Same-Sex Marriages

[Mirage]

So Gadanae,why do you want to shoot everyone who isn't a christian heterosexual? Cause that's what you were implying.

[Xilk]

So Gadanae,why do you want to shoot everyone who isn't a christian heterosexual? Cause that's what you were implying.

Now see, this is a strawman. Did anyone advocate depriving people of basic human rights for their choices?

I would be just as offended by someone attacking someone for their choice of homosexuality. In fact, I have gotten into a fight for EXACTLY that. Guess what, I've also fought off a groups of college morons who were picking on another guy because he's Jewish. The conservative Christian "hole-in-their-heads-where-their-brains-should-be" have attacked me for my religious beliefs since before I hit puberty. Ever Since puberty, the So-open-minded-liberal-my-brain-fell-out leftists have done the same since I was a teenager.

If you protect INDIVIDUAL freedoms, then 'demographics' and 'special interest groups' disappear.

People are people FIRST. Sexuality is way down line. The west is FULL of gay identity politics. It hurts everyone who has been convinced that their identity and their personal VALUE is based of their sexuality. I would not reduce a person to this. Do you have any idea how many 'homosexual' men who were pulled in by the identity politics later found they are attracted to women? Do you know how many 'bi-sexual' people are persecuted by the "homosexual community"?

"Here, life is tough, people are mean to you because they are haters. you belong w/ us. We'll give you a home. We'll take you in. ... (just one thing, You better tote the party line, or else)"

It functions like an abusive family, or a cult. Gee so many of those taken in while teen/tweens find later in life that they really are attracted to women! Sure, they have years of sexual association meaning they still find gratification in homosexual activity, but you can build the same associations with most anything. If you imprint in the middle of sexual development you can have someone who thinks there is nothing as drop dead sexy as orange peel or whatever other thing you can condition someone to. It takes YEARS of painful work to change this for those who WANT to.

Look below the surface. Sure, there are plenty of people who will say that "they are homosexual, it was born into them, its there nature and they couldn't be happier" There are also plenty who will say they were confused and upset and really don't know. The ones shouting are making a political move. The quiet ones are usually working on their emotional health.

You paint the issue WAY to small and simple. "haters are all the people on the other side of the argument" Yeah, right. There are haters on both sides. Keeping it reduced to such a simple level is just a way to avoid the DIFFICULT work or examining the issue and one's own feelings.

You can call my statements a straw-man all you want. It won't make it true. Its just an attempt to avoid the gruesome details and invalidate and ignore the items I bring up. Look deeper into it. Homosexuality has existing for a LONG LONG time. No culture has ever tried to make it into marriage. This idea had to be born of the cultural and political contrasts and pressures in the UNITED STATES of AMERICA.

Do you not know that culture, customs and traditions form society at a more profound and deeper level than law? Do you not understand how These are the source of the values and freedoms you enjoy in most developed counties of the world? Do you not understand that marriage is one of these basic, fundamental building pieces of society? Do you not understand that redefining it and changing it is to culture and society like tweaking the value of gravity would be to astronomical physics?

Its reckless and irresponsible at best. Its catastrophic and malicious at worst.

[NrvnqsrKhaos]

Let me start by saying I don't think you're entirely wrong. I disagree with some points, and your ways of making them, but I agree that people who support gay marraige for the reasons you state are not doing it for the right reasons.

Now see, this is a strawman. Did anyone advocate depriving people of basic human rights for their choices?

Yeah. I called her out on this.

I would be just as offended by someone attacking someone for their choice of homosexuality. In fact, I have gotten into a fight for EXACTLY that. Guess what, I've also fought off a groups of college morons who were picking on another guy because he's Jewish. The conservative Christian "hole-in-their-heads-where-their-brains-should-be" have attacked me for my religious beliefs since before I hit puberty. Ever Since puberty, the So-open-minded-liberal-my-brain-fell-out leftists have done the same since I was a teenager.

