Jump to content

Home

Gay Marriage


Rogue Nine
 Share

Recommended Posts

Buh yeah. I'm not opposed to gay marriage, but I definatley don't want to see it in person. It may be homophobic, but I don't care. I often feel sick when I see two males kiss.
All the more a reason for them to do it more often. I'm not 100% comfortable about it myself, but if they are forced to stayed in the closet, how's that going to change ;) ?

 

If you truly believe so-called "gay marriage" does not affect me or the rest of society, then why are you pushing so hard for it to be recognized? Why not just invent some other term for it, and leave the term "marriage" alone?
I care about my fellow man, mate :) . Same way I want women to be allowed their abortions even though I don't have a uterus. Same way I want the Kurds, say, to have their own homeland even though I to my knowledge don't have a drop of Kurdish blood within me. Same reason why so many Americans were so fanatically intent on the ill-fated crusade to liberate the Iraqi people.

 

We humans care about one another, mate. It's just that simple.

 

What gives you the right to redefine the term marriage to include something it has never included before? THAT looks like an attack upon the traditional institution of marriage - which, of course, it is.
We live in democracies. If the people want gay marriage, they should have gay marriage. If they don't want gay marriage, we have every right to convince them they're wrong. If we can't convince them it's wrong, we're still perfectly entitled to try, or even to

 

Funny thing about the people oppressing gays is they often have this wonderful ability to make it appear as if they are the ones under attack. Funny really, you can call your victim vile or even mentally ill, deny him rights, and try to keep your schools from teaching kids to be nice to them... and when they try to get back on their feet it's somehow them attacking you.

 

Homosexuality is judged to be unacceptable by the overwhelming percentage of the American population, the American Medical Association, The American Psychiactric Association, and every honest religion.
I don't know about an "overwhelming" percentage of the US population disliking marriage the same way they overwhelmingly disliked, say, inter-racial marriage and an end to Apartheid. I'll also need links before I believe you when you say that psychiatrists' associations still recognize homosexuality as a disorder. You may also want to ask yourself why it was branded a disorder in the first place. Was it for political or bigoted reasons, or is there really something there?

 

The religions I buy, though. The Old Testament, nice and cheery book as it is, seem to dislike gays as much as it dislikes picking up twigs on the Sabbath or getting raped within a city without calling for help, both of which merit death penalty by stoning.

 

The Brick Testament can elaborate further :) .

 

This should be obvious even through the media bias by simply looking at the votes. The general election before last every pro-homosexual bill floated failed...every one. This last general election every anti-homosexual bill passed..every one. Don't believe your own propoganda.
I dunno, blacks fared pretty poorly in the US country, too, only fourty years ago, and look who just got elected President. I advice you not to underestimate the ability of your countrymen to look past their differences and move on as a society. It can truly be breath-taking sometimes.

 

Now keep your vile affections off my marriage!
Oh, but they are. Your marriage isn't affected in any way whatsoever.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 214
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Slippery slope. It's like saying that blacks and women shouldn't be allowed to vote, because then that opens for kids and animals given the right to vote, too.

 

Does the US have a 1st Amendment and 14th Amendment situation on its hands for redefining marriage to

  • Allow divorce.
  • Disallow spousal rape.
  • Allow inter-racial marriage?
  • Allow inter-religious (is that a word?) marriage?
  • Allow marriage between social classes?
  • Disallow arranged marriage and instead make marriage something you agree upon for love, not for the family economy (a major shift, if you were not aware)?

The words 'redefining marriage' makes it sound as if marriage is some sort of constant. It isn't. It's been tweaked and redefined so many times throughout history that you can't possibly point to any given state and say that 'this is traditional marriage'.

 

As long as you are a consenting adult (see, no children allowed in), feel free to marry another consenting adult. You can try to equivocate gay marriage with polygamy and child marriages all you want, but it won't fly, as we know they're different things altogether.

 

That doesn't fly because technically the United States does not allow for set permanent social classes, inter-racial marriages are still between 1 man and 1 woman. The divorce issue has never been one really, I don't even know where you came up with the inter-religious issue aside from ticking people's parents off and they often still got married (my grandparents would be a good example).

 

Seriously, your argument makes no sense, marriage is between a man and a woman, it's been that way since this country first became a country, while you had racism issues way back when, that argument doesn't fly because the fundamental definition of didn't change.

 

A man is a man whether he is black, brown, red, white, or pokadot, the same goes for a woman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ray Jones, aye I do approve.

 

Volar, I think people are pushing so hard because they believe it is wrong. Just like the African American population of the U.S. pushed hard to have equal rights. I don't think we are trying to redefine marriage, but you do realize marriage as a whole seems to be different to every person, culture, nation and belief. So, from my perspective, you can't redefine a term that is different depending on where you are.

 

As a religious term, no I don't want to redefine their marriage. I think they should continue to do what they believe. But as a legal term, I think that needs to be redefined for the U.S.

