city burials

Ah finally someone recognizes the importance of the equal sign in math. Such a simple little sign yet so valuable in our daily math equations. I'm glad that people are finally realizing how important this sign is in math homework. Yeh, yeh, yeh, okay I can't type my fake troll laugh sorry.

I feel like I should know the significance of the red and pink colors.

it's a variation of the Human Rights Campaign logo where the colors stand for marriage equality.

Depends on the marriage you're talking about.

marriage equality for everyone, regardless of orientation.

Then that makes perfect sense, but I rather respect one's right in being gay. I have friends who are, and I don't mind. I just don't want to get to the point where it starts to become something that I don't want.

I'm not sure I understand. Get to the point where it becomes something you don't want?

You know, them getting you to become like them.

 

I respect people who are, but I just really, don't agree with their views

Gay people don't try to turn straight people gay. They just want to be treated the same as everybody else because they are the same as everybody else.

 

Heck, if anything, it's usually the other way around.

I am going to have to respectfully disagree here. Women and men have different interests in a relationship, which are not equal or the same, and those differing interests should be respected.

I am going to have to respectfully disagree here. Women and men have different interests in a relationship, which are not equal or the same, and those differing interests should be respected.

 

I... don't entirely understand what you mean?

 

Like, I'm genuinely kinda confused here.

what in the hootenanny is you wallabies talkin about

 

flaredrick, gay people arent gonna make anybody else gay, they're just askin to be able to marry just like anyone else. the very notion that somebody will try to forcibly change another's orientation is just sickening (that also goes for straight folks trying to make gay people straight)

 

and fishers thats just dumb. im not gonna sugar coat that either, its just dumb. everybody is different and we all want our own things in relationships. to say that all women want one thing in a relationship and all men want another is actually rather sexist if you ask me. what i expect in a relationship and what another girl expects is gonna be different and to say that we want the same thing because were women or that two guys want the same thing just because theyre men is... yeah, that's sexism.

so now your comment about why you don't support equal marriage is based upon a sexist belief?

 

ok

 

*drops mic and walks out all swagalicious like*

I am going to have to respectfully disagree here. Women and men have different interests in a relationship, which are not equal or the same, and those differing interests should be respected.

There are two perspectives here that make small gagging sounds in the back of their throats at the archaic worldview you're trying to raise as a logical argument.

First of all, from the perspective of gender equality, the idea that who you are is based on your gender is a flawed concept that people use to rationalize treating someone of another gender as unequal to them somehow. "Boy will be boys." "Girls are just like that." From a feminist perspective, it's counterintuitive to the idea of treating genders equally to drive a great big wedge of "they're too different" between them. What you want out of a relationship depends on who YOU are, not what gender you are.

You also use your flawed gender roles to attack marriage equality, apparently. I bet you'd ask gay couples "who wears the pants", as though there are defined gender roles in relationships of all things. The above point still stands. Somebody else's relationship is defined by them and their partner, not by you. We'd all appreciate it if you kept your narrow world view out of the rights of all human beings.

edit: oops emkay beat me AND said it better than I ever could

the bible said adam and eve not adam and red square with a pink equal sign in it

 

^kissing the way it was meant to be - passionately

what in the hootenanny is you wallabies talkin about

 

flaredrick, gay people arent gonna make anybody else gay, they're just askin to be able to marry just like anyone else. the very notion that somebody will try to forcibly change another's orientation is just sickening (that also goes for straight folks trying to make gay people straight)

 

and fishers thats just dumb. im not gonna sugar coat that either, its just dumb. everybody is different and we all want our own things in relationships. to say that all women want one thing in a relationship and all men want another is actually rather sexist if you ask me. what i expect in a relationship and what another girl expects is gonna be different and to say that we want the same thing because were women or that two guys want the same thing just because theyre men is... yeah, that's sexism.

so now your comment about why you don't support equal marriage is based upon a sexist belief?

 

ok

 

*drops mic and walks out all swagalicious like*

 

You can disagree, but I don't think, regardless of how you act, a father can be a mother or vice versa. Now, can a family survive without a father or a mother)? Sure, it happens all the time. I'm not going to say anything further on the matter, because there really isn't any need to. There are valid arguments on both sides, and I think that maybe if we all stopped yelling at each other and saying 'sinner' or 'bigot', maybe there can be a bit of understanding.