This serves no purpose to your argument. It's put in here for a pity plea to show that you're more rational and balanced than you come off. I'm not saying you aren't, but if someone's looking for it, it comes across as manipulation.

If you protect INDIVIDUAL freedoms, then 'demographics' and 'special interest groups' disappear.

This is true. No argument here.

People are people FIRST. Sexuality is way down line. The west is FULL of gay identity politics. It hurts everyone who has been convinced that their identity and their personal VALUE is based of their sexuality. I would not reduce a person to this. Do you have any idea how many 'homosexual' men who were pulled in by the identity politics later found they are attracted to women? Do you know how many 'bi-sexual' people are persecuted by the "homosexual community"?

"Here, life is tough, people are mean to you because they are haters. you belong w/ us. We'll give you a home. We'll take you in. ... (just one thing, You better tote the party line, or else)"

Where is this quote from? You're pulling an example from no where. People are certainly more than just a series of yes/no questions, and certainly, politics seems to revolve around pushing folks into specially designed holes that don't quite fit them. But I'm again having a hard time understanding your point. There are evil, self serving gay people who mislead others? Okay. I knew that, cause they're people, and it's not like we heteros have a monopoly on the jerk department.

It functions like an abusive family, or a cult. Gee so many of those taken in while teen/tweens find later in life that they really are attracted to women! Sure, they have years of sexual association meaning they still find gratification in homosexual activity, but you can build the same associations with most anything. If you imprint in the middle of sexual development you can have someone who thinks there is nothing as drop dead sexy as orange peel or whatever other thing you can condition someone to. It takes YEARS of painful work to change this for those who WANT to.

Scientifically true, and quite a compelling argument. But it reads like you assume this happens in the majority of cases where homosexuality is involved. If that is so, I have to respectfully disagree. This seems like a specialized case due to the work of the kind of assholes you mentioned in the preceeding paragraph, with no indication of how many gay (or supposedly gay) people actually have these problems. Furthermore, if a person is naturally gay, as is argued by many, then that sort of imprinting wouldn't change them.

Look below the surface. Sure, there are plenty of people who will say that "they are homosexual, it was born into them, its there nature and they couldn't be happier" There are also plenty who will say they were confused and upset and really don't know. The ones shouting are making a political move. The quiet ones are usually working on their emotional health.

I agree with the fact that the shouters are the ones who are looking to gain something from the legalization. But I think that the quiet ones mainly just want some peace. Maybe that counts as working on their emotional health? And what about this is looking deeper?

You paint the issue WAY to small and simple. "haters are all the people on the other side of the argument" Yeah, right. There are haters on both sides. Keeping it reduced to such a simple level is just a way to avoid the DIFFICULT work or examining the issue and one's own feelings.

Haters gonna hate, whether it be Orignal Recipe Hate or Crispy Counter Hatred. Hating for no sake other than other people be hating gets society nowhere. But on the other hand, I think that the homosexual community has plenty of reasons to be peeved about their rights and what not, and the issue should be examined in a level more substantial than the bickering of said haters.

You can call my statements a straw-man all you want. It won't make it true. Its just an attempt to avoid the gruesome details and invalidate and ignore the items I bring up. Look deeper into it. Homosexuality has existing for a LONG LONG time. No culture has ever tried to make it into marriage. This idea had to be born of the cultural and political contrasts and pressures in the UNITED STATES of AMERICA.

True. I call your arguments strawmen when they are; both your recent post and previous one pulled quotes from the nether, using them to substantiate your arguments as the "voice of the opposition". That's... pretty much a strawman, dude.

Marriage actually wasn't such a big deal in non-western societies, before western society brought everyone into it's euro centric mindset. Before the USA, I'd assume people were too scared to have the gay beaten out of them to think about marriage. Before the beatings and such, or outside of where said beatings occurred, there wasn't as much of a focus on the whole monogamy thing.

