1. osu! forums
  2. Other
  3. General Discussion
show more
posted

CDFA wrote:

BRBP wrote:

I want to marry my dog.

Can you people support me and my human rights the same way you support gays?
That'd be great, thanks.
There's no way to prove the dog has consent over the marriage, so there's a reason why you can't marry your dog. Gay couples aren't vegetables and are consenting and willing to mutually get married. Plus, bringing up interspecies marriage is just like saying "HO HO I'M A PASTAFARIAN" (aka. Bringing up extremes to try to prove a point wrong), since I've never been wholly aware that people have been heavily desiring to engage in a fully commited LEGAL relationship with an animal in a huge ceremony plus legal responsibility and stuff (I know there's people who would want to have crazy sex with animals, but it's pointless to make that legal except for jokes.) With homosexual relationships, it's actually legitimate and not pastafarian-esque nonsense.
@BRBP.
posted

Liiraye wrote:

Marriage id NOT a religeous act. Why don't you read up on things you're about to claim, Lotus?
um

Marriage is actually pretty religious, or at least the way it's done in America (Which I'm assuming is the context of this discussion). It's done in a religious house of workship done by a priest, many of the lines being read from the bible (1 Corinthians, I believe. I'm not entirely sure, but I know I did a seminar about it and it was in one of Paul's letter to the church that I'm pretty sure is Corinth.) It's not a religious act like taking communion or getting baptized, but it's heavily influence by religion. It's grown now away from religion, as people can be trained to perform ceremonies without being priests, it doesn't have to be done in a chapel, etc.

And I'm not even very studious on the marriage institution, so there's probably more that I'm not aware of (I teach 4th grade at church, not many of them care about the religious aspect of marriage, lol :3) that Lotus would be.

So don't be like "OMG WELL UR DUM" (Which I know it isn't what you said, but the tone of your statement pretty much read it as such) without making sure that you're write too :3.

Nyan.
posted

CDFA wrote:

Liiraye wrote:

Marriage id NOT a religeous act. Why don't you read up on things you're about to claim, Lotus?
um

Marriage is actually pretty religious, or at least the way it's done in America (Which I'm assuming is the context of this discussion). It's done in a religious house of workship done by a priest, many of the lines being read from the bible (1 Corinthians, I believe. I'm not entirely sure, but I know I did a seminar about it and it was in one of Paul's letter to the church that I'm pretty sure is Corinth.) It's not a religious act like taking communion or getting baptized, but it's heavily influence by religion. It's grown now away from religion, as people can be trained to perform ceremonies without being priests, it doesn't have to be done in a chapel, etc.

And I'm not even very studious on the marriage institution, so there's probably more that I'm not aware of (I teach 4th grade at church, not many of them care about the religious aspect of marriage, lol :3) that Lotus would be.

So don't be like "OMG WELL UR DUM" (Which I know it isn't what you said, but the tone of your statement pretty much read it as such) without making sure that you're write too :3.

Nyan.
no thats a wedding, which is just for show. the realy thing is just a piece of paper you put your signature on.(at least in the netherlands)
posted
(Insert something about if I can marry another man why can't I marry my dog)

JK JK JK

The funny part about this whole argument is: Gay rights do not affect a single person negatively. Not having Gay rights does affect people negatively.

In other words I do support "Human" rights.
posted

silmarilen wrote:

no thats a wedding, which is just for show. the realy thing is just a piece of paper you put your signature on.(at least in the netherlands)
Jup, you can get married without believing in god and this whole glory church wedding stuff in Germany too.
posted

CDFA wrote:

Liiraye wrote:

Marriage id NOT a religeous act. Why don't you read up on things you're about to claim, Lotus?
um

Marriage is actually pretty religious, or at least the way it's done in America (Which I'm assuming is the context of this discussion). It's done in a religious house of workship done by a priest, many of the lines being read from the bible (1 Corinthians, I believe. I'm not entirely sure, but I know I did a seminar about it and it was in one of Paul's letter to the church that I'm pretty sure is Corinth.) It's not a religious act like taking communion or getting baptized, but it's heavily influence by religion. It's grown now away from religion, as people can be trained to perform ceremonies without being priests, it doesn't have to be done in a chapel, etc.

And I'm not even very studious on the marriage institution, so there's probably more that I'm not aware of (I teach 4th grade at church, not many of them care about the religious aspect of marriage, lol :3) that Lotus would be.

