Same sex marriage; A look at CP's gradual acceptance

[Hatter]

I have no problem with siblings being married. I don't believe they should procreate, but what's to stop that happening under the current system?

Marriage does not equal reproduction. It is simply a legal contract between consenting adults which grants them certain legal rights. I see no reason to deny that to anyone.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by WCW Nitro

Ok, it seems like this thread is getting a bit off track so I'll just stop posting, not because I'm not enjoying the conversation but it's just going to open up more and more questions further away from the topic. And my intent was not to upset anyone but the OP mentioned that he wanted the anti people to speak up and then someone asked me specifically why I was against it so I answered it honestly.

I would encourage you to continue, because the debate is interesting to me. But all good if you don't want to.

[Coys1882]

The fact that two people who love each other but because they share a gender risk the loss of pensions, benefits, custody and power of attorney is borderline criminal. It's also a fact that thousands of lives have been destroyed while politicians, special interest groups, and religious entities pollute the courts. It's so ducking stupid!!

[Dion]

nm

[Dion]

Originally Posted by btimbit

Well I might be in the minority here but I thank you for speaking up. Like I touched on in a few of my posts, I think the dialogue is important versus the new trend of attacking anyone that's against the popular opinion.

It's posts that are so far from reality that get attacked. If you're going to post something like that then be prepared for what comes next.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Dion

It's posts that are so far from reality that get attacked. If you're going to post something like that then be prepared for what comes next.

But how does that help that person change their views? If you just attack them they're not going to even take in what you're saying and it goes from a discussion to a argument. That's just useless to everyone.
I get how frustrating it is that some people could be so ignorant but if you just start yelling at them it's only going to make it worse.

If it's a troll then obviously that's a different story.

[squiggs96]

[Dion]

Originally Posted by btimbit

But how does that help that person change their views? If you just attack them they're not going to even take in what you're saying and it goes from a discussion to a argument. That's just useless to everyone.
I get how frustrating it is that some people could be so ignorant but if you just start yelling at them it's only going to make it worse.

If it's a troll then obviously that's a different story.

It derails the thread and results in arguments or discussions about something that is not likely to happen. The OP to his or her credit realised that and decided not to discuss it further.

[Roast Beef]

Originally Posted by Dion

It derails the thread and results in arguments or discussions about something that is not likely to happen. The OP to his or her credit realised that and decided not to discuss it further.

This entire thread was made in the hope of discussion and understanding. By driving away posters with different opinions we end up with a self congratulatory circle jerk that serves no purpose. The scenario that WCW posted is in my own opinion unlikely and a ridiculous argument. I am not however in a position to dismiss WCW's reasons just because I don't agree with them. I would rather try and come to an understanding as to where these opinions came from, why they are held, and if possible maybe give people a different point of view and maybe something to take away and think about. Piling on may feel good, but it does nothing to effect possible change.

[btimbit]

I didn't really view it as off topic either

[CliffFletcher]

I've been a supporter of gay marriage since long before it was cool. However, I find the self-congratulatory attitude of supporters and shaming of dissenters pretty distasteful. Hate is a strong word.

And I can say with some confidence that even the most liberal and progressive posters on this forum will, eventually, find many of the beliefs and attitudes they hold today regarded as backward and ignorant by the progressive standards of the day. It could be the use of language, it could be attitudes about nationalism, or work, or even pets. But social norms never stop evolving. Every one of us will look like ignorant and crude buffoons (or irresponsible libertines) in the eyes of our grandchildren.

[The Familia]

Originally Posted by btimbit

Well I might be in the minority here but I thank you for speaking up. Like I touched on in a few of my posts, I think the dialogue is important versus the new trend of attacking anyone that's against the popular opinion.

Bingo! Everyone claims that everyone has the freedom to express their own opinion or thoughts, yet when it is controversial or goes against the grain, people cry.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by The Familia

Bingo! Everyone claims that everyone has the freedom to express their own opinion or thoughts, yet when it is controversial or goes against the grain, people cry.

