Washington lawmakers pass gay-marriage bill

[Dakotah]

More good news from Washington State:

https://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/08/10355280-washington-lawmakers-pass-gay-marriage-bill

Discuss.

 

[Shanghai Alice]

Good for them. Seeing that legislation has to go through to allow people to marry makes me sick. Why should law interfere with one person's love for another person?

Pedophilia. That's why.


Before I get raged at, I'm not saying that pedophilia is, in any way, shape, or form, related to gay marriage. I'm simply citing it as one of the reasons why law really should interfere with love.


As for my feelings on gay marriage:

Cool story, bro. I disagree with you, and I do not think that homosexuals form the basic family unit, but do whatever you want. Just don't bother me with your views, and I won't bother you with mine.

<inb4 a repeat of the "Telling people not to bother you = racism and bigotry" rant>

 

[Oryx]

Pedophilia is different in that a child does not have the fully developed brain of a reasoned adult making choices based on what they want and what they're attracted to. This reply also gets rid of the slippery slope "marrying animals" argument, but doesn't wipe out polygamy, which imo shouldn't be illegal anyway.

 

[Shanghai Alice]

Pedophilia is different in that a child does not have the fully developed brain of a reasoned adult making choices based on what they want and what they're attracted to. This reply also gets rid of the slippery slope "marrying animals" argument, but doesn't wipe out polygamy, which imo shouldn't be illegal anyway.

I was just pointing it out before someone else does. Pedophilia is, in fact, a case where laws should interfere with free love.

As for polygamy, that actually does tend to cause problems unless the husband is the World's Best Husband. America has enough trainwreck marriages (hoo boy, don't I know it -_-) as it is, and the last thing we need is bitter, mistreated second and third wives. Like I said, if the husband can juggle that many wives, then whatever. Go out and treat them all to something nice, putting them at equal places of importance.

...and make sure you keep track of the children. That actually is important as well.

 

[Dakotah]

Pedophilia. That's why.

What about incest? Currently there are 25 states that permit related couples to marry. Those states are: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

The relationships I'm talking about here, of course, are those between first-cousins.

Before I get raged at, I'm not saying that pedophilia is, in any way, shape, or form, related to gay marriage. I'm simply citing it as one of the reasons why law really should interfere with love.

Of course, the law is designed to protect people from harm. A child cannot legally give informed consent to marry, and so it is is illegal for an adult to marry a child. Similarly, the law prevents siblings from marrying because of a threat that any offspring resulting from such a union could be afflicted with birth defects. And also the law prevents polygamous marriages, as it has been demonstrated repeatedly that such unions are often harmful, either financially or emotionally to one or more partners in the relationship.

So yes, where there is the potential for harm to be committed, then those relationships that might be harmful should be prohibited.

But this is not the case with same sex couples. There is no harm being inflicted on either party. Both partners would be consenting, unrelated adults who have fallen in love and wish to marry. The law, therefore, should not prevent them from getting married, as there is nothing for the law to protect.

As for my feelings on gay marriage:

Cool story, bro. I disagree with you, and I do not think that homosexuals form the basic family unit, but do whatever you want. Just don't bother me with your views, and I won't bother you with mine.

<inb4 a repeat of the "Telling people not to bother you = racism and bigotry" rant>

Likewise I could tell others not to bother me with their views, but then, I don't have the right to tell another person what they can or cannot say. To live in this world a person has to accept the fact that they will be exposed to all sorts of opinions and beliefs and ways of life that they may disagree with. We can either accept this and move on with our lives, or we can isolate ourselves inside a protective bubble, safe from outside influences which may offend our sensibilities. I prefer to immerse myself in the diversity of the human race. And in doing so I learn a little bit about myself and who we are as a people.

On a side note: I happen to live in Canada, where same-sex couples have had the right to marry for almost a decade now. It has largely been a non-event to most. The sky did not fall, people still wake up and go to work, and children still play in the playgrounds. Life goes on, contrary to the assertions of those who fought against same-sex couples being able to marry.

 

[Shanghai Alice]

I really don't see anything wrong with first cousins being allowed to marry, actually. Not my preference, but European royalty intermarried, so why not the common people?


As for the bit about not having the right to limit the speech of others... Reading your post, you seem pretty hot under the collar about opposition to same-sex marriages. I would argue that that is infringing upon your happiness, so it's much better for anti-gay marriage people to leave you alone, and you them, rather than a huge confrontation between the two of you.

On the flipside, it can be quite cathartic to get into an argument. But then people might be offended, which is bad. :/


Anyway, as I said, I wasn't comparing pedophilia to gay marriage. I was just following my "Well, someone has to bring it up!" doctrine.