So don't be like "OMG WELL UR DUM" (Which I know it isn't what you said, but the tone of your statement pretty much read it as such) without making sure that you're write too :3.

Nyan.
Well just as another guy said, that's a wedding. Not a marriage. Now, don't splat your undies, but marriage actually did exist BC and was mainly used for trading property (daughters were considered property at that time). Religion adopted (just like many other common events now claimed religious to begin with) marriage as a holy tradition when in fact it's an ancient act, just like christmas for example.

Yes, in a country like the US where the population consists of up to 80% christians I see how most marriages are as you described them.

I'm trying not to sound smug as much as I can, but when people make false claims I can't help it :/ I should seek rehab about that.
posted

Jarby wrote:

Ephemeral wrote:

nobody whom is healthy of mind, religious or otherwise, will have any conscientious objection to gay rights.

i'll be frank - i find it pretty gross, but that doesn't mean i hold any overt feeling towards people who don't deliberately shove the stuff in my face. denying them otherwise standard human rights is an absolute atrocity.
Is there any reason in particular you find it gross? Aside from religious arguments, that's the second thing I hear (mind you, it's never said about lesbians). The only answers I've heard are basically "dunno" or "it's not right/natural".
i can't really say, to be perfectly honest. same way some people don't really like looking at spiders, i guess. i don't really find men aesthetically pleasing (including myself). psychologically speaking, the disgust/dislike reaction is something people don't really have much control over - seeing two dudes making out in public may elicit "ew gross" internally, but i'd probably do the same thing if i saw a really bogan heterosexual couple making out in public as well. honestly, it may be a better representation of my dislike of observing other people's physical intimacy than anything overtly related to anything else.

my point is, apprehensions or otherwise, i don't let my base instincts dictate how i moderate complex social issues internally. a normally functioning human being would do the same thing.
posted

Ephemeral wrote:

Jarby wrote:

Is there any reason in particular you find it gross? Aside from religious arguments, that's the second thing I hear (mind you, it's never said about lesbians). The only answers I've heard are basically "dunno" or "it's not right/natural".
i can't really say, to be perfectly honest. same way some people don't really like looking at spiders, i guess. i don't really find men aesthetically pleasing (including myself). psychologically speaking, the disgust/dislike reaction is something people don't really have much control over - seeing two dudes making out in public may elicit "ew gross" internally, but i'd probably do the same thing if i saw a really bogan heterosexual couple making out in public as well. honestly, it may be a better representation of my dislike of observing other people's physical intimacy than anything overtly related to anything else.

my point is, apprehensions or otherwise, i don't let my base instincts dictate how i moderate complex social issues internally. a normally functioning human being would do the same thing.
Your attitude itself doesn't bother me, but I hear a fair bit related to the concept that's problematic. One theory I have about this is how women are so overly sexualized in media compared to men; reversal of this trend is played for laughs, but male sexuality is far more tame when it is utilized. The Hawkeye Initiative (sort of nsfw) shows off this discrimination in comic books in a rather blatant way. Portrayal of heterosexual couples engaging in romantic and/or sexual shenanigans is far more likely to focus on the woman's body too of course.

Anyway my point is that this common trend of disgust is almost certainly a cultural one and it makes me sad.
posted
that's a fairly valid point. part of the social training regarding sexuality is done through instrumental conditioning and modelling foremost, which would certainly support such a hypothesis.

can't really be helped, sadly.
posted

Liiraye wrote:

Now, don't splat your undies
This is the kind of stuff that easily makes the rest of your statement completely invalid, that can easily be avoided by a simple thought of "hm maybe I should sound more professional so I don't sound mad because then people will be less likely to support me."

You don't need "rehab" on how to not sound so smug, you just need to think before you speak. You're obviously aware of it based on your statement, you just need to fix it.
posted

CDFA wrote:

Liiraye wrote:

Now, don't splat your undies
This is the kind of stuff that easily makes the rest of your statement completely invalid, that can easily be avoided by a simple thought of "hm maybe I should sound more professional so I don't sound mad because then people will be less likely to support me."

You don't need "rehab" on how to not sound so smug, you just need to think before you speak. You're obviously aware of it based on your statement, you just need to fix it.
How does that small, completely unrelated, sarcastic remark invalidate my main statement?

