Gay Marriage

[CrOtALiTo]

Originally Posted by ookami

... jajaja, nada que ver... Se nota que no leyeron el post atentamente. En esa respuesta ni siquiera me estaba refiriendo a los homosexuales, si no que comentaba el comentario de Elaina. Solo 0,02 personas sobre 100 (hiperbole) son de las que saben discutir y no intentan convencer o tener la razón como si de una competencia se tratara y si no la tienen, les tiemblan los simientos de sus ideales. A eso me refería.

I believe that my country have very marked and highlighted the gay culture, I don't know in other countries, for example U.S.A with the racism between the same American peoples, here the gay marriage is a thread with the new laws made for the Calderon government, then I go it your commentary, but I can enter in a polemic about the gay thread as I told you before, the people is free of decide the course of their life.


Don't worry if the people didn't read completely your post, the thread result very long and no ones have time in read all.

[irmamar]

Originally Posted by ookami

Why? I think that it's easier this way than doing it face to face. You've more time to think, to correct, to analize what the other is saying to you, to search information, etc. It should be easier. The problem is another one: that "passion" you talked about. The passion of trying to convince, to have the truth, to defeat the other. Because if you just want to express your point of view and analize other's points of view, there shouldn't be any problems. But... only 0,02 of people... that way.

Originally Posted by ookami

... jajaja, nada que ver... Se nota que no leyeron el post atentamente. En esa respuesta ni siquiera me estaba refiriendo a los homosexuales, si no que comentaba el comentario de Elaina. Solo 0,02 personas sobre 100 (hiperbole) son de las que saben discutir y no intentan convencer o tener la razón como si de una competencia se tratara y si no la tienen, les tiemblan los simientos de sus ideales. A eso me refería.

Traduzco tu mensaje:

¿Por qué? Creo que es más fácil hacerlo así que cara a cara. Tienes más tiempo para pensar, para corregir, para analizar lo que los otros te dicen, para buscar información, etc. Debería ser más fácil. El problema es otro: esa “pasión” de la que hablabas. La pasión de intentar convencer, de poseer la verdad, de defender al otro. Porque si tú quieres expresar tu punto de vista, no debería haber ningún problema. Pero... solo el 0.02 de la gente... así.



Como comprenderás, por mucho que me haya enterado de qué hablabas, no entiendo la última frase (en negrita). Pero bueno, una vez aclarado, ya está.


Veo que septiembre viene calentito...

[ookami]

Sí, un día de frío y otro de calor Sí, en ese post es algo intelegible, no prentendía que la entendieran, solo tuve unas irrestibles ganas de que completen las dos o tres palabras (complementarias) de la oración . Pero luego que escribí la sentencia entera me pareció que era fácilmente entendible:

Originally Posted by ookami

"But maybe only 0,02% of people are that way"

Pero parece que solo el 0.02 por ciento de la gente es así.

Pero me equivoqué.

[Jessica]

so no one here is against gay marriage? Good.

[Esperar]

People who are against it, won't say it because of "group think" and don't want to be outcasted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

I'm not one of those people, and will give my real opinion:

If marriage was still worth something, then I'd be against it, but marriage is worthless now anyway, so I don't care if they marry or not.

[JPablo]

Excellent link, Esperar. Thank you.
En España diríamos:
Un enlace de p*ta madre. Gracias, colega. (But I take I cannot write all the letters... although I have hear the expression from my "liberal" mother!)

[Esperar]

I'm not liberal or conservative, to be honest, I don't really like either side much.

Group think is very interesting. I feel it myself, but I say what I really think anyway. I have controversal opinions, but I won't say them here. Not because I'm afraid, but because I want to continue learning Spanish, and not to be harassed.

so no one here is against gay marriage? Good.

This is very oppressive language, even if you don't mean it to be. Whether you mean it or not, what you are saying here is that people who don't agree with it are somehow bad, or their opinion is bad. This will trigger off "group think."

If you want people's REAL opinions, act as non judgmental as possible.

[JPablo]

Originally Posted by Esperar

I'm not liberal or conservative, to be honest, I don't really like either side much.
[Ok, but I used "liberal" not in the political sense, but in a loose one or rather in the sense of "free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners."]

If you want people's REAL opinions, act as non judgmental as possible.

I agree with that.

[Tarential]

Originally Posted by Esperar

If you want people's REAL opinions, act as non judgmental as possible.