 

And further, you are not going to change anyone's mind by insulting them or applying pejorative labels to them. Period. It paints a very, very poor image of your side and it does not make people on the other side want to join yours. If you have a winning argument, use it - you shouldn't have to resort to insults if you are obviously correct. You can't claim to support 'love' while yelling at the other person, it simply does not work.

* I don't even understand how a mother is so vastly different from the father, to begin with. I mean, I know mothers who watch sports and drink beer, who go to work and are the breadwinners of their family. I know mothers who teach their kids sports, who teach their kids how to catch a ball, who push for their kids to involve themselves with these activities. Every mother is a mother, but every mother isn't the same to begin with (so how this is even an archetype I don't know). Additionally, I've seen fathers nurture their kids, kiss their booboos, bake and cook and teach their kids how to do these things. I know fathers who stay at home, who clean, who cook, who do the laundry, who have that glass of wine at night and watch TV for a little while. I know fathers who are protective of their kids (in the "Don't do x, y, z, honey... but both parents do that so I don't even understand the point anymore).

 

Some fathers can fill the "traditional" mother role, and vice-versa. It's really not so gender-dependent and I don't understand why everyone claims it is.

 

* I would like to add, Emkay did not insult Fishers from where I see it (maybe other staff would disagree, I don't speak for all of us). Emkay called the presented idea "dumb" and explained why... Em didn't call Fishers "dumb" and use cuss words, or inflammatory statements really. Everything's written in all lower caps, and while short and curt (and not flowery and long), it gets a point across nicely. And it's a bit of a red herring to take out this (what could be construed as an insult) and make a big deal out of that, while ignoring all of the valid points Emkay made.

 

what in the hootenanny is you wallabies talkin about

 

flaredrick, gay people arent gonna make anybody else gay, they're just askin to be able to marry just like anyone else. the very notion that somebody will try to forcibly change another's orientation is just sickening (that also goes for straight folks trying to make gay people straight)

 

and fishers thats just dumb. im not gonna sugar coat that either, its just dumb. everybody is different and we all want our own things in relationships. to say that all women want one thing in a relationship and all men want another is actually rather sexist if you ask me. what i expect in a relationship and what another girl expects is gonna be different and to say that we want the same thing because were women or that two guys want the same thing just because theyre men is... yeah, that's sexism.

so now your comment about why you don't support equal marriage is based upon a sexist belief?

 

ok

 

*drops mic and walks out all swagalicious like*

 

You can disagree, but I don't think, regardless of how you act, a father can be a mother or vice versa. Now, can a family survive without a father or a mother)? Sure, it happens all the time. I'm not going to say anything further on the matter, because there really isn't any need to. There are valid arguments on both sides, and I think that maybe if we all stopped yelling at each other and saying 'sinner' or 'bigot', maybe there can be a bit of understanding.

 

And further, you are not going to change anyone's mind by insulting them or applying pejorative labels to them. Period. It paints a very, very poor image of your side and it does not make people on the other side want to join yours. If you have a winning argument, use it - you shouldn't have to resort to insults if you are obviously correct. You can't claim to support 'love' while yelling at the other person, it simply does not work.

I don't see any yelling from Emkay, though I see quite a bit of condescension from you, and your "no-action" attitude is passive discrimination that helps enforce a society that oppresses the individuals affected by these issues.

 

 

what in the hootenanny is you wallabies talkin about

 

flaredrick, gay people arent gonna make anybody else gay, they're just askin to be able to marry just like anyone else. the very notion that somebody will try to forcibly change another's orientation is just sickening (that also goes for straight folks trying to make gay people straight)

 

and fishers thats just dumb. im not gonna sugar coat that either, its just dumb. everybody is different and we all want our own things in relationships. to say that all women want one thing in a relationship and all men want another is actually rather sexist if you ask me. what i expect in a relationship and what another girl expects is gonna be different and to say that we want the same thing because were women or that two guys want the same thing just because theyre men is... yeah, that's sexism.

so now your comment about why you don't support equal marriage is based upon a sexist belief?

