so undeserving men and women can marry each other but deserving men/women can marry other deserving men/women? answer this please.
3)no. really. you can't.
as for the green thing, i mean the one leaf could have been an exception. but you would still accept the "fact" that it's a green leaf even when it's not. there's no way of knowing whether you are right or wrong about ANYTHING. but people don't argue that way because it creates unnecessary confusion. it's obvious that according to most people's definition of "fair", gay marriage isn't something extra, but a necessity to create more fairness.
4) i don't see too much logic in your "logic". taking a walk in their shoes would make it so you become logical.
hm this seems useful here.
yeah, i agree that's a problem. but you gotta take it one step at a time. it's always hard to change social issues because most people are just not ready to accept those who are different
So what is your response to the racist who says that interracial marriage should not be allowed because "Every person has the same right: the right to marry someone of the same race."
Or do you support banning interracial marriage?
It's just the way you phrase it.
Suppose I said "Everyone has the right to marry any consenting adult they want to marry." That's true for straights - but not true for gay people. So it's not equal rights.
Why should I prefer your phrasing over this one?
Why SHOULDN'T same sex marriage be legal? After all, using your argument, everyone, straight or gay, will have the right to marry someone of the same sex. It won't be an extra right for gay people, it'll be an extra right for all people. Of course, it's only a relevant right for gay people, just like being able to marry someone of the opposite sex is only a relevant right for straights.
We could use, for example, John Rawls's conception of justice. That's not a bad one.
What is this? What, you actually don't know anything about John Rawls? Go ahead and wiki him then.
I can, because we have intersubjective agreement. If you're a psycho who doesn't care about suffering or murdering people, etc. obvious I cannot rationally convince you that you should. But if we have certain common foundations for our morality, as almost every human does, we can move forward from those rationally.
Why even bother discussing anything with someone with such ridiculous opinions.It's obvious you haven't read any serious philosophy of ethics and justice. So on what basis can you make that claim?
What about them?
And you can? The funny thing about theists is that they think they have an objective standard of morality, but they really don't. We all have subjective morals, the only difference is whether we're in denial about it.
The transcendental argument is a piece of **** based on circular reasoning and often the use of false dichotomies.
If you wanna make the case for it, tho, you can take it to the debate hall. I'm not gonna discuss it in here.
solrac_krad
Smash Apprentice
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2007
- Messages
- 156
I wouldnt have a problem with that if many laws didnt use the word marriage for alot of things, life ensurance, those kinds of stuuf
Kix, I'm against gay marriage too, but your arguments ... suck.
It seems like your biggest beef with gay marriage, like mine, comes from religious views. Sorry, but the American legality system isn't under Christian oath. So there's nothing really that you can prove there. They're not asking for extra rights, they're asking for equal rights. You can get married, they can't. How are they asking for more?
Personally, I actually don't care if/when it becomes legal, because they do deserve to live long happy lives with a loved one just as we do. It's just that I'm looking at marriage from a religious view, rather than a legal view that's preventing my support. Therefore, I have no valid argument-- just personal opinion.
From a strictly legal point of view, I don't see any reason that should prevent same sex marriage.
It seems like your biggest beef with gay marriage, like mine, comes from religious views. Sorry, but the American legality system isn't under Christian oath. So there's nothing really that you can prove there. They're not asking for extra rights, they're asking for equal rights. You can get married, they can't. How are they asking for more?
Personally, I actually don't care if/when it becomes legal, because they do deserve to live long happy lives with a loved one just as we do. It's just that I'm looking at marriage from a religious view, rather than a legal view that's preventing my support. Therefore, I have no valid argument-- just personal opinion.
From a strictly legal point of view, I don't see any reason that should prevent same sex marriage.
The argument does not suck. When it was legal for a man and woman to marry, a right then they were very much allowed to. I mean, there were people that did not like interracial marriage but that isn't even remotely the same. They are still a man and a woman so the definition still fit.
