|
On February 09 2012 19:02 HypnotyZ wrote:
I live in Seattle and will be voting against gay marriage on this prop... For the record, I'm for gays in the military. I have nothing against gay people, I'm not religious, nor am I homophobic in the least. My political views are mostly liberal.
I think that marriage is something special between a man and a woman. A man and a woman are supposed to take their wedding vows to their grave. Society has begun to accept divorice as a perfectly normal and acceptable thing. It used to always be shunned. Often spouses are quick to file for divorice, without trying to work out their marital issues. It's becoming increasingly common for couples to get married way too early in their relationships without figuring out if they're truly compatable with their mate. It seems to be especially true amongst celebrities, which sets a sickening example for society. Thanks Kim Kardashian and the countless others. I really do hope that this is only a phase.
I believe the average length of a male homosexual relationship is around 1 month. It's common knowledge amongst the community that they don't last for long. I have a bisexual female friend that has been hooking up with only girls for around 6 years now. She has a new girlfriend every 6-12 months. So my point is, if a vast majority of homosexual relationships are shortlived, why do they want to get married in the first place? I understand the "Just so we can" reason, but really? If you've been with your partner for 5+ years and want to get married I could understand why. But a fraction of a percent of homosexual relationships last that long. I think if gay marriage is passed then homosexuals will get married and divoriced like it's absolutely nothing. Like Kim Kardashians. That's just harmful to the concept of marriage.
Marriage has become way too loose with it's standards. I believe that if society allows homosexuals to partake in traditional marriage then the fundamental meaning of marriage would be devalued further. I would recommend calling it something else but that would be discrimination and unconstitutional. The way marriage works now is not discriminatory, as the definition of marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Just because two homosexuals love each other and would like to spend the rest of their lives together doesnt mean they're entitled to marriage, because that's simply not what marriage is. Homosexual marriage would alter the true meaning of marriage, and I am against that.
Lastly I'd like to make the point of the loophole that gay marriage would create. Let's say I'm young, tight on my budget, and share an apartment with a friend. What prevents me from filing a marriage with my buddy so that we can reap the financial benefits that are given to married couples? Then once we move out of the apartment a year or 2 later we file divorice. Seems like just about everyone could do that right? How special is marriage now? Seriously. And the reason male+female friends don't abuse this with each other is because they realize that marriage is supposed to be special.
Gay marriage would simply make marriage even more meaningless than it already is. We need to be heading in the other direction, not completely throw out the sanctity of marriage altogether.
I think if gay marriage is passed then homosexuals will get married and divoriced like it's absolutely nothing.
So do straight people.
Look, I don't care if you want marriage to always be some sacred unity, that's not what it should be in the legal sense. All it is is a social contract or union, and the notion that homosexual marriage would even devalue marriage more is silly. It's not as if heterosexual marriages are anything like you want them to be anymore, or that one between a man and a woman is more "special".
|
On February 09 2012 19:05 Vinland wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 17:54 Krzycho wrote:
Oh God, another step into demoralisation of people... Yet so many tl users approves. You have to look in your dictionary what marriage is... Then you'll find out that there cannot be a "gay marriage" unless you change the definition of marrige. Then we just have to update every dictionary to the 21th century  Marriage is about love, its a commitment to spend and share your life with someone. Genitals/gender should not be in the way for that. Also, a marriage doesnt really have to involve having kids. And even if it did, there are a ton of alternate ways to get one.
"Each new generation born is in effect an invasion of civilization by little barbarians, who must be civilized before it is too late"
Is what marriage is about, not love. If you think its not necessary, go into any suburb with very high illegitamacy rates . . .
|
What's stopping heteros from marrying and getting divorced like it's nothing? What actually makes marriage special? The fact that it's only available to a segregated few? BS. Give me a real argument.
|
On February 09 2012 19:02 HypnotyZ wrote:Lastly I'd like to make the point of the loophole that gay marriage would create. Let's say I'm young, tight on my budget, and share an apartment with a friend. What prevents me from filing a marriage with my buddy so that we can reap the financial benefits that are given to married couples? Then once we move out of the apartment a year or 2 later we file divorice. Seems like just about everyone could do that right? How special is marriage now? Seriously. And the reason male+female friends don't abuse this with each other is because they realize that marriage is supposed to be special.
