5 ms·

>there's a bunch of people that say it's going to cause the corruption of society Well, just look at the US. Political correctness is getting totally out of ha

>there's a bunch of people that say it's going to cause the corruption of society Well, just look at the US. Political correctness is getting totally out of hand and the same is happening more and more in European countries. Changing traditions causes a lot of entitlement in people who also feel that they should get a special treatment and it seems that there's no end to it. In a democratic society, entitlement from small groups is a societal cancer. And equal legal partnership rights aren't even good enough for many. They absolutely need to have it called marriage, a word that has had a different religious meaning for hundreds of years. It's like these people intentionally try to cause trouble and I can understand why others don't want any of it.

Nursie 9y ago
>> They absolutely need to have it called marriage Yes, because that's equality. We've tried "separate but equal" before, haven't we? It doesn't work out, and it's used as an excuse for continuing discrimination. This is not entitlement, it's equal treatment.
- owebmaster 9y ago
  Gay marriage is like plant-based/fake burgers. Some people will say it is burger, some will say it is not. I'm more inclined to say that it is a "fake marriage", but I have nothing to do with the relationship of any two-person out there.
  - nerdponx 9y ago
    Just because marriage has traditionally been defined one way in your society does not mean that all societies you interact with must adopt the same definition. In fact, your burger analogy perfectly demonstrates the point. Yes, once upon a time, "hamburger" meant a patty of ground beef. However the word "burger" has long since lost the implication of meat and is now freely used to refer to any and all grilled, fried, and baked patties served on a bun. It's not as though the hamburger was created specifically to be a meat product, and the non-meat hamburgers be damned: it's that when the hamburger was created, the only things of its kind were made of meat. A veggie burger can be "fake meat", but it isn't a "fake burger" unless it's not actually food.
    - owebmaster 9y ago
      Exactly! But... Why get so angry with people that loves meat burger and don't agree that "veggie burgers" are burgers? Unless they go out and attack veggie restaurants, they are not wrong. Moving this logic to social dynamics, if the majority of the population don't agree two person of the same sex forming a couple is a marriage, why get so angry at this? It is counterproductive as it helps the right wing join forces irrationally around a common ground. People that don't agree with this discussion are not all "cis-gendered white males".
      - Nursie 9y ago
        > Why get so angry with people that loves meat burger and don't agree that "veggie burgers" are burgers? Because said people are often trying to use the force of law to stop you calling your burger a burger. You can say what you like at home or even in public (and reveal your prejudices to the world), but when it comes to using the state to enforce inequality that's a different matter.
        owebmaster 9y ago
        > Because said people are often trying to use the force of law to stop you calling your burger a burger. This is the definition of society/democracy. Imagine if Scientology started change US laws?
  - Nursie 9y ago
    Really not, it's just like marriage involving people of the same gender. There's no practical difference. Marriage has meant all sorts of things over the ages in various cultures.
    - owebmaster 9y ago
      > There's no practical difference. There're a lot of practial differences and I can give you some: - male/female couples might have offsprings - Children change the amount of resources consumed and available - States need to plan based on these numbers and their variation - Married couples behave differently than single male and females both short and long-term which also affect governmental planning. So there are a lot of reasons to say that's wrong to add a lot of noise to this only for the sake of calling it marriage.
      - Nursie 9y ago
        There's not even a single reason there, let alone many. Older people get married past the age of childbirth, infertile or avowed child-free opposite-sex couples marry too. The 'signal' is already hopelessy noisy and not fit for any sort of purpose. Plus, "we were using those numbers for something they are inherently unsuitable for" is no valid reason to continue discrimination. At this point it really looks like you're grasping at straws to justify what is just a prejudice.
      - greglindahl 9y ago
        Gay couples can't have offspring?! Lots of them do, actually.
  - ambicapter 9y ago
    What makes it fake?
    - owebmaster 9y ago
      As a social dynamics that evolved for safer copulation and procreation, what in 2 people bonding together looks like a marriage? You can pretend that they are just like every other couple (fake until 'we' make it?), but this is exactly what I call fake.
      - JoeAltmaier 9y ago
        ...and now its evolved again. So what?
        owebmaster 9y ago
        Who say so? That is exactly the problem. Some people think it evolved and some don't. Are people willing to go to war because of this? It is interesting. The American Civil War was because of slavery and never again it was accepted world-wide so it might happen again.
        vertex-four 9y ago
