You are right that today we identify first with our country, and second with our state, but that attitude has evolved over our nations history. Originally people considered themselves "Virginians" or "Pennsylvanians" as opposed to Americans. In fact, when using the United States of America, people would say: "The United States of America are..." as opposed to "The United States is..." which is what most people use today.
I assume the same would happen with a world government. Groups would still associate with their own nation first. Differences in culture would probably slow any type of homogenation, however.
Maybe what Hamas did was wrong but this doesn't mean the people should have to suffer. These are people just trying to live their lives. If you watch the video you will see the Israelis attacking people without provocation, and not only that but they have stopped international aid from coming in to help the Palestinians.
Regardless of who is "right" the violence needs to stop. Wheather you disagree with one side or the other innocents are being killed on both sides at an alarming rate. Anyone interested in this topic might want to watch this video.
what if we allowed nations freedom to govern how they wished but had a world organization that dealt only with universal issues? I think we can all agree that human rights and environmental policy are two areas where an international government would be useful, but at the same time not be imposing on other cultures. Allow the nations to keep doing what their doing except in a select few areas that affect the world as a whole. Otherwise you have nations like China who pollute incredible amounts and answer to no one, or like zimbabwe where the government has allowed thousands of it's citizens to starve to death.
Well put. I was going to respond but you basically covered everything I was going to say. I would only add that I never said he was a bigot for opposing marriage, I was talking about how he does recognize where the real discrimination is coming from.
In today's society people discriminate against homosexuals all the time. In the classroom, at people's offices, in people's own families. Right now, in many places throughout the U.S. being homosexual is something to be ashamed of. When kids think something is lame what do they say? "That's gay." I think this fact alone speaks volumes of the homophobia in today's society.
You are looking at the extreme examples at the expense of the whole picture. If someone said you could not marry the person you loved, would you be upset? Would you do whatever you could to fix what you perceived as a grave injustice? I want you to understand that I do not condone violence, but legal action is perfectly within people's rights.
People are upset, and they have just reasons for being upset. If someone tells you that you were to live in a country that promises "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" but later you find out that this is a lie, wouldn't you be upset? Would you be pretty fucking pissed off? Once again, anger to the point of violence is wrong, but fighting for your rights is reasonable....hell, it's American.
As for the vote on prop. 8, the majority should never have the power to take away rights from a minority group. It has happened in our past when other groups were discriminated against based on race. People voted on laws democratically, but eventually courts overturned these laws. Such was the case in California before prop. 8 was passed. The California supreme court deemed that disallowing homosexuals to marry was discriminatory. They came to this conclusion because they had to base their decision on facts. When the issue was put to a vote, people could base their decision on whatever reasons they wanted: their religious views, their ignorance, their intolerance and bigotry etc... Just because you don't want a certain group of people to not have rights doesn't allow you to take those rights away from them. You have to have a reason. A damn good one.
So now, tallblondebigotedguy, what are your reasons? What do you find so wrong with two people who love each other being allowed to enter into legal marriage? I swear that I am listening to your reasons now. Don't hide behind false pretenses of discrimination, or that people don't respect your views, because until you can give me your reasoning, all of that is irrelevant.
The only hatred I've seen has been coming from the homosexual community
Well then your eyes are closed. Homosexuals have been discriminated against for centuries. They were even killed in the holocaust. If you don't believe that there is hate directed at homosexuals then please check out this site.
So how does this hurt people? I have a religion that says being Christian is an abomination, does that mean I can outlaw Christianity?
The Bible says a lot of crazy shit. You can't touch pigskin with your bare hands, you can't work on sunday etc...
But my favorite is the one that says you're allowed to beat your slave to death so long as it takes longer then a day...
So you're the one who possesses all the understanding, you just can't articulate your thoughts...Riiiiiiight
So you're just saying that homosexual marriage will never come to fruition if acts like those occurring in India continue? Does that mean it hurts people? I still don't understand the argument you were trying to make.
