|
|
bLiZzArdbOY
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
posted February 04, 2011 05:56 PM |
|
|
For me it's not a question of whether or not it should be allowed. Of course it should be allowed. It's a question of whether these people are progressing the gay rights movement or not. A bunch of low-IQ gay people getting decked out in black leather underwear, half-dressed clown outfits, and who knows what else, and then frolicking down the road does not help their cause. It severely damages it because they are personifying the negative stereotypes that are commonly associated with gays. It's the equivalent of a bunch of Arab-Americans putting handkerchiefs around their heads and marching down a major road in New York City while holding toy AK-47s.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
VokialBG
Honorable
Legendary Hero
First in line
|
|
posted February 04, 2011 06:06 PM |
|
Edited by VokialBG at 18:10, 04 Feb 2011.
|
Quote:
One of the common functions of a constitution is to provide protections and guarantees to people that can't do it themselves (i.e. groups that fall into a 1-3% category).
More like a century ago. Still it's very important, but the Constitution do provide protections and guarantees to them, they have the right to marriage according to the constitution, and this right is equal to the right of everyone - to have a marriage with a person from the opposite gander. They do have the right, they just can't do it with person from the same gander, so homo and heterosexuals are equal in all their right in the constitution. There will be no equality if there was something in the constitution like "Gays can't have marriage" or "Homosexuality lead to mort civile" or whatever like this. If the constitution says "Every one have the right to marriage and family" and few articles later "The marriage is union between man and women" it means that gays have the right to marriage to, like everyone.
The constitution also provide protection of the common morale and traditions.
Also sorry my legal english is even worst....
----------------------------------------
And really why the need even to get marry? They can live together.
I also join DF in his question: Why gays even need to parade? I think they don't, they can live and be ok without it.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 04, 2011 06:29 PM |
|
|
Frankly, why gays want to parade, is none of your business - if the law allows it.
It's like the question why workers want a parade on MAy 1st or why there is Carnival in Rio (no one complains on GIRLS running around like they do there, mind you), Fasching or Mardi Gras. No one does ask, though.
And whether a gay parade does or does not do what the organizators want is irrelevant, if it is not against the law.
The worst question is, whether WE NEED this, though. We don't need McDonald's either.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted February 04, 2011 06:34 PM |
|
|
Missing the point again.
You will not come to any conclusion with Bak if you have different definition of what you're arguing about.
Bak has his thoughts about why it's organized, why it should be or shouldn't.
You don't care. You're just arguing for the sake of arguing and telling people they shouldn't interfere because the law doesn't prohibit it, that's all, aren't you?
I really hope I'm mistaken.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
VokialBG
Honorable
Legendary Hero
First in line
|
|
posted February 04, 2011 06:41 PM |
|
Edited by VokialBG at 18:44, 04 Feb 2011.
|
The question is different.
Rio allows the Carnival
Berlin, Madrid, X town allow the gay parade.
BUT
Some Y town do not allow naked carnival with wild dances or gay parades, or just one of them.
So this is not relevant example.
What I actually ask is why they need doing it, do they gain something positive form it except having savage fun on the streets? Because its negative for many others (like the guy who have work, but the main street is closed and he can't move on it with his car, or the mother that don't like the idea to cross the same street where her 3 years old daughter can see someones naked butt or penis, or... or just someone who is disgusted, or the people that live around and have to suffer all the noise and etc...). I think they don't get anything except savage fun and more hatred from the people around. If they want to live normal - than live normal.
I'm not against gays, I'm against the gay parades.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 04, 2011 06:49 PM |
|
|
Vokial:
Quote:
They do have the right, they just can't do it with person from the same gander, so homo and heterosexuals are equal in all their right in the constitution.
I hope you realize that this is an extremely disingenuous argument. Straight people have the right to marry whom they want, but gay people don't.
There is no rational reason for same-sex marriage to be illegal. None at all.