 

ok

 

*drops mic and walks out all swagalicious like*

You can disagree, but I don't think, regardless of how you act, a father can be a mother or vice versa. Now, can a family survive without a father or a mother)? Sure, it happens all the time. I'm not going to say anything further on the matter, because there really isn't any need to. There are valid arguments on both sides, and I think that maybe if we all stopped yelling at each other and saying 'sinner' or 'bigot', maybe there can be a bit of understanding.

 

And further, you are not going to change anyone's mind by insulting them or applying pejorative labels to them. Period. It paints a very, very poor image of your side and it does not make people on the other side want to join yours. If you have a winning argument, use it - you shouldn't have to resort to insults if you are obviously correct. You can't claim to support 'love' while yelling at the other person, it simply does not work.

 

I don't see any yelling from Emkay, though I see quite a bit of condescension from you, and your "no-action" attitude is passive discrimination that helps enforce a society that oppresses the individuals affected by these issues.

 

I don't have a 'no-action' attitude, I just think you can present your case a lot better if you don't insult the person you are talking to. If I was condescending, I apologize - that wasn't my intent at all. What I took issue with was the use of 'dumb' and 'sexist' - I think if you have the superior case, there should be no need to attack their person or their belief. A superior case can stand on its own.

 

* I don't even understand how a mother is so vastly different from the father, to begin with. I mean, I know mothers who watch sports and drink beer, who go to work and are the breadwinners of their family. I know mothers who teach their kids sports, who teach their kids how to catch a ball, who push for their kids to involve themselves with these activities. Every mother is a mother, but every mother isn't the same to begin with (so how this is even an archetype I don't know). Additionally, I've seen fathers nurture their kids, kiss their booboos, bake and cook and teach their kids how to do these things. I know fathers who stay at home, who clean, who cook, who do the laundry, who have that glass of wine at night and watch TV for a little while. I know fathers who are protective of their kids (in the "Don't do x, y, z, honey... but both parents do that so I don't even understand the point anymore).

 

Some fathers can fill the "traditional" mother role, and vice-versa. It's really not so gender-dependent and I don't understand why everyone claims it is.

 

* I would like to add, Emkay did not insult Fishers from where I see it (maybe other staff would disagree, I don't speak for all of us). Emkay called the presented idea "dumb" and explained why... Em didn't call Fishers "dumb" and use cuss words, or inflammatory statements really. Everything's written in all lower caps, and while short and curt (and not flowery and long), it gets a point across nicely. And it's a bit of a red herring to take out this (what could be construed as an insult) and make a big deal out of that, while ignoring all of the valid points Emkay made.

There are basic roles in nature that different-gendered animals fill - there are differences based on circumstance and environment, of course, but the basic role remains the same. It is a bit shortsighted to regard humans as an exception to this. There are certainly tendencies towards one way or the other, but they can work out outside of the standard role.

 

I really don't see why the word 'dumb' needs to be used. Fishers did not use any sort of words like that. I'll reiterate - if you have the superior case, there is not a need to slip into attacking a belief. Right and wrong can be proven factually (ie. "The Nazis were bad because they killed a lot of people", not "The Nazis were dumb").

There are basic roles in nature that different-gendered animals fill - there are differences based on circumstance and environment, but the basic role remains the same. It is a bit shortsighted to regard humans as an exception to this rule. There are certainly tendencies towards one way or the other.

 

I really don't see why the word 'dumb' needs to be used. Fishers did not use any sort of words like that. I'll reiterate - if you have the superior case, there is not a need to slip into attacking a belief. Right and wrong can be proven factually (ie. "The Nazis were bad because they killed a lot of people", not "The Nazis were dumb").

 

Then tell me, what are these "gender reliant" roles that you speak of? As far as I'm concerned, such a thing doesn't exist.