 

I personally have no intentions of getting married at this moment. To me, simply being in a nice long relationship with a woman is enough. I can do this and still have the right to marry at anytime. A lot of the homosexual population in the U.S. is doing this and cannot get married. Do you honestly believe this is right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That doesn't fly because technically the United States does not allow for set permanent social classes
Isn't that supremely irrelevant?

 

inter-racial marriages are still between 1 man and 1 woman.
Irrelevant. It was a big thing that had a lot of people up in arms, there were doomsday prophecies that it would ruin the institution of marriage and destabilize society, etc. etc. etc. Just that we take it for granted today doesn't mean it has always been such.

 

The divorce issue has never been one really
Not that you know. However, Ibsen's The Doll House just faced huge controversy in China due to it ending with the female protagonist... getting a divorce.

 

Allowing divorce from abusive relationships, recognizing spousal rape as rape, etc. have all been huge issues even if we take them for granted today.

 

Seriously, your argument makes no sense, marriage is between a man and a woman, it's been that way since this country first became a country
"Marriage is defined as a union of a man and a woman of the same colour, it's been that way since this country first became a country."

 

See how it works?

 

I fail to see how the whole 'redefinition' thing has anything to say anyhow. You can't just define a word and certain way and say "see, if you define it this way then in my eyes it hasn't been changed and never should be". What if I defined voting rights as something given to all men? Universal suffrage would then redefine the vital institution of democracy, would it not? And yet, I have a feeling you're still for allowing women the right to vote.

 

The ancient Greek accepted same-sex intercourse and even sex with children, but frowned upon having a relationship outside of your social class. This "traditional marriage" of yours is an illusion and nothing more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't that supremely irrelevant?

 

No, you brought it up and I simply deconstructed it.

 

Irrelevant. It was a big thing that had a lot of people up in arms, there were doomsday prophecies that it would ruin the institution of marriage and destabilize society, etc. etc. etc. Just that we take it for granted today doesn't mean it has always been such.

 

Yeah, and I'm part Native American big fat hairy deal. The other stuff was just rampent idiocy because people didn't consider people of different colors to be human.

 

Not that you know. However, Ibsen's The Doll House just faced huge controversy in China due to it ending with the female protagonist... getting a divorce.

 

This isn't China, this is the United States of America.

 

Allowing divorce from abusive relationships, recognizing spousal rape as rape, etc. have all been huge issues even if we take them for granted today.

 

But they were allowed, granted people didn't have the understanding they do today, but it was allowed.

 

"Marriage is defined as a union of a man and a woman of the same colour, it's been that way since this country first became a country."

 

Then myself and a bunch of other people wouldn't exist, granted there were people at the time that didn't consider people of different colors to be human, but that really doesn't have anything to do with this topic.

 

I fail to see how the whole 'redefinition' thing has anything to say anyhow. You can't just define a word and certain way and say "see, if you define it this way then in my eyes it hasn't been changed and never should be". What if I defined voting rights as something given to all men? Universal suffrage would then redefine the vital institution of democracy, would it not? And yet, I have a feeling you're still for allowing women the right to vote.

 

The Woman's right to vote is in the US Constitution.

 

The ancient Greek accepted same-sex intercourse and even sex with children, but frowned upon having a relationship outside of your social class. This "traditional marriage" of yours is an illusion and nothing more.

 

So are you saying we should allow exploitation of children because the Greeks did it? Seriously, this country was founded under Judeo-Christian Values, not ancient Greek Values.

 

Like it or not this affects everyone, and it really ticks off a lot of people, further there is a way to use the acceptance of this to allow other things as well because otherwise it would be violating the 1st and 14th Amendment of the United States Consitution.

 

I've taken a Constitutional Law class, so I have some knowledge about this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, you brought it up and I simply deconstructed it.
I never said the US was allowed to construct permanent social classes. I said that it was once impossible to marry outside your race, religion and social class. Heck, it still is, for a lot of people. This in your unchanging Traditional Marriage.

 

Yeah, and I'm part Native American big fat hairy deal. The other stuff was just rampent idiocy because people didn't consider people of different colors to be human.

 

This isn't China, this is the United States of America.

 

But they were allowed, granted people didn't have the understanding they do today, but it was allowed.

 

Then myself and a bunch of other people wouldn't exist, granted there were people at the time that didn't consider people of different colors to be human, but that really doesn't have anything to do with this topic.

 

The Woman's right to vote is in the US Constitution.

 

Are you really this ignorant of the history of civil rights and woman's rights in your own homeland, I wonder.

 

Yes, today universal suffrage is in the US Constitution. Today it is recognized that you have a right to have a divorce without getting shunned by your community and peers. Today white American women can marry African-American men without having their houses burned down.

 

Today.

 

Don't you realize that the nation you live in may have been different fifty or even twenty years ago? Do you know when it became recognized, legally, that spousal rape was an actual crime, subject of punishment? In 1996. Why do I bring up spousal rape? Because you seem to be under the impression that since something is ridiculous to you, it can't have been a big deal to other people in another day. This is, to be blunt, wrong.

 

So are you saying we should allow exploitation of children because the Greeks did it? Seriously, this country was founded under Judeo-Christian Values, not ancient Greek Values.
I think you know yourself that this is not what I suggested. Stop being silly.