        Some people think it's evolved and some don't, but that's a very good reason to get the Government out of the business of regulating what is a marriage and what isn't - otherwise you're forcing one social group's beliefs on another group. My getting married - according to my definition of married - doesn't affect you in any way, shape, or form, so why would the Government prevent me from doing so?
        Nursie 9y ago
        I have interacted with people online who seemed to genuinely think that the ability of a same-sex couple, that they have never met and never will, to get married would deeply affect the value of the ongoing relationship they had with their opposite-sex spouse. I never did get to the bottom of how that was supposed to work.
tskaiser 9y ago
Wanting not to be discriminated against / handled separately != wanting special treatment. It is quite the opposite, in fact. The only people who consider that an entitled position are those who think there is nothing wrong with relegating people to second-class citizen status, even if they refuse to consider it as such. Heck, it is quite entitled for people to think that they inherently deserve privileges that others are denied simply because "that is how it has always been". Bullheaded traditionalism is the actual cancer.
vertex-four 9y ago
Sorry mate, marriage isn't just religious. It's also societal, and Governmental. Many, many people get married outside of church, and for entirely nonreligious reasons - do you speak out against those as well as much as you do marriage between people of the same sex? What about people of a different religion getting married against your religion's rules? By the way - last time I looked into this, marriage predates organised religion, and definitely predates Christianity. If your intention is to maintain a Christian country to the detriment of those following other religions or none at all, at least be honest about it.
- saiya-jin 9y ago
  I couldn't care less about this topic, but isn't what registered partnership is for? You get all the governmental entitlements, right to visit in hospital, inheritance and whatnot, without any religious context. Minus all the nasty potential divorce stuff (unless thats what you're after). And yes, marriage is historically definitely also religious, at least that's how our society evolved in last 2000 years. During pagan times it were also priests/shamans/whatever that were performing them in one way or another.
- d4rti 9y ago
  Paul thinks Christians shouldn't marry http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/marriage.html http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/marriage.html
- neves 9y ago
  Other day I read a story a story in NYT (sorry, couln't find it) about a gay couple. They had a large age gap, and since there was no option to legally marry, they decided the best way to legally bond was to have one adopted by the other. It proved a wise solution when the older one were dying in the hospital and the only allowed visits were from the spouse and the sons.
stupidcar 9y ago
It's hilarious to me that conservatives will talk about political correctness getting "out of hand", while downplaying or ignoring pathologies that result from their own beliefs that have caused, and continue to cause, extraordinary amounts of death, torture, poverty and suffering. Come back when lynch mobs have literally hanged thousands of people for being politically incorrect. Or when millions of people are being systemically disenfranchised because they're politically incorrect. Or when a US president is about to trigger a nuclear war over "political correctness".
- tatersolid 9y ago
  The 100 million people killed by Communist regimes in the last 100 years were nearly all killed for being “politically incorrect.” It’s basically a defining feature of Communist-Socialist regimes: imprision or liquidate dissenting voices.
  - Nursie 9y ago
    In a lot of ways comunist regimes have deeply conservative - see Chairman Mao and his wish to retain the rural, impoverished peasant lifestyle.
madeofpalk 9y ago
> need to have it called marriage, a word that has had a different religious meaning I think the biggest sign that this isnt actually true is that marriage exists in countries across many different religions. That to me indicates that although religion has practices for marriage, marriage itself does not belong to religion. Its almost like a super/subset thing.
fsloth 9y ago
"They absolutely need to have it called marriage" Because that's what it called? You wrote above that entitlement of minorities is cancer. Isn't limiting marriage based on sex just such a cancer? Most of all, sexual desires and even biological structure isn't binary. It's not being overly liberal, it's being non-discriminatory. The key here is 'a binding contract between individuals'. The 'gayness is evil' trope is not fundamental to even western civilization. It was totally ok to be gay in ancient greece.
MaxBarraclough 9y ago
> Changing traditions causes a lot of entitlement in people who also feel that they should get a special treatment and it seems that there's no end to it. In a democratic society, entitlement from small groups is a societal cancer. I'd hardly call gay marriage 'special treatment'. It's the opposite: equal treatment. In that regard it's fundamentally different from, say, mandatory wheelchair-access laws. > They absolutely need to have it called marriage, a word that has had a different religious meaning for hundreds of years. The emotional baggage of religious conservatives isn't reason enough to deny gay couples an equal right to be officially partnered in the eyes of the law. 'Equal' includes the name of the arrangement.

