Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I agree, many groups are denied the right to marry...Feeling better?
Which groups are denied the right to marry? More so, which position on the issue is planing to define marriage as a right enojyed only by themselves?
How I feel is of no importance. Tha'ts apparent from the issue being discussed. How do you feel?
here in florida we have a gay marriage prop too, i think it's prop 2? gays wont be able to marry either way but the conservatives felt the need to propose an amendment that specifically defines marriage as a heterosexual union.
anyway if you fight gay marriage you are fighting a losing battle because eventually it will be legal everywhere in the country, get over it.
the only reason your favorite politicians oppose it is because they know you will be dumb enough to vote for them just to stop queers from getting married. but i have the feeling that in the long run all the opposition will have been a wasted effort.
i think the only logical solution is to abolish marriage as any sort of legal contract and leave it to religions and special groups to perform marriages... or just have your own private ceremony... that way there can be no discriminating and no bitching concerning who can get married to who. but as long as it's a legal affair let the gays get married too to be fair.
Originally posted by Aequo Animo
Discrimination is necessary in many cases for everyday life. A child cannot legally obtain a drivers license until the age of 16 or 17, which is very fair and that is discrimination.
I'm against gay marriage because of how I view the sanctity of marriage, which stills holds more meaning than one can comprehend to many people. If that means redefining the term marriage today to uphold the more traditional substance, so be it.
"But you do recognize Britney Spears getting loaded and married one night and having it annulled the next morning. Or two total strangers getting married for a million ****ing bucks on television. Is that the sanctity of marriage that you assholes are protecting?"―Deborah Novotony
Originally posted by Markus Corvinus
Nothing against gays
If you vote anything other than NO, then you clearly have very much against gays.
As for yourself or lil B thinking gays should want their own ritual; the need for one is totally moot. When all is said and don it's two people deciding to share their lives. There's no need to reinvent the wheel. When two people make a commitment to spend the rest of their lives in an exclusive relationship, it's called a marriage. However, unlike lil B, you have expressed this opinion for all the reasons I stated in my previous post; you just like being asked by a people, gays, if they can please have the same rights Mr. THE MAN, you, has? please, please, please....
Who the **** do you think you are?
Originally posted by Devil King
If you vote anything other than NO, then you clearly have very much against gays.As for yourself or lil B thinking gays should want their own ritual; the need for one is totally moot. When all is said and don it's two people deciding to share their lives. There's no need to reinvent the wheel. When two people make a commitment to spend the rest of their lives in an exclusive relationship, it's called a marriage. However, unlike lil B, you have expressed this opinion for all the reasons I stated in my previous post; you just like being asked by a people, gays, if they can please have the same rights Mr. THE MAN, you, has? please, please, please....
Who the **** do you think you are?
He is a sensible person.
How can marriage be between two men? Its just not what the word means.
A marriage is a union of a man and a woman- that is its definition.
A gay marriage or whatever you want to call it is something else- the fact that he opposes it doesn't mean he is homophobic- and even if he is, why is that wrong? He is also against paedophilia I would reckon, how long until that is made legal?
Who do you think you are? Telling people what they can and can't believe- pretty anti-democratic that, but then again its all contradictory at the end of the day...however there is one simple fact we can all take solace in:
No man can ever ever ever marry another man. He can "marry" another man if he so wishes but it is not real, meaningful, proper legitimate matrimony. Never has been, never will be.
I'm sorry, it just isn't...
Invent another ceremony to express your commitment or whatever, but I demand the right for an equal ceremony to "marry" my house to whom I want everything left to in the event of my death and who are you to deny me that right?
----
I like reg.g.jacks solution.
Abolish marriage in the civil sphere and keep it within personal circles. The can do all the legal stuff in their own way, but the state should not reognise couples as anything more than financial partners...that way we could all marry who we want.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Abolish marriage in the civil sphere and keep it within personal circles. The can do all the legal stuff in their own way, but the state should not reognise couples as anything more than financial partners...that way we could all marry who we want.