 

Oh, and I can't let your history revisionist attempt slip... the US was not founded on Judea-Christian values and whoever has managed to convince you otherwise is either pushing history revisionism, or a victim of same.

 

EDIT: Wait, wait, wait... are you OK with a 26 year old man marrying a girl who's just reached puberty? I mean, since it's between a male and a female and all :D ?

 

Like it or not this affects everyone, and it really ticks off a lot of people, further there is a way to use the acceptance of this to allow other things as well because otherwise it would be violating the 1st and 14th Amendment of the United States Consitution.
Like it or not inter-racial marriage was believed to affect a lot of people, ticked a lot of people off, and was accused of being the top of a slippery slope that'd allow other horrible things such as homosexual marriage, bigamy and child marriages.

 

You keep saying that inter-racial marriage is trivial while same-sex marriage is this big deal. It isn't like that. Inter-racial marriage was probably a far, far bigger deal than same-sex marriage is now, and opponents pushed more or less precisely the same arguments you do.

 

Oh, and you do realize that your entire argument is one big Appeal To Tradition, I hope?

 

Like it or not this affects everyone, and it really ticks off a lot of people, further there is a way to use the acceptance of this to allow other things as well because otherwise it would be violating the 1st and 14th Amendment of the United States Consitution.
How, exactly, does this follow? Bigamy is not a violation of your 1st Amendment 14th Amendment rights, but would be if gays were allowed to marry? I'm also curious as to what on earth marriage has to do with the 1st amendment in the first place.

 

I'm also curious as to why bigamists can't use the slippery slope argument with other 'redefinitions of marriage' and say that since we're redefined marriage to include inter-racial marriage, then we're perfectly justified in redefining it further to allow bigamy. Oh, wait, let me guess... inter-racial marriage doesn't count because it's still between a man and a woman.

Edited by Dagobahn Eagle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you truly believe so-called "gay marriage" does not affect me or the rest of society, then why are you pushing so hard for it to be recognized? Why not just invent some other term for it, and leave the term "marriage" alone?

Because along with the term 'marriage' comes certain legal rights. If it isn't a marriage, then the couple does not have certain rights under the law and thus are not considered equal to heterosexuals. This is discrimination and it is disgusting.

 

What gives you the right to redefine the term marriage to include something it has never included before?

Common sense and respect for your fellow man?

 

Homosexuality is judged to be unacceptable by the overwhelming percentage of the American population,

Can I please have the source for this information? Thanks.

 

the American Medical Association,

Wrong.

 

The American Psychiactric Association,

Even more wrong.

 

and every honest religion.

So religions that find homosexuality to be acceptable are dishonest? How quaint.

 

This should be obvious even through the media bias by simply looking at the votes. The general election before last every pro-homosexual bill floated failed...every one. This last general election every anti-homosexual bill passed..every one. Don't believe your own propoganda.

Because people cannot get over their bigotry. But don't worry, change will happen. In today's world, people's civil rights being violated is something that doesn't sit well for long.

 

We DO care what you're doing in our public schools with our children.

What are gay couples doing to children in public schools?

 

Stop demanding legitimacy for the illigitimate. Homosexuality is wrong.

Which medical authority says this?

 

But, children should not be exposed to such things.

Children should also not be exposed to husbands beating their wives. So let's just outlaw heterosexual marriage to make sure that doesn't happen.

 

Now keep your vile affections off my marriage!

It's people like you that make the world an intolerable place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you truly believe so-called "gay marriage" does not affect me or the rest of society, then why are you pushing so hard for it to be recognized? Why not just invent some other term for it, and leave the term "marriage" alone?

 

I want what's best for society. I actually think that same-sex marriages would be better for society. More stable homes to provide families for adopted children; more dual-income families that have spending power to make major purchases which stimulates the economy; fewer uninsured people in the health-care system; etc, etc.

 

As to "inventing a new term," I see no logical or rational reason to do so. Same-sex marriage has zero deleterious effect on even those that oppose it (if you don't count threatening egos as deleterious). I'm not going to rename H2O that's cold simply because you like yours at room temperature. You can get over it and accept that I have a glass of water too.

 

What gives you the right to redefine the term marriage to include something it has never included before? THAT looks like an attack upon the traditional institution of marriage - which, of course, it is.

 

Homosexuality is judged to be unacceptable by the overwhelming percentage of the American population,

 

Perhaps 20 years ago. In just under a generation, the tolerance for homosexuals and same-sex marriage has increased significantly. So much so that you can hardly call the majority who are still bigoted against these concepts as "overwhelming." Indeed, it might be a struggle to even say the majority is significant its waning so fast. I'm prepared to quantify this claim should you truly want me to.

 

[Homosexuality is judged to be unacceptable by] the American Medical Association, The American Psychiactric Association,

 

This is an uninformed statement. Neither bodies are opposed to homosexuality, indeed they've both made statements that are inclusive and tolerant of homosexuality.

