It's not worth the trouble further. Let's hate the people. Cuz it's much more fun to have stuff that others can't, without having to work for it.
I will tell next time I see an homosexual against these laws that he's a "hater". Do you suggest me I go as extreme as an LGBT would go against such homosexuals and say he's a "traitor to the community"?
(I won't, but see what I'm saying to make your point)
I'll leave on the point that you're owing yourself something that others can't have because of who they love... and that's wrong. I don't find that opinion-based. You're not allowing the same rights to someone for something they can't control. I find it hard to believe that people with your beliefs haven't been evolved out yet.
Hmm I read somewhere something like that that "when the time will come that things considered "right" will become "wrong" and those considered "wrong" will become "right", it will be the start of the end when values become the exact opposite of what they used to be".
"haven't been evolved out yet" The presence of "been" is quite interesting. Would imply something else would have pushed "evolution" on us. Ah well, lobbying and brainwashing I suppose. But no, it doesn't work. Just as people like Avenger do resist mainstream media propaganda (because every media does its own propaganda) I do resist "progressism" propaganda.
Psyko wrote:Legendary Apophis wrote:Remedy™ wrote:Legendary Apophis wrote:Remedy™ wrote:Juliette wrote:Either agree with one of the parties involved, or provide arguments why the other is wrong. Being an ass does not get you anywhere, and that is coming from someone who disagrees with the person whose comments you just marginalised.
Extremely poor form, sir.
Hardly, if you care to read above, I did agree, with Psyko.
He said it wasn't worth the argument with me, I said it's not worth reading what he has to say.
I replied to your argument of "loling hard about marriage and children", but the rest, it wasn't arguments. This time, you provided arguments...
Fact is, I live in a Christian area and grew up Catholic and now I live in one of the states in the US that allows Gay Marriage. I don't have to read some situation in France to know how it's affecting people.
Trying to define marriage as a union between man and woman is simply outdated. I love how we pick things out of religion that condemn people, even though it was for a much different time.
It's not "outdated" it's the way marriage is. That's where I strongly disagree. "Progress" for the sake of "progress" isn't something I would defend. Because common good goes beyond particular groups demands. If society was to follow each group's demands, it would be impossible to follow...which happens in countries led by "progressists", it becomes impossible to manage as it goes chaotic as you cannot find the limit then (offer the hand, they ask for the arm, my country is particularly good at it). Same as offering vote for foreigners (non-EU foreigners in EU case), it's nonsense...
It's hardly progress for the sake of progress. It's not some random group of people. It's not the female librarians that live on the 4th block of 3rd street. These are legitimate concerns from a large portion of the population. It's not at all like a foreign voter as most of these people were in fact born here and they aren't trying to vote for president (US case), they are fighting for equal rights with their heterosexual counter-parts.
I'm obviously for gay marriage, and not changing it to Gay Civil Agreement. Why should we have to change the name for the same thing?
Because marriage is an institution regarding an union between a man and a woman. It doesn't have to do only with Christianity. Sure that in Roman republic they divorced as often as one nowadays changes house location, but it was still a man and a woman. Both the roots being Romans and Christianity, both had marriage man+woman. Everyone can marry, as long as it's with a person from the different sex. There's no such thing as "second class citizens" in our countries.
You keep going here. That marriage is between a man and a woman. Because why exactly? Religion and the Romans? That obviously makes sense. Should it also be okay to have slaves and mass murder trying to take over the world? You only proved my point that those thoughts are indeed Outdated. "Yes, EVERYONE can marry, BUT...." is my issue. You put stipulations on it that you hardly have the right to.Limiting what someone can do based no the gender they prefer is ignorant in my opinion and much easier to agree with when you're from the opposite side.
I'm sorry I didn't understand this...
Not surprised. I'm simply saying that it's easy to say Gay marriage is wrong when you aren't gay. Would you find it okay if you France suddenly decided people named Jim couldn't drive cars? Changing marriage for certain people IS taking away rights. What about felons? Should we take away their right to marry, like we do others of their rights? Apparently not, just the gays.I've never seen a legitimate argument against Gay marriage that didn't bring religion into the situation.
It's a matter of subjectivity I suppose.
Let's hear something that isn't based on religion here. Give me something that says gays can't marry that isn't based on the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman, which is truly based on nothing. Separation from church and state my man. We should never let religion make its way into politics, as it only helps those that are part of it. Next... it'll be that you can only marry if you believe in God. Ya know, cuz it's against the 10 commandments to feel otherwise.
