|
#1 Marriage is not a right. If we want to call it a right, then by that standard, every american is entitled to this no? So, what about Polygamists, NAMBLA, pedophilia, etc. Marriage is a benefit, not a right.
#2 I have no problem with Civil Unions. However, Marriage is strictly between a man and a woman.
#3 Do homosexuals want marriage, because of the benefits it bestows (Which they can all ready get from civil unions, or other ways outside of marriage such as Power of Attorney), or because they want to impose their views on society. It's obviously the latter.
Please, homosexuals stop trying to impose your ideology onto others. It's getting a tad ridiculous. You aren't happy with having the same benefits in civil unions, you just want to the name 'marriage' and to impose your views on everyone. You can see this with gestapo anti-prop 8 supporters in california. Vandalizing churches, pushing down old people, threatening people, etc. They only do it to whites and LDS churches / Catholic churches. Yet, blacks and hispanics overwhelmingly voted for prop 8 who come from very traditional backgrounds. Do they go out and try and threaten them?
Anyways, have your civil unions and benefits, but marriage is between a man and a woman period.
|
On May 30 2009 09:09 scwizard wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 08:02 scwizard wrote:
I know numerous gay/bi/queer types. Sometimes it seems like half the girls I know are bi. I like these people and wish for their happiness, and that is why I oppose proposition 8. So yeah that's my position, and that position makes me wonder, do people like houseurmusic know any gay people? Do they have any gay friends? Do they have any gay people that they admire?
Allen Turing is the first that comes to my head. I'm sure there is more but me stating people I admire whom are gay has nothing to do with anything.
I can be gay for all you know. There are many gays that are not for gay marraige.
My arguement is straight from symmantics, I have no emotional connection to this subject. Please stop pretending that I do, and take some time to read my posts and try to understand what I am saying.
|
United States12607 Posts
On May 30 2009 09:12 Idle wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 09:09 houseurmusic wrote:On May 30 2009 09:06 JWD wrote:On May 30 2009 08:34 houseurmusic wrote:On May 30 2009 08:17 D10 wrote:On May 30 2009 07:56 houseurmusic wrote:
Although I am very liberal I am concerned about the institution of marraige. Marraige is the foundation to a proper family. Almost all these sacred bonds between a man and a women yield children. These children will have the best chance for survival if their parents are in love and don't stray. This is true from a Darwinian point of view, being in love means there is less chance of straying to another partner because of chemical reactions tricking our minds into believing the one we are with is the best possible choice. However, this chemical reaction isn't enough. Humans are a very social species and even in the most primitive cultures there was the idea of this sacred bond between men and women. People who loved, and cultures that had this bond were the groups that had the best chance of survival, and thus went on reproducing to lead to us.
This sacred bond has then been passed on as a meme for thousands of years now. We call this bond marraige. This bond is understood universally since every culture has a form of it. It is also the same word that connects us to our most primitive ancestors.
Do I care about gays being together? Hell no, but should we call a union between two of them marraige? The answer is simple. No. You sir are a hateful fool, like all the others against it. Catch words like Sacred bond, foundation proper family and even survival are nothing more than a pile of bullshit If anything a society with more gays is the only thing that can keep our world from being completely flooded with people, and more orphans with decent family that care for them. As I have posted before in this thread http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alec-baldwin/why-childless-straight-co_b_208457.html Here is pretty well writen the basic explanation of why theres no rational explanation of why gay couples should be denied this right. If a straight couple can decide not to have any children at all, only marry for pleasure, benefits, and being with each other, why cant gay couples do the same ? Also, gay couples have as many options as many couples in regards to having children, lesbians can do in vitro, and they can adopt in general. Also saying that gay couples are unfit to raise children as a whole is a hatefull assumption, as there are many straight couples completely unqualified and qualified to the job who completely screw their children life in every possible way daily. If you really believe that marriage is all about the children (which seems to be the only straw man left), then straight couples should not be able to marry until they have children, and that still is not enough grounds to forbid gay marriage because all the "evidence" on gays being unfit to raise children is steriotype based. no where in my post did I say that gays cannot raise children or are unfit to. Oh come on: On May 30 2009 07:56 houseurmusic wrote:Marraige is the foundation to a proper family. On May 30 2009 07:56 houseurmusic wrote:Do I care about gays being together? Hell no, but should we call a union between two of them marraige? The answer is simple. No. "Marriage is the foundation to a proper family" "Two gays together shouldn't be called a marriage" Sounds like "gays are unfit to raise children" to me. Then please, objectively define a proper family for me. You can't objectively define a proper family. I can't, he can't, you can't. A "proper family" is only what somebody decides is a proper family. Your definition is no more right than anybody else's. Its a personal belief, and you have no right to decide what constitutes a "proper family" for anybody but yourself.
