Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?

[Mr. Pedantic]

Well, there's no use saying it anymore, but thanks for the update.

[CKY2K]

Originally Posted by WhiteShark

I was gonna use "hurt", but I thought it didn't fit that well. Anyway, pedophiles do physically damage children.

And mentally...

[Mr. Pedantic]

Not really mentally. A victim of a paedophile isn't mentally impaired afterwards. The word you're looking for is psychologically, or maybe emotionally.

[CKY2K]

Yes thats what I meant thanks.

[Mr. Pedantic]

Anyway, what do paedophiles have to do with gay people and their marriage rights? Like Beef said at the beginning of the thread, as long as they don't call it marriage, I'm fine with it.

[CKY2K]

Me too. I believe we neet to respect others traditions. We respect theirs. Why can't they respect ours? It's like telling Americans to start learning spanish because the mexicans speak it. We were here first we have defended our traditions and many don't want to give them up... Now if there was a vote by the public and they said it was ok... Well then I would have to live with that. Not that it would be hard to live with really ...I guess. Its like The people have spoken. you know?

[Mr. Pedantic]

well, democracy isn't completely fair either. Say your gay vote wins 51-49. What about the 49% who lose? that represents nearly half the population, who have just been sort of brushed aside. Even on a two-thirds majority, that's up to one third of the people whose opinions are not recognized because "of the greater consensus".

[Safe-Keeper]

Just dropping in to address the "How would you feel if somebody stole the name one of your traditions":

Can you imagine how angry you would get if you created a pagan or atheist holiday and called it Christmas or Easter or some other religous name?

This argument seems to imply that homosexual marriage is some sort of "rip-off" of traditional marriage, and that it's not marriage at all but some sort of "copy" of it for homosexual use.

Well, I find it more like immigrants wanting to celebrate my country's Constitution Day on May 17th. They're not "making up their own holiday and slapping the name 'Norwegian Constitution Day' on it" - they're joining the existing holiday.

If Farah from Pakistan wants to celebrate May 17th, do I go "Norwegian Constitution Day is for Norwegians and has always been, so put that ****ing flag down, you dirty towel-head!"? Or do I respect that things change, and that you can't exclude someone just because they've traditionally been excluded? Guess three times.

Same with the homosexuals. No one's "stealing" the marriage system you mythologists so justly hijacked from the atheists back in the days (), they're just asking for inclusion in it.

well, democracy isn't completely fair either. Say your gay vote wins 51-49. What about the 49% who lose? that represents nearly half the population, who have just been sort of brushed aside. Even on a two-thirds majority, that's up to one third of the people whose opinions are not recognized because "of the greater consensus".

Tough luck. What about all the angry people who didn't want integrated schools?

I believe we neet to respect others traditions. We respect theirs. Why can't they respect ours?

Homosexuals have traditions? That's new to me. Can you elaborate?

It's like telling Americans to start learning spanish because the mexicans speak it.

If you ask me, barring homosexuals from marriage is what would fit this analogy better. "Don't marry, the atheists do it". "Don't learn Mexican, it's for the Mexicans only". Or for that matter, "Norway for Norwegians".

Bollocks.

Like Beef said at the beginning of the thread, as long as they don't call it marriage, I'm fine with it.

[Parody mode on]I'm fine with Chinese immigrants celebrating on May 17th. As long as they don't call it Norwegian Constitition Day, that is.[Parody mode off]

Not really mentally. A victim of a paedophile isn't mentally impaired afterwards. The word you're looking for is psychologically, or maybe emotionally.

Strike the "maybe".

And, just to nit-pick, psychological damage and emotional damage do fall into the "mental' category.

Their own identity. If you're not prud of who you are, you're not fully human. If you're afraid/ashamed of telling others who you are, then you can never be proud of who you are.

But should there be a "gay identity"?

To me, it's like saying there should be a left-handed identity, or a blond identity. A "tall people flag" and a "blue-eyed community". Not every aspect of humanity needs to be divided into communities, given flags, and associated with certain ways to talk, walk, and act.

[Dursk]

Originally Posted by masked_marsoe

Only "perveted" to our closed minds. One hundred years ago (give or take a bit), it was "perverted" to show ones ankles, or to mention "trousers" in a shop or in public.

Now, that's not to say I think all "perversions" are "right". I believe that paedophilla for instance is a "perversion" that is "wrong", and I admit my mind is closed on that issue. But, there is not a single Right that we must all follow.

i WOULDN'T say perverted but the bahavior that the gay pride floats is just a perverted as the loose and explicit conduct at Mardi Gras....

Besides this isn't really about a hundred years ago...If we wne by those standards these people would be put to death...

Now we're just talking about the morals that are general acepted by the world that has to share air waves with visual and audio...Because not everything people do is appropriate so censors are nescessary....

And unfortuanlly noone is censoring those parades...

[masked_marsoe]

I believe "Freedom of assembly" is part of the First Amendment, along with the freedom of speech. Now, what were you saying about censoring parades?