superstring01
Moderator
I was asking for evidence, not more of your blatant stupidity. Go somewhere else and play and let the adults have a conversation.
~String
Homosexaul Rights
- Thread starter Anarcho Union
- Start date
I was asking for evidence, not more of your blatant stupidity. Go somewhere else and play and let the adults have a conversation.
~String
1. What ever is done between two are more consenting adults of mentally independent minds (not coursed or brainwashed) is their god dam business and no ones else!!! They can do whatever ogres, kink sex, etc they want, heck I'm willing to allow a person to go ahead and die of snuff sex and not charge that persons partner(s) if that person is proven to have been of sound mind (greatly unlikely!)
2. Gays should be allowed to get a marriage recognized by the state (which is all that matters) but no church should be forced to give that marriage. So they go to the courts sign a few documents, *boom* married, sure its not a glamorous as a wedding but what can be done most priests are pedophiliac assholes anyways. I'm also willing to allow multiple partner marriages as long as all partners can prove they are doing so out of sound mind without being coursed (also unlikely as I would include belief that placement in afterlife is depended on polygamy as brainwashed)
3. Employment in the economic work place or government shalt not forbid people based on gender, race, religion or sexual preference, now that does not forbid a non-profit organizations like a church from enacting their bigotry, they are neither government nor private employer.
4. People can hate others as long as they do so without committing crimes of violence or slander, so homophobes can go off in to their anti-gay circle jerks wishing they could come out of the closet, and no one should give a dam!
As for the religious argument: Religion should not dictate what secular societies do, if we want to pretend we are secular then we should act like it.
As for the women need special care argument: Women commit spousal abuse just as much as men Women commit sexual abuse of children at equivalent rates as men if we account for how under-reported it is. Women commit child abuse and neglect just as much as men. Women are granted custody more often probably because of erroneous sexual stereotypes opposite to the above fact still being believed by the judges and by the plaintiffs them selves.
As for gays and adoption: There is no evidence gays can't raise children to be functional adults or not abuse those children at rates any greater the heterosexuals do. So I see nothing against gays raising kids.
As for the case of eunichs: Some people are fucking crazy live with it. *yeah don't click on that its a trap!*
http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/8/8a/Hot_chick_surprise.gif
2. Gays should be allowed to get a marriage recognized by the state (which is all that matters) but no church should be forced to give that marriage. So they go to the courts sign a few documents, *boom* married, sure its not a glamorous as a wedding but what can be done most priests are pedophiliac assholes anyways. I'm also willing to allow multiple partner marriages as long as all partners can prove they are doing so out of sound mind without being coursed (also unlikely as I would include belief that placement in afterlife is depended on polygamy as brainwashed)
3. Employment in the economic work place or government shalt not forbid people based on gender, race, religion or sexual preference, now that does not forbid a non-profit organizations like a church from enacting their bigotry, they are neither government nor private employer.
4. People can hate others as long as they do so without committing crimes of violence or slander, so homophobes can go off in to their anti-gay circle jerks wishing they could come out of the closet, and no one should give a dam!
As for the religious argument: Religion should not dictate what secular societies do, if we want to pretend we are secular then we should act like it.
As for the women need special care argument: Women commit spousal abuse just as much as men Women commit sexual abuse of children at equivalent rates as men if we account for how under-reported it is. Women commit child abuse and neglect just as much as men. Women are granted custody more often probably because of erroneous sexual stereotypes opposite to the above fact still being believed by the judges and by the plaintiffs them selves.
As for gays and adoption: There is no evidence gays can't raise children to be functional adults or not abuse those children at rates any greater the heterosexuals do. So I see nothing against gays raising kids.
As for the case of eunichs: Some people are fucking crazy live with it. *yeah don't click on that its a trap!*
http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/8/8a/Hot_chick_surprise.gif
Last edited:
Then why not restrict all citizens to Civil Unions?
I agree completely that no religious institution should be forced to perform or recognize a marriage that it doesn't agree with. If the Episcopalian church, for example, decides that same-sex marriages are fine and is willing to perform them, it's fine with me.
If you truly believe that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality, having children "exposed" to it shouldn't be any different than them being "exposed" to the heterosexuality found in most homes. Right?
Last edited:
No, Tiassa, freedom is the ultimate goal. And you can't have both.
*Sighs* will you ever move to that cave in sudan where you can have your "freedom"?
Why are you still acting stupid? I never said Sudan was freedom.
Your idea of freedom is anarchy. No, I do think we ought to have government........albeit limited government.
Which is to say, limited freedom.
So what's the goal again?
Prosperity, perhaps? Order?
Happiness?
Or rather, get the government out of the marriage business altogether, and instead replace it with "civil union."
Churchs can continue to marry whoever they want to marry; likewise individuals, for that matter. But these would not be linked to any kind of government-recognized status: that would be civil unions.
Seems like a simple solution. But the religions will never go for it, because it diminishes their power over the state and so society.
I actually like this idea.
Limited government means more freedom.
"Any government that is big enough to give you anything you want is big enough to take everything you have" - Thomas Jefferson.
The government's job is to protect the environment in which you can prosper.......but it is NOT to hand you success and handouts. You have to earn those on your own. If you want freedom, you need to accept the risk of poverty, failure, and independence.......if you aren't ready to accept those risks, then you will never truly be free because you will always be regulated by "Big Brother".
Yes, sometimes freedom is scary.....but I still prefer it.
Can't have both what? Marriages and civil unions?
Freedom and [forced] equality.
As for marriage and civil unions, I actually like quadraphonics's idea. The government can recognize legally-bound couples as "civil unions", and "marriage", being already just a ceremony and tradition, can just be up to the Church.
Oh, I think I like having a bit of both.
And so, maximum freedom is achieved through maximum limitation of government: anarchy.
And thereby limit freedom. So, okay, prosperity is the goal.
Also, exploitation by the powerful, tragedy of the commons, and all the other things that come with anarchy.
If you want prosperity, on the other hand, then you probably want a government around to prevent some of that, at the cost of some freedom.
Note that my idea provides both freedom and forced equality, in this particular context (marriage).
Which is why the churches will never go for it: the force being applied is against their unequal privileges.
So you like having forced equality? I don't. That's immoral.
Technically, yes; but, you still need government for the protection and recognition of property rights and contractual agreements.
You don't "limit freedom" though. Not in the way you are referring to it. The only thing you do to "limit freedom" is to centralize the authority that recognizes private property and contracts, and adjudicates disputes...........aside from that, it's then up to you. The government only lays out the foundation, which is private property....and does nothing else. So it's really not limiting freedom.
Which is why I'm not advocating anarchy.
'Course........you're not free to kill or steal.
Then its not true freedom, only anarchy is truly free. What your asking for a compromise just like us, only differences is in how much.
Last edited:
The only reasonable compromise is the one that allows all consensual activities to occur........and your ideas ignore consent (taxing & spending on stupid projects, burdens, regulations, violating private property, etc)
The only time government can step in is to protect from murder, theft, and enforce contracts and property rights. That's not "limiting freedom". I dare you to explain how it is.
100% freedom sounds like a hell hole. I like being able to have the same rights as my neighbors. Whether they like it or not and they have the same rights as me whether I like it or not. I don't see how its immoral, if someone doesn't like it they are free to go elsewhere to better suit their wants.
No, you don't understand what I'm talking about.
I do support equality before the law.
I'm referring to socio-economic equality, that is achieved through force instead of individual effort and consent.
That's immoral.