 

If Fishers feels like it is an insult, then Fishers is allowed to take that up with appropriate staff. Calling someone out on usage in this context and manner, to me, seems more like a cop out so that one side may claim a moral high ground when no such high ground really exists right now. (In other words, if you feel it is breaking rules and is insulting and is inflammatory, report it and let the blog staff do their job and then read what Emkay actually said, which has a lot of merit). I'm not blog staff, so I'm not an authority on the matter in the blogs (but, from my perspective, it's not really an insult as it's not a personal attack on Fishers; and it does not negate the merit of the rest of the text, whether you think so or not).

 

There are basic roles in nature that different-gendered animals fill - there are differences based on circumstance and environment, but the basic role remains the same. It is a bit shortsighted to regard humans as an exception to this rule. There are certainly tendencies towards one way or the other.

 

I really don't see why the word 'dumb' needs to be used. Fishers did not use any sort of words like that. I'll reiterate - if you have the superior case, there is not a need to slip into attacking a belief. Right and wrong can be proven factually (ie. "The Nazis were bad because they killed a lot of people", not "The Nazis were dumb").

 

Then tell me, what are these "gender reliant" roles that you speak of? As far as I'm concerned, such a thing doesn't exist.

 

If Fishers feels like it is an insult, then Fishers is allowed to take that up with appropriate staff. Calling someone out on usage in this context and manner, to me, seems more like a cop out so that one side may claim a moral high ground when no such high ground really exists right now. (In other words, if you feel it is breaking rules and is insulting and is inflammatory, report it and let the blog staff do their job and then read what Emkay actually said, which has a lot of merit). I'm not blog staff, so I'm not an authority on the matter in the blogs (but, from my perspective, it's not really an insult as it's not a personal attack on Fishers; and it does not negate the merit of the rest of the text, whether you think so or not).

 

Well, if you look at a most mammal relationships the male goes out and finds food or protects, while the female raises the young one (this is normally due to a biological feature that female mammals have). I certainly don't think this is the case for all animals (or all humans for that matter, seeing as I have no intention of getting married or having kids), but there is a tendency of certain genders in certain animal groups to have a distinct role in comparison to the other gender.

 

My comments related to both sides, not one. I really think there is a lot of hate or distrust on both sides, when there really doesn't need to be, and that there can and should be a reasoned debate on this topic - with only the merits of each side. And frankly there is plenty of 'calling out' going on, especially when we 'call out' people as bigots and Neanderthals, or morally depraved people and sinners.

Okay, BZP. We're having this argument again? Really? After a while without drama rearing its ugly head, I thought we'd bucked that trend.

The arguments I'm seeing against same-sex marriage here are based on the idea that it'd be bad for kids. Well, there are studies out there that say that, at this time, from the best evidence that we can gather, that same-sex parents perform just as well at raising kids as opposite-sex parents do. Whether you see this as an endorsement for same-sex marriage or as an indication of the sad state of opposite-sex marriage, it doesn't matter, because it's an illogical argument. Marriage isn't about kids.

If we're going to marry straight couples who can't have kids, or straight couples that don't want kids, there's no real difference from a biological perspective. Gay adoption is a completely separate issue from that of gay marriage. You can be pro-gay marriage but anti-gay adoption; the two usually come under the same banner of gay rights (and most folks who support one support the other), but again, marriage isn't about kids, so that argument can be tossed.

Yes, marriage has traditionally been a religious ceremony, and there's no reason to get rid of that aspect. But - here in the US, at least - married couples have access to tax benefits, hospital visitations, and a lot of other things they take for granted. If marriage was just a ceremony, and nothing more, then we wouldn't be having a debate about it going on today. Marriage has been secularized to the point that it's discriminatory not to give a significant portion of the population access to those same benefits.

The fact that some couples are able to have access to certain privileges while others are denied that same right is fundamentally unsound. While, yes, gay people are certainly free to marry a person of the opposite sex, they're sacrificing their pursuit of happiness doing so, and still wouldn't have access to all the benefits unless they can marry the person they love.

I have not yet heard one sound legal argument against gay marriage. The way I see it, who am I to tell someone what they can do with their lives, as long as those people are not harming anyone else?

Well, if you look at a most mammal relationships the male goes out and finds food or protects, while the female raises the young one (this is normally due to a biological feature that female mammals have). I certainly don't think this is the case for all animals (or all humans for that matter, seeing as I have no intention of getting married or having kids), but there is a tendency of certain genders in certain animal groups to have a distinct role in comparison to the other gender.