This is relativist bullshit and has no place in this thread. Of course I can objectively define a proper family. You may disagree with my definition, but here it goes:
A proper family is a social unit which will provide children with a proper upbringing.
|
On May 30 2009 09:13 Aegraen wrote:
Please, homosexuals stop trying to impose your ideology onto others.
This is the most hypocritical comment I've seen in a long time. You want to ban people from being married because of your personal views, yet feel they're imposing their ideology on others by wanting something which will have no effect on you in any way? I... don't even know how to respond to something that asinine.
|
United States12607 Posts
On May 30 2009 09:13 Aegraen wrote:
#2 I have no problem with Civil Unions. However, Marriage is strictly between a man and a woman.
Please provide any rational justification for this statement.
#3 Do homosexuals want marriage, because of the benefits it bestows (Which they can all ready get from civil unions, or other ways outside of marriage such as Power of Attorney), or because they want to impose their views on society. It's obviously the latter.
This statement is so absurd It's hardly worth addressing. How does getting married (an intimate rite between you, your spouse, and your closest family and friends) "impose views on society"? What the fuck does that even mean? Are you suggesting that, by marrying, gays are trying to tell people to be gay? When you get married, are you going to see it as some sort of social commentary??
|
On May 30 2009 08:02 scwizard wrote:
I know numerous gay/bi/queer types. Sometimes it seems like half the girls I know are bi. I like these people and wish for their happiness, and that is why I oppose proposition 8.
Do you know they can get everything a married couple has in a civil union, however it's not 'called' marriage so their supposed 'rights' are being infringed. Ludicrous crap. No one is denying them anything. They can go frolic and cavort in their house, wherever, no one is stopping them.
Answer me this. Is anyone stopping them from being together?
|
United States12607 Posts
Dear houseurmusic, because you apparently missed it from the last page:
On May 30 2009 09:12 JWD wrote:
First off, LEARN TO SPELL MARRIAGE BEFORE YOU TRY TO ENTER A DEBATE ABOUT IT
|
On May 30 2009 09:14 JWD wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 09:12 Idle wrote:On May 30 2009 09:09 houseurmusic wrote:On May 30 2009 09:06 JWD wrote:On May 30 2009 08:34 houseurmusic wrote:On May 30 2009 08:17 D10 wrote:On May 30 2009 07:56 houseurmusic wrote:
Although I am very liberal I am concerned about the institution of marraige. Marraige is the foundation to a proper family. Almost all these sacred bonds between a man and a women yield children. These children will have the best chance for survival if their parents are in love and don't stray. This is true from a Darwinian point of view, being in love means there is less chance of straying to another partner because of chemical reactions tricking our minds into believing the one we are with is the best possible choice. However, this chemical reaction isn't enough. Humans are a very social species and even in the most primitive cultures there was the idea of this sacred bond between men and women. People who loved, and cultures that had this bond were the groups that had the best chance of survival, and thus went on reproducing to lead to us.
This sacred bond has then been passed on as a meme for thousands of years now. We call this bond marraige. This bond is understood universally since every culture has a form of it. It is also the same word that connects us to our most primitive ancestors.