Don't forget about the medical stuff, too!
HIPAA n' shit.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
He is a sensible person.How can marriage be between two men? Its just not what the word means.
A marriage is a union of a man and a woman- that is its definition.
A gay marriage or whatever you want to call it is something else- the fact that he opposes it doesn't mean he is homophobic- and even if he is, why is that wrong? He is also against paedophilia I would reckon, how long until that is made legal?
Who do you think you are? Telling people what they can and can't believe- pretty anti-democratic that, but then again its all contradictory at the end of the day...however there is one simple fact we can all take solace in:
No man can ever ever ever marry another man. He can "marry" another man if he so wishes but it is not real, meaningful, proper legitimate matrimony. Never has been, never will be.
I'm sorry, it just isn't...
Invent another ceremony to express your commitment or whatever, but I demand the right for an equal ceremony to "marry" my house to whom I want everything left to in the event of my death and who are you to deny me that right?
A sensible person does favor the removal of the constitutional rights of another, nor does a sensible person put the constitutional rights of a minority up for popular vote.
You are conflating marriage, a legal contract between two unrelated adults and the government, with matrimony, a religious union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
The government is the sole arbiter of what constitutes a marriage. This is evident in that the government does not recognize a religious union as a marriage unless the couple also petitions the government for a license to marry.
It is further evident that it is the government, not religious faiths that is the arbiter of what constitutes a marriage that the government recognizes divorce and remarriage as well as interfaith marriage, even though many religious faiths do not.
Furthermore, no one stated that Markus Corvinus is not entitled to his beliefs about what constitutes a marriage. Rather that Markus Corvinus is not entitled to restrict others from the institution of marriage on the basis of his beliefs.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
He is a sensible person.How can marriage be between two men? Its just not what the word means.
A marriage is a union of a man and a woman- that is its definition.
A gay marriage or whatever you want to call it is something else- the fact that he opposes it doesn't mean he is homophobic- and even if he is, why is that wrong? He is also against paedophilia I would reckon, how long until that is made legal?
Who do you think you are? Telling people what they can and can't believe- pretty anti-democratic that, but then again its all contradictory at the end of the day...however there is one simple fact we can all take solace in:
No man can ever ever ever marry another man. He can "marry" another man if he so wishes but it is not real, meaningful, proper legitimate matrimony. Never has been, never will be.
I'm sorry, it just isn't...
Invent another ceremony to express your commitment or whatever, but I demand the right for an equal ceremony to "marry" my house to whom I want everything left to in the event of my death and who are you to deny me that right?
----
I like reg.g.jacks solution.
Abolish marriage in the civil sphere and keep it within personal circles. The can do all the legal stuff in their own way, but the state should not reognise couples as anything more than financial partners...that way we could all marry who we want.
What an astounding pile of shit you just posted.
The definition of marriage is a state decision, in California and Mass. and Connecticut the definition of marriage isn't soley between a man and a woman. Hence why it's on the ballot in California, to MAKE it that definition. And even if what you said were the case, so what? Definitions can and do change through time, words evolve and progress, nothing is stopping marriage from doing the same thing.
You can sit there and say that marriage can't ever be valid if it's between two men all you want, the state in which the marriage took place would obviously disagree with you, and they're the authority, not you.
Really though, your entire post should be thrown down the shitter simply because you made the fallacious slippery slope connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. That alone shows a spectacularly ignorant viewpoint that holds no validity or common sense at all.
And I'm not sure, but I'm also thinking that you just compared someone marrying an inanimate object (your house) to gay marriage. That's even more idiotic than your pedophile comparison.
Originally posted by BackFire
What an astounding pile of shit you just posted.The definition of marriage is a state decision, in California and Mass. and Connecticut the definition of marriage isn't soley between a man and a woman. Hence why it's on the ballot in California, to MAKE it that definition. And even if what you said were the case, so what? Definitions can and do change through time, words evolve and progress, nothing is stopping marriage from doing the same thing.