They are saying they should be able to because it is what should be. If they are arguing morality, they lose. That's why I'm asking "what does 'love' justify" as well.
You don't get it. A man and a woman that can get married is not the same thing as a same-sex couple. This is not anything anyone has, so therefore by definition it is something extra that is being asked. Regardless of whether of not this is "marriage".
Then, you say "your argument sucks!" yet you are saying it's just personal opinion. Remember, if you have morality based on an objective standard and rationalize why there is right or wrong and how it is, you at least have the possibility of being correct, disregarding further argumentation. They have no leg to stand on whatsoever. If you are using subjective morality even if you are religious, then it doesn't matter either. If it's just your opinion, then I don't care, and you can't tell me why it matters beyond this. When it is not based on an objective standard, then it is as good as nothing other than making you feel better. You see, people can change emotions though, they don't dictate truth.
Maybe you don't understand the deeper concepts but that doesn't mean you know what you are talking about just because you are "religious". I am not "religious".
Emir and arrowhead, I would respond right now if I could double post but I got an infraction and I don't have time to mess with things separately. You'll get your responses later.
I believe that gays should have as many rights as we do, i mean seriously think about what your saying, your denying someone to marry the person they love. But your Christian related arguments are quite "old fashioned" lets say. Christianity should keep up with the times and maybe have a much open and comprehensive mind (belief wise of course) like most atheist do, which includes understanding other peoples beliefs. If a new religion popped up tomorrow saying a new religion was created that allows gays to marry, like Christianity allows a man and a woman to marry, what would you do?
It's not even remotely the same... why? Because it's convenient for your argument?
Those people back then would have said the definition was "A consenting man and woman of the same race" and that the definition didn't fit for interracial couples.
And even before that, the definition would have been "A man and woman, wherein the woman is the property of the man and must obey him."
And in the past women didn't have the right to marry someone of their choice, so consenting wasn't necessarily a part of the definition, and even some men may have been forced into marrying a particular woman for economic or political reasons. It was considered an unbreakable melding of their souls sanctioned by God. Now we have divorce and secular marriage.
The definition of marriage is not immutable, and has changed many times in the past. And in fact, in some societies same sex marriages were possible. But let's just pretend that only Western history matters, and that the Western/Christian definition is immutable, has never changed and was handed down from on high and that we should apply this even in our secular law system
If I argue rationally why you're wrong and that your argument is illogical, pointing out that I'm an atheist and therefore "have no basis for morality or logic blah blah blah BS" is not an argument. Just because you, for some ridiculous reason think that I have to be a theist in order to be rational, this does not mean that you no longer have to make sensible arguments yourself.
Not to mention that your argument doesn't even entail that I have no basis for logic. The transcendental argument entails that my not believing in God is inconsistent with my use of logic and morality, blah blah BS... but not that my logic or moral arguments are baseless. You're saying that they're based on God, and I don't recognize this. But that doesn't make them invalid, since the point of the TAG is precisely that the atheist's logic and moral reasoning ARE valid... but that the only way to explain their validity is God.
So in other words... your argument sucks, because you're trying to ignore arguments by shifting the discussion to stupid crap about God, as if believing in God allows you to make bad arguments and call us irrational when we point their flaws out.
Kix, you need to reread your posts, and then question yourself. Do that for me, and then tell me if it somehow makes sense to you.
I know what you're saying makes sense to you, but you're having a hard time typing it out. Here's your logic, from what I'm hearing:
People with bad eyesight shouldn't be able to wear prescription glasses, because 'normal' people can't wear them without their eyes hurting! It's unfair, they're asking for too much!
