Proposal Requires Straights to Have Kids or Marriages Will Be Voided

Originally posted by Devil King
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.

My opinion isn't right, nor is it wrong. Same with your opinion, it's not right or wrong. That's the thing about opinion based topics, there is no right or wrong opinion.

I never once stated that it would diminish my own marriage to a man. I'm just stating that I don't think that we should redefine marriage. No matter what I say you're just going to say "that's stupid".
It's not going to stop at gay marriage. I don't care if you say it will. People like you said the same thing every time something has changed in history. It never stops until you stop it. So imagine gay marriage has already been legalized. Forget the fact that it isn't. Who do you think the next group to fight for rights will be?

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

Which is a dumb thing to say, as opinions can be wrong, if facts and/or sound logic effectively prove them to be faulty.

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

Thank you. I seriously think that you're one of the few people that actually has a brain and knows how to read.

How many times did I have to state that "AN opinion cannot be wrong" before someone actually got it.

You're implying there that if it is not fixed in form now then later it will end up with man marrying fish, or whatever.

I doubt that. Cases have their own merits, some a re deserving and some are not, but some might be deserving but have been overlooked. Just because that is corrected does not mean therefore ANYTHING will eventually become allowed.

Marriage has already changed to how we currently tend to define it, so it is not as if there is some original form to fight for, even if that was desirable, which I doubt.

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.

No doubt. And that's what people work on legally. She is wrong about the term marriage in day to day language though. She is wrong about having saying that opinions can't be wrong, and she is wrong about extending the legal definition to meaning that the meaning of marriages is somehow lessened, though I admit that is harder to prove than the other two.

Take something like polygamy, no one would deny that it is a form of marriage, yet neither the dictionary nor the legal definition include that.

A-and there's nothing wrong with Merriam Webster.

Originally posted by Robtard
Which is a dumb thing to say, as opinions can be wrong, if facts and/or sound logic effectively prove them to be faulty.

There is not a single fact proving whether or not gay marriage is right or wrong. Therefore, no opinion based on the topic of gay marriage is right or wrong.

Originally posted by Robtard
Which is a dumb thing to say, as opinions can be wrong, if facts and/or sound logic effectively prove them to be faulty.

This isn't really a mathematical issue though, is it?

Something like marriage is an entirely human construct and frankly it is an area where you cannot definitvely rate one opinion over another.

Getting a little bit into the Philosophy area there, though.

Originally posted by Sabrea
It's not going to stop at gay marriage.

So, all your experience in the GSA was a waste of time. You are of the opinion that if gays are allowed to marry, that the next group will want to marry a goat or a snake.

Perhaps since you've made the claim that every time in history something like gay marriage has been allowed, that it's been abused, you can cite us some examples of this slippery slope concept?

Originally posted by Bardock42
No doubt. And that's what people work on legally. She is wrong about the term marriage in day to day language though. She is wrong about having saying that opinions can't be wrong, and she is wrong about extending the legal definition to meaning that the meaning of marriages is somehow lessened, though I admit that is harder to prove than the other two.

Take something like polygamy, no one would deny that it is a form of marriage, yet neither the dictionary nor the legal definition include that.

A-and there's nothing wrong with Merriam Webster.

First, yes there is- it's rubbish.

Secondly... I don't think she is wrong about how it is used at all. I think the majority backs her, and I think it is an extreme obsufcation to try and argue that point where those fighting for gay marriage are very much aware that this is a matter of changing the way we view the term 'marriage'- which is currently predominatly viewed as a man/woman thing. They want it changed, she wants it kept the same. No need to confuse it beyond that.

I'm really not convinced by what you say about opinions either, in this matter.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
You're implying there that if it is not fixed in form now then later it will end up with man marrying fish, or whatever.

Not necessarily pertaining to marriage, but possibly. I do think that polygamists will use the legalization of gay marriage as a door. Maybe not in the near future, but in the distant future - it's already legal in some countries.

Nothing will come of it in the near future, which is why no one is really too worried about it because they won't see it. But imagine you would see it. I'm sure there's plenty of groups you would all fight against, so how can you say I'm wrong with disagreeing with something when there's obviously groups you disagree with?

Originally posted by Sabrea
There is not a single fact proving whether or not gay marriage is right or wrong. Therefore, no opinion based on the topic of gay marriage is right or wrong.

Would you mind telling me your thoughts on the 'whys' and 'hows' on "marriage losing it's meaning" though? You have yet to answer and substantiate your opinion.

Well, actually, I think in some countries it was never ILlegal, which harks back to me saying that there isn't actually an 'original' definition of marriage to protect, because that's long gone.

The point is, as I say, is that individual cases have different merits. Ultimately, those with merit to be included in the term 'marriage' should be in, others should not. I don't think it is true that if you allow one you allow all.

Sure she has. She's a proponent of the slippery slope argument. It only took 4 pages of conversation to get her to admit it. I can't imagine why someone wouldn't want to just come out and say it; like they're worried their argument doesn't hold water or something.