 

[Dakotah]

As for the bit about not having the right to limit the speech of others... Reading your post, you seem pretty hot under the collar about opposition to same-sex marriages. I would argue that that is infringing upon your happiness, so it's much better for anti-gay marriage people to leave you alone, and you them, rather than a huge confrontation between the two of you.

I don't think anyone can rightly claim that anyone's right to speech is being impeded at all. For example, telling someone to shut up isn't denying that person their right to speech, for the person is clearly both capable and in the right to ignore that directive. We also have to keep in mind that the 1st amendment of the U.S. constitution only applies when it is government interfering in a person's ability to voice their grievances or opinions or beliefs. The 1st amendment does not apply to private individuals. I am well within my rights to tell someone to shut up if I so wish. But they are equally within their rights to ignore me and continue speaking. My directive in no way inhibits their free speech rights. If they ceased to speak, then it is because they chose to do so, not because I made them.

As for my emotional state, although it may come across that I am "hot under the collar" as you say, I am simply trying to get my point across as effectively as I can. A forum like this is a very poor medium to judge another's emotional state. Your assessment of mine is wrong. If you wish to see me get hot under the collar, then begin dictating to me how I should live my life. Since you're not, and since you're not saying anything here worth getting upset over, there's no reason for me to be upset or angry. I'm simply engaging in a polite conversation.

As to your point about the two sides of the same-sex marriage debate leaving each other alone, I agree. But since some people have decided it is their business to interfere in the lives of others, that won't happen. One side will attack, and the other side will respond. It won't end. Just as the two sides in the abortion debate will never rest, nor will the sides on capital punishment, and nor will the sides on the environment. So long as people decide they have the right to involve themselves in other people's lives, we will continue to have these discussions.

Myself, I try to live my life for me and for my boyfriend and for my family in that order. It is only when people attempt to directly affect my life that I will get involved.

 

[Richard Lynch]

As for my feelings on gay marriage:

Cool story, bro. I disagree with you, and I do not think that homosexuals form the basic family unit, but do whatever you want. Just don't bother me with your views, and I won't bother you with mine.

<inb4 a repeat of the "Telling people not to bother you = racism and bigotry" rant>

This is my general consensus with the theists, however I must point out that one must not become tolerant of intolerance. Gay marriage/love/whatever you want to call it is one of those cases where I can't comprehend how someone can be against it so much as to attempt to put it into law. Statistics has proven the "gay couples raise gay kids" to be false, and also that "gay couples raise socially deviant kids" is false, and pretty much every other "argument" that has been used. What's the problem? Divorce is at an unusual high, single parents are everywhere, and there's a massive surge of teenage parents, all of which, in my opinion, digress from that traditional "family unit" you mentioned.

So while you have every right to believe what you believe, I really must ask:

What is the problem?

I'm not trying to bash you or anything, but I think there's a major ideological problem with this kind of thinking. It's as if someone told you that they disagree with your opinion that slavery is wrong, but just don't bother them with your views. If we want to fix things on a human level, we must begin with the core ideology.

 

[Shanghai Alice]

I don't think anyone can rightly claim that anyone's right to speech is being impeded at all. For example, telling someone to shut up isn't denying that person their right to speech, for the person is clearly both capable and in the right to ignore that directive.

What is speech?

Their right to talk is not being impeded, no, but their right to speech...

But, yes. You've got me there, in that they can keep speaking. However, seeing as how I tend to slur my speech and have a hard time getting
my words out properly, I think of "speech" as "someone cares enough to give you the time of day." Otherwise, it's background noise.

...wait, re-reading my post, how did we get onto this train of thought? I never mentioned telling anyone to shut up.

Ahh, the joys of Super Multitab Browsing, and the lack of an attention span...

We also have to keep in mind that the 1st amendment of the U.S. constitution only applies when it is government interfering in a person's ability to voice their grievances or opinions or beliefs. The 1st amendment does not apply to private individuals. I am well within my rights to tell someone to shut up if I so wish.

That is correct, yes.

But they are equally within their rights to ignore me and continue speaking. My directive in no way inhibits their free speech rights. If they ceased to speak, then it is because they chose to do so, not because I made them.

You did not cow them into silence, they chose to be silent?

Like I said, I slur my speech and, when I speak, I'm almost impossible to understand. Because of that, most people have given up on trying to understand me. Because of that, I've stopped speaking.

Now, would you say it's my happy choice to confine myself to silence?

As for my emotional state, although it may come across that I am "hot under the collar" as you say, I am simply trying to get my point across as effectively as I can.

Eh, perhaps I used too strong of a term. I simply meant that, judging by your posts, this is something that irks you, and you're passionate about it. I'm putting some degree of emotion into my posts (of the "I feel something about this" variety. I haven't actually broken my monitor... yet), so I typically think of others as doing the same. After all, if either of us didn't feel strongly about what we were saying, this conversation would have died a while back.