"there will be no homosexual couples in a world dominated by the women haters"
I'm not sure I understand how this goes to prove your point. It seems like you are saying homosexuals and women are in the same boat on this one and progress will need to be made for both. If this is what you're saying then I agree with you. If you are instead saying we shouldn't achieve equality for homosexuals until women are treated as equals around the world, then I would have to disagree. Why should homosexuals suffer as well just because women are treated badly in third world nations.
I am not trying to convince you, I am trying to tear down your ridiculous arguments. If I thought you were a reasonable person I might try to persuade you, but clearly you're not...so what's the point?
Wow, you're really grasping at straws here aren't you? Because women are mistreated and female infants are killed in India, we should ban gay marriage? Is this what you're saying? Because, if it is, you're fucking stupid.
The issue in India has to do with gender inequality. Gay marriage would actually help the situation for two reasons:
1) More homosexual couples would mean more children would be adopted. This means that less female infants would be killed and could but instead could be put up for adoption.
2) It would make genders more equal. If a woman can marry a woman and start a family without a man then this empowers women. It means that they don't need men.
Honestly I'm pretty sure that I'm not understanding you. Is this a joke? Because I can think of no other reason why you would bring up a completely irrelevant article and say homosexual marriage would exacerbate the problem. Hell, this didn't even happen in America! That doesn't make it any less of an atrocity, but it does make your entire argument irrelevant.
Let's stay on subject, okay? Saying that two people who love each other can't get married because it will open the door for other groups is a ridiculous argument. By that logic we should get rid of marriage altogether, this way none of that can happen.
Just because an institution is old doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed. Actually, the fact that it is so old is even more of a reason for it to change. Our thinking has advanced since then and our institutions should reflect that . Homosexuals aren't asking anyone to change their way of life...they just want the same rights that everyone else has: the right to marry who they love.
So allow me to repeat the question you failed to answer: How can gay marriage hurt any one?
Did you watch the video? Gay animals help the survival of their siblings. And to answer your question, yes, there are gay mated pairs.
So, yes, I did answer both my opponent and the topic.
What are you talking about? I was responding to the fact that truthfinder said gay marriage went against "laws of god as seen in science." I never stated my opinion as to whether homosexuality was good, bad or neither, either. I was disputing his ideas. Laws should be based on rationality. But how does gay marriage harm anyone? Truthfinder's answer was nonsensical; almost as nonsensical as your questions are.
And even so as animals is this going to function for them as a regular mated pair?
I can't even respond to that because it makes no sense! From now on, reread what you type and think "what the fuck am I talking about" before you press the submit button. Okay?
Stop trying to sound smart because you come off looking like an idiot. Homosexuality is genetic, and therefore evolved. Look at animals, many species of mammals reptiles and fish have members that are homosexual. How can something be going against nature if it can be found so prevalently in nature?
So because a homosexual family does not fit the traditional definition of family they shouldn't be allowed to have kids? Orphans who have no parents are better off than if they have two parents who happen to be of the same sex?
Trust me when I say, no kids are hurt by having homosexual parents. I know first hand and many researchers have shown that two parents, regardless of gender, are better off then one or no parents.
Also what activities are you talking about? A girl with two moms won't have a date for the father daughter dance? Is that the biggest complaint you have? If you think we should deny people rights because school functions may need to be redefined then I think you need to get your priorities straight.
Hey Gays! Want to adopt? Leave your job! Leave your friends! Leave your house! Leave everything that you are familiar with and are accustomed to!
It's not our fault. You're the one who wanted to start a family. What nerve you had! A family! Your lucky we don't throw you in jail.
I just spent the last five minutes looking through my arguments seeing if I could find where I said "everyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot" and guess what? I wasted my time! Don't put things in quotes as if I said them when I clearly didn't. If you want to use quotes copy and paste, I have written plenty of stuff, I'm sure you can find something that will go to prove your point.
If I am understanding you correctly, here is your argument: People are not being bigoted just because they don't want to be around people. Am I right so far? Because I agree with this part. Next you say: some people who don't want gays to get married only because they don't want to be around them. Is this correct? Because I think you might be right that this could be some peoples reasons. No one is asking them to hang out with homosexuals, or even talk to them so I don't understand their rationale, but at least it's an explanation. So so far we agree.