You can sit there and say that marriage can't ever be valid if it's between two men all you want, the state in which the marriage took place would obviously disagree with you, and they're the authority, not you.
Really though, your entire post should be thrown down the shitter simply because you made the fallacious slippery slope connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. That alone shows a spectacularly ignorant viewpoint that holds no validity or common sense at all.
And I'm not sure, but I'm also thinking that you just compared someone marrying an inanimate object (your house) to gay marriage. That's even more idiotic than your pedophile comparison.
B...but why?
Originally posted by BackFire
Why what?
Well, you made some points- its a fallacy being the big one, but didn't say why it was a fallacy, admittedly I know the answer but I would like you to actually make an argument to refute my original assertion. Not just say, that's not true, that's not true oh and that's a fallacy.
Also, I should perhaps clarify that I was discussing marriage in a religious context, if any of you cared to read I said I was happily in favour of allowing gay/lesbian couples having a civil partnership or whatever. However the logic that "well why should one group get to do something then tell another they can't" leads to everyone getting to "marry" what they want because no group should have the right to tell them not too...(at which point your going to go on about consent and/or how viable such a marriage would be etc etc but it won't change the fact that DK's logic leads to- everyone being able to marry whatever and whoever they want).
Oh, while we're on this wonderful topic of marriage...
should polygamy be illegal?
lol @ anyone who thinks we should use a traditional definition of marriage
sexual revolution? anyone?
men owning women, who their father paid to be rid of the responsibility of?
The use of women as property to create family allegiance and improve inheritance?
Marriage, as in people being ordained by the state to receive certain tax, insurance and property rights has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with "traditional" marriage, lest you want to bring back the possession of women by men.
You know why it's a fallacy? Then why did you commit the fallacy in your argument? It's the fallacy of slippery slope, the idea that one thing will somehow lead to something else without giving evidence or reason as to why it would lead to that (I.E. If we allow gays to marry then what's stopping people from marrying kids and toasters?) You offered no evidence as to how gay marriage would lead to such an outcome, so it's a fallacy. But you knew that. So you purposefully committed the fallacy, makes sense.
A civil partnership isn't marriage. Marriage is marriage. The religious context is moot because churches would still be free to refuse to marry gay people if they so wished. Their freedom of religion wouldn't be overruled. Gay marriage would simply make the government recognize the union between a gay couple to be on equal ground as the union between two straight people. Actually has shit to do with religion.
Also, polygamy should be discussed and debated on its own merits, seeing as it's completely irrelevant to gay marriage being legalized.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
B...but why?
Because you just said that two men getting married was a gateway drug to turning the world into Gomorrah. Because you just said that two adult human males who love each other every bit as much as those heterosexual couples can never get married for all the same reasons those heterosexual couples utilize. Because you just compared my marriage to the utterly absurd act of marrying the inanimate object in which you live. T-Th-Th-That's W-wh-wh-wh-why.
But I suppose you realize all that. Instead, you want me to explain why it's absurd for you to marry your home, rather than telling me how it's absurd when two human beings get married, they can never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever be two women? You just say it can't ever, ever, ever happen because it just can't happen? Tell me why it can for a man and a woman? And more importantly, see if you can do it without using your book of ancient Jewish superstitions.
Originally posted by Devil King
Tell me why it can for a man and a woman? And more importantly, see if you can do it without using your book of ancient Jewish superstitions.
Thursday morning I was listening to my favorite radio talkshow on the way to work. The radio personality Dan "The Man" Alvarez, an Atheist, gave his own secular reasoning for his opposition to gay marriage. He argues that the term itself "gay marriage" is inherently an oxymoron. It's origins are political, financial and were between a man and a woman. He says that when we have to tweak and torque things to suit us, they lose their definition. He had an analogy: if kicking the ball, tackling, and travelling are all made legal in basketball just because a small group of people want to make it that way, is it still basketball?