A forum like this is a very poor medium to judge another's emotional state. Your assessment of mine is wrong.

Oh so very true. Which is why I'm taking great care to watch my words, as I've been told that I come off as really, really peevish when I get into it.

If you wish to see me get hot under the collar, then begin dictating to me how I should live my life. Since you're not, and since you're not saying anything here worth getting upset over, there's no reason for me to be upset or angry. I'm simply engaging in a polite conversation.

Get angrier. You should be angry when you debate with strangers over the Internet. Not getting hot under the collar means you are weak and worthless! Grah, anger and hate!

As to your point about the two sides of the same-sex marriage debate leaving each other alone, I agree. But since some people have decided it is their business to interfere in the lives of others, that won't happen. One side will attack, and the other side will respond. It won't end. Just as the two sides in the abortion debate will never rest, nor will the sides on capital punishment, and nor will the sides on the environment. So long as people decide they have the right to involve themselves in other people's lives, we will continue to have these discussions.

Well, the last few examples are fairly different, as lives are on the line, so they actually do cause harm in society. Regardless of how you feel about abortion, and whether or not the fetus is really human, there really is no denying that people are killed in capital punishment.

In fact, it's one of the few things that I would say absolutely should not be left alone and ignored. If I truly believe capital punishment is wrong, how can I say "Well, if you want to kill them, go ahead?" When life and limb is involved, lack of protest may very well be assent.

However, in something like gay marriage, my lack of protest does not bolster the gay marriage movement. It doesn't hinder it, either. Yelling won't change any minds, so I might as well focus my efforts on the one person I can control.

Myself, I try to live my life for me and for my boyfriend and for my family in that order. It is only when people attempt to directly affect my life that I will get involved.

I actually would say be careful of that, though. Taking you literally, someone could mistake you for an absolute isolationist.

There are causes outside ourselves that are worthy of our attention, after all. There's that whole line about good men doing nothing, and all.

But, like I said, that's only in cases of life and limb. In simple differences of belief, people are best left alone.

[UnrelatedSideNoteBecause that's what causes wars, not the beliefs themselves.[/UnrelatedSideNote]


It's fun chatting with you.

 

[Dakotah]

You did not cow them into silence, they chose to be
silent?

I firmly believe that all decision lie with each of us. Whether we allow others to influence that decision is entirely up to us. If we are cowed into silence, it is because we allowed ourselves to be influenced into making that decision. Fear is a powerful motivator, but even that can be overcome.

Like I said, I slur my speech and, when I speak, I'm almost impossible to understand. Because of that, most people have given up on trying to understand me. Because of that, I've stopped speaking.

Then that would be because you allowed others to influence your decision. You allowed them to make the decision for you. Speech is a very powerful method of communication. But then so too is the lack of speech. In your case I would recommend taking back what you inadvertently gave away. If others have difficulties hearing what you have to say, then it is because they fail to listen.

There are often times in dealing with people that I will encounter individuals who have very thick accents. If, when speaking to me, I do not understand, I ask them to repeat themselves until I do. But that's me. I make it a point to always pay attention to the people who are speaking with me.

Eh, perhaps I used too strong of a term. I simply meant that, judging by your posts, this is something that irks you, and you're passionate about it. I'm putting some degree of emotion into my posts (of the "I feel something about this" variety. I haven't actually broken my monitor... yet), so I typically think of others as doing the same. After all, if either of us didn't feel strongly about what we were saying, this conversation would have died a while back.

I'd agree with you there. This is something that I'm passionate about. But only because I, a gay man, have had to contend with threats, and slurs, and abuse from people who more often than not condemn me and others like me simply because of who we are. To them, we offend their sensibilities, and threaten their personal worldview. The two sides are in conflict and so they lash out, sometimes violently.

Get angrier. You should be angry when you debate with strangers over the Internet. Not getting hot under the collar means you are weak and worthless! Grah, anger and hate!

LOL. I'm such an easygoing guy though. Funny enough, it's that exact trait that frustrates a whole lot of people. Where they expect me to lash out and blow up in their faces, I instead sit here nice and calm. And the longer I do, the more irate they become, until in the end, it's not me who's blowing my cap, it's them. It's quite fun to watch actually.

I actually would say be careful of that, though. Taking you literally, someone could mistake you for an absolute isolationist.

If my friends heard you say that there'd be various drinks being blown out of people's noses before they end up on the ground in laughter. I'm a very outgoing person. Admittedly, I don't do well in large groups, but I by no means could be even thought of as an isolationist. As an author especially, being an isolationist wouldn't help sell books. LOL

It's fun chatting with you.