Nursie 9y ago

>> They absolutely need to have it called marriage Yes, because that's equality. We've tried "separate but equal" before, haven't we? It doesn't work out, and it's used as an excuse for continuing discrimination. This is not entitlement, it's equal treatment.

owebmaster 9y ago
Gay marriage is like plant-based/fake burgers. Some people will say it is burger, some will say it is not. I'm more inclined to say that it is a "fake marriage", but I have nothing to do with the relationship of any two-person out there.
- nerdponx 9y ago
  Just because marriage has traditionally been defined one way in your society does not mean that all societies you interact with must adopt the same definition. In fact, your burger analogy perfectly demonstrates the point. Yes, once upon a time, "hamburger" meant a patty of ground beef. However the word "burger" has long since lost the implication of meat and is now freely used to refer to any and all grilled, fried, and baked patties served on a bun. It's not as though the hamburger was created specifically to be a meat product, and the non-meat hamburgers be damned: it's that when the hamburger was created, the only things of its kind were made of meat. A veggie burger can be "fake meat", but it isn't a "fake burger" unless it's not actually food.
  - owebmaster 9y ago
    Exactly! But... Why get so angry with people that loves meat burger and don't agree that "veggie burgers" are burgers? Unless they go out and attack veggie restaurants, they are not wrong. Moving this logic to social dynamics, if the majority of the population don't agree two person of the same sex forming a couple is a marriage, why get so angry at this? It is counterproductive as it helps the right wing join forces irrationally around a common ground. People that don't agree with this discussion are not all "cis-gendered white males".
    - Nursie 9y ago
      > Why get so angry with people that loves meat burger and don't agree that "veggie burgers" are burgers? Because said people are often trying to use the force of law to stop you calling your burger a burger. You can say what you like at home or even in public (and reveal your prejudices to the world), but when it comes to using the state to enforce inequality that's a different matter.
      - owebmaster 9y ago
        > Because said people are often trying to use the force of law to stop you calling your burger a burger. This is the definition of society/democracy. Imagine if Scientology started change US laws?
- Nursie 9y ago
  Really not, it's just like marriage involving people of the same gender. There's no practical difference. Marriage has meant all sorts of things over the ages in various cultures.
  - owebmaster 9y ago
    > There's no practical difference. There're a lot of practial differences and I can give you some: - male/female couples might have offsprings - Children change the amount of resources consumed and available - States need to plan based on these numbers and their variation - Married couples behave differently than single male and females both short and long-term which also affect governmental planning. So there are a lot of reasons to say that's wrong to add a lot of noise to this only for the sake of calling it marriage.
    - Nursie 9y ago
      There's not even a single reason there, let alone many. Older people get married past the age of childbirth, infertile or avowed child-free opposite-sex couples marry too. The 'signal' is already hopelessy noisy and not fit for any sort of purpose. Plus, "we were using those numbers for something they are inherently unsuitable for" is no valid reason to continue discrimination. At this point it really looks like you're grasping at straws to justify what is just a prejudice.
    - greglindahl 9y ago
      Gay couples can't have offspring?! Lots of them do, actually.
- ambicapter 9y ago
  What makes it fake?
  - owebmaster 9y ago
    As a social dynamics that evolved for safer copulation and procreation, what in 2 people bonding together looks like a marriage? You can pretend that they are just like every other couple (fake until 'we' make it?), but this is exactly what I call fake.
    - JoeAltmaier 9y ago
      ...and now its evolved again. So what?
      - owebmaster 9y ago
        Who say so? That is exactly the problem. Some people think it evolved and some don't. Are people willing to go to war because of this? It is interesting. The American Civil War was because of slavery and never again it was accepted world-wide so it might happen again.
        vertex-four 9y ago
        Some people think it's evolved and some don't, but that's a very good reason to get the Government out of the business of regulating what is a marriage and what isn't - otherwise you're forcing one social group's beliefs on another group. My getting married - according to my definition of married - doesn't affect you in any way, shape, or form, so why would the Government prevent me from doing so?
        Nursie 9y ago
        I have interacted with people online who seemed to genuinely think that the ability of a same-sex couple, that they have never met and never will, to get married would deeply affect the value of the ongoing relationship they had with their opposite-sex spouse. I never did get to the bottom of how that was supposed to work.