You can't actually believe that can you?
So if they made it legal you and your buddies would just start marrying the hell out of each other. But you don't do it now with a female friend because of R-E-S-P-E-C-T?
You honestly believe it's going to turn into thunderdome?
I'm sorry but that has to be the absolute worst excuse I've ever heard. My mind can't even comprehend.
|
On February 09 2012 19:16 Olinimm wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 19:02 HypnotyZ wrote:
I live in Seattle and will be voting against gay marriage on this prop... For the record, I'm for gays in the military. I have nothing against gay people, I'm not religious, nor am I homophobic in the least. My political views are mostly liberal.
I think that marriage is something special between a man and a woman. A man and a woman are supposed to take their wedding vows to their grave. Society has begun to accept divorice as a perfectly normal and acceptable thing. It used to always be shunned. Often spouses are quick to file for divorice, without trying to work out their marital issues. It's becoming increasingly common for couples to get married way too early in their relationships without figuring out if they're truly compatable with their mate. It seems to be especially true amongst celebrities, which sets a sickening example for society. Thanks Kim Kardashian and the countless others. I really do hope that this is only a phase.
I believe the average length of a male homosexual relationship is around 1 month. It's common knowledge amongst the community that they don't last for long. I have a bisexual female friend that has been hooking up with only girls for around 6 years now. She has a new girlfriend every 6-12 months. So my point is, if a vast majority of homosexual relationships are shortlived, why do they want to get married in the first place? I understand the "Just so we can" reason, but really? If you've been with your partner for 5+ years and want to get married I could understand why. But a fraction of a percent of homosexual relationships last that long. I think if gay marriage is passed then homosexuals will get married and divoriced like it's absolutely nothing. Like Kim Kardashians. That's just harmful to the concept of marriage.
Marriage has become way too loose with it's standards. I believe that if society allows homosexuals to partake in traditional marriage then the fundamental meaning of marriage would be devalued further. I would recommend calling it something else but that would be discrimination and unconstitutional. The way marriage works now is not discriminatory, as the definition of marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Just because two homosexuals love each other and would like to spend the rest of their lives together doesnt mean they're entitled to marriage, because that's simply not what marriage is. Homosexual marriage would alter the true meaning of marriage, and I am against that.
Lastly I'd like to make the point of the loophole that gay marriage would create. Let's say I'm young, tight on my budget, and share an apartment with a friend. What prevents me from filing a marriage with my buddy so that we can reap the financial benefits that are given to married couples? Then once we move out of the apartment a year or 2 later we file divorice. Seems like just about everyone could do that right? How special is marriage now? Seriously. And the reason male+female friends don't abuse this with each other is because they realize that marriage is supposed to be special.
Gay marriage would simply make marriage even more meaningless than it already is. We need to be heading in the other direction, not completely throw out the sanctity of marriage altogether. Show nested quote +I think if gay marriage is passed then homosexuals will get married and divoriced like it's absolutely nothing. So do straight people. Look, I don't care if you want marriage to always be some sacred unity, that's not what it should be in the legal sense. All it is is a social contract or union, and the notion that homosexual marriage would even devalue marriage more is silly. It's not as if heterosexual marriages are anything like you want them to be anymore, or that one between a man and a woman is more "special".
Glad that you brought up that marriage is a social contract: between the couple and the rest of society. In return for the priveleges that society grants married couples, there also come a couple obligations, (that while difficult to legally enforce, are generally socially enforeced), such as have children, show your children how they are supposed to behave, both with respect to strangers and between husband and wife, contribute to the social, economic and cultural capital of the community.
If not, what are the obligations of marriage? Are there any? Is it just another thing that is all rights, entitlement and no duty? Do you believe that anyone has duties to society? Or do you believe you can be one of societies free riders, contributing to the destruction of the social, cultural and material capital of the west . . .
|
Having children is an obligation of marriage now?
What ever happened to minding your own damn business and just living your life?
|
On February 09 2012 19:28 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 19:16 Olinimm wrote:On February 09 2012 19:02 HypnotyZ wrote:
I live in Seattle and will be voting against gay marriage on this prop... For the record, I'm for gays in the military. I have nothing against gay people, I'm not religious, nor am I homophobic in the least. My political views are mostly liberal.