 

[Homosexuality is judged to be unacceptable by] every honest religion.

 

And most of the dishonest ones, I might add. But superstitious arguments are irrational and irrelevant. Marriage is a secular construct of society -it existed long before Christianity and it exists in some form in every single culture of humanity, regardless of the inclusion or exclusion of religious superstition.

 

So we can discard your three claims above regarding the "unacceptability" of homosexuality.

 

We don't care what you do in you home (Please stop saying we do.) We DO care what you're doing in our public schools with our children.

 

Don't worry. No one is trying to marry your children in your public schools. I think you must have the wrong thread.

 

Stop demanding legitimacy for the illigitimate.

 

Legitimacy is a social construct and society defines what is or isn't legitimate in this matter. Whether you choose to believe it or not, bigotry against homosexuality and same-sex marriage is waning. Fast. At the rate its going, in another generation homosexual couples who are involved in loving, caring relationships will be afforded the same rights my wife and I enjoy. This is kind of change and progress that makes me proud to be an American.

 

Homosexuality is wrong.

 

Why? What rational and reasoned argument states it is wrong? Please leave out superstitious arguments.

 

What you, as an adult do, is your own business. But, children should not be exposed to such things.

 

Right. We wouldn't want the kiddies to think or grow past their parents' bigotry would we? Lets not expose children to critical thought, rational living, and love for their neighbors.

 

Now keep your vile affections off my marriage!

 

I want nothing to do with your marriage. I have my own. Same-sex couples want nothing to do with your marriage. They simply want their own. Nor are my hands vile. As far as you know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said the US was allowed to construct permanent social classes. I said that it was once impossible to marry outside your race, religion and social class. Heck, it still is, for a lot of people. This in your unchanging Traditional Marriage.

 

Actually it still did happen, it was taboo, but it did happen.

 

Are you really this ignorant of the history of civil rights and woman's rights in your own homeland, I wonder.

 

They also had trouble realizing that skin color didn't determine whether or not someone was a person.

 

Yes, today universal suffrage is in the US Constitution. Today it is recognized that you have a right to have a divorce without getting shunned by your community and peers. Today white American women can marry African-American men without having their houses burned down.

 

That had to do with people not realizing that skin-color didn't mean anything.

 

Oh, and I can't let your history revisionist attempt slip... the US was not founded on Judea-Christian values and whoever has managed to convince you otherwise is either pushing history revisionism, or a victim of same.

 

No, it was founded on Judea-Christian values, the founding fathers weren't atheists. The first amendment is freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

 

EDIT: Wait, wait, wait... are you OK with a 26 year old man marrying a girl who's just reached puberty? I mean, since it's between a male and a female and all :D ?

 

I'm against something like that, and if you open up the definition of marriage, you open it to legal challenges where something like that would be legal.

 

Like it or not inter-racial marriage was believed to affect a lot of people, ticked a lot of people off, and was accused of being the top of a slippery slope that'd allow other horrible things such as homosexual marriage, bigamy and child marriages.

 

Again they were operating off of racism, as I pointed out one's skin pigmentation means nothing.

 

Oh, and you do realize that your entire argument is one big Appeal To Tradition, I hope?

 

So?

 

How, exactly, does this follow? Bigamy is not a violation of your 1st Amendment 14th Amendment rights, but would be if gays were allowed to marry? I'm also curious as to what on earth marriage has to do with the 1st amendment in the first place.

 

It's the consequence that it opens the door for 1st and 14th amendment challenges to the ban on bigamy and marrying children, because you're discriminating against a religion.

 

I'm also curious as to why bigamists can't use the slippery slope argument with other 'redefinitions of marriage' and say that since we're redefined marriage to include inter-racial marriage, then we're perfectly justified in redefining it further to allow bigamy. Oh, wait, let me guess... inter-racial marriage doesn't count because it's still between a man and a woman.

 

That's actually quite simple, the inter-racial marriage is a situation involving only the 14th Amendment, skin color has nothing to do with what gender someone is, nor does it have anything to do with whether or not they are people. You are comparing apples and lima beans, they are two different things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That had to do with people not realizing that skin-color didn't mean anything.
I must admit I find it amusing how locked into your own mindset you are. Is it so difficult to imagine a similar debate in 20 years time about who knows what where the conservative viewpoint will argue "That had to do with people not realizing that sexual orientation didn't mean anything."?

 

You are behaving exactly like the people whose viewpoints you are brushing aside apparently with no awareness of the irony.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually it still did happen, it was taboo, but it did happen.

 

Miscegenation was illegal in many states until 1967 and the advent of Loving v. Virginia where the Supreme Court ruled against it. A prior Court ruling, Pace v. Alabama (106 U.S. 583) in 1883, upheld miscegenation laws, which included the prohibition of interracial marriage.

 

That had to do with people not realizing that skin-color didn't mean anything.

 

Nor does sexual orientation "mean anything" between two people who are in love and devoted to one another.