tskaiser 9y ago

Wanting not to be discriminated against / handled separately != wanting special treatment. It is quite the opposite, in fact. The only people who consider that an entitled position are those who think there is nothing wrong with relegating people to second-class citizen status, even if they refuse to consider it as such. Heck, it is quite entitled for people to think that they inherently deserve privileges that others are denied simply because "that is how it has always been". Bullheaded traditionalism is the actual cancer.

vertex-four 9y ago

Sorry mate, marriage isn't just religious. It's also societal, and Governmental. Many, many people get married outside of church, and for entirely nonreligious reasons - do you speak out against those as well as much as you do marriage between people of the same sex? What about people of a different religion getting married against your religion's rules? By the way - last time I looked into this, marriage predates organised religion, and definitely predates Christianity. If your intention is to maintain a Christian country to the detriment of those following other religions or none at all, at least be honest about it.

saiya-jin 9y ago
I couldn't care less about this topic, but isn't what registered partnership is for? You get all the governmental entitlements, right to visit in hospital, inheritance and whatnot, without any religious context. Minus all the nasty potential divorce stuff (unless thats what you're after). And yes, marriage is historically definitely also religious, at least that's how our society evolved in last 2000 years. During pagan times it were also priests/shamans/whatever that were performing them in one way or another.
d4rti 9y ago
Paul thinks Christians shouldn't marry http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/marriage.html http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/marriage.html
neves 9y ago
Other day I read a story a story in NYT (sorry, couln't find it) about a gay couple. They had a large age gap, and since there was no option to legally marry, they decided the best way to legally bond was to have one adopted by the other. It proved a wise solution when the older one were dying in the hospital and the only allowed visits were from the spouse and the sons.

stupidcar 9y ago

It's hilarious to me that conservatives will talk about political correctness getting "out of hand", while downplaying or ignoring pathologies that result from their own beliefs that have caused, and continue to cause, extraordinary amounts of death, torture, poverty and suffering. Come back when lynch mobs have literally hanged thousands of people for being politically incorrect. Or when millions of people are being systemically disenfranchised because they're politically incorrect. Or when a US president is about to trigger a nuclear war over "political correctness".

tatersolid 9y ago
The 100 million people killed by Communist regimes in the last 100 years were nearly all killed for being “politically incorrect.” It’s basically a defining feature of Communist-Socialist regimes: imprision or liquidate dissenting voices.
- Nursie 9y ago
  In a lot of ways comunist regimes have deeply conservative - see Chairman Mao and his wish to retain the rural, impoverished peasant lifestyle.

madeofpalk 9y ago

> need to have it called marriage, a word that has had a different religious meaning I think the biggest sign that this isnt actually true is that marriage exists in countries across many different religions. That to me indicates that although religion has practices for marriage, marriage itself does not belong to religion. Its almost like a super/subset thing.

fsloth 9y ago

"They absolutely need to have it called marriage" Because that's what it called? You wrote above that entitlement of minorities is cancer. Isn't limiting marriage based on sex just such a cancer? Most of all, sexual desires and even biological structure isn't binary. It's not being overly liberal, it's being non-discriminatory. The key here is 'a binding contract between individuals'. The 'gayness is evil' trope is not fundamental to even western civilization. It was totally ok to be gay in ancient greece.

MaxBarraclough 9y ago

> Changing traditions causes a lot of entitlement in people who also feel that they should get a special treatment and it seems that there's no end to it. In a democratic society, entitlement from small groups is a societal cancer. I'd hardly call gay marriage 'special treatment'. It's the opposite: equal treatment. In that regard it's fundamentally different from, say, mandatory wheelchair-access laws. > They absolutely need to have it called marriage, a word that has had a different religious meaning for hundreds of years. The emotional baggage of religious conservatives isn't reason enough to deny gay couples an equal right to be officially partnered in the eyes of the law. 'Equal' includes the name of the arrangement.