Do I care about gays being together? Hell no, but should we call a union between two of them marraige? The answer is simple. No. You sir are a hateful fool, like all the others against it. Catch words like Sacred bond, foundation proper family and even survival are nothing more than a pile of bullshit If anything a society with more gays is the only thing that can keep our world from being completely flooded with people, and more orphans with decent family that care for them. As I have posted before in this thread http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alec-baldwin/why-childless-straight-co_b_208457.html Here is pretty well writen the basic explanation of why theres no rational explanation of why gay couples should be denied this right. If a straight couple can decide not to have any children at all, only marry for pleasure, benefits, and being with each other, why cant gay couples do the same ? Also, gay couples have as many options as many couples in regards to having children, lesbians can do in vitro, and they can adopt in general. Also saying that gay couples are unfit to raise children as a whole is a hatefull assumption, as there are many straight couples completely unqualified and qualified to the job who completely screw their children life in every possible way daily. If you really believe that marriage is all about the children (which seems to be the only straw man left), then straight couples should not be able to marry until they have children, and that still is not enough grounds to forbid gay marriage because all the "evidence" on gays being unfit to raise children is steriotype based. no where in my post did I say that gays cannot raise children or are unfit to. Oh come on: On May 30 2009 07:56 houseurmusic wrote:Marraige is the foundation to a proper family. On May 30 2009 07:56 houseurmusic wrote:Do I care about gays being together? Hell no, but should we call a union between two of them marraige? The answer is simple. No. "Marriage is the foundation to a proper family" "Two gays together shouldn't be called a marriage" Sounds like "gays are unfit to raise children" to me. Then please, objectively define a proper family for me. You can't objectively define a proper family. I can't, he can't, you can't. A "proper family" is only what somebody decides is a proper family. Your definition is no more right than anybody else's. Its a personal belief, and you have no right to decide what constitutes a "proper family" for anybody but yourself. This is relativist bullshit and has no place in this thread. Of course I can objectively define a proper family. You may disagree with my definition, but here it goes: A proper family is a social unit which will provide children with a proper upbringing.
That's still not objective. Your view is that a proper family must provide children with a "proper upbringing." That's completely subjective. Your view of a proper upbringing can be completely different than somebody elses. The fact that I can disagree with your definition and we can have a debate on it is the very definition of subjective.
|
On May 30 2009 09:17 JWD wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 09:13 Aegraen wrote:
#2 I have no problem with Civil Unions. However, Marriage is strictly between a man and a woman. Please provide any rational justification for this statement. Show nested quote +#3 Do homosexuals want marriage, because of the benefits it bestows (Which they can all ready get from civil unions, or other ways outside of marriage such as Power of Attorney), or because they want to impose their views on society. It's obviously the latter. This statement is so absurd It's hardly worth addressing. How does getting married (an intimate rite between you, your spouse, and your closest family and friends) "impose views on society"? What the fuck does that even mean? Are you suggesting that, by marrying, gays are trying to tell people to be gay? When you get married, are you going to see it as some sort of social commentary??
Because they can get all the benefits that a married couple has with civil unions. They aren't losing out on any benefits, yet, they still employ gestapo tactics, threaten, and call everyone who opposes them bigots.
Of course if a group of people have the exact same thing as another group, yet the other group (GLBT) are trying to change the meaning of marriage, you don't think they are imposing on the second group at all?
|
On May 30 2009 09:17 Idle wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 09:13 Aegraen wrote:
Please, homosexuals stop trying to impose your ideology onto others. This is the most hypocritical comment I've seen in a long time. You want to ban people from being married because of your personal views, yet feel they're imposing their ideology on others by wanting something which will have no effect on you in any way? I... don't even know how to respond to something that asinine.
Do you realize that Civil Unions have the same benefits as Marriage? Civil union is a contract with the state, marriage is a religious ceremony and between a man and a woman.