 

No, it was founded on Judea-Christian values, the founding fathers weren't atheists. The first amendment is freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

 

Nor were many of the Christian. Indeed, several had a disdain for either Christianity or the attempts by Christians to impose their doctrines on the emerging nation. These people included Jefferson, Washington, John Adams, Madison, and Franklin among many others. They stood in the way of the attempts that their Christian contemporaries made to insert religious dogma and doctrine into our founding documents like the Constitution. Jefferson made the point clear that Freedom of Religion cannot exist without the Wall of Separation between Church and State in the letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptists:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.
Many if not most of the Founding Fathers were Deists, not Christian. Some were agnostic. Several (i.e. Madison, Adams, and Franklin) may in fact have been atheist.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Treaty of Tripoli:

titleXI.jpg

 

Oh, and you do realize that your entire argument is one big Appeal To Tradition, I hope?

So?

So you should consider coming up with something better. It used to be tradition that voting for only for men, should that have been upheld, too?

 

I'm against something like that, and if you open up the definition of marriage...
Why are you still going on about that? I've proven to you that marriage has been ever-changing since its beginning and varies greatly from culture to culture. You still go on about how it should be set in stone.

 

...you open it to legal challenges where something like that would be legal.
What, exactly, do you have in mind? Marrying a terrified 12 year old or having multiple wives (or husbands, for that matter) is certainly nothing like marrying another consenting adult.

 

Again they were operating off of racism, as I pointed out one's skin pigmentation means nothing.
Please demonstrate to me how sexual orientation means anything. You so far have produced appeals to tradition and a dubious slippery slope in which you predict that the conservative and traditional American people will somehow accept child marriages and bigamy just because gays can marry, something I see as, to say the least, incredibly unlikely. Edited by Dagobahn Eagle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm against something like that, and if you open up the definition of marriage, you open it to legal challenges where something like that would be legal.

Not really, because marrying someone of the same sex is not analogous to an adult marrying a minor.

 

Again they were operating off of racism, as I pointed out one's skin pigmentation means nothing.

Just like one's sexual orientation means nothing.

 

So?

Meaning your entire argument is fallacious and therefore, wrong.

 

It's the consequence that it opens the door for 1st and 14th amendment challenges to the ban on bigamy and marrying children, because you're discriminating against a religion.

I don't quite follow this line of reasoning. What religion is being discriminated against, and how?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the consequence that it opens the door for 1st and 14th amendment challenges to the ban on bigamy and marrying children, because you're discriminating against a religion.

 

I don't know about the bigamy thing, but even with the holy Constitution and 'freedom of expression', you have to expect common sense to kick in with things such as marrying children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know about the bigamy thing, but even with the holy Constitution and 'freedom of expression', you have to expect common sense to kick in with things such as marrying children.

 

I'm just pointing out the legal situation, that would arise, it wouldn't be as big of an issue if they came up with another term to call it.

 

Not really, because marrying someone of the same sex is not analogous to an adult marrying a minor.

 

Some religions dictate as to when the consider a minor to be of age of consent, and if you start playing around with the definition of marriage to satisfy one group (where you can argue back and forth as to religion being in play there), you open the door for legal arguements for everything else.

 

Just like one's sexual orientation means nothing.

 

Marriage is partially so you can have children, 2 men cannot have a child with each other, nor can 2 women have a child with each other, it takes both a man and a woman.

 

Meaning your entire argument is fallacious and therefore, wrong.

 

In your opinion, I don't see the need to completely up-end our cultural heritage when there is a way to fix the issue without doing so. People here say it doesn't affect people whom are straight, well redefining the definition of marriage affects traditional marriages, as well as what is taught in school.

 

I don't quite follow this line of reasoning. What religion is being discriminated against, and how?

 

That's easy, see the radical offshoots of the Mormon Faith, Islamic Faith where men apparently can have multiple wives.

 

I've taken a Constitutional Law Class, so I have some knowledge of what can open the door to what, in fact a ruling to open up Gay Marriage can set a precident for other cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marriage is partially so you can have children, 2 men cannot have a child with each other, nor can 2 women have a child with each other, it takes both a man and a woman.
Since when did marriage become coupled with mandatory procreation? Additionally, who cares if they can't have children, there's still adoption, which will never go dead.

In your opinion, I don't see the need to completely up-end our cultural heritage when there is a way to fix the issue without doing so. People here say it doesn't affect people whom are straight, well redefining the definition of marriage affects traditional marriages, as well as what is taught in school.
Since when does marriage imply two members of the opposite sex? More importantly, if you're straight, then you're obviously not attracted to the same sex; therefore, there is absolutely no effect being placed upon yourself.

That's easy, see the radical offshoots of the Mormon Faith, Islamic Faith where men apparently can have multiple wives.
So, the FLDS, for example, is being unfairly treated, because it promotes wife-swapping and pedophilia?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since when did marriage become coupled with mandatory procreation? Additionally, who cares if they can't have children, there's still adoption, which will never go dead.

 

And I don't have problems with two people of the same gender adopting a kid, just don't call it marriage. Call it something else and I have no objection.

 

Since when does marriage imply two members of the opposite sex? More importantly, if you're straight, then you're obviously not attracted to the same sex; therefore, there is absolutely no effect being placed upon yourself.