Forgive me, as sometimes I begin to ramble.
1. It is a group trying to change the way the marriage is, and in marriage there is the Filiation. It's from a law point of view that what enables marriage and what is marriage is changed when you enable changes. The way LGBT works, if you allow same-sex marriage, you will also have to accept same-sex adoption ect...meaning the filiation will be changed. Children not anymore coming from a mother and a father but now having two fathers and no mother, or two mothers and no father. Which definitely is a thing one needs during teenage, to have the mother and the father considering each has their role and particularities.
2. Because it is the way our societies defined marriage. It's part of the civilization, of the culture, ect...I don't see what slavery has to do with it considering slavery means someone is not free and property of someone else. As far as I know homosexuals can have a salary for their work, vote, don't have to ask their master to go there or here, ect...
3. As I said, some of the front opponents to the same-sex marriage/adoption law happen to be homosexuals in my country. I also did a long paragraph to precise difference between an homosexual and a LGBT to explain why homosexuals could be against it.
4. As I said already, because when marriage come, adoption comes, and the question of children and filiation too. Don't say I am obsessed, it is NOT me who asked for this law to be both marriage-adoption, it is not me who asks for both marriage/adoption "equality". If you want to know why it's not just a matter of marriage but also a matter of adoption and children, ask LGBT lobbies why they want all and not just marriage. They will tell you equality for marriage isn't sufficient and that adoption and right to have children follows. Even though technically a same-sex couple cannot have children...Some of the people who oppose that law said "they didn't care about same-sex marriage" but cared a lot more for same-sex adoption against which they disagreed. But considering one "equality" is asking for another and my country is a good example to prove it, if you agree for one, it will be hard to disagree for the others later...you would be considered as "hypocrite" and half-equalizer or whatever.
Now sorry but my Timezone asks me to go to bed...
Children come from single-parent households now, and there are quite a few who already have same-sex couples as "parents" whether from their mom/dad legal guardian finding a same-sex partner, or any number of other possibilities. So far they seem just as damaged as the rest of us, if not less-so, because they have parents who love each other and support them; their sex shouldn't matter as parents. If anything kids hate the idea of their parents actually sleeping together and prefer to think of them as sex-less entities who provide for and support them.
Just because France has linked marriage to the ability to adopt does not mean that is the case everywhere. Americans are fighting for the right to same-sex marriage, and some of those who've won that fight have moved on to adoption, but it is a much smaller portion of the population. Honestly, I find your country to be a bad example for a lot of things. You're thinking of this issue on a limited scale which only affects your country with the law currently being lobbied for, which I believe clouds your judgement; I'm considering the people the laws against gay marriage directly affect on a generalized scale.
I'll go through and reply to your counterarguments to my post when I have a chance.
I never understood how this argument could be seriously used " if not less-so, because they have parents who love each other and support theme" as if 1- gay couples couldn't have same problems as straight couples (ie: perfect couples exempt of anything wrong) 2- straight couples would be least likely to love each others and their children..
Well my country might be a "bad example for a lot of things" (lol, I wonder how, considering it's also a republic) but the fact remains that the ones pushing for this law are LGBT lobbyists. Sure it might be different in the US, but ten years ago they asked for civil contract, and "NO marriage wasn't the goal". Ten years later it was, and adoption was too. That example of no then yes led Poland to reject recently civil contract to avoid the same path as we did, quoting our example to NOT follow it. Even if in the US "for now" it's a "minority", it doesn't mean it will remain that way...
Marriage was defined in a time where gay relationships were taboo and if im not mistaken against the law. I dont see why you hold such great value to the definition of marriage. Right now the marriage we are talking about is a legal contract between 2 people. Having a different name for gay/lesbian relationships is just unnessessary. Why can we not redefine marriage? Unless we have an issue and wish to control with whome people choose to live their lives with. Which frankly is absurd.
If I'm not mistaken UK is the worst case currently because it is forcing this marriage to religious marriage considering UK isn't secular state contrary to most other EU states. Thus this law will be directed to religious marriages. And if a gay couple asks for the EU civil rights commission, these could force even the Anglican Church which is currently strongly opposed to it, to celebrate marriages. Which is just purely unacceptable.