JJ:
But it's not none of our business. It affects the people living in that city - they see the people parading, they're trying to get to work and the parade may be in the way, etc. Sure, it's legal, but just because something is legal doesn't mean it doesn't concern us. If your brother is an alcoholic, that's perfectly legal - but that doesn't mean it's none of your business.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted February 04, 2011 06:58 PM |
|
|
It's specifically not mine business, and specifically not JJ's.
But Baklava's? He's a Serb. So this - a parade in HIS country that made people think this or that about Serbs - is definitively HIS business.
Hence I found JJ's posts a bit not fitting.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted February 04, 2011 07:10 PM |
|
|
First of all, having parades is legal only if you get the permit for it.
If town says no, having parade is illegal.
Second.
Vokial is completely right about the constitutional rights for marriage. Heterosexuals don't have any more right to marry another person of the same gender. They are equal in front of the law.
Third.
No parade, no riot, no people hurt.
Parade, riot, people hurt.
Lastly,Quote:
Because that would mean, people are just TOLERATED. The idea is not to bring people to tolerate what everyone thinks is abnormal, distasteful, unnatural or whatever. The idea is to establish those people as "different, but nonetheless "normal"" in every respect that actually counts.
Which is the bottom line: everyone, even the Serbians, should learn to RESPECT people who are DIFFERENT.
This is so much wrong it's no wonder this topic is going nowhere.
It's each persons personal business if he respect some random black gay muslim guy whooping around his underwear on the street or not.
Just as it's everyone's personal business if he respects the white christian guy in his 50s wearing three stars on his shoulders and who has lost his other arm in the war defending your and that other guy's well being so you can live your life and the other guy can whoop his underwear on the street.
Most people respect the latter, others the former. But the other side has no right to impose his values on the other in eather case.
Respect is not universal. Respect is to be earned in the values one considers worthy not given freely and the values are specific to each person.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 04, 2011 07:28 PM |
|
|
No, Bak is blaming the wrong people, IF the parade is legal.
It's as simple as that, and THAT is my point.
In other words, IF the parade is legal - and it seems to have been, the guilty parts are either the hooligans, who spread violence against a legal occurence or the politicians who made it legal or did allow it. But it can't be the gays who just do what IS legal - eventually (for them) you might say.
And what would be wrong with children seeing a naked butt or penis, by the way - nothing they couldn't see on any magazine, advertisement wall, TV screen, or the internet anyway.
So would you please spare me the 3-year-old girl stuff - when you don't come with the 3-year old boy who see naked boobs.
And, Joonas, you are probably right: RESPECT is the wrong word, and "tolerance" has a positive meaning, I didn't intend the words to mean that. What I mean, is that the aim is not to suffer or endure the gays as twisted ans pervert, but somehow protected by an idiot law, but to ACCEPT them as actual human beings who are just like you and me except preferring same gender as a sex partner, which should actually concern me as much as a member of MY preffered sex who I would resent as a sex partner for any other reason.
|
|
Azagal
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
|
|
posted February 04, 2011 07:29 PM |
|
Edited by Azagal at 19:32, 04 Feb 2011.
|
Quote:
is Carnival in Rio (no one complains on GIRLS running around like they do there, mind you)
Uuuh what?Mind you we have just as many men running arround half naked or in costumes so ellaborate they make the pics Bak posted look like halloween in a kindergarden and no one is complaining. And there is a Carnival in Rio because it's a tradition. The women dress up like that because they want to and they love it.
...so ehm yeah go on with your discussion.
____________
"All I can see is what's in front of me. And all I can do is keep moving forward" - The Heir Wielder of Names, Seeker of Thrones, King of Swords, Breaker of Infinities, Wheel Smashing Lord
|
|
adriancat
Famous Hero
Protector Of The Peace
|
|
posted February 04, 2011 07:36 PM |
|
|
what contact has the thread's subject with HOMM?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 04, 2011 07:53 PM |
|
|
Oh, and Joonas, pretty high horse you are on with a point like this:Quote:
Third.
No parade, no riot, no people hurt.