 

Actually it does, because guess where that kind of behavior gets instilled into children... (I'm blaming the school systems, not same-sex couples)

 

So, the FLDS, for example, is being unfairly treated, because it promotes wife-swapping and pedophilia?

 

Technically, if you play around with the definition to cater to one group, you open the door for groups like FLDS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I don't have problems with two people of the same gender adopting a kid, just don't call it marriage. Call it something else and I have no objection.
Then what do you want to call it? A "domestic partnership"? A "civil union"? It's all the same thing; a union of two individuals. No matter what you call it, it'll still be the same thing.

Actually it does, because guess where that kind of behavior gets instilled into children... (I'm blaming the school systems, not same-sex couples)
How are school corporations the problem? Do they actively support homosexuality? Even if they did, why would it be such a large problem?

Technically, if you play around with the definition to cater to one group, you open the door for groups like FLDS.
Okay, except the FLDS thinks that gays are hell spawn. So really, if the US allowed polygamy, then there's no way a several million fundamentalists will allow homosexual marriages.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then what do you want to call it? A "domestic partnership"? A "civil union"? It's all the same thing; a union of two individuals. No matter what you call it, it'll still be the same thing.

 

Then you have no problem with calling it something other than marriage?

 

How are school corporations the problem? Do they actively support homosexuality? Even if they did, why would it be such a large problem?

 

Because it is trying to indoctrinate children into a particular lifestyle, which is an abusive use of their role as an authority figure.

 

Okay, except the FLDS thinks that gays are hell spawn. So really, if the US allowed polygamy, then there's no way a several million fundamentalists will allow homosexual marriages.

 

Well, actually the US could, the FLDS can believe that all they want, but the fact is the same sex marriage thing can open the door to their lifestyle of polygamy being legitimized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some religions dictate as to when the consider a minor to be of age of consent, and if you start playing around with the definition of marriage to satisfy one group (where you can argue back and forth as to religion being in play there), you open the door for legal arguements for everything else.

That's the thing. Gay couples want the legal, secular rights to marriage. They want nothing to do with the religious institution of marriage. Thus your argument about other religions arguing for their practices to be accepted based on gay marriage is null and void.

 

Marriage is partially so you can have children, 2 men cannot have a child with each other, nor can 2 women have a child with each other, it takes both a man and a woman.

Nowhere does it say in the law that marriage must produce children. Thus your argument is irrelevant.

 

In your opinion, I don't see the need to completely up-end our cultural heritage when there is a way to fix the issue without doing so. People here say it doesn't affect people whom are straight, well redefining the definition of marriage affects traditional marriages, as well as what is taught in school.

How does redefining marriage affect those heterosexual couples who are already in marriage? And what curriculum changes will there need to be if gay marriage is legalized?

 

That's easy, see the radical offshoots of the Mormon Faith, Islamic Faith where men apparently can have multiple wives.

Again, religion. Not relevant to gay couples pursuing secular benefits of marriage.

 

I've taken a Constitutional Law Class, so I have some knowledge of what can open the door to what, in fact a ruling to open up Gay Marriage can set a precident for other cases.

If you think having taken a Constitutional law class lends any further credence to your position, then you're wrong. Nobody cares that you've taken a class like this because your arguments are flawed and irrelevant. So stop telling us, we don't give a rat's ass.

 

Because it is trying to indoctrinate children into a particular lifestyle, which is an abusive use of their role as an authority figure.

Describe to me how legalizing gay marriage will force schools to 'indoctrinate children into a particular lifestyle'.

 

Well, actually the US could, the FLDS can believe that all they want, but the fact is the same sex marriage thing can open the door to their lifestyle of polygamy being legitimized.

You have not provided a logical argument as to how legalizing gay marriage would legitimize polygamy. Until you do, people will continue to call you on your terrible, unfounded premise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then you have no problem with calling it something other than marriage?
Don't turn the question around, I'm asking you why homosexual unions shouldn't be called marriages. Furthermore, consider this: homosexuals are being discriminated, by denying them the title of "marriage", and with that, the rights and benefits that come with it.

Because it is trying to indoctrinate children into a particular lifestyle, which is an abusive use of their role as an authority figure.
Then give me proof why the public schools are somehow indoctrinating kids to be gay.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then you have no problem with calling it something other than marriage?

What if someone was to say that autistic people could not marry because it was against their religion, because they weren't equal to other people, etc? That they are inferior, or unnatural and shouldn't be allowed to have children or marry? That marriage was a sacred institution, and allowing such people to marry would harm it?

 

I'm not attacking you personally. I'm just giving you a hypothetical for you to think on.

 

Is it man and woman? Yes, but now it is something personal to you. What if someone explained to you that because of the way you were born, you shouldn't be allowed the same privileges, equal rights, etc of other people?

 

I've read your posts, and you have a strong support for yourself and anyone in a remotely similar situation. If someone were to walk up to you and tell you that you aren't allowed to be married and must this sign for a "civil partnership" instead...

