Jump to content

Home

Gay Marriage


Rogue Nine
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

 

And you honestly believe that any court in the civilised world would allow people to marry children?

 

That's nothing but an alarmist sentiment, thrown up as hasty opposition.

 

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.

 

Thanks for pointing that out - Here I was operating under the assumption that the Stork brought us babies. :rolleyes:

 

Marriage is an expression of commitment and love between two people - it doesn't have to involve children, although a child is often a result of such commitment.

 

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.

 

As has been pointed out, the 'tradition' of marriage has been so diluted over the past few thousand years it's not even a 'tradition' any more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 214
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

And you honestly believe that any court in the civilised world would allow people to marry children?

 

That's nothing but an alarmist sentiment, thrown up as hasty opposition.

 

The Court does not make legislation, they interpret legislation, and all you need is the Appeals court in California. Seriously, once you start altering marriage to cater to one group, you have to cater to the others as well.

 

Thanks for pointing that out - Here I was operating under the assumption that the Stork brought us babies. :rolleyes:

 

Marriage is an expression of commitment and love between two people - it doesn't have to involve children, although a child is often a result of such commitment.

 

The point remains that there is an argument for marriage as it currently is to care for children that result of that union.

 

As has been pointed out, the 'tradition' of marriage has been so diluted over the past few thousand years it's not even a 'tradition' any more.

 

In your opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Court does not make legislation, they interpret legislation, and all you need is the Appeals court in California. Seriously, once you start altering marriage to cater to one group, you have to cater to the others as well.

 

Uh, no, you don't, not when children are involved. The very notion that any court/government/whatever in the western world would allow the marrying of children is ludicrous.

 

The point remains that there is an argument for marriage as it currently is to care for children that result of that union.[/Quote]

 

I'm sure there is, but why should that stop Homosexuals from marrying each other?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Court does not make legislation, they interpret legislation, and all you need is the Appeals court in California.
Yeah, there's so much support for child marriage in California that it sickens me (please note sarcasm).

 

Seriously, once you start altering marriage to cater to one group, you have to cater to the others as well.
Like, say, the gays?

 

The point remains that there is an argument for marriage as it currently is to care for children that result of that union.
Such as adopted kids.

 

As has been pointed out, the 'tradition' of marriage has been so diluted over the past few thousand years it's not even a 'tradition' any more.

In your opinion.

No, not "in his opinion". In documented reality. Marriage, like everything else, is ever-changing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh, no, you don't, not when children are involved. The very notion that any court/government/whatever in the western world would allow the marrying of children is ludicrous.

 

There are at least 2 governments in the world that still allow slavery that I can think of.

 

 

I'm sure there is, but why should that stop Homosexuals from marrying each other?

 

In catering to one group of people, you end up opening the door to court cases involving other groups of people, such as polygamists.

 

Yeah, there's so much support for child marriage in California that it sickens me (please note sarcasm).

 

It's actually possible, that court has a tendency for some rather insane rulings.

 

 

Like, say, the gays?

 

Quit trying to imply that I'm a homophobe, it's annoying. I was referring to polygamists.

 

Such as adopted kids.

 

And I have no problem with same-sex couples adopting kids, just don't call it marriage.

 

 

No, not "in his opinion". In documented reality. Marriage, like everything else, is ever-changing.

 

Usually it has been between men and women, look if this is so not going to affect straight people, why does it have to be called marriage?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are at least 2 governments in the world that still allow slavery that I can think of.

 

In the Western world? But that's not relevant to this discussion.

 

In catering to one group of people, you end up opening the door to court cases involving other groups of people, such as polygamists.

 

So we're not catering to only one group of people (Heterosexuals) now, then?

 

Usually it has been between men and women, look if this is so not going to affect straight people, why does it have to be called marriage?

 

It's not going to affect straight people, so why can't it be called marriage?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not going to affect straight people, so why can't it be called marriage?
I've wondered about this, too.

 

I think I'll sit the rest of this debate out.

 

Garfield: Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because then pedophiles will be allowed to marry their daughters!