I think that marriage is something special between a man and a woman. A man and a woman are supposed to take their wedding vows to their grave. Society has begun to accept divorice as a perfectly normal and acceptable thing. It used to always be shunned. Often spouses are quick to file for divorice, without trying to work out their marital issues. It's becoming increasingly common for couples to get married way too early in their relationships without figuring out if they're truly compatable with their mate. It seems to be especially true amongst celebrities, which sets a sickening example for society. Thanks Kim Kardashian and the countless others. I really do hope that this is only a phase.
I believe the average length of a male homosexual relationship is around 1 month. It's common knowledge amongst the community that they don't last for long. I have a bisexual female friend that has been hooking up with only girls for around 6 years now. She has a new girlfriend every 6-12 months. So my point is, if a vast majority of homosexual relationships are shortlived, why do they want to get married in the first place? I understand the "Just so we can" reason, but really? If you've been with your partner for 5+ years and want to get married I could understand why. But a fraction of a percent of homosexual relationships last that long. I think if gay marriage is passed then homosexuals will get married and divoriced like it's absolutely nothing. Like Kim Kardashians. That's just harmful to the concept of marriage.
Marriage has become way too loose with it's standards. I believe that if society allows homosexuals to partake in traditional marriage then the fundamental meaning of marriage would be devalued further. I would recommend calling it something else but that would be discrimination and unconstitutional. The way marriage works now is not discriminatory, as the definition of marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Just because two homosexuals love each other and would like to spend the rest of their lives together doesnt mean they're entitled to marriage, because that's simply not what marriage is. Homosexual marriage would alter the true meaning of marriage, and I am against that.
Lastly I'd like to make the point of the loophole that gay marriage would create. Let's say I'm young, tight on my budget, and share an apartment with a friend. What prevents me from filing a marriage with my buddy so that we can reap the financial benefits that are given to married couples? Then once we move out of the apartment a year or 2 later we file divorice. Seems like just about everyone could do that right? How special is marriage now? Seriously. And the reason male+female friends don't abuse this with each other is because they realize that marriage is supposed to be special.
Gay marriage would simply make marriage even more meaningless than it already is. We need to be heading in the other direction, not completely throw out the sanctity of marriage altogether. I think if gay marriage is passed then homosexuals will get married and divoriced like it's absolutely nothing. So do straight people. Look, I don't care if you want marriage to always be some sacred unity, that's not what it should be in the legal sense. All it is is a social contract or union, and the notion that homosexual marriage would even devalue marriage more is silly. It's not as if heterosexual marriages are anything like you want them to be anymore, or that one between a man and a woman is more "special". Glad that you brought up that marriage is a social contract: between the couple and the rest of society. In return for the priveleges that society grants married couples, there also come a couple obligations, (that while difficult to legally enforce, are generally socially enforeced), such as have children, show your children how they are supposed to behave, both with respect to strangers and between husband and wife, contribute to the social, economic and cultural capital of the community. If not, what are the obligations of marriage? Are there any? Is it just another thing that is all rights, entitlement and no duty? Do you believe that anyone has duties to society? Or do you believe you can be one of societies free riders, contributing to the destruction of the social, cultural and material capital of the west . . .
The obligations that come with marriage mostly consist about the couple caring for eachother. It has nothing to do with raising children, because unmarried couples can have kids and there are plenty of single parents.
People that live as a couple generally require less welfare money and services and they are less of a burden on the medical system (since partners can take care of eachother). From a purely rational point of view, the marriage is an agreement between the 2 partners to remain a couple in exchange for tax benefits and things like the option to make life-or-death decisions for the other when the other is hospitalized and unable to act.
Your second obligation that married people should have is "contribute to the social, economic and cultural capital of the community" and I don't see how straight people can do this any better than gay people.
|
On February 09 2012 19:28 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 19:16 Olinimm wrote:On February 09 2012 19:02 HypnotyZ wrote:
I live in Seattle and will be voting against gay marriage on this prop... For the record, I'm for gays in the military. I have nothing against gay people, I'm not religious, nor am I homophobic in the least. My political views are mostly liberal.