And the Commander Data approach to the definition of a word isn't going to accomplish anything, much less has it. This girl with all the gay friends and experience in the GSA has come out the other side of that experience assuming that if her best friends are allowed to marry, some one will lobby for the right to marry a chipmunk. Way to go Sabrea, you're friends clearly mean a lot to you. Deny them their rights based on the notion that their relationships are one step above beastiality.

The GSA has done wonders for you.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
First, yes there is- it's rubbish.

Secondly... I don't think she is wrong about how it is used at all. I think the majority backs her, and I think it is an extreme obsufcation to try and argue that point where those fighting for gay marriage are very much aware that this is a matter of changing the way we view the term 'marriage'- which is currently predominatly viewed as a man/woman thing. They want it changed, she wants it kept the same. No need to confuse it beyond that.

I'm really not convinced by what you say about opinions either, in this matter.

You are not convinced that opinions can be wrong? Okay, I will leave you with that.

As for the term, everyone calls it already "gay marriage". The only problem is that it is not recognized by the government as marriage (well and that it's not the same rights yet)...but if it had equal standing to call one a civil union and one a marriage would have no logical ground to stand on really. It does not lessen a marriage, it doesn't affect a marriage at all actually, you could call a marriage "dogshit" and it would still be the same thing, it might lessen ones opinion of marriage, but really, that's just their problem. Can you give a good reason why gay marriage (oh, there I said it already), I meant gay civil unions, provided that provide the same rights, should not be called marriage, that is based on anything but personal bias?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, actually, I think in some countries it was never ILlegal, which harks back to me saying that there isn't actually an 'original' definition of marriage to protect, because that's long gone.

The point is, as I say, is that individual cases have different merits. Ultimately, those with merit to be included in the term 'marriage' should be in, others should not. I don't think it is true that if you allow one you allow all.

It's not true that if you "allow on you allow all". But America has shown that if you fight the government enough, you'll get what you want. There hasn't been a group that lost when trying to get what they want. So honestly, why do you all really care what I think? The end outcome will be gay marriage legalized, because the government has taught us that groups that fight will get their way.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
This isn't really a mathematical issue though, is it?

Something like marriage is an entirely human construct and frankly it is an area where you cannot definitvely rate one opinion over another.

Getting a little bit into the Philosophy area there, though.

She expressed the opinion "marriage would lose it's meaning", I am asking her to substantiate this.

I am of the opinion, that gay-marriages, wouldn't effect my marriage or another straight person's marriage. I can also give logical reasons as to why I think this.

Actually you can, using logic, reason, facts and/or proof, you can rate an opinion as being more valid over another.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You are not convinced that opinions can be wrong? Okay, I will leave you with that.

As for the term, everyone calls it already "gay marriage". The only problem is that it is not recognized by the government as marriage (well and that it's not the same rights yet)...but if it had equal standing to call one a civil union and one a marriage would have no logical ground to stand on really. It does not lessen a marriage, it doesn't affect a marriage at all actually, you could call a marriage "dogshit" and it would still be the same thing, it might lessen ones opinion of marriage, but really, that's just their problem. Can you give a good reason why gay marriage (oh, there I said it already), I meant gay civil unions, provided that provide the same rights, should not be called marriage, that is based on anything but personal bias?

In a huge number of matters opinions have no quality of right or wrong, no. That should be obvious.

The fact that people call it gay marriage is specifically to distinguish it from the simple term 'marriage', wehich speaks a lot.

Of course, you say 'everyone', but that is also a confusion- huge swathes of the world don't even recognise the concept. What you would be wrong to do is deny the fact that the defintion of marriage is something that is currently in flux and being fought over.

Why you are asking me the rest of those questions, I have absolutely no idea.

Originally posted by Robtard
She expressed the opinion "marriage would lose it's meaning", I am asking her to substantiate this.

I am of the opinion, that gay-marriages, wouldn't effect my marriage or another straight person's marriage. I can also give logical reasons as to why I think this.

Actually you can, using logic, reason, facts and/or proof, you can rate an opinion as being more valid over another.

In most areas that interpretation would only be further opinion, though.

Rating films, books or, say, comedians is all a matter of opinion. You are in remarkable denial if you lose sight of that. And with human constructs such as marriage,. the same applies. There's no huge underlying truth that anyone can refer to to judge it by, so it's all opinion.

She has said it would affect it because it would change the definition. You are all asking the wrong question- you should be asking the one I asked pages back, which is simply- why does it matter if it is changed?

People seem to have a remarkable ability to lose sight of the point of things around here. I see it in thread after thread; points get lost amidst a welter of personal attacks and aggressive fights simply for the sake of it.

man thats stupid. what if the couple dont want kids? seriously this shit is messed up.

Originally posted by Sabrea
It's not true that if you "allow on you allow all". But America has shown that if you fight the government enough, you'll get what you want. There hasn't been a group that lost when trying to get what they want. So honestly, why do you all really care what I think? The end outcome will be gay marriage legalized, because the government has taught us that groups that fight will get their way.

Well, in that case, why are you worried about the gay marriage? By your argument, won't the polygamists get their way whether gays do or not?