Sure, it might've come off a bit rough from your personal point of view (it was ment to be an innocent joke so I honestly didn't imagine anyone taking offence from it). However, my statement is valid nonetheless.
posted

Liiraye wrote:

CDFA wrote:

This is the kind of stuff that easily makes the rest of your statement completely invalid, that can easily be avoided by a simple thought of "hm maybe I should sound more professional so I don't sound mad because then people will be less likely to support me."

You don't need "rehab" on how to not sound so smug, you just need to think before you speak. You're obviously aware of it based on your statement, you just need to fix it.
How does that small, completely unrelated, sarcastic remark invalidate my main statement?

Sure, it might've come off a bit rough from your personal point of view (it was ment to be an innocent joke so I honestly didn't imagine anyone taking offence from it). However, my statement is valid nonetheless.
The word I should have used was credible, not valid. Sorry about that :3.
posted
gays are nasty.
eww.
posted

dkwon8715 wrote:

gays are nasty.
eww.
You'll have to elaborate on that, assuming that it is not your intention to remain as the most ignorant asshat on earth.
posted

dkwon8715 wrote:

gays are nasty.
eww.
drinking piss is pretty nasty too.
posted

dkwon8715 wrote:

gays are nasty.
eww.
posted
i'm a Muslim and yes i do know about the fact that it's actually a Sin in my religion. but my mum has ever said that God is fair (and yes i do believe that God is completely fair). how if the person was actually really born that way? you can't change it at all if it really is like that already from the first place because God made it that way at the first place. unless if (just like what MoonShade's friend said) it's a mental disease which makes him turn into a gay, we need to try to cure him no matter what instead of saying shits. but even so, again, i do believe that God is fair which also makes me believe in people's freedom of choosing their own path in their life and i do respect them no matter who they are.
posted

sacchann wrote:

i'm a Muslim and yes i do know about the fact that it's actually a Sin in my religion. but my mum has ever said that God is fair (and yes i do believe that God is completely fair). how if the person was actually really born that way? you can't change it at all if it really is like that already from the first place because God made it that way at the first place. unless if (just like what MoonShade's friend said) it's a mental disease which makes him turn into a gay, we need to try to cure him no matter what instead of saying shits. but even so, again, i do believe that God is fair which also makes me believe in people's freedom of choosing their own path in their life and i do respect them no matter who they are.
Taste and preference isn't something you're born with. Although you might have inherited traits and whatnot genes that could contribute to how you develop your tastes and preferences, I do firmly believe that it is ultimately decided by the circumstances under which you lead your life under, and to some degree also a choice. There are studies which show that circumstances such as having an older brother, in comparison to a sister or no siblings at all, more often leads to the younger being homosexual.

Regardless of all this, live and let live and each to their own. There is this thing called not "giving a shit" which can be fairly handy at times. No need for people to cause a ruckus, if something isn't to your preference then simply lead your life knowing that you're not "as bad as them", and do it silently.

My first post in this thread is there for a reason, and that reason being that this needs no discussion. Both the people arguing for and against are too dense for their own good and the reason for why things are a mess. Agree to disagree, and leave it at that.
posted
For those who don't know, marriage is a legal status. This status is obtained nowadays by going to city hall with your spouse and signing a piece of paper. Weddings are just an elaborate celebration of the act of obtaining this legal status.

Being married gets you all kinds of rights. It gets you tax reductions. It factors into insurance stuff. It gives you control over your partner's dead body. Etc.

The wedding where the pastor goes, "YOU GUYS ARE NOW HUSBAND AND WIFE!" and all that fun jazz? That means jack shit. The pastor's involvement is only out of formality and for religious reasons. It has jack shit to do with the actual act of signing the piece of paper, and weddings don't even need a pastor to work since they're just a celebration and formality and shit.

So, my opinion on the matter is that any couple who wishes to live together should be able to go down to city hall and sign that piece of paper. There is no reason that a hot pair of lesbians should have a harder time living together than a straight couple, because my god most lesbian pairs are so fucking hot.
posted

Ekaru wrote:

There is no reason that a hot pair of lesbians should have a harder time living together than a straight couple, because my god most lesbian pairs are so fucking hot.
Oh fuck do I hate hearing this shit from straight men.
show more
Please sign in to reply.