If there wasn't a clear economic advantage to marriage in the form of taxes, insurance, and other legal stuff, it wouldn't be an issue. If civil unions between gay people can give them the same rights, Let's go with that instead, cause it saves the whole "definition of marriage" debate from becoming a clustercluck of angry hens. But from experience, the US has learned "Seperate but Equal" doesn't work so well, and thus here we are.

Oh, and I don't think it's at all bad motives for gays to want marraige to be legalized so that they can enjoy the same benefits as straight couples. As it is now, they have to make due without said benefits, or be someone they're not to have equal treatment. You yourself claimed that people not being who they are is bad, right?

If you imprint in the middle of sexual development you can have someone who thinks there is nothing as drop dead sexy as orange peel or whatever other thing you can condition someone to. It takes YEARS of painful work to change this for those who WANT to.

Just making sure.

Do you not know that culture, customs and traditions form society at a more profound and deeper level than law? Do you not understand how These are the source of the values and freedoms you enjoy in most developed counties of the world? Do you not understand that marriage is one of these basic, fundamental building pieces of society? Do you not understand that redefining it and changing it is to culture and society like tweaking the value of gravity would be to astronomical physics?

Its reckless and irresponsible at best. Its catastrophic and malicious at worst.

And now the drama starts. This is not a strawman, it's a slippery slope with a strawman trap imbedded in it. I'll deftly avoid the trap of comparing man-made law to natural law and simply say that traditions mean absolutely nothing if they aren't currently useful to humanity. Because the tradition of marriage is not useful to some humans, they are looking to abandon the traditional description of it. The changed tradition doesn't mean that the old marriage doesn't exist anymore; nor will changing it somehow undo all of society in a earth shaking global orgy of decadence. The source of something becomes less important as the resulting whatever gains a shape of it's own, which is why vegetarians don't blame grass (Well, okay, corn) for making cows delicious.

So yeah. In game marriage no, cause it's not worth the crapstorm. Out of game marriage, probably, cause the benefits are more important and reasonable for all people to demand.

Then again, if out of game marriage becomes okay, I guess it'd be okay for in game marriage too.

This is getting confusing.

[Xilk]

No, its not all bad motives from homosexuals who want same-sex marriage. It doesn't take bad motives to do something very very destructive, ill-thought out, and wrong.
For most people, simply hearing the line "Equal rights for homosexuals" is enough to convince them. Who can argue against equal rights?
In american social politics, its been popular to start titling MANY things as "RIGHTS" that are not rights. You could say marriage is a 'RITE' but its really not a "RIGHT". Healthcare is not a "RIGHT' its a priveledge. Cars and employment are not RIGHTS. They may be needs, but they are not rights. Marriage is a freedom. Marriage is a privilege.

What homosexual has ever been denied the choice to marry? Any man or woman of legal age is free to marry another. What is contested is forcing everyone else to call a same-gender union a marriage. With that everyone else must respect it the same as they respect a real marriage.

The politics are that the lobby is NOT trying to gain any freedom, they are trying to redefine it as a union between man and man or woman and woman, which is something it has never meant. When you try to use law to redefine what is, then you are most certainly affecting everyone else.

This serves no purpose to your argument. It's put in here for a pity plea to show that you're more rational and balanced than you come off. I'm not saying you aren't, but if someone's looking for it, it comes across as manipulation.

My background experience/information serve my argument by showing that I am not what the accusation stated. The accusation was designed to invalidate my points without addressing them at all. Its not a plea for pity.

More rational than I come off huh? opinions vary widely on that one I should think... With any historical perspective, the idea of same-sex marriage is about as irrational as I can think of.

Marriage actually wasn't such a big deal in non-western societies, before western society brought everyone into it's euro centric mindset. Before the USA, I'd assume people were too scared to have the gay beaten out of them to think about marriage. Before the beatings and such, or outside of where said beatings occurred, there wasn't as much of a focus on the whole monogamy thing.

