• S E X
    L O V E +
    R E L A T I O N S H I P S


    ❤️ Welcome Guest! ❤️


    Posting Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • SLR Moderators: axe battler | xtcgrrrl | arrall

gay marriages (merged)

DigitalDuality said:
I could never love someone, i couldn't accept. If i feel the need to change someone, then i don't love them for who they are. That's why i don't buy this whole christian "love human kind" crap.

I readily admit there's people i don't love. I don't love human kind. There's plenty of people that i can't wait for them to just kick the bucket. War mongers, bigots, homophobes, child molestors, murderers, rapists.. I don't love them. I have respect for human kind. I have a way of life, and definition of what i think is right and wrong. I wish i could convince people to not hate others. But i don't fool myself and pretend that i love bigots/homophobes, because i don't.

I just want what i think is best for humanity. I don't have to pretend that i love you in order to do that.

What's the difference between what you just said and bigotry?
 
Last edited:
Actually, Jamie Lee Curtis is not a hermaphrodite. She was born as a fully functioning female, complete with functioning reproductive organs. I simply made the analogy to show that genotype is not the only determination of phenotype. Things can happen during fetal development that lead to the expression of a characteristic other than what a person's genes dictate. DNA is not the simple cause and effect relationship that most people are taught. This is why people that are "genetically predisposed" to cancer sometime never get cancer.
Existence as we know it, even down to the level of the atom, is based on a play between opposites. Without differences, there is no existence. The part that makes life so confusing and so interesting is that we assign value judgements to the differences we see. We create "good" and "evil" where none exist in order to give our lives meaning and substance. Rather than accepting our existence as fact we attempt to set things within our narrow view of time and causality. In truth, everyone's choices are self-serving to some respect but since we choose to live in community we must make compromises.
 
DigitalDuality said:
I don't love human kind. There's plenty of people that i can't wait for them to just kick the bucket. War mongers, bigots, homophobes, child molestors, murderers, rapists.. I don't love them.

You aren't suggesting that these people were born that way, are you?

People's personalities are shaped through their experiences with other people. Society has created our criminals, war mongers, bigots, homophobes, child molestors, rapists, etc.

You have no empathy for a human that fits into one of the above categories, when that human did not choose to be raised incorrectly? No one asks to have a fucked up childhood. It was not a murderer's choice to feel love when they slaughter someone, just as it is not a homosexual's choice to be attracted to the opposite sex.

I fail to see the logic in your lack of love for these people, and I find a great deal of irony in some statements you've made as well. If you want to help your fellow man, realize that criminals are humans who have been infected with 'social diseases'. Would you fail to hold love for someone just because they have cancer?

What our society needs IMO, is a better educational system, designed for all people, with classes based on human psychology; classes that teach humans how to communicate and treat eachother respectfully, but most importantly, to teach humans why being respectful is the most intelligent form of interaction for themselves and everyone else in the long run.

We need more funding in education, and a myriad of new ideas, approaches, and classes in learning. Children should love learning, and not hate school. School should be fun, and higher learning made available to all, instead of the wealthy. School should start at a young age, since infants can absorb new information like a sponge.

I don't mean to get off topic here, but I feel that lack of education and proper upbringing for children in our society is often the reason that bigots, criminals, etc. exist. We need a cure for 'social diseases' or they will continue to spread, just as HIV continues to spread amongst ignorant people who refuse to practice protective sex in their lives.
 
Last edited:
I agree with what you've said, in that people need to take responsibility for their lives. I was being a bit vague in saying we need a new educational system, but I certainly don't blame society for everyone's individual problems. I agree that all of us are infected by social diseases, whether we realize it or not. It is true that at a certain age, no matter what, people must take action in their lives, despite the circumstances of their upbringing.