Parade, riot, people hurt.
That's right.
No soccer games, no hooligan riots, no people hurt.
No internet, no porn for under-aged people, no children hurt.
And, Azagal
Quote:
Uuuh what?Mind you we have just as many men running arround half naked or in costumes so ellaborate they make the pics Bak posted look like halloween in a kindergarden and no one is complaining. And there is a Carnival in Rio because it's a tradition. The women dress up like that because they want to and they love it.
Exactly. So why can't gays do the same? Only for GAYS, not for heteros.
|
|
VokialBG
Honorable
Legendary Hero
First in line
|
|
posted February 04, 2011 07:58 PM |
|
Edited by VokialBG at 20:00, 04 Feb 2011.
|
Quote:
And what would be wrong with children seeing a naked butt or penis, by the way - nothing they couldn't see on any magazine, advertisement wall, TV screen, or the internet anyway.
So would you please spare me the 3-year-old girl stuff - when you don't come with the 3-year old boy who see naked boobs.
Why, yes. It's pretty much the same. So if you ever (if you do) have a kid you'll let her/him watching porn? Or just boobs on the internet?
Quote:
I hope you realize that this is an extremely disingenuous argument. Straight people have the right to marry whom they want, but gay people don't.
Nope. You're wrong. Anyway Joonas posted it. Straight people can't marry whom they want, they can marry whom they want from the opposite gander. Same count for gay people - for the law they are equal.
Quote:
There is no rational reason for same-sex marriage to be illegal. None at all.
There is. If the society is against it, you can't just force the people to tolerate gay marriages. You just can't. Already posted about that. To set a rule there must be some level that the society reached first. If it's still before that level, you can't add the new rule, because it wont work correctly. It will be the same if you go to... Chad, or Namibia or whatever place from the third word and give them law about the... digital signatures. You can't make a gay marriage rule in place where there is no active gay community, mass opposition against it and only a few gay couples that really like to get marry.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 04, 2011 08:17 PM |
|
|
Joonas:
But the heterosexuals have the right to marry whom they want - a person of the opposite sex. A minor difference such as changing "opposite" to "same" and that suddenly being illegal is not equality under the law under any stretch of the imagination.
Quote:
No parade, no riot, no people hurt.
Sure. Just as long as we remember that the parade isn't wrong - the rioters are. Because this sounds like you're blaming the victim.
JJ:
Quote:
And what would be wrong with children seeing a naked butt or penis, by the way - nothing they couldn't see on any magazine, advertisement wall, TV screen, or the internet anyway.
Not on anything except late-night TV or in at least semi-pornographic magazines. Five-year-olds don't use the Internet. So no, unless something is seriously wrong, kids aren't going to see other people's genitalia.
Vokial:
Quote:
If the society is against it, you can't just force the people to tolerate gay marriages.
Sure you can. Just prosecute anyone who does anything illegal against gay people, and that's all there is to it. We can't allow ourselves to be subjected to tyranny of the majority. Even if society doesn't like it, if it doesn't hurt anyone, it should be legal. Period.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
VokialBG
Honorable
Legendary Hero
First in line
|
|
posted February 04, 2011 08:41 PM |
|
Edited by VokialBG at 20:45, 04 Feb 2011.
|
I think you can not get the point again.
Quote:
Just prosecute anyone who does anything illegal against gay people
LOL! Doing something illegal to someone gay or not can lead to prosecuting. So hurting them on the parade is definitely not right for the law. Just as hurting the workers on 1st May parade or the soldiers on army parade.
Adding ruler allowing same-sex marriage is something different. You can't build on sand right? You can't add a same-sex marriage right in place where there is no active gay community, mass opposition against it and only a few gay couples that really like to get marry. You can't have right for free entering in Internet in state where are no PC or only few of them.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 04, 2011 08:47 PM |
|
|
Except comparing it to the Internet is a terrible analogy. (Not to mention the analogy doesn't make sense at all.) You don't need an active gay community for legal same-sex marriage. If there are only two gay people and a million bigots, the gay people should still have the right to marry. They're not hurting anyone, so it should be legal regardless of how many people oppose it. Individual rights trump bigotry.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted February 04, 2011 08:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But the heterosexuals have the right to marry whom they want - a person of the opposite sex. A minor difference such as changing "opposite" to "same" and that suddenly being illegal is not equality under the law under any stretch of the imagination.
