A small-but-vocal minority got prohibition passed, too. This is nothing new.
If you don't want some vocal group imposing its religious values on you, I suppose you'll have to be just as vocal. Of course, prohibition was quite profitable for a lot of Americans...
A gay coubple being married does not affect anyone outside the gay couple. (Except nosy and intolerant people that can't keep their noses out of other peoples buisness)
In this case, a minority is directly influencing what everyone can and cannot watch on TV.
A gay coubple being married does not affect anyone outside the gay couple.
The people who are against gay marriage disagree. That's why they're against gay marriage.
In this case, a minority is directly influencing what everyone can and cannot watch on TV.
Watching TV is trivial. Deciding how to define the very foundations of a society is not. It amazes me that you get up in arms when people want to keep morally objectionable ma
Perhaps if someone could provide a coherent explanation of how allowing gay marriages would be "changing the very foundations of our society", I might be able to understand why people are against it. Thus far, however, I have seen only assertions (such as yours) that allowing gay marriage would undermine our society, but with no attempt made to back the assertion up with anything.
Perhaps if someone could provide a coherent explanation of how allowing gay marriages would be "changing the very foundations of our society", I might be able to understand why people are against it.
Hang on a second. You don't understand how allowing gay marriage is a huge change to society? You have got to be joking. Do you even understand what marriage is?
No, I don't either. Could you explain it to me? Please be specific, and tell us how such changes directly affect you.
Does society currently allow men to marry men, or women to marry women? No. So, allowing that would be a change. Has Western civilization, going back to the Romans and Greeks, ever condoned gay marriage? No. So doing so now would be a huge change.
I don't have to prove the changes would be bad, you have to prove the changes would be good. Refusing to acknowledge that it would entail change
I really hope this is some kind of parody act that you do.
The ancient greek society encouraged erotic relationships between members of the same sex, usually in older-teacher with younger-student relationships. To quote Xenophon: "In other Greek states man and boy live together like married people; elsewhere they become intimate with youths by giving them gifts..." Truthfully, homosexual marriage was still uncommon, as the purp
Truthfully, homosexual marriage was still uncommon, as the purpose of marriage for the greeks was mainly to produce children.
Wow, you actually admitted this. I can't believe it.
Yes, the Greeks encouraged men and boys to be lovers. But they specifically did not encourage them to be married, nor did they allow it. Why? Because men can't have children together, and that's the purpose of marriage!
You then state that marriage in America is not geared for creating and raising children. That's the the whole cr
Same as the AC - there's nothing in the marriage ceremony that obligates anyone to have children. Impotence is a grounds for divorce, but fertility is not a requirement for marriage! If a woman or man cannot produce a child, or decide not to have children, or desire to adopt, then under your logic their marriages should also be banned. In a world with 6+ billion people, and an estimated 9 billion by 2050, it's really not critical to have every minority group out there follow a definition of marriage that w
Does society currently allow men to marry men, or women to marry women? No. So, allowing that would be a change.
Well, actually it does in some areas. In fact, it was actually the social conservatives who wished to change the law to explicitly forbid gay marriage (first via DOMA at the national level and then via Issue 1 in a number of states). No changes occurred to allow gays to marry - changes ocurred to prevent it.
Besides, the law in this country is such that only things which are explicitly barred
I don't have to prove the changes would be bad, you have to prove the changes would be good. The burden of proof is on you, not me.
Did your grandparents say the same thing to mixed race couples that wanted to marry? The arguments against gay marriage are the same ones used against inter-racial marriage. More to the point, this country does not and never has operated with a system of banning everything in sight until its worth has been proved. With the exception of some consumer products, its been the e
The whole point of marriage is that it affects people beyond the couple. Marriages are presided over by someone in some position of authority (historically speaking, if religious "leaders" should be considered to have authority is a different question...), generally in public, and those marriages are a matter of public record. Only ever going to church for marriages and funerals myself (and then reluctantly), Im not up on the doctrine, but Im pretty sure that the RCs announce upcoming marriages, at least th
You're speaking from a narrow point of view. Currently in the US, you can basically marry just about anyone you want, with nearly no notice. Heck, in Las Vegas, I doubt you even have to be conscious to do it.
You seem to think that there needs to be some approval from the community to get married. Other than whether you're trying to marry your own sister, I don't think that any Justice of the Peace would blink an eye marrying anyone. I'm guessing that most don't even have the right to deny a marriage w
Im speaking from a historical point of view. At one point, while they didn't take a vote, some external approval, beyond the current formality, was necessary. I suspect that there are many, many, clergy that require the couple to be have pre-marriage counseling..
But anyway: You cant just go to Vegas and say "Im married now". Those drive through chapels have some kind of regulations. As for divorce - the fact that governments regulate how it happens via family court is proof of my argument. And adulterers
Actually my regime would make Gay Marriage mandatory. Gay marriage for everyone! Or else!
You have to remember that those folks belive that once all the anal sex reaches a certain point, God will come down and turn everyone into pillars of salt. So it does impact them directly. I don't know why they don't just come out and say that.
My regime's state run religion would not have pillars of salt. We'd have something safe. Like Smurfs. And since there's only one female Smurf, the mandatory gay marriage would
How is this flamebait? It's moderation abuse. Several votes of the people in the US have been over turned repeatly over gay marrage. It is definately an example of a some minority forcing itself on the majority. I would have to assume this was moderated by members of that minority.
The parent post made a very good point and it was not stated in a way that remotely deserved to be called flamebait. This must be a topic on Slashdot were opposition is simply not tolerated.