Do that for me, and then tell me if it somehow makes sense to you.I know what you're saying makes sense to you, but you're having a hard time typing it out. Here's your logic, from what I'm hearing:
People with bad eyesight shouldn't be able to wear prescription glasses, because 'normal' people can't wear them without their eyes hurting! It's unfair, they're asking for too much!
solrac_krad
Smash Apprentice
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2007
- Messages
- 156
Kix aregument its really plain and going overthe same thing again, even if they were asking for soemthign "extra" (wich it is not), why wouldnt they get it??? Is it wrong n any way?? Besides trying to justify it by love, feelings or whatever, they should get the right beacuse it doesnt do harm to anyone, religious concept doesnt fit in here, and justifyingt by love neither does it, if that was true, how would anyone get a "love proof" before getting married, it is just a agreement between two individuals (Tough I suport poligamist relationships, and more than two people marriages), and if they bring the concept of morality being and abstract concept, then, alot of laws would fail, just give good reasons why the right or the "extra right" (I feel pretty dumb writing that really) shouldnt be aprovved.
The "extra right" thing just doesnt function in the real world Kix, just think about all the laws that have been passed and aprovved and that people had gotten when asking for "extra stuff", if the right has been denied, it has not been because of that, it has been by moral and religious standars basically, not because people were asking for something extra and they do not truly deserve it.
Same sex marriage should be allowed, even if the individuals are gay, straight, bi, or whateversexual (That way, they are not asking for something extra, everyone would get the right xD)
Sorry for my grammar and stuff, Im not in any way a english speaking person
The "extra right" thing just doesnt function in the real world Kix, just think about all the laws that have been passed and aprovved and that people had gotten when asking for "extra stuff", if the right has been denied, it has not been because of that, it has been by moral and religious standars basically, not because people were asking for something extra and they do not truly deserve it.
Same sex marriage should be allowed, even if the individuals are gay, straight, bi, or whateversexual (That way, they are not asking for something extra, everyone would get the right xD)
Sorry for my grammar and stuff, Im not in any way a english speaking person
adumbrodeus
Smash Legend
Actually, the issue isn't equal rights really, the REAL point is to deny a useful equivalent, this argument takes upon itself the segregation maxim, "separate but equal".
One set of rights for men, one set of rights for women, sound familiar? Just switch the groups here, and what do you have, the government assigning different rights to different people, a clear violation of equality under the law.
Plessy vs. Ferguson was overturned, this is unconstitutional.
That, I'll agree with...
But what justification is there for the government to be able to dictate who can get married to who? I don't remember there being anything about marriage in the constitution...
Something called a social contract will suffice...
Arguing from an non-religious standpoint, simply going from the basic idea that we have no constraints, therefore all rights inherently, and therefore not infringe upon others' rights so they will not do the same to us is not a forlorn conclusion.
Of course, not everyone adheres to this, so a government comes in, where people give up some portion of their rights in order to form a government to protect all that remains, this is done in the form of a "social contract".
Sure, it's not "justice", but it is a method of conduct based upon not infringing upon the rights of others (aka all not given up by the government), and serves the same purposes.
Now for the purposes of this, being that I'm not gay, I fully expect to marry a woman, so this doesn't directly effect me, however I don't remember giving the government the right to dictate marriage in the social contract which we are under (the Constitution of the United States, and my state Constitution, though in the latter's case, the overriding Social Contract, namely the US Constitution, guarentees that the state cannot have that in it's constitution anyway). This actually has rather far-reaching implications, and is quite simply, not the government's right, they then seek to impose other regulations and restrictions which is not it's right.
The government has no place in marriage, period. We never ceded it that authority.
Oh, and remind me again why we have anti-polygamy laws...
It is very good of you to apologize on this, it takes character to admit a mistake.Ahh i see.
subconscious bigotry, the dump-all bucket of all social relations, biases, and disparities.