Now here's where your logic decides to jump off a cliff into a pile of razor blades after having swallowed a gallon of vodka and three bottles of sleeping pills: People are not being bigoted, or intolerant when they allow their discomfort of being around gays to affect their decisions as to whether gays should be allowed to get married. Is this the basic point your making? If not ignore the rest of the argument and clarify your position, but if so keep reading.
Denying others rights because you don't like their lifestyle is intolerant and bigoted. I may not like people with your opinions but I would never try to take away your right to voice them. Here is where the difference lies. You are allowed to be uncomfortable with how people live. I admit, I would be pretty uncomfortable around a man who wore nothing but a thong all day, but I wouldn't take away his rights. I could decide not to hang out with the thong-man. I might purposefully avoid him, but I would not take away his rights or the rights of all the thong-men in the entire state. Why? Because I know that if my lifestyle was not the popular or accepted one then I would not want people trampling on my rights.
Your metaphor is an inaccurate one for two reasons: A) there is no logic in a groups wanting to change the name of their condition; and (this is the important one) B) homosexuals aren't forcing anything on people, merely asking for the same rights as afforded to others. A change in the name of your condition does not afford you more rights. (I considered including a C that said your an idiot but I didn't think that would add anything to my argument)
And that's why we live in a secular society that bases it's laws off of rationality and not religion.
I think I may have deserved the downvote because I did not organize my last argument very effectively. Instead of getting into a long draw out thing this time, I am going to go back to my original intention.
What I was referring to as bigotry was ignoring certain facts. In this case I was talking about JakeJ, because he repeatedly claimed that homosexuality was a choice, and I repeatedly showed him the proof that it wasn't. JakeJ, and most other people opposed to gay marriage don't use your argument but instead make baseless claims (i.e. kids can be turned gay, or gay parents can't raise children). When these things have been proven scientifically, continuing to use the same arguments is dishonest.
I know that, in probably less then 50 years, the people who opposed allowing gays their rights will be considered bigots, for better or worse, and so I therefore stand by my statements.
What if I thought you shouldn't be allowed to raise kids? Would that give me the right to take away your right to adopt?
Unless you have some proof that children of homosexual parents are somehow harmed, then you are just spouting bullshit. I actually know people with gay parents. I would love to see you repeat what you just said to their face.
Okay, let me first make it clear that I never condoned violent action as a way to solve the problem. Gandhi and MLK Jr. are some of my heroes because they affected change in the most peaceful ways possible. What I also liked about them is they both recognized injustice and stood up to it without compromise. Gandhi wanted the British out of India and did not compromise on this issue. Martin Luther King wanted equal rights for African-Americans and did not compromise. There is a big difference between not wanting to compromise, and being narrow minded.
You say "Some people just don't want to be around other people." This to me is a type of discrimination. If I told you, I am not bigoted, I just don't want to be around Mexicans, you would be appalled.
Here is the definition of a bigot in wikipedia:
A bigot is a person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own
Looking at this definition you can see clearly that not wanting to be around people who choose to be homosexual is bigotry. But that is irrelevant because no one is forcing people to be around homosexuals. This is what I don't understand about your argument. If homosexuals get married does that mean suddenly they are going to suddenly show up at your door, and when you refuse them say "Hey, you have to let us in, we're legally married now." That is ridiculous.
Of course legalizing gay marriage will not automatically get rid of bigots, I never said that and I don't believe it. When slavery was abolished, did it get rid of racism? When woman's suffrage was granted, did it get rid of sexism? No! But in the long run it helped a lot. Can you imagine anyone believing either of these issues as having two reasonable sides today? The bigots will not change their mind, but their children will be raised in a society that is more accepting, and hopefully this will have a large affect for future generations.
Being intolerant of bigotry cannot be called bigotry.
I agree that maybe gay marriage will not come to fruition in the immediate future, but that does not mean that people should stop fighting for what they believe in. Martain Luther King demanded equal rights for African-Americans. Feminists demanded equal rights for women. Asking nicely, "can we please get married, if it isn't to much of a problem for you?"