Off topic, but yes it does in fact effect me. I am paying for their benefits with my tax dollars.
|
On May 30 2009 09:12 Idle wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 09:09 houseurmusic wrote:On May 30 2009 09:06 JWD wrote:On May 30 2009 08:34 houseurmusic wrote:On May 30 2009 08:17 D10 wrote:On May 30 2009 07:56 houseurmusic wrote:
Although I am very liberal I am concerned about the institution of marraige. Marraige is the foundation to a proper family. Almost all these sacred bonds between a man and a women yield children. These children will have the best chance for survival if their parents are in love and don't stray. This is true from a Darwinian point of view, being in love means there is less chance of straying to another partner because of chemical reactions tricking our minds into believing the one we are with is the best possible choice. However, this chemical reaction isn't enough. Humans are a very social species and even in the most primitive cultures there was the idea of this sacred bond between men and women. People who loved, and cultures that had this bond were the groups that had the best chance of survival, and thus went on reproducing to lead to us.
This sacred bond has then been passed on as a meme for thousands of years now. We call this bond marraige. This bond is understood universally since every culture has a form of it. It is also the same word that connects us to our most primitive ancestors.
Do I care about gays being together? Hell no, but should we call a union between two of them marraige? The answer is simple. No. You sir are a hateful fool, like all the others against it. Catch words like Sacred bond, foundation proper family and even survival are nothing more than a pile of bullshit If anything a society with more gays is the only thing that can keep our world from being completely flooded with people, and more orphans with decent family that care for them. As I have posted before in this thread http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alec-baldwin/why-childless-straight-co_b_208457.html Here is pretty well writen the basic explanation of why theres no rational explanation of why gay couples should be denied this right. If a straight couple can decide not to have any children at all, only marry for pleasure, benefits, and being with each other, why cant gay couples do the same ? Also, gay couples have as many options as many couples in regards to having children, lesbians can do in vitro, and they can adopt in general. Also saying that gay couples are unfit to raise children as a whole is a hatefull assumption, as there are many straight couples completely unqualified and qualified to the job who completely screw their children life in every possible way daily. If you really believe that marriage is all about the children (which seems to be the only straw man left), then straight couples should not be able to marry until they have children, and that still is not enough grounds to forbid gay marriage because all the "evidence" on gays being unfit to raise children is steriotype based. no where in my post did I say that gays cannot raise children or are unfit to. Oh come on: On May 30 2009 07:56 houseurmusic wrote:Marraige is the foundation to a proper family. On May 30 2009 07:56 houseurmusic wrote:Do I care about gays being together? Hell no, but should we call a union between two of them marraige? The answer is simple. No. "Marriage is the foundation to a proper family" "Two gays together shouldn't be called a marriage" Sounds like "gays are unfit to raise children" to me. Then please, objectively define a proper family for me. You can't objectively define a proper family. I can't, he can't, you can't. A "proper family" is only what somebody decides is a proper family. Your definition is no more right than anybody else's. Its a personal belief, and you have no right to decide what constitutes a "proper family" for anybody but yourself.
It is hard to objectively define anything. Objectively means how most people would perceive entity X.
Maybe proper was a poor choice of a word, however I guarentee that if you polled a large group of people from around the world they would give you similar answer to what a proper family should be.
|
United States12607 Posts
On May 30 2009 09:21 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 09:17 JWD wrote:On May 30 2009 09:13 Aegraen wrote:
#2 I have no problem with Civil Unions. However, Marriage is strictly between a man and a woman. Please provide any rational justification for this statement. #3 Do homosexuals want marriage, because of the benefits it bestows (Which they can all ready get from civil unions, or other ways outside of marriage such as Power of Attorney), or because they want to impose their views on society. It's obviously the latter. This statement is so absurd It's hardly worth addressing. How does getting married (an intimate rite between you, your spouse, and your closest family and friends) "impose views on society"? What the fuck does that even mean? Are you suggesting that, by marrying, gays are trying to tell people to be gay? When you get married, are you going to see it as some sort of social commentary?? Because they can get all the benefits that a married couple has with civil unions.