While I agree with you in theory, in practice it's generally easy to see who is just "accepting" the status quo. In addition, the very act of damning same sex marriages as "bad" or "wrong" or any of the terms people usually use is extremely judgmental. In a society where people are supposed to be equal (again, this is an ideal, it is obviously not practiced), that means a man has the same rights as a woman, and vice versa. Thus, a man has just as much a right to marry a man as a woman does. Trying to prevent this is judging the people involved as less than worthy of marriage.

A favorite quote of mine is by Penn & Teller from their show "Bullshit" in the episode about the war on drugs. It can be paraphrased to suit this topic:
"This isn't about being for or against drugs [gay marriage]. It is about freedom. If you live in a free country you have the right to put anything you want into your own body [or marry whoever you want]."

I showed in one of my previous posts why religion cannot be considered in respect to state laws regarding marriage. I did this without judging the religions involved. They are perfectly allowed to have their own opinion on the matter. As the saying goes, "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Because, as mentioned, it is an opinion -- something which we are all free to have. However, having an opinion about it does not mean they can justly try to prevent gay marriage any more than it means I would be allowed to enter their churches and picket for gay rights.

Taking it one step further, my opinion is that believing strictly in any religion is probably a mistake; that even if God exists, I doubt that any of our human religions accurately reflect his opinion and expectations of us. Does that give me the right to try to ban any religious ceremonies from the country? It certainly doesn't. Freedom of religion is one of the ideals the US flourished upon (1st amendment, if I'm not mistaken). Another of these was the ideal that all men are created equal, and that they have an inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Arguing that the state shouldn't allow same sex couples to marry is not just bigotry -- it is unconstitutional, whether it be on religious grounds or not. So, you'll have to forgive me if I don't feel bad for using terminology that might be considered "judgmental". Actually, I take that back. The truth is, you don't have to forgive me any more than I have to forgive people who want to ruin the lives of others. And I don't, so I wouldn't expect yours in return.

[Esperar]

I'm an atheist, and I really don't like conservatives. It's not religious reasons I oppose gay marriage in theory, I oppose it because I think marriage is a foundation for families, and children need a mother and father.

Gays already have equal rights regarding this anyway, there's nothing stopping a gay man from marrying a woman, or a lesbian marrying a man.

Also, your analogy of taking drugs, and gay marriage is faulty. Not being able to take drugs legally is a violation of one's freedom with their own body, the state refusing to marry gays is not stopping them from doing anything. Gays and lesbians can still have a marriage ceremony if they want, it just won't be recognized legally.

Also, bear in mind that if you change the definition of marriage to include gays, you are changing what marriage is, and taking it away from those who are already married.

This has nothing to do with bigotry, I've known gay guys who are against gay marriage and say it makes no sense.

[Tarential]

It is bigotry, pure and simple.

I'm going to stop myself here before I write the response that is deserved.

[Esperar]

Originally Posted by JPablo

I agree with that.

Pretty much where I stand, but I don't like calling myself a liberal, because too many self proclaimed liberals do things I disagree with.

Liberals can abuse "group think" to the extreme. I don't like that at all.

I just call myself independant when someone asks what I am.

Originally Posted by Tarential

It is bigotry, pure and simple.

I'm going to stop myself here before I write the response that is deserved.

Call me whatever you want, I don't really care. Give me your biggest insult. I don't respond to thought terminating clichés, I think they're weak.

This unprovoked attack of me is exactly why people won't give their true thoughts in public. It's all oppressive, and it's all hypocritical.

[Tarential]

I wasn't posting it as an insult to you, although it's interesting that you take it as such. I was pointing out to you an accurate description of the views you are taking. It is axiomatically bigotry to be intolerant of what other people do based on your own opinion. You saying that they shouldn't be allowed to marry is being intolerant. Thus, it is bigotry.

If you are offended by the term, that was not my purpose. It was a description of the point of view you are forwarding, not an attack on your character. I have nothing against you as a person. That's why I said "It is bigotry" not "you are a bigot."

I hope this clears it up.

Edit: And it's not hypocritical, either. If I was telling you that it was wrong to be straight, that you had to marry a man, then I would be a bigot for saying so. I'm not. I'm saying people should let other people do what they want with each other instead of telling them what they can and cannot do. In case anyone is wondering at this point, I'm straight.

[Jessica]

gay couples should be able to adopt. there's no proof that children whose parents are gay/lesbian have a worse life or whatever than straight parents. There are many children without a mother or father.

[JPablo]

Well, there you have it, then.

Drugs. That is another subject. And a deadly one.