People having the freedom to express their thoughts doesn't shield them from being criticized for their opinions.

[Looch City]

Originally Posted by The Familia

Bingo! Everyone claims that everyone has the freedom to express their own opinion or thoughts, yet when it is controversial or goes against the grain, people cry.

Hilter was actually a nice guy.

[ben voyonsdonc]

Absolutely, CP has become a much more welcoming place for LGBT. Yes, there were some stridently anti-gay posters who have been banned which is probably a part of the change but I believe that, in general, many people here have become much more open-minded about LGBT issues.

For many people the switch flips when someone that they care deeply about comes out to them and eventually finds someone to whom they want to commit themselves to for the rest of their lives. It has hard to look at someone who you care about and say that you don't see their relationship as one that should be recognized as equal in the eyes of the law.

[The Familia]

Originally Posted by Iggy City

Hilter was actually a nice guy.

Good analogy. Having an opinion/thought on gay marriage is very similar to acting out a genocide. So freedom of opinion/thought should be banned if it does not conform? Feel free to judge and disagree with an opinion all you want, but don't take that right away. There is a clear difference between thinking something that may be controversial, and acting out an illegal crime.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I've been a supporter of gay marriage since long before it was cool. However, I find the self-congratulatory attitude of supporters and shaming of dissenters pretty distasteful. Hate is a strong word.

And I can say with some confidence that even the most liberal and progressive posters on this forum will, eventually, find many of the beliefs and attitudes they hold today regarded as backward and ignorant by the progressive standards of the day. It could be the use of language, it could be attitudes about nationalism, or work, or even pets. But social norms never stop evolving. Every one of us will look like ignorant and crude buffoons (or irresponsible libertines) in the eyes of our grandchildren.

Oh yeah, that's something I've thought about too. Often wonder what social issue I'll be flatly against for no reason other then I'm old crusty and afraid of change. I've been ahead on the Transgender issue for a while so it's not that. Who knows what's next.

[Looch City]

Originally Posted by The Familia

Good analogy. Having an opinion/thought on gay marriage is very similar to acting out a genocide. So freedom of opinion/thought should be banned if it does not conform? Feel free to judge and disagree with an opinion all you want, but don't take that right away. There is a clear difference between thinking something that may be controversial, and acting out an illegal crime.

Women shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Is that better?

You have freedom of opinion, say anything you want. But that doesn't protect you from criticism if your opinion is....'outdated' shall we say. Yes, there are 'correct' and 'incorrect' opinions.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Oh yeah, that's something I've thought about too. Often wonder what social issue I'll be flatly against for no reason other then I'm old crusty and afraid of change. I've been ahead on the Transgender issue for a while so it's not that. Who knows what's next.

Since fear of change is more a character issue than anything to do with age, probably none. I've yet to meet an old person who was opposed to something merely because they were scared of it. What I want to know is what social issue I'll be flatly against simply because I can't understand it.

Transgender issues are things I'm not entirely sure what to make of yet. Should I end up moving radically right or left as I get older, I could see myself being flatly opposed to some of the transgender issues. IMO, the transgender issue is much more complex than gay marriage. I expect that we will see tolerance increase greatly for transgender people as that's happening already, but I think it remains to be seen whether or not they can convince people to use gender neutral pronouns and the like. Right now, the far left and far right both have troubles with it with the far left having trouble making sense of it from the perspective of their feminist gender theories and the far right within their religious framework.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Montana Man Seeks License for Second Wife

HELENA, Mont. - A Montana man said Wednesday that he was inspired by last week's U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage to apply for a marriage license so that he can legally wed his second wife.

Nathan Collier and his wives Victoria and Christine applied at the Yellowstone County Courthouse in Billings on Tuesday in an attempt to legitimize their polygamous marriage. Montana, like all 50 states, outlaws bigamy - holding multiple marriage licenses - but Collier said he plans to sue if the application is denied.

"It's about marriage equality," Collier told The Associated Press Wednesday. "You can't have this without polygamy.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/polygamo...dding-license/

Gee, who didn't see something like this coming?