I think that marriage is something special between a man and a woman. A man and a woman are supposed to take their wedding vows to their grave. Society has begun to accept divorice as a perfectly normal and acceptable thing. It used to always be shunned. Often spouses are quick to file for divorice, without trying to work out their marital issues. It's becoming increasingly common for couples to get married way too early in their relationships without figuring out if they're truly compatable with their mate. It seems to be especially true amongst celebrities, which sets a sickening example for society. Thanks Kim Kardashian and the countless others. I really do hope that this is only a phase.
I believe the average length of a male homosexual relationship is around 1 month. It's common knowledge amongst the community that they don't last for long. I have a bisexual female friend that has been hooking up with only girls for around 6 years now. She has a new girlfriend every 6-12 months. So my point is, if a vast majority of homosexual relationships are shortlived, why do they want to get married in the first place? I understand the "Just so we can" reason, but really? If you've been with your partner for 5+ years and want to get married I could understand why. But a fraction of a percent of homosexual relationships last that long. I think if gay marriage is passed then homosexuals will get married and divoriced like it's absolutely nothing. Like Kim Kardashians. That's just harmful to the concept of marriage.
Marriage has become way too loose with it's standards. I believe that if society allows homosexuals to partake in traditional marriage then the fundamental meaning of marriage would be devalued further. I would recommend calling it something else but that would be discrimination and unconstitutional. The way marriage works now is not discriminatory, as the definition of marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Just because two homosexuals love each other and would like to spend the rest of their lives together doesnt mean they're entitled to marriage, because that's simply not what marriage is. Homosexual marriage would alter the true meaning of marriage, and I am against that.
Lastly I'd like to make the point of the loophole that gay marriage would create. Let's say I'm young, tight on my budget, and share an apartment with a friend. What prevents me from filing a marriage with my buddy so that we can reap the financial benefits that are given to married couples? Then once we move out of the apartment a year or 2 later we file divorice. Seems like just about everyone could do that right? How special is marriage now? Seriously. And the reason male+female friends don't abuse this with each other is because they realize that marriage is supposed to be special.
Gay marriage would simply make marriage even more meaningless than it already is. We need to be heading in the other direction, not completely throw out the sanctity of marriage altogether. I think if gay marriage is passed then homosexuals will get married and divoriced like it's absolutely nothing. So do straight people. Look, I don't care if you want marriage to always be some sacred unity, that's not what it should be in the legal sense. All it is is a social contract or union, and the notion that homosexual marriage would even devalue marriage more is silly. It's not as if heterosexual marriages are anything like you want them to be anymore, or that one between a man and a woman is more "special". Glad that you brought up that marriage is a social contract: between the couple and the rest of society. In return for the priveleges that society grants married couples, there also come a couple obligations, (that while difficult to legally enforce, are generally socially enforeced), such as have children, show your children how they are supposed to behave, both with respect to strangers and between husband and wife, contribute to the social, economic and cultural capital of the community. If not, what are the obligations of marriage? Are there any? Is it just another thing that is all rights, entitlement and no duty? Do you believe that anyone has duties to society? Or do you believe you can be one of societies free riders, contributing to the destruction of the social, cultural and material capital of the west . . .
Since when was having children an obligation or even perceived obligation of marriage? If this was true then infertile people, women 50 and over and people who just don't want children wouldn't be allowed to marry any more than gay couples.
There ARE no obligations of marriage, there were in the past but this is not that time.
|
Should unmarried couples have kids? Cohabitating couples, as opposed to married couples are much more unstable, while single parents are terrible parents, ceteris paribus.
I would argue that from a purely rational point of view, the point of commitment, love and marriage is to provide a stable environment in which to raise children. I would point to the studies of "orchid" children vs "dandelion" children, to understand its importance. (dandelion children turn out ok almost no matter how bad their childhood environment. Orchid children go badly if they grow up in an unstable environment, but turn out better than dandelion children if they grow up in stable environments.) Hence, the reason why we subsidise marriage, but not roommates/cohabitating couples is because we want to encourage a behaviour that makes it feasible to raise the next generation effectively.