"Gay marriage" is a fact nowadays. Whether one likes it or not. If it is "legal" or not that's another subject.

Drugs. That is fact. "People" use them. Other "people" try to keep people disinformed about the harm they generate to your body and your mind and spirit. So "do drugs" is a "cool thing". Anyone can do their "propaganda". Fact is "drugs kill". I have known victims and survivors. The "survivors" will not recommend you any use of any drugs. Starting with alcohol, crack... extasis... prescription 'legal' drugs. But that is an entire whole subject... or the same. It has to do with "freedom". But "freedom" cannot exist without "responsibility" and "control".
bigotry
1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.
[1665–75; BIGOT + -RY, formation parallel to F bigoterie]
—Syn.1. narrow-mindedness, bias, discrimination.

Ignorance is the source of bigotry. Knowledge on the other hand allows one to choose the best solution to any problem.

I respect any and all religions. I respect the agnostics and the atheists. I respect myself too. And I know (like everyone else) I have prejudices. And I am able to admit them and/or cast them aside, "if they block my survival, the survival of my family, my group, the human species, all life on this planet... etc."

Any personal and free decision based on reason, will be good if it assists survival, and "bad" if "assists" death and destruction. Then again, I must be "prejudiced" for "survival" and against death and destruction. I recognize it's a peculiarity in some quarters where war and destruction seem to be the best "solution".

But I am veering off towards a discussion on Ethics and Morals (two separate subjects) as "Ethics" is a personal thing, while "Morals" is what a particular society says it's right or wrong. (Although probably the dictionaries will not support that, directly, as they have confused both terms.)

At any rate. I take I practiced some English here. (I personally was very surprised when in Spain the gay marriage got legalized... I don't think it will happen in Italy, though, I may be wrong.) (In the future, I take computer-robots will be able to join their careers to create a better matrix generated life... somewhere in a more centric place of the galaxy... not in a far away and "provincial" planet like ours!)

[poli]

Originally Posted by Esperar

People who are against it, won't say it because of "group think" and don't want to be outcasted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

I'm not one of those people, and will give my real opinion:

If marriage was still worth something, then I'd be against it, but marriage is worthless now anyway, so I don't care if they marry or not.

What, marriage is worthless? ¿En que planeta vives tú?
Marriage is a contract that protects the people in the marriage. It's like a corporation, and it certainly discourages people from abandoning each other. If they do, there's a big price to pay. It's a trust and bond, and very much a part of human civilization, and absolutely essential to the stability of the middle class. If there is no marriage, the person who owns the property could kick out a devoted partner on a whim with no legal reprocussions. There's a reason the institution of marriage hasn't evaporated, and why some fight for it.
Get real.

[JPablo]

Yeah... I guess planet Earth needs such a contract... at this stage of uncivilized state of Homo sapiens...

Otherwise, when Tiger Woods divorces, his ex-wife will be "out in the street"...

And people with less means, would fight for who keeps the "stereo set" or the "5.1 audio system"... (It could get real messy.)

My viewpoint is that we have "a society" which is changing. There are facts, there are realities, and there are rules. The rules not always cover all the facts and situations in life. Some rules are stupid, and some are useful.

There are couples which are not married and could care less, as they trust each other. Then after 20 years, they "legalize" their relationship. There are couples that marry and they are divorced a week later.

De todo hay en la viña del Señor.

[Tarential]

JPablo: I don't mean to be rude by saying this, but I believe you might want to look up the definition of what a drug is. It's not just heroin, cocaine, etc. It's caffeine, nicotine, aspirin, and more. It's anything that creates a chemical reaction in *edit* a living body (not just a human body). The level of harm each do must be evaluated individually, and not lumped together in a single category. As well, the issue of whether they should be promoted / accepted by society is completely separate. The point Penn & Teller were trying to make is that it shouldn't be a *legal* issue (ie there is no reason to lock people up for it as long as they don't harm other people). They both have strict anti-drug attitudes when it comes to their personal lives and who they choose to be with. Penn Jillette himself has never even taken a sip of alcohol.

I don't want to hijack this thread, so if the mods think it should be a new one then it can be created. If they think it should be dropped, I'm perfectly fine with that too. All I ask is that if the discussion takes place it be done with very specific, accurate and precise terminology. To say "I don't like drugs" is very vague, as is "Drugs kill" etc. A statement such as "I believe that heroin is an extremely dangerous drug based on <evidence> and that we should <lock people up for years for possessing it, kill the dealers, let them all go, put them into rehab, etc>." You see, all I ask is a discussion that exists within set parameters, not one in which someone says "Burn all the witches".

