If you think women should have choice in marriage, then you are not arguing for the traditional definition of marriage.
Marriage is traditionally anti-woman, and it is only in recent decades that the traditional definition was forced to change. The sexual revolution owns your argument.
And who is saying that you can't love someone and be with someone and join in a union with someone and hold the same benefits as heterosexual married couples enjoy with someone for the rest of your life? Because it's not me.
Gee, that's so forward thinking of you. You'll be in the same room as another human being, you just don't think he or she deserves the same rights as you.
Your personal story is about as touching as any I've heard. It's nice to know you love your brother. I love mine, too. But, I also think he deserves the same rights I do. In fact, I'm sure you would be totally in favor of granting that single homosexual a right you thinkn is yours to pass out. Now that I know something about you, why don't you suck it, homophobe.
Yeah, I'm just as normal as any 20 something year old that spends his youth aching to wear a funny hat and a dress and stop having sex.
So it kind of went from their nightmare to their dream? If I were a woman, I'd be insulted by their portrayl in tv and movies as these attention-starved whisps that just go through life trying to get a man to give a shit about them enough, to stick around long enough, for them to convince them to ask to get married. It's a far cry from the chick I saw in Africa that has to get married with a pile of shit on her head to symbolize that she is lower than the ground the shit falls to and the man walks over.
Well there is meaning behind the word. It is reserved for the union between a man and a woman. It is also a word that the church recognizes as sacred and that view has been in history for as long as, I believe, any historian can recall. I guess I bring up the fuss over the use of the word because of what it entails in my mind.
You almost come off McCain when you tell me that voting 'yes' on Prop-8 would deprive gay couples their rights. Yes, it's true, but you're missing the big picture: I want them to have equal rights. But like the lack of a timeline for troop withdrawl in a senate bill, I won't support the proposition because it provides for the use of the word "marriage" to the union of gay couples.
^might be a bit of a reach but I think I got the gist of it.
Hmm, the fact that you continue to use the word shows your lack of knowledge for the word. As I've said before, I think marriage should be between a man & a woman, just like a few others in this thread, and like plenty of others in the world. I like how you're attempting to attack me when other people have basically said the same thing as me. Don't be a hypocrite, and then try to single out someone to start a losing battle.
__________________ "Major, a great writer once said; "There are clefts in the rock where we see the back part of God and tremble." There's no training for what you saw out there because it's not an enemy that confronts us. It's a new power, let loose through a crack in the cliff of nature's mystery."
Best to ignore him, he's been trying to argue with me over my own opinion. He's worse than a child, to be honest.
__________________ "Major, a great writer once said; "There are clefts in the rock where we see the back part of God and tremble." There's no training for what you saw out there because it's not an enemy that confronts us. It's a new power, let loose through a crack in the cliff of nature's mystery."
A "marriage" can also mean just a "union", as per the dictionary. Repeat: Religion has nothing to do with the legality of marriage, as the State gives you the rights/bonuses that come with marriage, the clergyman and church as just for show.
Voting Yes on 8 will deprive couples and future would be gay-couples of rights/equality. I think you're missing the "big picture", you're willing to deny other people equality over the use of a word you'd happily apply to yourself, if you were married.
Yes, I would happily apply it to myself if I were married. But primarily, because the thought of my own marriage is very far from my mind, I'm thinking of the meaning of marriage itself. So this isn't me being selfish when I'm thinking of marriage, and the millions of straight couples in the U.S. while not neglecting the desires of millions of gay couples in the U.S.
You'd deny equal marriage-rights to gays because of the use of a word, a word you'd happily use yourself. That's not being selfish, that's being unjust, spiteful and probably a good helping of ignorant.
I do not live in California but if I did I would vote "yes". Not because I have anything against gays but because I am against any legal definition of marriage for anybody.
If a person or persons want to consider themselves married fine. If someone wants their religion to recognize them as married then that's fine too.
But there should be no legal definition of marriage by the state, for anybody.
__________________ There are more humans in the world than rats.
Indeed. I dont care if you dislike, like, or completely hate gays, but that still doesnt give you the right in any way to discrimnate them and not give them rights that straight people have. It basically comes down to this: worry about yourself. if you dont like gays, then dont be one, and that alone should make you happy. just because you dont like them means you can go and make there lives miserable.
Who cares if you have gay friends? I find myself consciously creeped out by gay (well gay and European) men and I still think they deserve the same rights that I have. It really doesn't matter if you "like" or "dislike" or "want to burn" gay people, the issues are separate and you cannot justify one with the other.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
KMC Community Forums
Nov 3rd, 2008 08:56 PM