As I have stated before: it is no surprise that the highest rates of illegitimacy and divorce are within the ranks of the poor.
On February 09 2012 19:56 Darkong wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 19:28 vetinari wrote:On February 09 2012 19:16 Olinimm wrote:On February 09 2012 19:02 HypnotyZ wrote:
I live in Seattle and will be voting against gay marriage on this prop... For the record, I'm for gays in the military. I have nothing against gay people, I'm not religious, nor am I homophobic in the least. My political views are mostly liberal.
I think that marriage is something special between a man and a woman. A man and a woman are supposed to take their wedding vows to their grave. Society has begun to accept divorice as a perfectly normal and acceptable thing. It used to always be shunned. Often spouses are quick to file for divorice, without trying to work out their marital issues. It's becoming increasingly common for couples to get married way too early in their relationships without figuring out if they're truly compatable with their mate. It seems to be especially true amongst celebrities, which sets a sickening example for society. Thanks Kim Kardashian and the countless others. I really do hope that this is only a phase.
I believe the average length of a male homosexual relationship is around 1 month. It's common knowledge amongst the community that they don't last for long. I have a bisexual female friend that has been hooking up with only girls for around 6 years now. She has a new girlfriend every 6-12 months. So my point is, if a vast majority of homosexual relationships are shortlived, why do they want to get married in the first place? I understand the "Just so we can" reason, but really? If you've been with your partner for 5+ years and want to get married I could understand why. But a fraction of a percent of homosexual relationships last that long. I think if gay marriage is passed then homosexuals will get married and divoriced like it's absolutely nothing. Like Kim Kardashians. That's just harmful to the concept of marriage.
Marriage has become way too loose with it's standards. I believe that if society allows homosexuals to partake in traditional marriage then the fundamental meaning of marriage would be devalued further. I would recommend calling it something else but that would be discrimination and unconstitutional. The way marriage works now is not discriminatory, as the definition of marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Just because two homosexuals love each other and would like to spend the rest of their lives together doesnt mean they're entitled to marriage, because that's simply not what marriage is. Homosexual marriage would alter the true meaning of marriage, and I am against that.
Lastly I'd like to make the point of the loophole that gay marriage would create. Let's say I'm young, tight on my budget, and share an apartment with a friend. What prevents me from filing a marriage with my buddy so that we can reap the financial benefits that are given to married couples? Then once we move out of the apartment a year or 2 later we file divorice. Seems like just about everyone could do that right? How special is marriage now? Seriously. And the reason male+female friends don't abuse this with each other is because they realize that marriage is supposed to be special.
Gay marriage would simply make marriage even more meaningless than it already is. We need to be heading in the other direction, not completely throw out the sanctity of marriage altogether. I think if gay marriage is passed then homosexuals will get married and divoriced like it's absolutely nothing. So do straight people. Look, I don't care if you want marriage to always be some sacred unity, that's not what it should be in the legal sense. All it is is a social contract or union, and the notion that homosexual marriage would even devalue marriage more is silly. It's not as if heterosexual marriages are anything like you want them to be anymore, or that one between a man and a woman is more "special". Glad that you brought up that marriage is a social contract: between the couple and the rest of society. In return for the priveleges that society grants married couples, there also come a couple obligations, (that while difficult to legally enforce, are generally socially enforeced), such as have children, show your children how they are supposed to behave, both with respect to strangers and between husband and wife, contribute to the social, economic and cultural capital of the community. If not, what are the obligations of marriage? Are there any? Is it just another thing that is all rights, entitlement and no duty? Do you believe that anyone has duties to society? Or do you believe you can be one of societies free riders, contributing to the destruction of the social, cultural and material capital of the west . . . Since when was having children an obligation or even perceived obligation of marriage? If this was true then infertile people, women 50 and over and people who just don't want children wouldn't be allowed to marry any more than gay couples. There ARE no obligations of marriage, there were in the past but this is not that time.
I'm so glad that there weren't any riots in london lately.
|
On February 09 2012 20:03 vetinari wrote:
Should unmarried couples have kids? Cohabitating couples, as opposed to married couples are much more unstable, while single parents are terrible parents, ceteris paribus.
