Proposal Requires Straights to Have Kids or Marriages Will Be Voided

Originally posted by Sabrea
Thank you for supporting gay rights and not knowing what GSA is!!! The Gay-Straight Alliance is one of THE biggest gay rights groups in the united states. It doesn't pertain to *just* high school groups. Our group actually went on constant trips to gay rights functions that consisted of *adults* not *teenagers*. The only teenagers there were our group, and maybe one or two other high school area groups.

Yeah, except I didn't say that the GSA was only a high school club. I remember when the gay-straight alliance was formed. You said you were a member of the GSA for 2 years of the 4 you were in high school, and couldn't participate in it for the last 2 of your 4 years in high school because you had to work. What I did say was that you basing your opinion on gay marriage being more about rights than about marriage, is based on the notion that the people you encountered weren't in favor of gay marriage, so much as they were just proponents of gay rights. Well, at any given time, I'm pretty sure there are more people around that aren't getting married or have no immeadiate plans to get married, than there are people who have someone they'd like to marry. I feel you misinterpreted their meaning, is my point. Just because someone is arguing for gay marriage, doesn't mean that they have to have plans to get married as soon as it becomes legal, you get my point?

Originally posted by Sabrea
Personally, I feel the meaning behind the term marriage would be lost. That's my opinion. A good majority of Americans would side me, unfortunately for different reasons (mostly gay-bashing reasons).

See, this is where I think you've projected your personal opinion on the issue on to the majority of gay people you know. There's another thread around here where the term "non-truth" is bandied around. You're not anti-gay marriage, you're pro-marriage purity. There for, you wasted 2 of your 4 years in high school being a member of the gay-straight alliance, because a gay marriage can be just as virtuous and meaningful as straight marriage. I, personally, can't imagine what justification you could possibly have for thinking that by allowing gay marriage, you'll some how diminish straight marriage AND still expect us to believe you aren't talking out of your ass.

Originally posted by Sabrea
Also, I don't feel that bashing my opinion is really going to get anyone anywhere. I know you (you meaning anyone that has bashed my opinion) feel that I'm am against same-sex marriage because I'm gay-bashing or whatever, basically putting down what they want/think - their opinions. But you're kind of doing the same thing that you think I'm doing. You think I'm bashing the opinion of gay rights, I just don't think the term marriage should be used. Yet you're all bashing my opinion in telling me not to do so, it's slightly hypocritical. You state that they should be able to use the term marriage because America is a free country, yet you're basically telling me that *my* opinion is wrong - so how can you argue for one persons freedom while taking away someone elses to do so?

I don't think anything of you other than what you've said about yourself. And what you've said is that you spent two years in the GSA, where you encountered gays that wanted gay rights but didn't want to get married, and some how came out the other side of that experience still thinking that gay marriage would ruin straight marriage. So, yes, your opinion is wrong. But I am in no way telling you you can't express it. Express away.

Originally posted by Devil King
Yeah, except I didn't say that the GSA was only a high school club.

What I did say was that you basing your opinion on gay marriage being more about rights than about marriage, is based on the notion that the people you encountered weren't in favor of gay marriage, so much as they were just proponents of gay rights. Well, at any given time, I'm pretty sure there are more people around that aren't getting married or have no immeadiate plans to get married, than there are people who have someone they'd like to marry. I feel you misinterpreted their meaning, is my point. Just because someone is arguing for gay marriage, doesn't mean that they have to have plans to get married as soon as it becomes legal, you get my point?

So, yes, your opinion is wrong.

Originally posted by Sabrea
You state that they should be able to use the term marriage because America is a free country, yet you're basically telling me that *my* opinion is wrong - so how can you argue for one persons freedom while taking away someone elses to do so?

Originally posted by Bardock42
How extremely stupid. No one takes away your freedoms, you can voice your stupid opinion whenever you want. Calling it idiotic is not taking away your freedom.

There's a difference between calling an opinion "idiotic" and blatantly implying an opinion is "wrong" or should be changed.

This is a great opportunity for someone who is pro-gay rights, to explain to us why they are for civil unions that are, right-wise, the same as marriage, but not in favor of calling it marriage.

Because, while we wait for you to explain why you're of that opinion, we can digest the fact that you don't think it should be called marriage because some people won't like that the gays are getting uppity enough to want to get married. Whatever your justification, it doesn't change the fact that gay people are still in a position that we have to cater our lives around the idea that we not offend the gracious strights that have allowed us to get married and act like American citizens.

As for your concept of an opinion, I guess we can let that speak for itself. Opinions can certainly be wrong.

Originally posted by Sabrea
There's a difference between calling an opinion "idiotic" and blatantly implying an opinion is "wrong" or should be changed.

No. A stupid opinion the way I use it means it is WRONG. Yes, opinions, like yours, can be WRONG. And I believe that WRONG opinions, like yours, should be changed.

Originally posted by Sabrea

Personally, I feel the meaning behind the term marriage would be lost. That's my opinion. A good majority of Americans would side me, unfortunately for different reasons (mostly gay-bashing reasons).

How exactly would the meaning and/or marriage itself "be lost", in your opinion?

I fail to how other people being married, changes my marriage.

Originally posted by Robtard
How exactly would this happen, in your opinion?

Apparently it doesn't matter what my opinion is - I have currently been informed by ignorant morons on this thread that I'm not entitled to an opinion unless I conform to the norm opinion basis. Otherwise, according to them, my opinion is wrong. Although, as far as I knew and as far as the dictionary knows, an opinion cannot be wrong unless I'm blatantly incorrect about a proven fact - otherwise an opinion is a personal view. But I'm apparently not allowed to have one because I don't agree with them. Sorry for having my own brain and thinking on my own, I'll try harder not to do it next time.