Hopefully, more and more people will see the importance of designing a proper school system that will not only teach children morals and communication skills, but will provide enough teachers who have studied psychology, sociology, education, and the art of teaching. Also, willpower and responsibility can be taught if the proper teaching methods are used. I just think that the school system is going to be the best way to influence our future generations, and cut down on ignorance more and more, even if we can never be free of it completely.

We need charismatic teachers who love helping children learn, and who are creative in their teaching approaches, and helpful in getting students interested in the classes. Some testing could also prove helpful, so that professionals can group different students in classes according to their interests, talents, strengths, weaknesses. I believe in the power of humans. We've come a long way, and accomplished a lot, despite the amount of mistakes we've made.

I think the important idea here is to get a lot of people involved in designing a better school system. I realize many people are already doing this, but when I see kids dropping out of school, children in poor areas of the country without the money for class textbooks, adolescents getting stressed out from the pressures of getting good grades, shootings in schools, etc. I can't believe that anyone would allow this to continue.

I read that over 50 % of hospital beds are taken up by people with health problems which stemmed from high anxiety, depression, and stresses in their lives. I think Psychology is the answer to many of these problems. All these conflicts between people in social groups, it just isn't necessary. It just causes more problems, so we need to make an effort to teach young people properly, early in their life, when it matters.

I don't see how we could go wrong with atleast putting in more effort in the design of a new public educational system with modern human psychology in mind during the designing of the classes, teaching approaches, everything. Except in cases of abnormalities in babies, mutations, certain genes that were passed on, we all have very similar human brains. The study of the human mind, Psychology, seems to me one of the most important subjects in our lives. Yet, I don't see Psychology classes available in primary schools, only subjects such as Math, English, PE, etc.

Furthermore, I think our current system puts too much pressure on children to get good grades, during a time in their lives when they are going to be stressed the most regardless of school. The current school environment is unhealthy, teaching students how to spell, but not teaching them how to communicate well and get along, and not teaching them common sense, which a lot of people lack. Atleast important classes have been introduced slowly, such as Health class, and Independent Living, but these are hardly enough.

A lot of people might disagree on the details of what the ideal system should include, but I don't think anyone should disagree that we need more funding for education, and a system designed for the human mind, since we're teaching human minds. I feel that we're spending too much money on international affairs and conflicts, and the war on drugs for example, as well as many other things which are doing our country more harm than good. In no way would this be a complete solution to ending all social problems, it would just be a step in the right direction, at least in my view. A view which certainly is influenced by ignorance just as any other view can be.
 
Ok I'm gonna be really dumb and post again. Because I'm bored, because somehow this thread became several pages longer, and because I'm dumb.

Consistent with what I've said, I dont agree that government should have anything to do with marriage. Just like allowing straight people who don't believe in god to marry. (but they can LIE) The onus is on the participants in any case, but the government should never have gotten involved.

Anyway, ultimately I feel glowbug is 100% correct, so I can't care THAT much. All I can do is cast my vote. I've already stated my OPINION (not facts) as has everyone else. But prior to that I wasted pages inappropriately using logic, because unless everyone agrees on the premises, no one will agree with the conclusions.


Morality vs. Majority Rule
-- Morality --
Morality can be determined in one or more of four ways: based on nature, based on religion, based on society, or based on one's own interpretations of facts. (i.e. one's own opinions) Let's look at these.

1. Nature. "It happens in Nature, therefore it's okay." Let's talk about Nature. Lots of things happen in nature, including rape, incest, brutal killings, and mutations. (and here I'm NOT suggesting that homosexuality is a mutation, mmkay?) So would we say that rape is "natural?" It's also worth noting that many religious people believe in creationism - in which nature was corrupted as a punishment to humankind. (and here I'm NOT suggesting that everyone believe this, or that I believe it, mmkay?) Above all, there's no reason to presume that the behavior of non-rational animals should inform the moral standard of rational humans. We really are better. Any way I can possibly slice it, I believe using nature as basis for morality is completely fallacious,

2. God/Religion. "God says no, so it's not okay." This is self-explanatory; either you get your morals from this or you don't, but that's a personal choice.