The problem is there is no way to counter the vocal groups by being vocal. If we write a letter to the FCC saying we thought such-and-such show was appropriate, the letter will just get ignored. Only complaints are read by the FCC, so we have no way to counter them.
Keep in Mind (Score:5, Interesting)
If you don't want some vocal group imposing its religious values on you, I suppose you'll have to be just as vocal. Of course, prohibition was quite profitable for a lot of Americans...
Re:Keep in Mind (Score:2)
A gay coubple being married does not affect anyone outside the gay couple. (Except nosy and intolerant people that can't keep their noses out of other peoples buisness)
In this case, a minority is directly influencing what everyone can and cannot watch on TV.
These are completely different things.
Re:Keep in Mind (Score:2)
No, they're exactly the same thing.
A gay coubple being married does not affect anyone outside the gay couple.
The people who are against gay marriage disagree. That's why they're against gay marriage.
In this case, a minority is directly influencing what everyone can and cannot watch on TV.
Watching TV is trivial. Deciding how to define the very foundations of a society is not. It amazes me that you get up in arms when people want to keep morally objectionable ma
Re:Keep in Mind (Score:2)
Would you care to give it a try?
Re:Keep in Mind (Score:2)
Hang on a second. You don't understand how allowing gay marriage is a huge change to society? You have got to be joking. Do you even understand what marriage is?
Re:Keep in Mind (Score:2)
No, I don't either. Could you explain it to me? Please be specific, and tell us how such changes directly affect you.
Re:Keep in Mind (Score:2)
Does society currently allow men to marry men, or women to marry women? No. So, allowing that would be a change. Has Western civilization, going back to the Romans and Greeks, ever condoned gay marriage? No. So doing so now would be a huge change.
I don't have to prove the changes would be bad, you have to prove the changes would be good. Refusing to acknowledge that it would entail change
Re:Keep in Mind (Score:2)
Going back to the romans and greeks?
Going back to the romans and greeks?
I really hope this is some kind of parody act that you do.
The ancient greek society encouraged erotic relationships between members of the same sex, usually in older-teacher with younger-student relationships. To quote Xenophon: "In other Greek states man and boy live together like married people; elsewhere they become intimate with youths by giving them gifts..." Truthfully, homosexual marriage was still uncommon, as the purp
Re:Keep in Mind (Score:2)
Wow, you actually admitted this. I can't believe it.
Yes, the Greeks encouraged men and boys to be lovers. But they specifically did not encourage them to be married, nor did they allow it. Why? Because men can't have children together, and that's the purpose of marriage!
You then state that marriage in America is not geared for creating and raising children. That's the the whole cr
Re:Keep in Mind (Score:2)
Re:Keep in Mind (Score:2)
Well, actually it does in some areas. In fact, it was actually the social conservatives who wished to change the law to explicitly forbid gay marriage (first via DOMA at the national level and then via Issue 1 in a number of states). No changes occurred to allow gays to marry - changes ocurred to prevent it.
Besides, the law in this country is such that only things which are explicitly barred
nonsense (Score:1)
Did your grandparents say the same thing to mixed race couples that wanted to marry? The arguments against gay marriage are the same ones used against inter-racial marriage. More to the point, this country does not and never has operated with a system of banning everything in sight until its worth has been proved. With the exception of some consumer products, its been the e
Re:Keep in Mind (Score:2)
The whole point of marriage is that it affects people beyond the couple. Marriages are presided over by someone in some position of authority (historically speaking, if religious "leaders" should be considered to have authority is a different question...), generally in public, and those marriages are a matter of public record. Only ever going to church for marriages and funerals myself (and then reluctantly), Im not up on the doctrine, but Im pretty sure that the RCs announce upcoming marriages, at least th
Re:Keep in Mind (Score:1)
You seem to think that there needs to be some approval from the community to get married. Other than whether you're trying to marry your own sister, I don't think that any Justice of the Peace would blink an eye marrying anyone. I'm guessing that most don't even have the right to deny a marriage w
Re:Keep in Mind (Score:2)
Im speaking from a historical point of view. At one point, while they didn't take a vote, some external approval, beyond the current formality, was necessary. I suspect that there are many, many, clergy that require the couple to be have pre-marriage counseling..
But anyway: You cant just go to Vegas and say "Im married now". Those drive through chapels have some kind of regulations. As for divorce - the fact that governments regulate how it happens via family court is proof of my argument. And adulterers
Re:Keep in Mind (Score:1)
Could you expand on that? Are you talking about kids, relations with the in-laws or what?
Re:Keep in Mind (Score:3, Insightful)
They are not trying to make you all gay or lesbian they just want the same rights as everyone else.
If they are so misguided that they think marriage is a nifty thing by all means let them.
Re:Keep in Mind (Score:2)
You have to remember that those folks belive that once all the anal sex reaches a certain point, God will come down and turn everyone into pillars of salt. So it does impact them directly. I don't know why they don't just come out and say that.
My regime's state run religion would not have pillars of salt. We'd have something safe. Like Smurfs. And since there's only one female Smurf, the mandatory gay marriage would
Re:Keep in Mind (Score:2)
The parent post made a very good point and it was not stated in a way that remotely deserved to be called flamebait. This must be a topic on Slashdot were opposition is simply not tolerated.
Fine. I guess I'll burn some of
Re:Keep in Mind (Score:2)
Prohibition ended? When? (Score:2)
Of course, prohibition was quite profitable for a lot of Americans...
Prohibition was and still is [wikipedia.org].