Yes it is. They have the same right to marry a person of the opposing gender if they want. Some gays do. Others don't.
Heterosexuals can't marry anyone they want if that person is from the same sex. In eyes of the law, the right is the same.
Of course the right is inherently more useful to the heterosexuals, at least statistically.
But hey, if they legalise same sex marriage it will still leave people who want to marry their dog or their microwave in the same position as gays where before. Why shouldn't they it be legalised? Sweden and some states of the U.S.A allow sex between humans and animals so why would marriage be such a big deal?
In the eyes of the law, it doesn't matter if you're gay or animal lover(if both are legal of course). You've still got the same right to marry someone of the opposing gender. And neither of you have the right to marry the person, animal or whatever you're in love with.
Quote:
Oh, and Joonas, pretty high horse you are on with a point like this:Quote:
Third.
No parade, no riot, no people hurt.
Parade, riot, people hurt.
That's right.
No soccer games, no hooligan riots, no people hurt.
No internet, no porn for under-aged people, no children hurt.
I know I am. But I don't care about ethics here.
What I care is the effects. Consider the alternatives.
No parade has some 100 or so people disappointed.
Parade has over 100 people hurt, arrested, whatever.
No soccer games, no riots. Are you so sure? I'm pretty sure the same rioters would be twice as much rioting on the streets for that. Not to mention loss of enjoyment for a lot of people, lots of money lost.
Soccer games, money for a lot of people, enjoyment for a millions, riots, some people hurt.
No internet, so what does that help? No 12 year old watching porn? Please, are you telling me you didn't find porn when you were twelve? 
Internet, makes life a lot easier, saves time in everyone's life, makes education easier, makes working from home possible, etc. etc.
Something comparable to the parades would be someone playing the soccer game with their most shocking wear on in the middle of the town's main road blocking all traffic for hours, provoking rioters, leading to people hurt.
Would you want that soccer game taking place? Or could they rather play soccer like normal people do in the field with normal clothing only leading to hurting themselves and not causing trouble for everyone else?
Ask yourself, would you be setting up the soccer game in the first way or the other? Think about it. There's nothing else than pure egoism and disregard for others in picking the first.
"HEY, I'm shocking! Look at me! No you can't get to work! Oh your mothers, sisters and daughters go to work/school here, too bad they will get caught in the middle of the riot about to break out. Well, that's not my problem if they die is it? I'm shocking!"
Just has idiots written all over it...
PS. Don't start flaming about that gay/animal thing. Both are sexual orientation based minorities, that's why they're there.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
bLiZzArdbOY
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted February 04, 2011 09:15 PM |
|
|
@Joonas:
I think the most logical solution (which isn't going to happen) is to eliminate 'marriage' from the legal setting entirely. Marriage should be a ritual/covenant that can be handled by private entities as they see fit, and those entities can be as discriminatory or non-discriminatory as they please.
In so far as the law is concerned, there should be contractual civil unions, which would be relevant when it comes to determining tax benefits, finances, etc, and in that case there can be very strict criteria for who/what you can and cannot have a union with. You cannot expect to get tax benefits or legal status with a goat because a goat is not a national citizen nor does it have any legal rights on its end (apart from protection from animal abuse ).
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted February 04, 2011 09:18 PM |
|
|
That would be pretty simple solution. I'm all for it.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted February 04, 2011 09:44 PM |
|
|
So basically you propose to get rid of marriage from the legal system by calling it something else and placing the same limitations on it? 
And marriage as it is performed now in a church means diddly-bucket. You're only married when you have a marriage license.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