Of course what blacks suffered through in the pre-civil rights era was terrible. That does not lessen what homosexuals are going through right now. I know from seeing it at my school how much homosexuals are mistreated and outcast. This is socially acceptable, and it shouldn't be. Progress will probably be attained in smaller steps but only if people continue to fight for their rights. Obama is the perfect example of this: in order to win the presidency he had to support civil unions but not gay marriage. Lucky for me, I'm not a politician. I don't have to temper my views with the current public will. I can say what I truly believe. If a compromise were reached in the federal government that extended rights to homosexuals through civil unions I would be in favor of that, but after it was passed I would go right back to fighting for marriage. Homosexuals even lost the ability to adopt in Arkansas because they can't marry or even have civil unions:
http://outtheotherear.wordpress.
I also have a problem with you comparing the Homosexuals to the Nazis. First, the Nazis killed homosexuals, because they thought they were, to use your word, "vermin." What the homosexuals are not doing is killing or hurting others in any way by demanding marriage. By denying them marriage, other people are hurting homosexuals. So who is more like the Nazi's now? Don't you think its justified to loathe your oppressors? This does not mean violence, as I said earlier I am against violence.
Speaking of Bigotry though, I want you to see what homosexuals have to put up with:
Is it unfair for me to call them bigots, or am I being narrow minded?
Finally I would like to respond to this comment you made:
I have said that gays will eventually win. But why does it have to be right now and at what cost?
And I can only respond with this quote:
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." -Edmund Burke
Who says your definition of family is correct? You think that two people who love each other should not be able to adopt merely because they are the same sex? How about single people who adopt?
Family is very important. Explain to me why homosexual parents are any less capable then heterosexual parents at raising a child.
Joe, I appreciate you compliments and I hope you know that I really do appreciate a lot of your ideas.
As for this argument, you present a very unique perspective. Allow me to respond though.
Although it is true that people often want what they can't have, this does not always mean that their demands are unreasonable. Allow me to first use the example of the American Revolution. You will often hear people say, "we defeated British tyranny over us etc..." What a lot of people don't realize is that we had it pretty good under the British. We had extremely low taxes, protection from others, and a reliable trading partner. Now a lot of stuff happened but the condensed version is, we wanted more: "Taxation w/out representation" and the like. So we had it pretty good already, but we wanted something more: liberty, inalienable rights, representative government. These are the foundations of our society today, but had we accepted what was going on at the time they may never have come to fruition.
Another example would be woman's suffrage. The common idea at the time (or at least rationalization) was that women would vote the same as their husbands so their right to vote was irrelevant. This idea seems archaic to us today, but back then it was the accepted norm. Progress eventually won out and woman gained the right that is most necessary to a democracy: the right to vote.
In both of these cases we can see how the status quo seems fine to a large number of people because it is what they are used to. Others though, see that there is an injustice occurring, and step up to fix it. I believe this explains why so many oppose gay marriage more than anything else. It is what has always been, why change it. I know you are a conservative, so know that I mean no offense when I say that conservative viewpoints have stood in the way of positive change throughout history. It is not bigotry that kept allowed slavery to continue (although that played a role) it is inaction and complacency.
Now we see the same scenario repeated. A group has been denied certain rights and now they are asking for them. You used the word militant, and I have to disagree with its connotations. African Americans were called militant when they demanded civil rights during the 60's, were they just being greedy? Or were they standing up and demanding that they be given what was promised to them as children: that all men are created equal, no different from our founding fathers who stood up during the revolution and demanded their rights.
No different then now, where a group of people want to have their love recognized under the law. They want to be part of a nation that allows the pursuit of happiness. I think that your right on one count, that is human nature. It is human nature to want acceptance, and to want equality, and to want a chance at the happiness that everyone else takes for granted.
I hope you see why I am upset at those people who prevent these people from the happiness they seek, and why I call them bigots. There crime is all too common, an inability to put yourself in your neighbors shoes. An inability to recognize the humanity of others. An inability to empathize with their suffering in a society that does not fully accept them.