3. Society. "Everybody's doing it, so why can't we." This is also fairly self-explanatory; you derive your moral code from what others in your society believe. I have two main objections to this, however. The first is personal; I believe a true moral is unchanging, and since society changes its beliefs over time, those beliefs can't be morals. Even if you disagree with this, (and why shouldn't you) I find it impossible to separate social morality from majority rule - discussed below.

4. Opinion. "I think it's ok, so it's ok." Fairly self-explanatory, but this can easily lead to selective morality, which kinda defeats the whole purpose of the moral thing.

-- Majority Rule --
So here's my main reason for posting again. (this, and the logic stuff below) We DO need to define right and wrong and create laws, make no mistake. Clearly everyone's morals, if they even have any, differ. I'm using the word "moral" in a very broad sense here - essentially if we are NOT to define right/wrong based on majority rule, we have to do it based on some form of morality. Given that nature is fallacious and everything else is opinion-based, we ultimately MUST use opinion as our basis. Majority rule is simply the most utilitarian way for a society to guage it's own opinion and create law. Currently we do this by state. If the majority in a state thinks gay marriage is ok, it's ok in that state. If the majority says not ok, it's not ok. If we vote to amend the Constitution to say it's not ok, than it's not ok.

With all that said, I still agree with glowbug about the pandora's box theory.

Logic

I've already mostly gotten the point across that this thread is completely about opinion. The perfect example is LiquidEyes's breakdown of his opinion of the essential versus non-essential elements of "marriage." What he calls superfluous details mean a hell of a lot to a lot of people. All of the statements about supposed facts (including many of my statements) are really just opinions, e.g. MOST people do this, or MOST people do that.

And once you end up in the realm of opinion, you're squarely in the realm of MAJORITY RULE.

Every post amounts to essentially "You rock, your premises are my premises and we're so right" or "You suck, your premises are so wrongheaded and mine are great."
 
i'm going to have to disagree. I'm sure there's many a gay man who wish they weren't gay and didn't live in a society that hates them so fucken much

Hi! I'm right over here!!!!
 
man it has nothin to do with me, i dont plan on being involved in a gay marriage, so i say "hey, whatever floats ur boat"
 
Well, Im chilling and so I figured Id give my .02. And Im american, so I give my view from the american standpoint. Im also straight so I my view is tainted by that as well.


One of the fundamental tenets of the U.S is majority rule.

(I realize its not a true majority rule - even if you did not have the constitution or the courts because you cant always vote on every issue and the legislators you vote for dont always do what they promised but its as close to majority rule as practicable for a country of 250 million).


Now, even where the legislators or the ppl vote to do something one way or another, the courts can override the law as unconstitutional and they will do so if they think the law is outrageous, unfair, or fundamentaly in conflict with the constitution (either federal if its a federal court or federal or state if its a state court).


Ok, to the point. If you ask me whether I think gay marriages should be legal, I say-probably. However, if you ask me if I think its so fundamental a right that the courts should override the clear will of the legislature (whether it federal or state) and the majority of americans-well now I think its a tougher call.



To really over simplify this, the court system in the U.S should be like the instant replay system in the NFL (national football league). You cant have the courts just substituting their judgment for the peoples or democracy is meanngless. At the same time, the courts must correct the truly outrageous.

Anyway, Im rambling so Ill stop but I guess my point is, given that the large majority of those in the U.S. oppose gay marriage and not even one state supports gay marriages (although the supr court in mass has ruled that the legislature must start to allow them because not allowing them violates the MASSachusetts constitution-but this court intevention only applies in massachusetts) should the courts step in and force this on the ppl.

Im done rambling. I really dont know the answer. I suspect in 20-30 years it wont matter because the ppl will come around at it will be made legal even if the courts dont force the change faster.
 