I'm sorry this is grossly false. If you have no judeochristian background whatsoever, any scholar can point to the bible even in a PURELY historical context which refutes this completely. Marriage predates Western Civilization completely. It is ubiquitous in ALL cultures. All, not some, not most, ALL. I use the bible as an easy source, but really any ancient text or stories, myths, etc. They are married. Indian, Chinese, Persian, Babylonian, Mongolian, African... everyone had marriage, its central to how the tribes, societies, customs, civilizations are organized.

Also, if I made a straw-man, than this certainly is too. Where are your references for this statement? but I don't think its a strawman. you are presenting a premise. A straw-man is arguing against a position that I have neither stated nor agree to at all as if it were my position. It is a distracting technique. I perhaps skipped some steps in the arguments at worst, but I jumped to what I have found to be the heart of the matter. If you disagree about my premises, we can discuss the premises, but its no straw man.

If there wasn't a clear economic advantage to marriage in the form of taxes, insurance, and other legal stuff, it wouldn't be an issue. If civil unions between gay people can give them the same rights, Let's go with that instead, cause it saves the whole "definition of marriage" debate from becoming a clustercluck of angry hens. But from experience, the US has learned "Seperate but Equal" doesn't work so well, and thus here we are.

This is an excuse for some, but its not enough and I don't believe it is the driving reason for people to argue for same-sex marriage. In the US there are certainly economic benefits given to married couples. These are not a right. Married couples have no right to them at all. The tax laws and benefits give to married people are not protected in the Constitution, they are not guarenteed. They are privileges given because some lawmakers actually noticed something in wisdom. (its not really that hard to figure out though). Families, procreation, and marriage are VERY good for a culture and a nation. Economically, culturally and so forth. These benefits were developed because raising children benefits society tremendously, and its very demanding and difficult. Its a kind of 'pay it forward' approach.
A same-sex couple does not procreate. If they try to form a family w/ same-gender parents at the top, it is an experiment, not a proven benefit to society.

This is plenty of legal reasoning for the economic and tax laws not to be extended to homosexual partnerships. Its not a right.
These are the types of arguments that persuade academics and lawmakers. They are general, and ambiguous. The motivating reason for an individual or couple is MUCH more personal. The personal reasons people will most likely want? Well, they've chosen a lifestyle that is certainly not normal. The homosexual politics have largely won. They have made an identity out of this choice and gained many laws and moneys from doing so. However it is not enough. What they really want now is acceptance and vindication. Its really the same thing that many have wanted: Acceptance.
People want a home, a family, a community. You can demand tolerance for things that do not infringe upon the freedoms of others, but you cannot demand acceptance. That is the point where you are infringing upon others rights.
Changing marriage to include same-sex partnerships is requiring the law and the rest of society to accept a belief.
The slippery slope is changing the definitions of things.

This is not a strawman, it's a slippery slope with a strawman trap imbedded in it. I'll deftly avoid the trap of comparing man-made law to natural law and simply say that traditions mean absolutely nothing if they aren't currently useful to humanity. Because the tradition of marriage is not useful to some humans, they are looking to abandon the traditional description of it. The changed tradition doesn't mean that the old marriage doesn't exist anymore; nor will changing it somehow undo all of society in a earth shaking global orgy of decadence. The source of something becomes less important as the resulting whatever gains a shape of it's own, which is why vegetarians don't blame grass (Well, okay, corn) for making cows delicious.

It is not tradition for tradition's sake. If a traditions has no more reason that it is tradition, then I believe it is time to cast it aside. Marriage is so much more than that. Marriage is an agreement and a commitment between a man and a woman, god and their society. Marriage has been shown to be the best environment for children to grow up healthy. Marriage shows commitment of love between the partners, yes. However it also tells society what to expect from married persons.

Marriage is useful to all of society even if you are not a direct participant. Marriage forms the family, raises the next generation. This generation provides all the human elements of continuing art, economics, etc. Society does not continue w/out procreation. Children do not grow into healthy productive adults without help. There are exceptions ofcourse, but by and large, this happens in a healthy family headed by a man and woman.