...except being married. Unless you think marriage is worthless?
|
On May 30 2009 09:19 Idle wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 09:14 JWD wrote:On May 30 2009 09:12 Idle wrote:On May 30 2009 09:09 houseurmusic wrote:On May 30 2009 09:06 JWD wrote:On May 30 2009 08:34 houseurmusic wrote:On May 30 2009 08:17 D10 wrote:On May 30 2009 07:56 houseurmusic wrote:
Although I am very liberal I am concerned about the institution of marraige. Marraige is the foundation to a proper family. Almost all these sacred bonds between a man and a women yield children. These children will have the best chance for survival if their parents are in love and don't stray. This is true from a Darwinian point of view, being in love means there is less chance of straying to another partner because of chemical reactions tricking our minds into believing the one we are with is the best possible choice. However, this chemical reaction isn't enough. Humans are a very social species and even in the most primitive cultures there was the idea of this sacred bond between men and women. People who loved, and cultures that had this bond were the groups that had the best chance of survival, and thus went on reproducing to lead to us.
This sacred bond has then been passed on as a meme for thousands of years now. We call this bond marraige. This bond is understood universally since every culture has a form of it. It is also the same word that connects us to our most primitive ancestors.
Do I care about gays being together? Hell no, but should we call a union between two of them marraige? The answer is simple. No. You sir are a hateful fool, like all the others against it. Catch words like Sacred bond, foundation proper family and even survival are nothing more than a pile of bullshit If anything a society with more gays is the only thing that can keep our world from being completely flooded with people, and more orphans with decent family that care for them. As I have posted before in this thread http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alec-baldwin/why-childless-straight-co_b_208457.html Here is pretty well writen the basic explanation of why theres no rational explanation of why gay couples should be denied this right. If a straight couple can decide not to have any children at all, only marry for pleasure, benefits, and being with each other, why cant gay couples do the same ? Also, gay couples have as many options as many couples in regards to having children, lesbians can do in vitro, and they can adopt in general. Also saying that gay couples are unfit to raise children as a whole is a hatefull assumption, as there are many straight couples completely unqualified and qualified to the job who completely screw their children life in every possible way daily. If you really believe that marriage is all about the children (which seems to be the only straw man left), then straight couples should not be able to marry until they have children, and that still is not enough grounds to forbid gay marriage because all the "evidence" on gays being unfit to raise children is steriotype based. no where in my post did I say that gays cannot raise children or are unfit to. Oh come on: On May 30 2009 07:56 houseurmusic wrote:Marraige is the foundation to a proper family. On May 30 2009 07:56 houseurmusic wrote:Do I care about gays being together? Hell no, but should we call a union between two of them marraige? The answer is simple. No. "Marriage is the foundation to a proper family" "Two gays together shouldn't be called a marriage" Sounds like "gays are unfit to raise children" to me. Then please, objectively define a proper family for me. You can't objectively define a proper family. I can't, he can't, you can't. A "proper family" is only what somebody decides is a proper family. Your definition is no more right than anybody else's. Its a personal belief, and you have no right to decide what constitutes a "proper family" for anybody but yourself. This is relativist bullshit and has no place in this thread. Of course I can objectively define a proper family. You may disagree with my definition, but here it goes: A proper family is a social unit which will provide children with a proper upbringing. That's still not objective. Your view is that a proper family must provide children with a "proper upbringing." That's completely subjective. Your view of a proper upbringing can be completely different than somebody elses. The fact that I can disagree with your definition and we can have a debate on it is the very definition of subjective.
Proper family is the nuclear family. Statistics show that this is the best environment for success for children. Period. You disagree, I'll go link you with 50 sources if you want to go there.
|
On May 30 2009 09:08 houseurmusic wrote:
There is an evolutionary reason for almost everything my friend.
Spoken like someone who doesnt understand evolution. People like to lump social, behavioral and political patterns into evolution in the hopes that it will lend scientific crediblity to their argument. They are wrong. Evolution deals with the selection of genetic traits overtime in a population. Social, behavioral and political patterns are emergent properties from a host of other factors.