I'm going to give the general psychologist response to those intolerant of homosexuals: it's your parents fault...

hehe...psycho babble
 
wow the anti-gay marriage people are still using the same arguments they were on page 1.

you're closet homos, suck a dick or clit and get over it. this latest thing of saying laws against homosexual marriage are just because you love everyone so much is hilarious. if you actually felt that way you wouldn't try to change them.
 
The Word said:
Consistent with what I've said, I dont agree that government should have anything to do with marriage. Just like allowing straight people who don't believe in god to marry. (but they can LIE) The onus is on the participants in any case, but the government should never have gotten involved.
Married couples have certain rights under law: for example, exemption from inheritance tax upon death of spouse (well in my country anyway). If the government hadn't got involved, how would these rights be observed? Surely you don't think this is a right solely for Christians?

As for the "lying" thing, well I hardly think we should disregard something like marriage just because it is theoretically abusable.

I've already mostly gotten the point across that this thread is completely about opinion. The perfect example is LiquidEyes's breakdown of his opinion of the essential versus non-essential elements of "marriage." What he calls superfluous details mean a hell of a lot to a lot of people.
My comments were based on logic, not opinion. Those "superfluous details" only matter to people because they CHOOSE to be bigoted. They CHOOSE to believe/pretend that heterosexuality is central to marriage, when there is clearly no argument in favour of this view, other than the circular argument that "because we say marriage is for straight people, ergo it is only for straight people".

Saying that the meaning of marriage is fixed "because such-and-such a religious group defined the term first" amounts to no more than schoolyard "finders keepers" logic. Even if it IS true, that the original definition of marriage was strictly for straight people, tough luck: the word (as-good-as) has a new meaning now, or will soon.

I wonder if those who oppose gay marriage [solely on the grounds of religious tradition] also oppose other areas of modernisation ... for example greater right for women.

And once you end up in the realm of opinion, you're squarely in the realm of MAJORITY RULE.
I'm not sure what point you're making here. Do you support the "majority rule" principle? Is racism more defensible if exhibited by the majority?

In your simplistic summary of what "morality" is, there was no mention of "what is for the good of society". Surely this is a huge factor in the condemnation of muder, rape, theft etc...? "Morals" per se can be disputed, but nobody can disagree that condoning murder would fuck up the world. Likewise, I think we can all see that allowing gay marriage will NOT fuck up the world.
 
Gay and Lesbian Marriages and also coincidentally who wants a shag?

Someone (;)) mentioned that gay and lesbian marriages were interesting. I have to agree I find them fascinating. As far as I know Vin Diesel is not a participant in a gay marriage. So posting a pic of him would be some what off topic. What are your thoughts on gay and lesbian marriages?

Wanna shag? :D
 
Um. I sense some attempt at humour clouding an otherwise topical and relevant thread.

However, I will forward it on to SLR.
 
i think gay/lesbian marriages should be allowed. everyone should have to same rights in america. ok well let me clarify that. if your a legal citizen, w/o a felony, etc. you get the point on that. but yea its not fair that 2 ppl cant get married legally just because they are the same sex. if they love each other great, if not i dont care. they should still have the right to get married. also i dont think gay marriages is what is bringing marriages apart now. that is a whole other topic.
 
Someone had to do it

I was wondering who would start this thread.... it seemed inevitable.

Anyhoo, on to Gay marriages, I'm all for them, I see marriage a formal commitment between two people who wish to share the rest of their lives together. Why the hell should it make any difference how many penises (if any) there are between them?

I'm yet to hear any reasonable arguement put forward as to why they should be frowned upon, much less illegal!
 
It's not that. A small minority just can't change the defintion of a word to whatever they wan't. Most of us disagree with your idea of marriage, unless you convince us otherwise. It's that simple.
 
Cleaned up topic heading in an attempt to make this a serious conversation...

Also i think we already have a large thread on the subject, I will check and merge if so.
 
Top