I would argue that from a purely rational point of view, the point of commitment, love and marriage is to provide a stable environment in which to raise children. I would point to the studies of "orchid" children vs "dandelion" children, to understand its importance. (dandelion children turn out ok almost no matter how bad their childhood environment. Orchid children go badly if they grow up in an unstable environment, but turn out better than dandelion children if they grow up in stable environments.) Hence, the reason why we subsidise marriage, but not roommates/cohabitating couples is because we want to encourage a behaviour that makes it feasible to raise the next generation effectively.
As I have stated before: it is no surprise that the highest rates of illegitimacy and divorce are within the ranks of the poor.
Should turtles have kids? Turtles are much more unstable, while rabbits are terrible parents, ceteris paribus.
Something about orchids...dandelions....blah blah blah. Subsidize instead of segregate...only straight people are effective...blah blah blah. Some random tangent to the poor...etc
Is there anything that isn't BS in your post?
|
On February 09 2012 20:08 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 20:03 vetinari wrote:
Should unmarried couples have kids? Cohabitating couples, as opposed to married couples are much more unstable, while single parents are terrible parents, ceteris paribus.
I would argue that from a purely rational point of view, the point of commitment, love and marriage is to provide a stable environment in which to raise children. I would point to the studies of "orchid" children vs "dandelion" children, to understand its importance. (dandelion children turn out ok almost no matter how bad their childhood environment. Orchid children go badly if they grow up in an unstable environment, but turn out better than dandelion children if they grow up in stable environments.) Hence, the reason why we subsidise marriage, but not roommates/cohabitating couples is because we want to encourage a behaviour that makes it feasible to raise the next generation effectively.
As I have stated before: it is no surprise that the highest rates of illegitimacy and divorce are within the ranks of the poor. Should turtles have kids? Turtles are much more unstable, while rabbits are terrible parents, ceteris paribus. Something about orchids...dandelions....blah blah blah. Subsidize instead of segregate...only straight people are effective...blah blah blah. Some random tangent to the poor...etc Is there anything that isn't BS in your post?
Yeah.
Everything. Troll elsewhere.
|
Just when I thought the side against gay marriage could not get any creepier, they start proffessing their love for societal engineering.
|
On February 09 2012 20:10 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 20:08 Roe wrote:On February 09 2012 20:03 vetinari wrote:
Should unmarried couples have kids? Cohabitating couples, as opposed to married couples are much more unstable, while single parents are terrible parents, ceteris paribus.
I would argue that from a purely rational point of view, the point of commitment, love and marriage is to provide a stable environment in which to raise children. I would point to the studies of "orchid" children vs "dandelion" children, to understand its importance. (dandelion children turn out ok almost no matter how bad their childhood environment. Orchid children go badly if they grow up in an unstable environment, but turn out better than dandelion children if they grow up in stable environments.) Hence, the reason why we subsidise marriage, but not roommates/cohabitating couples is because we want to encourage a behaviour that makes it feasible to raise the next generation effectively.
As I have stated before: it is no surprise that the highest rates of illegitimacy and divorce are within the ranks of the poor. Should turtles have kids? Turtles are much more unstable, while rabbits are terrible parents, ceteris paribus. Something about orchids...dandelions....blah blah blah. Subsidize instead of segregate...only straight people are effective...blah blah blah. Some random tangent to the poor...etc Is there anything that isn't BS in your post? Yeah. Everything. Troll elsewhere.
Classic irony
|
On February 09 2012 18:26 Krzycho wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 18:03 Rannasha wrote:On February 09 2012 17:54 Krzycho wrote:
Oh God, another step into demoralisation of people... Yet so many tl users approves. You have to look in your dictionary what marriage is... Then you'll find out that there cannot be a "gay marriage" unless you change the definition of marrige. Please enlighten me: Exactly how does this work to "demoralise" (note that demoralise means "to lose morale", not "to lose morals", which would be "immoralise") people? If anything, treating people equally and allowing everyone to get married should serve to strengthen social bonds. Thanks for correcting me, I meant immoralise And it's this way because sexuality is not something you show to everyone. I'm not against gay people, they've been here since ever and they don't harm anyone, but approving gay marrige is wrong, especially to children. Imagine a child who has 2 daddys or 2 moms. Is it right for you? And marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman supposed to give birth and raise kids. Oh and gay people can "create" a civil law partnership, but it's not marriage.