 

My comments related to both sides, not one. I really think there is a lot of hate or distrust on both sides, when there really doesn't need to be, and that there can and should be a reasoned debate on this topic - with only the merits of each side. And frankly there is plenty of 'calling out' going on, especially when we 'call out' people as bigots and Neanderthals, or morally depraved people and sinners.

 

* So? In our society, culture and species the female can go out, get food, supply food and protect (re: Mothers have jobs). And in a lot of families, this is how things work and there has been no collapse of civilization or water turning into lava because what someone perceives "as the natural order of things" has been usurped. (Also, there are exceptions like you said, why can't humanity be one?). Fathers can raise kids just fine, we have formula and bottles for that formula babies can drink (and babie food, look at the booming business of Gerber's), animals don't have these things so... again, why are we taking cues from animals? My point being: A father can provide what a mother can provide and a mother can provide what a father can provide; one is not better than the other, and neither come with a stipulation from the natural realm of things as "only females can do this, and only males can do this, or you'll all die."

 

So... what does it matter, anyway? Why should this argument dictate whether or not I have potential to be a good mother-figure in a same-sex family?

 

* Yet no one said anything else you mentioned, so it doesn't apply here.

 

 

There are basic roles in nature that different-gendered animals fill - there are differences based on circumstance and environment, but the basic role remains the same. It is a bit shortsighted to regard humans as an exception to this rule. There are certainly tendencies towards one way or the other.

 

I really don't see why the word 'dumb' needs to be used. Fishers did not use any sort of words like that. I'll reiterate - if you have the superior case, there is not a need to slip into attacking a belief. Right and wrong can be proven factually (ie. "The Nazis were bad because they killed a lot of people", not "The Nazis were dumb").

 

Then tell me, what are these "gender reliant" roles that you speak of? As far as I'm concerned, such a thing doesn't exist.

 

If Fishers feels like it is an insult, then Fishers is allowed to take that up with appropriate staff. Calling someone out on usage in this context and manner, to me, seems more like a cop out so that one side may claim a moral high ground when no such high ground really exists right now. (In other words, if you feel it is breaking rules and is insulting and is inflammatory, report it and let the blog staff do their job and then read what Emkay actually said, which has a lot of merit). I'm not blog staff, so I'm not an authority on the matter in the blogs (but, from my perspective, it's not really an insult as it's not a personal attack on Fishers; and it does not negate the merit of the rest of the text, whether you think so or not).

 

Well, if you look at a most mammal relationships the male goes out and finds food or protects, while the female raises the young one (this is normally due to a biological feature that female mammals have). I certainly don't think this is the case for all animals (or all humans for that matter, seeing as I have no intention of getting married or having kids), but there is a tendency of certain genders in certain animal groups to have a distinct role in comparison to the other gender.

 

My comments related to both sides, not one. I really think there is a lot of hate or distrust on both sides, when there really doesn't need to be, and that there can and should be a reasoned debate on this topic - with only the merits of each side. And frankly there is plenty of 'calling out' going on, especially when we 'call out' people as bigots and Neanderthals, or morally depraved people and sinners.

Tyrranosaurs have a brief and violent mating ritual, where the larger, more powerful female will sometimes attack the male afterwards, and will not hesitate to kill him if he remains on her territory. She then raises the eggs she produces, guarding them vigilantly, and feeds her young until they reach the point, which is fairly soon, that she can leave them to their own defenses. After this, she may become one of the biggest threats to her own young.

 

If we're talking biological gender roles, reptiles kinda throw a chink into your armor there. Females tend to be larger and more aggressive, and not even all mammals conform to your view; lionesses are the "breadwinners" of their prides.

 

Don't try to take the middleman position, because that IS the "no-action" side; to say each has their merits is aiding in the institutional oppression of the groups that ARE affected, and panders to people who AREN'T.

 

Well, if you look at a most mammal relationships the male goes out and finds food or protects, while the female raises the young one (this is normally due to a biological feature that female mammals have). I certainly don't think this is the case for all animals (or all humans for that matter, seeing as I have no intention of getting married or having kids), but there is a tendency of certain genders in certain animal groups to have a distinct role in comparison to the other gender.