On May 30 2009 09:08 houseurmusic wrote:
Yes you see cheating and high divorce rates these days, and the numbers are growing. However I guarentee that couples that have children in a marraige have a much higher chance of bearring their offspring together to a higher age vs couples that have children out of wedlock since there is much more to lose.
Please site the study you are quoting. You cant simply say "I gaurentee" and then state something as a fact.
On May 30 2009 09:08 houseurmusic wrote: Like I said I have nothing against gay unions. It just shouldn't be called marraige. Marraige by definition is a cultural constant in which the translation is universal. Gays getting married goes against this definition and therefore should be called something else.
?
Lol lets talk definitions
Main Entry: mar·riage
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
Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage
|
United States12607 Posts
On May 30 2009 09:23 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 09:19 Idle wrote:On May 30 2009 09:14 JWD wrote:On May 30 2009 09:12 Idle wrote:On May 30 2009 09:09 houseurmusic wrote:On May 30 2009 09:06 JWD wrote:On May 30 2009 08:34 houseurmusic wrote:On May 30 2009 08:17 D10 wrote:On May 30 2009 07:56 houseurmusic wrote:
Although I am very liberal I am concerned about the institution of marraige. Marraige is the foundation to a proper family. Almost all these sacred bonds between a man and a women yield children. These children will have the best chance for survival if their parents are in love and don't stray. This is true from a Darwinian point of view, being in love means there is less chance of straying to another partner because of chemical reactions tricking our minds into believing the one we are with is the best possible choice. However, this chemical reaction isn't enough. Humans are a very social species and even in the most primitive cultures there was the idea of this sacred bond between men and women. People who loved, and cultures that had this bond were the groups that had the best chance of survival, and thus went on reproducing to lead to us.
This sacred bond has then been passed on as a meme for thousands of years now. We call this bond marraige. This bond is understood universally since every culture has a form of it. It is also the same word that connects us to our most primitive ancestors.
Do I care about gays being together? Hell no, but should we call a union between two of them marraige? The answer is simple. No. You sir are a hateful fool, like all the others against it. Catch words like Sacred bond, foundation proper family and even survival are nothing more than a pile of bullshit If anything a society with more gays is the only thing that can keep our world from being completely flooded with people, and more orphans with decent family that care for them. As I have posted before in this thread http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alec-baldwin/why-childless-straight-co_b_208457.html Here is pretty well writen the basic explanation of why theres no rational explanation of why gay couples should be denied this right. If a straight couple can decide not to have any children at all, only marry for pleasure, benefits, and being with each other, why cant gay couples do the same ? Also, gay couples have as many options as many couples in regards to having children, lesbians can do in vitro, and they can adopt in general. Also saying that gay couples are unfit to raise children as a whole is a hatefull assumption, as there are many straight couples completely unqualified and qualified to the job who completely screw their children life in every possible way daily. If you really believe that marriage is all about the children (which seems to be the only straw man left), then straight couples should not be able to marry until they have children, and that still is not enough grounds to forbid gay marriage because all the "evidence" on gays being unfit to raise children is steriotype based. no where in my post did I say that gays cannot raise children or are unfit to. Oh come on: On May 30 2009 07:56 houseurmusic wrote:Marraige is the foundation to a proper family. On May 30 2009 07:56 houseurmusic wrote:Do I care about gays being together? Hell no, but should we call a union between two of them marraige? The answer is simple. No. "Marriage is the foundation to a proper family" "Two gays together shouldn't be called a marriage" Sounds like "gays are unfit to raise children" to me. Then please, objectively define a proper family for me. You can't objectively define a proper family. I can't, he can't, you can't. A "proper family" is only what somebody decides is a proper family. Your definition is no more right than anybody else's. Its a personal belief, and you have no right to decide what constitutes a "proper family" for anybody but yourself. This is relativist bullshit and has no place in this thread. Of course I can objectively define a proper family. You may disagree with my definition, but here it goes: A proper family is a social unit which will provide children with a proper upbringing. That's still not objective. Your view is that a proper family must provide children with a "proper upbringing." That's completely subjective. Your view of a proper upbringing can be completely different than somebody elses. The fact that I can disagree with your definition and we can have a debate on it is the very definition of subjective. Proper family is the nuclear family. Statistics show that this is the best environment for success for children. Period. You disagree, I'll go link you with 50 sources if you want to go there.
