470 replies to this topic

[-=VAHE=-]

Someone create a poll to see who really won this argument, even though clearly Domino did there should still be a poll.

Edited by Vahe G., 02 July 2004 - 02:57 PM.

[DominO]

Someone create a poll to see who really won this argument, even though clearly Domino did there should still be a poll.

This is not about who win or lose, but what readers learn by reading such exchanges.

[vava]

This is not about who win or lose, but what readers learn by reading such exchanges.

Thank you Domino. And thank you Sip for updating the title of the thead.

[Anoushik]

Anoushik.. did u really read all that????         

Of course not I just skim through the thread. It's easy to see that it's the same never-ending arguments

Thoth and Domino, bravo for having so much energy and patience at the keyboard

[ED]

So, what do we have now here??? A thread about gay rights and you two are discussing classical music???

Hey Winston, what is this world coming down to man? Don’t you have something to say??

Ok, since about classical music I like to ask you

Joaquin Rodrigo..... How and why did he composed his famous work Concierto de Aranjuez???

[ED]

Did you know Aram Khachaturian only came acquainted with classical music not until he was 23?

[Anoushik]

Did you know Aram Khachaturian only came acquainted with classical music not until he was 23?

Yes, I knew that

Joaquin Rodrigo..... How and why did he composed his famous work Concierto de Aranjuez???

I don't know, but your question prompted me to go and read about the composer's life as I realized that I didn't know anything about him. In this online biography it says that he composed the Concierto after meeting the guitarist Regino Sainz de la Maza... I didn't know Rodrigo was blind and that his wife was a Turkish pianist.

[Vatché is Vatché]

We all live once on this earth. Why would you want to deny happiness for someone in their one life. As long as they're not hurting someone else. Problem solved...

And whatever your moral standing ground is on this subject doesn't matter to the two people who want to get married. How will it affect you, if they decide to be together? If you think about it, does it really matter? I don't think so. Let them get married legally. The only real reason for denying this is for tax perposes.

[Armat]

We all live once on this earth. Why would you want to deny happiness for someone in their one life. As long as they're not hurting someone else. Problem solved...

And whatever your moral standing ground is on this subject doesn't matter to the two people who want to get married. How will it affect you, if they decide to be together? If you think about it, does it really matter? I don't think so. Let them get married legally. The only real reason for denying this is for tax perposes.

Vatchie welcome!I agree with you and you pretty much said exactly what I said earlier.By the way, are you an Artist?guessing from the avatar...

[DominO]

We all live once on this earth. Why would you want to deny happiness for someone in their one life. As long as they're not hurting someone else. Problem solved...

And whatever your moral standing ground is on this subject doesn't matter to the two people who want to get married. How will it affect you, if they decide to be together? If you think about it, does it really matter? I don't think so. Let them get married legally. The only real reason for denying this is for tax perposes.

No one is restricting gays to live with eachothers. This is about an institution and privilages. In our society we advantage union between man and woman... the privilages provided to man/woman couple any gays could have them if they marry someone of the opposit sex. It is not like they are restricted in their rights. It is again the same thing as my bus tickets, elderly people pays half what I pay, but it is a privilages set by the government, just like what marriage is and bring.

Blinds can not drive because they can not have their liscence only because they do not meet the requirements, just like union between people of the same sex does not meet the requirement.

Another thing I would like to point out, you can not consider the union between people of the same sex the same as the union between opposit sex... marriage is the recognised union between opposit sex, just like we recognise a man as a man, and a woman a woman... what would you do the day that a man using the banner of civil rights claims he want to have the right to be "called" a woman? Would that change the fact that he is a man and a woman is a woman? Words are meant to discribe things, if we were to call everything by the same word, what's the need for words then?

At the end, if gay marriage there is, you will be calling it a "gay marriage" to differenciate it with "marriage" alone, when reffering to the union between a man and a woman, you don't even need to say hetero marriage, this is different in the cases of "gay marriage." So here again you will be differenciating the two kind of unions, implying that "marriage" alone is about the union between a man and a woman.

Another thing... "gay marriage" itself is word abberations... since the union itself IS NOT the attraction, being gay is about attractions, a man being attracted to a man, a woman being attracted to a woman... marriage is about union, in this cases it is recognised as a union between a man and a woman... Adding, the word "gay marriage" itself is against the argument of those supporting it, since they claim that marriage is about the union, regardless of ones "type" of physical attraction, if this is the cases, so why calling it a "gay marriage?" Because by doing such, you claim that there are "types" of marriages, while in the first place those supporting the "gay marriage" use the argument that marriage is the union regardless of the "type."

So to use this argument(which is the strongest), you have to call the gay union, a "marriage" without differenciation with the union of people of the opposit sex. By doing such, you are claiming that both unions are the SAME. Would you do that?

Edited by Fadix, 31 July 2004 - 09:21 AM.

[kakachik77]

You do not understand what I mean. I am not denying that gay parents can be good parents. This is not the point here. What I wonder about is about the psychological effect, the mental health of the children in question.

I agree with Domino...no matter what there is going to be something different and no matter what that child is going to grow up and look for his/her real dad or real mom or at least try to understand who they are, I am even assuming here that one of the partners is the egg/sperm donor of this child.

Edited by kakachik77, 10 August 2004 - 06:02 PM.