Everyone: Er, no.

Garfield: Er, yes.

Everyone: No.

Garfield: Yes.

Everyone: No!

Garfield: Yes!

Everyone: Look, just... no.

Garfield: Yes!

Everyone: No.

Garfield: Yes.

Everyone: No, no, no.

Garfield: Yes, yes, yes.

Everyone: ...no.

Garfield: Yes.

Everyone: No.

Garfield: Yes!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are at least 2 governments in the world that still allow slavery that I can think of.

Irrelevant to discussion.

 

The Court does not make legislation, they interpret legislation, and all you need is the Appeals court in California.

You mean the same state that banned it with Prop 8?

 

Pedophiles and polygamists have been trying to get rights a lot longer than gays have. Both, however, are illegal and thus why would they allowed to be married at all?

 

If you think homosexuals are sane, fit, and "normal" enough to raise children and so on then why can't we have your marriage? We aren't molesting kids, or trying to marry a dozen people. Two consenting adult American citizens want to marry, and right now the separate but equal policy goes against the constitution.

 

Separate but equal. You took a constitution class. Look it up.

 

The courts repealed it BECAUSE it was unconstitutional to create a separate but equal policy for a group of people. It is government made discrimination against legally abiding citizens.

 

Don't insult me by claiming it is anything else but that. Or shall we start creating separate but equal fountains for gays and autistics? I mean, because, well, its all water... right?

 

In catering to one group of people, you end up opening the door to court cases involving other groups of people, such as polygamists.

So, giving the "gays" their own "marriage", separate but equal, would NOT open up possibilities for separate but equal marriages between children?

 

Your argument is fallacious because as of right now, polygamy and pedophilia are ILLEGAL. Homosexuality is not. Homosexual relationships are not. Homosexual love is not. Pedophilia and polygamy are.

 

Stop connecting dots that aren't there to be connected. The reason pedophilia and polygamy are illegal is because the relationship is harmful to the party's involved, are legal nightmares, etc etc. We have reasons to keep both banned.

 

Are we discriminating against pedophiles and polygamists? Yes, we are. But we do so because of the harm that happens during those relationships, many of which are not consensual.

 

A child cannot legally consent. Another adult can.

 

That is why homosexuality is not illegal in the united states, and polygamy and pedophilia are.

 

Until It is illegal, then you are choosing to discriminate based on something that is legal. Technically, I am "allowed" to be a homosexual. So, why can I not be allowed into a legally binding contract that you have the privilege of?

 

 

It's actually possible, that court has a tendency for some rather insane rulings.

No, it is not. It has already been ruled that pedophilia and polygamy are illegal in the united states. Homosexuality is not.

 

Pedophilia and polygamy (particularly pedophilia) is harmful to the person involved, and the person involved cannot legally consent.

 

Again, a grown adult can. Stop treating us like children.

 

Quit trying to imply that I'm a homophobe, it's annoying.

:rolleyes:

 

And I have no problem with same-sex couples adopting kids, just don't call it marriage.

You've yet to back up your stance on why it -shouldn't- be call marriage. We've told you it is discrimination, and you've replied with the same question over and over again.

 

Usually it has been between men and women, look if this is so not going to affect straight people, why does it have to be called marriage?

You don't get it!

 

What if I walked up to you and told you that autistic people are not allowed to marry because of their "condition". That you must sign a civil union, and you are not allowed to marry because married is between a mentally fit man and woman.

 

Why does it have to be called marriage? Because it is DISCRIMINATION against legally consenting adult citizens of the united states. 2, not many. Legal age, not children.

 

Separate but equal mentality.

 

Why don't we just put some fountains and bathrooms in the corners for gays and autistics to drink from instead of the "normal" people. Its all water, right?

 

Why not create a separate bathroom for gays and autistics. It is still a bathroom, right?

 

How about different schools entirely? It is still a school, right?

 

That it goes without saying that all of the above would be enforced just as strictly as the gay marriage bans.

 

Still sound "fair and balanced" to you?

