The Issue of Homosexuality

[The Sum of Awe]

wasn't the idea of segregation the default?

It did more good to put an end to the default there though.

 

[waitasec]

It did more good to put an end to the default there though.

how do you see granting same sex couples the right to marry as something different?

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Sorry I miswatched, I thought it was suicide. But either way, hatred of gays will still be there after it's legalized, it'd do more for illegalizing anti-gay speeches and homophobia rather than supporting their marriage.

Its about the rights of the partner. You say its the same with or without a ring but it isn't. Without the state acknowledge contract of marriage, the family has precedent over a person. They can step in and make medical decisions without the partners consent. They can take all the money in the relatives bank account after death without the partners knowledge or consent. They can deny the partner visitation rights in the hospital. They can deny visitation rights at the funeral. It happens all the time and you can honestly say that's ok with you? I thought you had more of a heart than that.

 

[Me Myself]

Its about the rights of the partner. You say its the same with or without a ring but it isn't. Without the state acknowledge contract of marriage, the family has precedent over a person. They can step in and make medical decisions without the partners consent. They can take all the money in the relatives bank account after death without the partners knowledge or consent. They can deny the partner visitation rights in the hospital. They can deny visitation rights at the funeral. It happens all the time and you can honestly say that's ok with you? I thought you had more of a heart than that.

Is it my imagination or I´ve felt some greater proclivity to promtly judge and attack posters lately in RF?

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Is it my imagination or I´ve felt some greater proclivity to promtly judge and attack posters lately in RF?

What attack?

 

[fallingblood]

Oh, I just want to make it clear: I do not promote making it illegal, but it seems to be the default, so I don't see a point in promoting it's legality either.

Because making it legal gives them the right they deserved in the first place. Not to mention, the right they experienced for many years in the past.

Not to mention, it gives them many benefits that straight couples have as well.

 

[Alceste]

Not really



Why wouldn't I be?



It was mostly just wrong choice of words... What purpose does legalizing it serve? Why not just let them be in relationships, same thing without the ring...

There's a questionable assumption here that personal freedom is something that should exist only when it is "allowed". To me, the default assumption should be that freedom is assumed except when something is prohibited, and we should not prohibit anything without a rock solid reason to do so.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

how do you see granting same sex couples the right to marry as something different?

It isn't hurting them if they can't get married.

Because making it legal gives them the right they deserved in the first place. Not to mention, the right they experienced for many years in the past.

Not to mention, it gives them many benefits that straight couples have as well.

How about relationships?

There's a questionable assumption here that personal freedom is something that should exist only when it is "allowed". To me, the default assumption should be that freedom is assumed except when something is prohibited, and we should not prohibit anything without a rock solid reason to do so.

I agree, personal freedom should be unlimited, but some people weren't too reasonable and made gay marriage illegal, but just because I think gays aren't bad and wouldn't hurt the world if they could get married, but it seems all of the people supporting gay marriage rights are also socialists, and that means more money out of my pocket for gay marriage programs, which I don't see much benefit of having in the first place, since there is such thing as being in a relationship without being married.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

It isn't hurting them if they can't get married.

Of course it is, for all the reasons I posted earlier. How do you address those issues?

 

[Rainbow Mage]

It isn't hurting them if they can't get married.



How about relationships?



I agree, personal freedom should be unlimited, but some people weren't too reasonable and made gay marriage illegal, but just because I think gays aren't bad and wouldn't hurt the world if they could get married, but it seems all of the people supporting gay marriage rights are also socialists, and that means more money out of my pocket for gay marriage programs, which I don't see much benefit of having in the first place, since there is such thing as being in a relationship without being married.

It isn't the point rather it hurts or not to deny gay people marriage. There is no excuse for it in a secular society.

Not sure how you think Socialism comes into the equation of equal rights.

 

[waitasec]

It isn't hurting them if they can't get married.

why would you say that?

 

[Alceste]

It isn't hurting them if they can't get married.



How about relationships?



I agree, personal freedom should be unlimited, but some people weren't too reasonable and made gay marriage illegal, but just because I think gays aren't bad and wouldn't hurt the world if they could get married, but it seems all of the people supporting gay marriage rights are also socialists, and that means more money out of my pocket for gay marriage programs, which I don't see much benefit of having in the first place, since there is such thing as being in a relationship without being married.

Whoah, you've stopped making sense.

 

[tytlyf]

There's nothing wrong with granting all the people the equality in this time and age. In the past, homosexuals would have to stay 'in the closet.' For fear of repercussions from the community. These days humanity has moved beyond the stereotype and tried to accept everyone for who they are.

Of course the only people who are against it have a theological agenda.

 

[9Westy9]

Its about the rights of the partner. You say its the same with or without a ring but it isn't. Without the state acknowledge contract of marriage, the family has precedent over a person. They can step in and make medical decisions without the partners consent. They can take all the money in the relatives bank account after death without the partners knowledge or consent. They can deny the partner visitation rights in the hospital. They can deny visitation rights at the funeral. It happens all the time and you can honestly say that's ok with you? I thought you had more of a heart than that.

Bravo :clap

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Of course it is, for all the reasons I posted earlier. How do you address those issues?

You mean the video? It was about an accident.

It isn't the point rather it hurts or not to deny gay people marriage. There is no excuse for it in a secular society.

Not sure how you think Socialism comes into the equation of equal rights.

There will be a lot of public events, a lot more churches (some specifically for homosexual marriages), etc being made after this, and with Socialism in place, there'd be an increase of taxes.

why would you say that?

Name some ways it hurts them.

Whoah, you've stopped making sense.

I tried hard to write all of that to your post, considering that I didn't have much written in the first draft, so please respond instead of remarks.

 

[DreadFish]

Im not quite sure how you connect the spread of socialism with legalizing homosexual marriage

No offense sum, buddy, I do not think you know exactly what you're talking about.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Im not quite sure how you connect the spread of socialism with legalizing homosexual marriage

No offense sum, buddy, I do not think you know exactly what you're talking about.

Do you want me to repost my reply to someone who just said that as well?

 

[DreadFish]

Name some ways it hurts them.

If I may asnwer your question. Trey already mentioned some of the ways it hurts homosexual couples to not be allows to marry:

Its about the rights of the partner. You say its the same with or without a ring but it isn't. Without the state acknowledge contract of marriage, the family has precedent over a person. They can step in and make medical decisions without the partners consent. They can take all the money in the relatives bank account after death without the partners knowledge or consent. They can deny the partner visitation rights in the hospital. They can deny visitation rights at the funeral. It happens all the time and you can honestly say that's ok with you? I thought you had more of a heart than that.

Remember, besides the religious traditional side of marriage (and there are multiple marriage traditions besides Christian marriage), marriage is a civil and legal thing, and it accords certain rights to the persons getting married. In my opinion, homosexual couples should be accorded the same rights as heterosexual couples. Thats one of the main issues, when you take religious reasons out of the equation: equal rights accorded, and the same recognition accorded.

 

[DreadFish]

Do you want me to repost my reply to someone who just said that as well?

Yeah, maybe I missed it, just link it, if you dont mind.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

If I may asnwer your question. Trey already mentioned some of the ways it hurts homosexual couples to not be allows to marry:




Remember, besides the religious traditional side of marriage (and there are multiple marriage traditions besides Christian marriage), marriage is a civil and legal thing, and it accords certain rights to the persons getting married. In my opinion, homosexual couples should be accorded the same rights as heterosexual couples. Thats one of the main issues, when you take religious reasons out of the equation: equal rights accorded, and the same recognition accorded.

Trey and you said some pretty convincing stuff.