Marriage is under severe threat. This is certainly true. In the US 50% of marriages end in divorce. This is scary for a society and it is very destructive. This does not mean that marriage is meaningless. The very fact we are having this discussion completely counters that idea. If it were meaningless neither of us would discuss it at all. It certainly would not be a political issue. Even if 50% fail, it means 50% succeed. Thats alot. Of the 50% that fail, do you believe all those people feel marriage failed them? The marriage itself was meaningless? Not at all. Most remarry. Most keep trying.

The lack of trust in people keeping commitments is what is hurting society. The lack of faith in the customs and traditions is what causes this deterioration. Saying marriage is meaningless because people break faith, is like saying law is meaningless because people break the law. Is there a different reason one might think marriage is meaningless?

It seems we agree in game same-sex marriage is not going to happen and would not be worth it for SE to make happen.


another side note: In Japan homosexuality is treated much more like a joke than in western counties. They do not have a judeochristian background at all. The overall perspective is quite different regarding religion and it is less accepting of homosexuality and same-sex marriage than the west is. The freedoms we value in Judeochristian society actually give more opportunity for this argument in the first place.

[Moonblade]

I have yet to see a valid reason. The only thing that is coming from the post is that people are "scared" of what they do not know and therefore think it should not be allowed.

No one reduces their life down to sex. Not only am I red-headed, left handed, irish-descent, but I also happen to be gay. Any of the aforementioned reasons will allow me to marry in the Real World with the exception of being gay. Why not allow in the fantasy game environment for same-sexed individuals get married. I know plenty of dudes who play Mithra's and plenty of women who play galka's/male-sexed avatars.... This is not about forcing a belief or forcing an ideology upon people. If you don't like the idea because of your moral/religious background - I can accept that but my morals and god has told me not to judge others.

[Mirage]

No, moonblade, you have to understand that in a perfect world, sexual deviants should be purged and everyone should be indoctrinated in the ways of the only true religion, christianity.

[NrvnqsrKhaos]

No, moonblade, you have to understand that in a perfect world, sexual deviants should be purged and everyone should be indoctrinated in the ways of the only true religion, christianity.

And now the strawmen from the "yay to gay" side. C'mon people, let's have a bit of class in our reasonable discussions of unimportant, underutilized systems in online games that aren't even currently active.

[Mirage]

And now the strawmen from the "yay to gay" side. C'mon people, let's have a bit of class in our reasonable discussions of unimportant, underutilized systems in online games that aren't even currently active.

Yes, I was exaggerating, but not very much. A few posts ago, you'll see someone saying basically just that,though a bit more subtle.

And it's not even that i'm "yay to gay", it's that I see no reason to discriminate against people who happen to prefer their own sex over the opposite, and definitely not based on your own personal religious belief.

Why should you even care if two men got married? Exactly how does it affect your personal or professional life?

It is something that is nice to homosexuals, and doesn't really affect anyone else. If you are thoroughly disgusted by two people being happily married, maybe the problem lies with you.

[Mirage]

You're right, I should apologize for jumping to conclusions.

Next time i see someone with a knife on the streets, I'm going to be open to the idea that it's made of chocolate and ask the guy if I can have a taste!

[NrvnqsrKhaos]

You're right, I should apologize for jumping to conclusions.

Next time i see someone with a knife on the streets, I'm going to assume it's made of chocolate and eat it!

Don't you go pulling the same stunt on me now. :< It's a really easy and really bad habit to get into, when arguing with people. I just try to point it out in hopes that people think more about what they type.

In your example, you have visual evidence that the knife is not, in fact, made of chocolate. And I personally would not antagonize a person who is visably armed in the same way I antagonize people I disagree with on the internet. I cannot say for certain if you share this trait, however.

Stuff like this is why legal speak is so complex. I'm getting tired of it already, and it's my pet peeve!