 

You would rage to high heaven. Don't deny that you wouldn't. You would pop on the forum and give us conservative blogs and news stories to support the fact that you thought the liberals and left-wing propagandists are stealing your rights.

 

Welcome to my side of this.

 

I'm not claiming this is conservative. I am not claiming this is liberal, left wing, right wing, etc. I personally believe this issue is a neutral based on the person and their beliefs.

 

And you, as a person, are discriminating against me and so many others. Discriminating.

 

dis⋅crim⋅i⋅nate

to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit; show partiality

 

I had a gay couple marry in my back yard for the short time it was legal. They have been together for 15 years, and only now have they been allowed the same privileges as you. Since Prop 8, that was taken from them.

 

What you don't understand. No, what you choose to be ignorant of is that "gays" and "lesbians" and "homosexuals" are not just titles to be thrown around on an internet forum. They are real people. They are people with hopes, dreams, loves, cares and they want to be treated like human beings equal to you.

 

Not a big deal you say? Man and a woman you say? Religion you say? The title of the union you say?

 

The title is everything. For a lot of us, the privileges that come along with the name are trivial compared to the title they give you.

 

Married.

 

Why not just call it something else?

 

Because the title is everything. Creating something separate but equal is against the foundations of this country. It is discrimination and oppression by the government.

 

------

 

And all this about kids? Marriage is not to make kids. Marriage is a union in which two people share what they have. Nowhere in marriage does it state that the two people are required to have children. There are people who get married who never have kids. Are they going against the foundations of religion? No, they are living out their lives as a married couple. Sorry, but this is not the middle east.

 

--------

 

Religion?

 

Do not twist words to fit your argument. This country has separation from church and state in effect for a reason. You have freedom to practice religion, but you do not have freedom to bring your religion into politics or other people's lives, which is exactly what you are doing.

 

You are pushing your religious, superstitious beliefs on other people's lives. Plain and simple.

 

Marriage is religious you say?

 

No, not in America. Marriage is most certainly not a religious institution, otherwise atheists would not be allowed to marry. You do not, I repeat, do not need a church, priest, etc to get married. That is all for show. You are married when you sign the legally binding paper that says you are married. You an get married in a court house if you'd like.

 

You walk in, sign in, sit down, say a few vows, then sign the paper. No dress, no bible, no priest.

 

That is Marriage in the United States of America. This is not the dark ages. This is no the Vatican. This is not a religion ruled land. This is a land that was built on the concept of separation of church and state for reasons exactly like this.

 

----------

 

You cannot say "marriage is sacred" and then turn around and ask "why is marriage so sacred to you?" Your answer is right in front of your face. The answer is in your own beliefs and situations.

 

Because it is trying to indoctrinate children into a particular lifestyle, which is an abusive use of their role as an authority figure.

Then take slavery, women's rights, and every other movement out of history class because they are obviously trying to force their beliefs on you. Take science, evolution, medicine, and every single other class out of school for teaching us about life.

 

It isn't a life style for a lot of us, so stop treating it like it is. Or, I can continue to judge you based on your autism.

 

Because obviously that was a lifestyle choice. :rolleyes:

 

The fact you call it a lifestyle choice through and through shows just how ignorant you are on the subject, and how far you've gone to close yourself off from the people you discriminate against.

 

Would you like to know the truth?

 

For some, yes, it is a lifestyle option. Know what the people said who I know have chosen to change rather than live out a "normal" life? The lesbians I have met claim to have switched due to being molested, raped, beaten, abused, etc. and cannot ever feel comfortable around a man.

 

It is not a "hey, I think I'll be gay now!" It is less of a "lifestyle" choice for some, and more of a defense mechanism against atrocities that have been committed against them.

 

There are some who I know have, suddenly one day for one reason or another, fall for someone of the same gender and live out a happy life.

 

And there are some, like myself, who were not forced or suddenly "changed" by an event. Some of us were just quite simply born this way, and have been who we are from the earliest day we can remember. And before you vomit up "Well, you don't know what you want" let me explain to you that I have only, ever, found girls attractive and only get that pecular feeling from girls. It is not lying to myself. I could not change if I wanted.

 

And if it was a choice. A lifestyle choice as you so ignorantly state, then why. WHY do we stay this way willingly? Why stay in the lifestyle when it is ripping your family apart? Why continue when your parents disown you? Why continue when you are jumped and beaten after school? Why continue when you are ridiculed, looked down upon, told you're going to hell?

 

Why continue when you put a gun to your head or pick up a bottle of pills? If it is a choice. A complete, and utter choice then why is the main cause of death in homosexuals suicide?

 

I knew a man who killed himself when his father disowned him. He couldn't handle the stress of having his family be disgusted with him, and took his own life even though he was trying his hardest to be "normal". If the stress with that intense. That strong and that consuming, then why did he willingly choose to be what he was.

So instead of making an uninformed statement about a group of people, why don't you do some face-to-face research instead of hiding behind your bible, parents, and superstitious beliefs.

 

indoctrinate children

Typical statement from someone who is ignorant of the situation.