I understand that English is my native language and not yours, and for that I apologize if my reply seems an overreaction to a misunderstanding of the word "drug"; even more so because many native speakers of English seem to associate "drug" only with illegal narcotics. Most people are also uninformed about the specific effects of different drugs. I've said many times, there are a great number of drugs which are very bad for people and that no-one should take. I just wouldn't lock them up for it any more than I'd lock them up for drinking alcohol (which can be very harmful to the body) or smoking a cigarette (which I think we all know kills a ridiculous number of people).

Again, I hope this clears up my point of view. I try to be very specific in my statements, but it is obvious that I err as easily as the next person. My definitions are often not as clear as I'd like them to be. People misunderstand my point of view, and I know it is usually my own fault not theirs.

I am a bit of a strange individual. I can get very vehement during an argument. But, however it may seem at the time, I do not hold personal grudges because of it. To me, a particular topic is just that: a topic. I can insult the subject matter without, in my eyes, meaning to insult the person who is forwarding the view. But I know, sadly, that many people (including myself at times) will take insult nonetheless when the ideas they believe in are questioned. I should try to be more understanding of what a person may feel based on my opinion about their ideas.

In that light, I apologize to Esperar if what I said struck you as rude. I was attempting to be strictly factual, but the language I used may nonetheless have read as hostile. I think I'll discontinue discussion of this subject. It would be for the best, I believe.

[AngelicaDeAlquezar]

Please let me remind you all that confrontation and off-topics should be avoided as much as possible, in order to keep threads like this open to discussion.
We all can express our ideas and convictions in a friendly and polite manner, so the relationship between users won't interfere with the forums objective, which is language learning.

[JPablo]

Well, as long as we understand each other and clarify our views, as you said before (a Voltaire attributed citation, I believe I commented somewhere in this forum) "I will defend to death your right to have and state your opinion" (even if I don't agree with it...) (Or words to that effect.)

I know the real story of a guy who started to take ARSENIC (of all things) a poison, in very small amounts, to a point where he trained his body to endure and resist that poison. So, no one could "kill him" with that "weapon". The factor here was his knowledge that allowed him to take that "harmful poison" for his benefit. Mohamed Ali, when preparing for a fight in Manila, I believe, made the media (and Foreman) believe he was going to be dancing and "tiring" Foreman during the combat. What he did instead, is he prepared himself for the fight, but receiving daily "poundings" all along his torso and abs, to such a point that the heavy pounding by Foreman had no-effect on him. So by the 8 round, and having Foremand pretty tired of pounding on him, he knocked him out. (I believe I mentioned this in some other thread, so sorry if I repeat myself.)

"Bad and good," like everything, has to do with "knowledge" and are always "relative" terms.

I know if Foreman pounded me once, I would be knocked out right then and there. When I was 18 I could drink 1/2 liter of beer and that had no major effect on my body. If I drink now a glass I'd be drunk (after...mmmh more than 25 years without drinking alcohol...)

I know people who are gay, and I know people who simply can't stand a gay, and consider it completely unnatural and "aberrated". I may consider that gay people have a problem unto themselves, both in the physical aspect, as in the mental... but unfortunately there are worse situations. If "gay marriage" is legal in your country or state or not, its a jurisprudence matter. Laws change. In many cases there are political or pseudo-political reasons to promote a cause. There are more important problems in this planet. The Drug one we mention, is actually hurting too many people. If I never had met people who are now "pushing daisies" I would not say "drugs kill". And unfortunately this is not only "street drugs" but "psych/legal drugs" or "medicines" that are been "pushed" into the unknowing society "wholesale". (I spare the statistics on these deaths, but it is apalling... and I am understating the point.) (Because young people start taking drugs as "a cool and social thing" to do, without knowing the consequences... and similar thing happens with "prescription" drugs.) (A friend of mine committed suicide on a psychiatric drug, when he was 21, and there are too many examples of these.)

At any rate, ¿Communicate or not to communicate? That is the question. As in "To be or not to be." It is better to communicate and clarify things than to avoid communication. Even if we can "offend" each other... we can always apologize, if we unwittingly , or simply hold our ground and simply say the same thing with more "finesse".

At any rate, it is always good to contrast ideas, and reach conclusions or otherwise have a clearer viewpoint about things...

To give you some Spanish practice,
"Sobre gustos, no hay nada escrito"
[About tastes, there is nothing written] (I.e., there are no written rules about what one should like or dislike.)