Originally posted by Sabrea
Apparently it doesn't matter what my opinion is - I have currently been informed by ignorant morons on this thread that I'm not entitled to an opinion unless I conform to the norm opinion basis. Otherwise, according to them, my opinion is wrong. Although, as far as I knew and as far as the dictionary knows, an opinion cannot be wrong unless I'm blatantly incorrect about a proven fact - otherwise an opinion is a personal view. But I'm apparently not allowed to have one because I don't agree with them. Sorry for having my own brain and thinking on my own, I'll try harder not to do it next time.

1) An opinion can be wrong
2) An opinion is wrong, if facts, proof or sound logic do not support it

So, in your opinion, how exactly would marriage lose it's meaning, if gays were allowed to marry?

Originally posted by Sabrea
Apparently it doesn't matter what my opinion is - I have currently been informed by ignorant morons on this thread that I'm not entitled to an opinion unless I conform to the norm opinion basis.

Bullshit again. You have been informed if it was a stupid opinion it would be appreciated that you change it. You can have your idiotic opinion, but it would be stupid.

Originally posted by Sabrea
Otherwise, according to them, my opinion is wrong.

No, when you don't have arguments and your opinion is irrational...that's when it is wrong. Supported by the fact that you don't support your argument in any manner and just dodge...your opinion is indeed stupid and wrong.

Originally posted by Sabrea
Although, as far as I knew and as far as the dictionary knows, an opinion cannot be wrong unless I'm blatantly incorrect about a proven fact

Like that applying the term marriage to gays wouldn't lessen straight marriages nor change the term marriage strongly.

Originally posted by Sabrea
- otherwise an opinion is a personal view.

Yeah, not this case.

Originally posted by Sabrea
But I'm apparently not allowed to have one because I don't agree with them. Sorry for having my own brain and thinking on my own, I'll try harder not to do it next time.

I wouldn't mind if you had your own brain and would use it. You just don't.

See, this lack of any conclusions or justifying input is why it's dangerous to pretend that everyone being entitled to their opinion is the same as everyone's opinion being right. (It must mean right, if it can't be wrong)

All I'm asking you to do, Sabrea, is explain to us why you think that gay marriage, and calling it such, would diminish heterosexual marriage. As it is, you've been backed into a corner and are attempting to argue the merrits of an opinion, instead of staying on topic and explaining why gay marriage would ruin straight marriage.

Originally posted by Robtard
1) An opinion can be wrong
2) An opinion is wrong, if facts, proof or sound logic do not support it

So, in your opinion, how exactly would marriage lose it's meaning, if gays were allowed to marry?

Yes, an opinion can be wrong. But not on an issue like this. The issue of gay marriage is still currently an undecided issue and everyone is entitled their own opinion. I'm not trying to disprove any facts, so there is no way way my opinion can be wrong.

Marriage is an institution between a man and a women. That's all there is to it, and I personally believe it should stay that way. I'm not saying that they can't have rights, I'm just saying that they shouldn't be able to redefine the term marriage.

Originally posted by Sabrea
Yes, an opinion can be wrong. But not on an issue like this. The issue of gay marriage is still currently an undecided issue and everyone is entitled their own opinion. I'm not trying to disprove any facts, so there is no way way my opinion can be wrong.

Marriage is an institution between a man and a women. That's all there is to it, and I personally believe it should stay that way. I'm not saying that they can't have rights, I'm just saying that they shouldn't be able to redefine the term marriage.

Yeah, well Merriam Webster disagrees with you:

Main Entry:
mar·riage Listen to the pronunciation of marriage
Pronunciation:
\ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date:
14th century

1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=marriage&x=0&y=0

I think you do get a bit wedded to the dictionary, Bardock (especially a crud one like Miriam-Webster)

Sabrea is right about the term marriage as legally recognised in the USA.

Originally posted by Sabrea
Yes, an opinion can be wrong. But not on an issue like this. The issue of gay marriage is still currently an undecided issue and everyone is entitled their own opinion. I'm not trying to disprove any facts, so there is no way way my opinion can be wrong.

Marriage is an institution between a man and a women. That's all there is to it, and I personally believe it should stay that way. I'm not saying that they can't have rights, I'm just saying that they shouldn't be able to redefine the term marriage.

You said "marriage would lose it's meaning", this is your opinion; I am fine with that.

What I am asking, is how do you think this "lose" would occure, and what would be the outcome?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I think you do get a bit wedded to the dictionary, Bardock (especially a crud one like Miriam-Webster)

Sabrea is right about the term marriage as legally recognised in the USA.

...and at one point, blacks weren't legally recognized as being individuals worthy of having the same rights, yet fortunately, people saw the lack of logic and flawed reasoning behind that line of thinking.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Sabrea is right about the term marriage as legally recognised in the USA.

Sabrea being right about the current legal definition of marriage is one thing, but that doesn't make her opinion right, in general.

What I am asking her to do is explain her opinion. I'm asking why two women getting married will diminish her marriage to a man.

The lack of an explaination for her opinion only makes her look unwilling, which implies a lack of knowledge of her own opinion, or the heterosexually exclusive mindset I've addressed a thousand times in regards to this topic.

Yes, but that doesn't change the point at all, which was that you cannot use that dictionary defintion to say Sabrea is wrong to say that marriage currently means something just between a man and a woman, because basically, by US law, she is right.

Whether it is desirable that it stays that way is another question. But fdor sure, you cannot say that just because it was wrong with blacks it is therefore wrong now; you have to advance the argument on its own merit.

If she wants to say her opinion can't be wrong, then she needs to explain her opinion.

I think she is actually claiming that no opinion can be wrong, not just specifically hers.