Let's not get sidetracked. The debate here is over Proposition 8 (gay marriage), not gay parents. They're different issues.
|
On May 30 2009 09:23 JWD wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 09:21 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 09:17 JWD wrote:On May 30 2009 09:13 Aegraen wrote:
#2 I have no problem with Civil Unions. However, Marriage is strictly between a man and a woman. Please provide any rational justification for this statement. #3 Do homosexuals want marriage, because of the benefits it bestows (Which they can all ready get from civil unions, or other ways outside of marriage such as Power of Attorney), or because they want to impose their views on society. It's obviously the latter. This statement is so absurd It's hardly worth addressing. How does getting married (an intimate rite between you, your spouse, and your closest family and friends) "impose views on society"? What the fuck does that even mean? Are you suggesting that, by marrying, gays are trying to tell people to be gay? When you get married, are you going to see it as some sort of social commentary?? Because they can get all the benefits that a married couple has with civil unions. ...except being married. Unless you think marriage is worthless?
Marriage is between a man and a woman, period. They aren't losing out on anything that a married couple has. Marriage is sacreligious. Even though I'm agnostic I can at least recognize this.
I have no problems with civil unions. It's a contract with the state for explicit benefits. I'm fine with that. Marriage, however I am not.
|
United States12607 Posts
On May 30 2009 09:26 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 09:23 JWD wrote:On May 30 2009 09:21 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 09:17 JWD wrote:On May 30 2009 09:13 Aegraen wrote:
#2 I have no problem with Civil Unions. However, Marriage is strictly between a man and a woman. Please provide any rational justification for this statement. #3 Do homosexuals want marriage, because of the benefits it bestows (Which they can all ready get from civil unions, or other ways outside of marriage such as Power of Attorney), or because they want to impose their views on society. It's obviously the latter. This statement is so absurd It's hardly worth addressing. How does getting married (an intimate rite between you, your spouse, and your closest family and friends) "impose views on society"? What the fuck does that even mean? Are you suggesting that, by marrying, gays are trying to tell people to be gay? When you get married, are you going to see it as some sort of social commentary?? Because they can get all the benefits that a married couple has with civil unions. ...except being married. Unless you think marriage is worthless? Marriage is between a man and a woman, period. They aren't losing out on anything that a married couple has. Marriage is sacreligious. Even though I'm agnostic I can at least recognize this. I have no problems with civil unions. It's a contract with the state for explicit benefits. I'm fine with that. Marriage, however I am not.
Thank you for regurgitating your original claims instead of addressing my point or answering my question. I'm going to stop debating with you now, because you show no interest in backing your claims.
|
On May 30 2009 09:18 JWD wrote:Dear houseurmusic, because you apparently missed it from the last page: Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 09:12 JWD wrote:
First off, LEARN TO SPELL MARRIAGE BEFORE YOU TRY TO ENTER A DEBATE ABOUT IT
lol oops, never have been a good spellar- thank you for pointing that out.
|
On May 30 2009 08:05 AttackZerg wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 08:02 selboN wrote:
EDIT:
Psh fuck it. Just let it be known, I'm from Texas and I'm not a "red-neck". Texas is not a crappy state. I was treated very kind there. Also if you live in dallas I envy you, hottest girls I've ever seen!
After living in texas all my life, and then going to school in iowa... i have found people are pretty much the same... If you go to the country people are redneck (not that this is always a bad thing... they just tend to be more racist) But religion is the number one thing to blame for why gay marriage can not be legalized. The only people I have met who were very opposed to gay marriage were also VERY religious.
So for bible belt states... I would agree with the description of crappy.
And if you think dallas girls are hot... just go to europe :D.
|
On May 30 2009 09:26 Aegraen wrote:
Marriage is sacreligious.
lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