Just saying that the church instigates and supports the actions of such individuals. Now it is labeled 'racist' when african americans are discriminated against, because society has formed a social check, a net per se, that keeps the majority from falling too far into a vice. Such is not the case with homosexuality, and won't be until churches stop propagating hatred. Granted, racism isn't diminished, nor may it ever be. But there should be some form of check on discrimination of homosexuals (not that this is plausible, due to further otherization and further schism). Just dreaming
Subconscious psychological process exists, but is mainly spread and exacerbated by the church and for the church(to increase it's power over people by having a unifying purpose to fight against a group, or in many cases, persecute a group)
That being said, I apologize and retract my earlier statements anyways, because I realized they were unfair/incorrect from the moment I posted them, but seeing as your logic is sound, I can have nothing to say on the matter.
formality is a vice xP
However, I still wish to point this out, even with religions in general (specifically Christian, though Christianity isn't the only one in this area by far), it very much varies on individual teaching. Some to most (I'm not even gonna pretend to know the ratio) do directly preach hatred, but there are also a good number that are completely open in this area. Others, while still preaching that homosexual relations are wrong are very firm in decrying hatred against such individuals (the Catholic Church would be the perfect example here, as would certain branches of Buddhism, though "wrong" probably isn't the proper word).
Though, unfortunately for those who are inattentive to specifics, the "love the sinner hate the sin" approach can too often be used to feed this hatred, but I do maintain that this is a matter of the individual's weakness, since it is quite opposite to the teachings of the religion.
RareTruffle
Smash Apprentice
http://s116.photobucket.com/albums/o21/robertbenge/?action=view¤t=27fdc899.pbw
Haha. Birthday Card.
EDIT: Yikes at the walls of text.
Haha. Birthday Card.
EDIT: Yikes at the walls of text.
Andydark
Smash Journeyman
Again, I reiterate. Marriage is just a word. Let's call it "Right of Life Partnership" would that make people against gay marriage happy?
The fact our government is so bogged up in this is ridiculous. To me, even as a gay man, it just seems like there are more vital things for our politicians to be arguing about.
Seriously, they could pass a bill allowing gay marriage (or something granting similar rights) and most people would obliviously eat it up. I understand the logic in why some politicians are adamantly against it, because you have to keep the masses happy.
It seems that most people who argue against gay marriage due it out of religious reasons, without really knowing what all marriage entails legally. Marriage isn't strictly religious. I need to stop trying to sound intelligent at 4:45 AM.
I have a feeling this argument will go around in circles. So, someone track me down if this argument comes to a conclusion. Or if Amelia Earheart is found. Or if Bush becomes good at handling government funds.
*migrates*
The fact our government is so bogged up in this is ridiculous. To me, even as a gay man, it just seems like there are more vital things for our politicians to be arguing about.
Seriously, they could pass a bill allowing gay marriage (or something granting similar rights) and most people would obliviously eat it up. I understand the logic in why some politicians are adamantly against it, because you have to keep the masses happy.
It seems that most people who argue against gay marriage due it out of religious reasons, without really knowing what all marriage entails legally. Marriage isn't strictly religious. I need to stop trying to sound intelligent at 4:45 AM.
I have a feeling this argument will go around in circles. So, someone track me down if this argument comes to a conclusion. Or if Amelia Earheart is found. Or if Bush becomes good at handling government funds.
*migrates*
I see that most people that disagree with gay marriage are Christian. Do you think it is illogical? If you do then guess what your religion is based on illogical things, like all religions. So start thinking logically and think about why we actually get married, its for love, on a last note i am not gay.
Samusile Deliquent
Smash Rookie
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2008
- Messages
- 4
Kix reminds me of the most hated family in America 
http://youtube.com/watch?v=l9Mta3zdavM
There just is no point to argue with him
http://youtube.com/watch?v=l9Mta3zdavM
There just is no point to argue with him
Seiya
Smash Journeyman
Okay guys...last night was the best and worst night ever. I had my first kiss and gay cuddle! But someone saw us and told the people at the party and drama went down. I can tell the story but I don't know if I can post it on here >_> if you guys don't mind. or you can PM and I'll tell yah or something
- Status