Edited by True_Avery
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are at least 2 governments in the world that still allow slavery that I can think of.

Irrelevant. This has nothing to do with the United States of America.

 

In catering to one group of people, you end up opening the door to court cases involving other groups of people, such as polygamists.

Just because you say it doesn't make it true, no matter how many times you say it. No lawyer will be able to argue for polygamy in court using gay marriage as an affirmative argument because polygamy and gay marriage are two separate topics that have nothing to do with the other. So unless you have logical proof that they do, shut up about this. You say this statement again without proper reasoning, it will be deleted for repetitious trolling.

 

It's actually possible, that court has a tendency for some rather insane rulings.

You think the Supreme Court of California may legalize child marriage? I knew you were full of ****, but damn, I didn't know you were this full of ****. Congratulations.

 

Show me how it's even remotely possible that they would consider such a decision.

 

Quit trying to imply that I'm a homophobe, it's annoying.

Quit being a homophobe, it's annoying.

 

Usually it has been between men and women, look if this is so not going to affect straight people, why does it have to be called marriage?

Calling it marriage does not affect straight people. You have not proven how it does, so quit saying it does, or else I will do it for you.

 

And it has to be called marriage, otherwise it is not equal under the law. There are benefits afforded to married couples by the federal government that are inaccessible to gay couples because of the Defense of Marriage Act, which was a terribly offensive piece of legislation that should have never been passed. This act restricts a lot of rights and benefits to heterosexual couples only, meaning that gay couples are not given the same opportunities that straight couples are. This is wrong and needs to be changed. THAT is why it must be called marriage.

Edited by Darth333
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because you say it doesn't make it true, no matter how many times you say it. No lawyer will be able to argue for polygamy in court using gay marriage as an affirmative argument because polygamy and gay marriage are two separate topics that have nothing to do with the other. So unless you have logical proof that they do, shut up about this. You say this statement again without proper reasoning, it will be deleted for repetitious trolling.
There is hope for this thread after all, then.

 

What if I walked up to you and told you that autistic people are not allowed to marry because of their "condition".
You'd perhaps be surprised to hear that people with Down's Syndrome, at least, aren't allowed to marry in the Kingdom of Norway. There was this movie some years ago about a couple with the condition, and it sparked a public debate as it raised the question if the two, who were clearly consenting adults who loved each others, should be allowed to take the vow and become husband and wife. But of course, if we allowed that it'd open the door for pedophiles, bigamists, etc., so that's a no-go, unfortunately :D .
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've wondered about this, too.

 

I think I'll sit the rest of this debate out.

 

Garfield: Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because then pedophiles will be allowed to marry their daughters!

Everyone: Er, no.

Garfield: Er, yes.

Everyone: No.

Garfield: Yes.

Everyone: No!

Garfield: Yes!

Everyone: Look, just... no.

Garfield: Yes!

Everyone: No.

Garfield: Yes.

Everyone: No, no, no.

Garfield: Yes, yes, yes.

Everyone: ...no.

Garfield: Yes.

Everyone: No.

Garfield: Yes!

he does that in every thread, this is nothing new. and at least he isn't calling white phosphorous burns "cigarette burns" or "pallywood magic".
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.

 

I don't have problems with gay marriage, neither how is it called. I only don't agree that a gay couple can adopt children. Children that live with a gay couple are somewhat "convinced" to be like them. (I have nothing against them, but to me, it's not a normal behaviour). It's just my opinion, respect it as I respect yours... ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ask yourself if that is worse than a child growing up in an orphanage. While I don't know if a child born to gay parents are more likely to end up gay themselves. Any experiment showing that will have a hard time proving that they are more likely to be gay rather than simply more likely to admit being gay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only don't agree that a gay couple can adopt children. Children that live with a gay couple are somewhat "convinced" to be like them.

 

If I could provide you with data to the contrary, would you be willing to revise your opinion here?

 

(I have nothing against them, but to me, it's not a normal behaviour).