 

My comments related to both sides, not one. I really think there is a lot of hate or distrust on both sides, when there really doesn't need to be, and that there can and should be a reasoned debate on this topic - with only the merits of each side. And frankly there is plenty of 'calling out' going on, especially when we 'call out' people as bigots and Neanderthals, or morally depraved people and sinners.

 

* So? In our society, culture and species the female can go out, get food, supply food and protect (re: Mothers have jobs). And in a lot of families, this is how things work and there has been no collapse of civilization or water turning into lava because what someone perceives "as the natural order of things" has been usurped. (Also, there are exceptions like you said, why can't humanity be one?). Fathers can raise kids just fine, we have formula and bottles for that formula babies can drink (and babie food, look at the booming business of Gerber's), animals don't have these things so... again, why are we taking cues from animals? My point being: A father can provide what a mother can provide and a mother can provide what a father can provide; one is not better than the other, and neither come with a stipulation from the natural realm of things as "only females can do this, and only males can do this, or you'll all die."

 

So... what does it matter, anyway? Why should this argument dictate whether or not I have potential to be a good mother-figure in a same-sex family?

 

* Yet no one said anything else you mentioned, so it doesn't apply here.

 

I never said gay people can't be decent parents (I have no opinion on the matter). My comment was related to the idea that there are no differences between the genders. There are differences, for better or for worse.

 

My point is general - there may not be any people that can use religious arguments against same-sex marriage/relationships/whatever here because the rules forbid it, but there are plenty of people who do so outside of here. I think both sides have a general mistrust of each other, and to, relate to a comment here, we need more replies like Sumiki's - comments that, regardless of whether you agree with it or not, are well-written, well-thought-out and that relies entirely on factual arguments. The case, for either side, can be made without questioning the intent or targeting the person, and that's really all I'm saying.

Can we just not have this conversation, and people can just go back and read the previous times this has come up?

 

Like, seriously. It's all the same points. Can DeeVee just step in and hand out some pre-emptive suspensions right now? Probably the best way to go about this. Seeing as this is like the thousandth time. If people aren't up for learning and changing their opinions then they shouldn't be on a discussion forum. Maybe I'm just too HARSH.

 

I love an argument, but even I'm bored of this now. And now we're throwing in some casual sexism, too. I know some of you want to have a 'reasoned debate', but if we're going to truly be reasonable here, there is no debate to be had.

 

I mean, for God's sake guys. What is actually wrong with you? We've BEEN THROUGH ALL THIS. People who are a-okay with gay marriage are right, people who aren't are wrong. Simple. There's not discussion there, so why even bother?

 

I wouldn't get involved (lol who am I kidding, I totally would), but this is an important thing and people are spouting complete nonsense - the SAME complete nonsense they spouted a few months back. Also I like how, when discussing gender roles, people are using the example of what's natural in terms of the animal kingdom, and yet they'd kick off if you told them that homosexuality happens in the animal kingdom and is therefore natural. Marriage and religion don't go on in the animal kingdom, though. Funny, that. Also Black Widow spiders eat their husbands. So what you're actually saying is that cannibalism is okay.

 

Should we just re-iterate how intolerance shouldn't be tolerated? Or how your opinions on gender stereotypes are sexist and stupid? We have literally done every side of this discussion a million times. We know who is right, we know who is wrong - we don't need to 'try again' and see if that changes. It won't.

 

Seriously, Ryuujin, I'd just lock this right now and wait for someone to come in here with an IRON FIST. Because all that will happen is the same people will say the same things and it'll kick off, and I'll inevitably start replying to every post in great detail, then realise what a waste of time that was (particularly because it seems from this discussion that nobody listened to me, DeeVee, or anyone else who SCHOOLED people).

 

Just, stop. Seriously. It's old. You're wrong. Your opinions are stupid. I've said the same thing about six times now. This length of post is me 'not getting involved'. Crazy. But yeah. If I was a nastier person I'd just say SHUT UP. But I'm not so I totally won't say that.