Thank you. I enjoy talking to people, like yourself. It gives me the opportunity to learn about other people, and maybe get a different perspective on things. I like to think every conversation is a learning experience, that helps me to grow as an individual. Plus it's always fun meeting new people and developing new friendships. Even if sometimes it can only be done electronically.

 

[Esper]

Hurray for Washington state. With this becoming law soon and the recent decision of the courts against California's same-sex-banning Prop 8 (for a second time) I think America is slowly moving into the modern era and I fully expect to see marriage legally recognized between any two consenting adults everywhere in the country in a few years.

 

[Shining Raichu]

The great thing about this world too, is that everybody in the Western world seems to follow the leader - and luckily, the leader is America. So once it's legal in more states in America than it's not, I think the rest of the world will begin to fix their laws too.

As for my feelings on gay marriage:

Cool story, bro. I disagree with you, and I do not think that homosexuals form the basic family unit, but do whatever you want. Just don't bother me with your views, and I won't bother you with mine.

<inb4 a repeat of the "Telling people not to bother you = racism and bigotry" rant>

Being against gay marriage is homophobic and bigoted and how dare -- oh wait, you inb4'd it. Never mind then :(

 

[Gothitelle.]

You know, I used to be heavily against gay marriage but then I started to feel indifferent to it. It could be because I'm not straight but at the same time, I'm not gay. So, if it were me, I personally wouldn't go with the same sex but for others, I am a tad but glad for them. Mostly because they finally get to be with the person they have be wanting to be with which is always fun to see.

 

[Rogue planet]

The great thing about this world too, is that everybody in the Western world seems to follow the leader - and luckily, the leader is America. So once it's legal in more states in America than it's not, I think the rest of the world will begin to fix their laws too.

The funny thing is a number of European countries have already legalised gay marriage. The Netherlands legalised it in 2001, looool, but nobody ever payed attention to that. Belgium followed soon after in 2003. When you consider that being Gay was still illegal in some US states at this time, the USA is actually very behind.

A number of other European countries legalised same-sex marriage between then and now. The UK announced a year ago that they would legalise it by 2013, whether they actually will or not is yet to be seen, but I am pretty sure it will happen.

 

[Oryx]

The funny thing is a number of European countries have already legalised gay marriage. The Netherlands legalised it in 2001, looool, but nobody ever payed attention to that. Belgium followed soon after in 2003. When you consider that being Gay was still illegal in some US states at this time, the USA is actually very behind.

A number of other European countries legalised same-sex marriage between then and now. The UK announced a year ago that they would legalise it by 2013, whether they actually will or not is yet to be seen, but I am pretty sure it will happen.

I always had the vague feeling that Europe was always ahead of us in matters of social conscience-related things like this, tbh. I never actually did any research on it but that's always the impression I got.

 

[Mercurybro]

I always had the vague feeling that Europe was always ahead of us in matters of social conscience-related things like this, tbh. I never actually did any research on it but that's always the impression I got.

Because all the lawmakers and leaders are socialist fools I heard that a few countries in Europe already allowed homosexuals into their military years before we did. On joint NATO assignments, etc, it wasn't that uncommon for gay military members from other countries to be working alongside America's military. I'm only going off what I've heard from another person, though, so it may be a bit rarer than I'm making it out to be.

 

[pastelspectre]

I'm happy to see they passed the bill. I'm not gay but I am bisexual and believe that same sex marriages should be allowed.

 

[Dakotah]

The funny thing is a number of European countries have already legalised gay marriage. The Netherlands legalised it in 2001, looool, but nobody ever payed attention to that. Belgium followed soon after in 2003. When you consider that being Gay was still illegal in some US states at this time, the USA is actually very behind.

A number of other European countries legalised same-sex marriage between then and now. The UK announced a year ago that they would legalise it by 2013, whether they actually will or not is yet to be seen, but I am pretty sure it will happen.

Hey let's not forget Canada in there. We've recognized same-sex marriages since 2005, and in some provinces since 2003.

 

[Rogue planet]

Hey let's not forget Canada in there. We've recognized same-sex marriages since 2005, and in some provinces since 2003.

Yeah I don't live in Canada so I don't know much about it, but this just proves my point even more!

The USA likes to think it is cutting edge, but unfortunately they are quite behind. Equally unfortunate is that the media is largely controlled by the USA, so we never hear a single thing about what goes on in other countries. As soon as the USA considers legalising gay marriage, there's so much attention drawn. But really, they need to wake up and stop lagging behind; they are not leading the way at all.

Not saying anything against US citizens here (I love you all <333) but the US government needs to smell the roses.

 

[Ivysaur]

And meanwhile, the new Conservative Spanish Government has brought our 2005 law to court claiming it to be unconstitutional. I can't believe we are going to end up lagging behind the US in terms of homosexual rights if they do accept the claim.