 

Normal? Why isn't it normal? It's normal for those who are not heterosexual. It's normal in that it appears in nearly every species on the planet. It may not be common, but it is definitely "normal" to such a degree that if homosexuality were not present among Homo sapiens, we should wonder why given that it appears so "normally" in so many other species, particularly other primate species.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And it has to be called marriage, otherwise it is not equal under the law. There are benefits afforded to married couples by the federal government that are inaccessible to gay couples because of the Defense of Marriage Act, which was a terribly offensive piece of legislation that should have never been passed. This act restricts a lot of rights and benefits to heterosexual couples only, meaning that gay couples are not given the same opportunities that straight couples are. This is wrong and needs to be changed. THAT is why it must be called marriage.

 

It's called drafting legislation that says it is some sort of partnership, and the same rights and benefits that married couples get apply to this partnership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's called drafting legislation that says it is some sort of partnership, and the same rights and benefits that married couples get apply to this partnership.

Separate but equal is a concept that this country has been trying to get rid of for hundreds of years.

 

You're just as bad as anyone who looks down on you for your condition. Just as bad as people who wanted African Americans to go to separate schools so they wouldn't corrupt the white kids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The subject of gay marriage is a personal freedom issue. Of course it should be legal. And, regardless of anyone's beliefs, legislating from the pulpit is never a good idea because to do so is to violate the rights of nonbelievers, and is in fact nonbiblical because it involves passing judgement on others. Separation of church and state in a nutshell.

There are at least 2 governments in the world that still allow slavery that I can think of.

Haha, ruh-roh.

 

Do feel free to discuss this subject at length with Niner any time you feel like it. :devsmoke:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It just occured to me that we are either borderline flaming or are completely flaming Garfield.

 

Simple as this. Garfield, I do not agree with any of your views on gay marriage, but I do respect them. Just about everyone in this thread disagrees with you. They have provided reasons, as you have provided yours. There needs to be another piece added to this arguement otherwise it's going to keep going in a circle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I live in a country that has legalized gay marriage a few years back. Straight marriages haven't somehow devaluated, no one has come to indoctrinate me, no one has called for polygamous or pedophilic marriages and God hasn't smitten us yet. Why would this be any different in America?

 

Also, if there is supposedly no difference between marriage and domestic partnerships, why does an artificial distinction need to be made between the two? Either call them both marriage, or neither.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I live in a country that has legalized gay marriage a few years back. Straight marriages haven't somehow devaluated, no one has come to indoctrinate me, no one has called for polygamous or pedophilic marriages and God hasn't smitten us yet. Why would this be any different in America?

Thanks for that example. :)

 

Also, if there is supposedly no difference between marriage and domestic partnerships, why does an artificial distinction need to be made between the two? Either call them both marriage, or neither.

That's just the thing, Doomie. There are quite a few differences between marriage and domestic partnerships depending on the state. Some US states don't even recognize domestic partnerships yet whereas others basically equate them to marriage. The federal government recognizes marriage as only between a man and a woman, and as such a whole slew of federal rights and privileges cannot be attained by gay couples.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The federal government recognizes marriage as only between a man and a woman, and as such a whole slew of federal rights and privileges cannot be attained by gay couples.

 

Forgive my ignorance, but Federal Law overrides individual State laws, is that right?

 

If that is the case, then, surely, would it not be better for campaigns to focus on making it a part of Federal Law?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forgive my ignorance, but Federal Law overrides individual State laws, is that right?

 

If that is the case, then, surely, would it not be better for campaigns to focus on making it a part of Federal Law?

sort of. it doesn't mean the federal laws in place will prevent gay marriages from happening, just that federal law won't recognize the marriage exists. as to the effectiveness of campaigning for gay marriage in individual states, the federal government is a lot more socially conservative than the governments of a few states (such as my home state of massachusetts, where i'll only get a ticket or warning for getting baked at a gay wedding, versus being harassed by police and the protesters at the wedding in some other states), so getting at least a few states to recognize gay marriages is better than none and it will build support for gay marriage nationally.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...