 

We are not out to "turn" children gay. Guess what? We can't. It is not something you put into a book and then suddenly children say "I wanna be gay now!"

 

We teach kids about black history so they will be accepting of African Americans. We teach women's rights because we want women to be treated equally and not like dirt. We teach war so that the future generation may avoid it themselves. We teach people not to touch fire because it burns.

 

We do not want to teach your children how to be gay. We want to teach them that we exist, and we are humans like you and should be treated as such.

 

Personally, I think more should be in the classroom about autistic, and other conditions people are born with or obtain through certain circumstances so that when they grow up, the kids are less likely to make fun of them, criticize them, pick on them, etc.

 

Education can and has led to acceptance of different peoples. If you think trying to teach kids that we exist, we will always be here, and that we want to be treated like people is trying to indoctrinate them and "turn" them due to our "agenda"...

 

Then I don't know what to say.

 

Well, actually the US could, the FLDS can believe that all they want, but the fact is the same sex marriage thing can open the door to their lifestyle of polygamy being legitimized.

They said the same thing about inter-racial marriages.

 

They were still man and woman you say?

 

This is a consenting marriage by two men or women of legal age. This is not a dog and a person. This is not a child and a person. The only difference is a person wanting to marry a person of legal age.

 

The blatant flaw with your argument is that being homosexual is not against the law. Polygamy and pedophilia is illegal in these united states. They both have tried to get their own rights, but failed due to the fact that what they want to do is illegal. If being homosexual was illegal, than your argument would hold water. But it isn't. Homosexual relationships are not illegal. Being that you let us live and love in this country, the least you could do is stop treating us like lesser beings than yourself and give us the same privileges that you have.

 

Stop creating slippery slopes out of thin air to justify the fact you have no actual argument based on anything but superstition and ignorance towards the people you are taking privileges from.

 

As a person who has claimed to be different with a condition, and thus treated different... I would have assumed you would not wish to discriminate against others. That, as a person who believes you should be treated equally under the law and socially, you would treat others with the same desire.

 

It is hypocrisy.

 

And before you pull some more religious text onto me, read this carefully before proceeding:

 

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” -Jesus

Edited by True_Avery
ad hominem remarks removed
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then you have no problem with calling it something other than marriage?
Only if you come up with new terms for these other kinds of nontraditional marriages:

  • Marriages decided upon by the couple getting married, not their parents, and made out of love, rather than for the family's economy, status and power*.
  • Inter-racial marriages.
  • Marriages in which the wife isn't basically the property of her husband.
  • Marriages open to teens and young adults**.

 

*Wiki: For most of European history, marriage was more or less a business agreement between two families who arranged the marriages of their children. Romantic love, and even simple affection, were not considered essential. In fact at some times, too much affection in a marriage was considered a Sin. Historically, the perceived necessity of marriage has been a nearly universal source of stress.

 

**The average age of marriage in the late 1200s into the 1500s was around 25 years of age. Beginning in the 1500s it was unlawful for a woman younger than 20 years of age to marry.

 

I have no problem with a 18 year old boy forming a union out of Sinful love (God have mercy) with an 18 year old girl for then to respect her and treat her as his equal, and fine, you can make it a religious matter for whatever inane reason you may have, but please, don't disgust me by calling it marriage. What's wrong with a 'civil union'? Damnit, next they'll want to marry Negroes!

 

Some religions dictate as to when the consider a minor to be of age of consent, and if you start playing around with the definition of marriage to satisfy one group (where you can argue back and forth as to religion being in play there), you open the door for legal arguments for everything else.
We heard you the first ten times.

 

Marriage is partially [emphasis added] so you can have children, 2 men cannot have a child with each other, nor can 2 women have a child with each other, it takes both a man and a woman.
You said it - partially. Which is why sterile people and couples with serious genetic disorders can marry.

 

There's way too many children out there without loving parents. Allowing more couples to marry would mean more potential stable homes for these children to go to, and studies have found that children of two mothers perform just as well, or better, than children of one mom and one dad. They are also at a far lower risk of sexual abuse. I'll see about getting my references from Kavar's Corner.

 

That's easy, see the radical offshoots of the Mormon Faith, Islamic Faith where men apparently can have multiple wives.
But marriage has nothing to do with religion whatsoever, so the point is moot. If we were allowing gay marriage to please some sect with a positive view of gay marriage, maybe you'd have a point.

 

Actually it does, because guess where that kind of behavior gets instilled into children... (I'm blaming the school systems, not same-sex couples)
Oh, yes, the old "teh gheys are recruiting" sham.

 

Prove to me that teaching tolerance somehow induces homosexual lust in children. If you cannot, drop it.

 

Because it is trying to indoctrinate children into a particular lifestyle, which is an abusive use of their role as an authority figure.
I see Newspeak has entered the debate:

Heterosexuals have a sexual orientation, gays have a homosexual lifestyle.

Heterosexuals have campaigns to get marriage banned, gays have an agenda to get it legalized.

 

I could list several more examples than this.

Edited by Dagobahn Eagle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...