The argument that marriage always has been between a man and a woman and therefore gay people can't get married is a falacy. Gay marriage a demoralization, rofl...
I wasn't going to jump in here. I usually don't. But, after such a great post, I cannot help myself.
First, let me say, that I completely agree with you. Well, on your main point. That, "people who claim to oppose gay marriage on non-religious ground [use flawed logic]."
The only reason I oppose gay marriage is because God tells me it's wrong. It's his universe, he gets to make the rules. If you don't believe in God, the God of the bible, then why would you oppose such a thing? I believe God created us, and that Adam and Eve laid claim to the very first marriage on earth. In them we were showed what was meant to be. Of course, they screwed up and lived far from perfectly, but that's not the point here.
If you don't believe that, and you believe in, let's just choose an alternative, evolution, then why do you care if gay marriage exists? What if homosexuality is evolution's solution to over-population? What if they are just more evolved than we are? Or, what if they are the "3rd gender?"
If the bible was not true, I would absolutely vote for gay marriage, not because I don't think it harms the child(ren), but because I would have no moral ground to stand on. We would all just be making stuff up as we go along. It would be majority vote. Moral relativism. And, that is just a war on logic.
This post. Makes. Absolutely no sense. WHATSOEVER.
First off. You don't ''believe'' in evolution like you belief in god. Evolution is based on evidence. Believing in god is not. Not accepting evolution to me seems like not accepting the gravitational theory of Newton. Anyway, the bible isn't true, so yeah...
|
Marriage is a formal union between a man and WOman. It really takes the integrity of marriage away.
|
On February 09 2012 20:12 zalz wrote:
Just when I thought the side against gay marriage could not get any creepier, they start proffessing their love for societal engineering.
Because changing marriage from man + woman to man/woman + man/woman is not social engineering.
Liberals are the greatest hypocrits in existence. You have been conducting social engineering for the past 200 years.
|
On February 09 2012 20:25 Cubu wrote:
Marriage is a formal union between a man and WOman. It really takes the integrity of marriage away.
No, marriage is a word. Which in our very homophobic past meant a union between a man and a woman. However society and morals evolve with time, despite the efforts of many. Do you belive that a man and a woman should both be stoned if they have sex during her period? Or being stoned for working on the sabbath? (i mean stoned as in execution, not as in "get high" btw). You need to mind your own business, and let people do what the fuck they want. No one is gonna force unwilling churches to marry people.
On February 09 2012 20:31 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 20:12 zalz wrote:
Just when I thought the side against gay marriage could not get any creepier, they start proffessing their love for societal engineering. Because changing marriage from man + woman to man/woman + man/woman is not social engineering. Liberals are the greatest hypocrits in existence. You have been conducting social engineering for the past 200 years.
Engineering implies conscious intention. And that is not what is going on here.
|
On February 09 2012 20:25 Cubu wrote:
Marriage is a formal union between a man and WOman. It really takes the integrity of marriage away.
Says who? God? Sorry but marriage existed way before christianity.
|
On February 09 2012 20:31 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 20:12 zalz wrote:
Just when I thought the side against gay marriage could not get any creepier, they start proffessing their love for societal engineering. Because changing marriage from man + woman to man/woman + man/woman is not social engineering. Liberals are the greatest hypocrits in existence. You have been conducting social engineering for the past 200 years.
No you're right, it isn't social engineering to allow people to live how they want to live. Conservatives want to use the government to shape who we are, who we love, who we live with. That's what I call hypocrisy.
|
On February 09 2012 20:31 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 20:12 zalz wrote:
Just when I thought the side against gay marriage could not get any creepier, they start proffessing their love for societal engineering. Because changing marriage from man + woman to man/woman + man/woman is not social engineering. Liberals are the greatest hypocrits in existence. You have been conducting social engineering for the past 200 years.
You don't understand the term "social engineering."
That isn't a bad thing, but don't pretend that you do when it is incredibly obvious that you don't.
And to answer your question/confusion.
No, that is indeed, not social engineering.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
