QFTGod Save the Queen wrote:
then create OTHER threads
Don't give me that "definition of marriage" baloney, because it's crap.nukchebi0 wrote:
But what is the definition of marriage?
Equating gay marriage to polygamy is foolish. Perhaps the law wants a one-to-one system for marriage, which certainly makes sense to me. Except, I don't make the laws and I certainly didn't make the law against polygamy, so I don't know what motivated it.LividBovine wrote:
Is the law to be written as such: A marriage consists of human being and a human being? What about polygamist's. Is it now to be written: A marriage consists of human being and a human being and a human being. How should they be treated? Why does having multiple wives have to be wrong if 2 men marrying is ok? I don't see the difference.
They have the same civil rights as everyone else. It's just not called "marriage". Get over it.FallenMorgan wrote:
Civil rights laws were passed to appease a tiny percentage of the population of the southern states. It's not about appeasement, it's about civil rights. The constitution allowed freedom of religion, but in 1776 most of the population was protestant, and whatnot. If it was laws to appease the majority with no reguard to civil rights, we'd be the Christian States of America.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
Definition of marriage: civil union between a man and a woman. That has been the definition of marriage since before this country ever existed. The majority of the country is against gay marriage. The government can't suddenly change the definition of such a common word as "marriage" just to appease a tiny percentage of the population. Gays are just being oversensitive. Marriage is a tradition and being gay is not traditional. So I don't see what they are wining about. Gays should get a civil union with equal rights as a marriage. It's as simple as that.
That's exactly what will happen next if polygamy becomes legal.SenorToenails wrote:
Anyway, what's next? Equating gay marriage to marrying dogs and other various creatures? Be reasonable.
I conciously stayed away from the whole other species topic.SenorToenails wrote:
Equating gay marriage to polygamy is foolish. Perhaps the law wants a one-to-one system for marriage, which certainly makes sense to me. Except, I don't make the laws and I certainly didn't make the law against polygamy, so I don't know what motivated it.LividBovine wrote:
Is the law to be written as such: A marriage consists of human being and a human being? What about polygamist's. Is it now to be written: A marriage consists of human being and a human being and a human being. How should they be treated? Why does having multiple wives have to be wrong if 2 men marrying is ok? I don't see the difference.
Anyway, what's next? Equating gay marriage to marrying dogs and other various creatures? Be reasonable.
Last edited by LividBovine (2008-05-15 22:19:27)
Honest question: What is it about the term "marriage" that makes it sacred?Deadmonkiefart wrote:
They have the same civil rights as everyone else. It's just not called "marriage". Get over it.
Yeah, I guess that is mostly semantics.SenorToenails wrote:
Don't give me that "definition of marriage" baloney, because it's crap.nukchebi0 wrote:
But what is the definition of marriage?
Last edited by nukchebi0 (2008-05-15 22:23:50)
Ok., Way off topic. It is really not very clever of you to start comparing gay marriage to Black civil rights. The government does not discriminate against gays at all. They are treated equally, like everyone else. The government simply does not call same sex civil unions as "marriages". It doesn't matter if you are gay or not. You can be strait as hell and the government still won't call your civil union to someone of the same sex a "marriage".God Save the Queen wrote:
it took 100 years after the end of slavery for blacks to have the same rights as whites in society.
Nothing makes it sacred to me, personally. I currently have no religious affiliations whatsoever. Care to read my post over again?SenorToenails wrote:
Honest question: What is it about the term "marriage" that makes it sacred?Deadmonkiefart wrote:
They have the same civil rights as everyone else. It's just not called "marriage". Get over it.
Last edited by Deadmonkiefart (2008-05-15 22:35:04)
Woooo, condescension. You're really not worth talking to.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
Nothing makes it sacred to me, personally. I currently have no religious affiliations whatsoever. Care to read my post over again?
If you still don't understand, then here you go: Marriage is a very commonly used word. It has had a very specific definition for a long time. Marriage is a civil union between a man and a woman. Gays have equal rights. Because they like the attention, they are complaining that they don't have equal civil rights, all because gay unions are called Civil Unions rather than "marriages". The government cannot and will not change the definition of such a commonly used word, when that word is only defined that way by a tiny minority of America. The majority of the population dictates the definitions of words and how they can be used.
Oh really?? It's crap you say? In case you haven't noticed, this is the very thing that we have been debating about for several dozen years. If I'm not mistaken, you were just part of that debate. If this "baloney" you referred to is "crap", then you, my friend are perpetuating this endless cycle of crappy baloney. You are the very same shitty sausage maker that you are putting down.SenorToenails wrote:
Don't give me that "definition of marriage" baloney, because it's crap.nukchebi0 wrote:
But what is the definition of marriage?
Ok... Is that your rebuttal?SenorToenails wrote:
Woooo, condescension. You're really not worth talking to.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
Nothing makes it sacred to me, personally. I currently have no religious affiliations whatsoever. Care to read my post over again?
If you still don't understand, then here you go: Marriage is a very commonly used word. It has had a very specific definition for a long time. Marriage is a civil union between a man and a woman. Gays have equal rights. Because they like the attention, they are complaining that they don't have equal civil rights, all because gay unions are called Civil Unions rather than "marriages". The government cannot and will not change the definition of such a commonly used word, when that word is only defined that way by a tiny minority of America. The majority of the population dictates the definitions of words and how they can be used.
Coming from the view point of yourself, my ideals are illogical. Coming from my view point, they are logical. You are basically saying that because you don't believe the same thing I do, my point is invalid and ilogical. Now lets turn this into a religous debate, you know I love those.FallenMorgan wrote:
Can I have one arguement against gay marriage rooted in logic and not personal beliefs? Abortion is an example - it can be defined as murder through logical reasons, but can be rebutted through logical means.
slippery slope fallacyLividBovine wrote:
Is the law to be written as such: A marriage consists of human being and a human being? What about polygamist's. Is it now to be written: A marriage consists of human being and a human being and a human being. How should they be treated? Why does having multiple wives have to be wrong if 2 men marrying is ok? I don't see the difference.
When marriage was defined, homosexuals were not tolerated in society. Since the law never knew to take them into account way back, how could the traditional meaning of the word marriage be used as proof of anything today? That was my point.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
Oh really?? It's crap you say? In case you haven't noticed, this is the very thing that we have been debating about for several dozen years. If I'm not mistaken, you were just part of that debate. If this "baloney" you referred to is "crap", then you, my friend are perpetuating this endless cycle of crappy baloney. You are the very same shitty sausage maker that you are putting down.
Thats funny, I had worded it that way originally, but I hate the term slippery slope.liquix wrote:
slippery slope fallacyLividBovine wrote:
Is the law to be written as such: A marriage consists of human being and a human being? What about polygamist's. Is it now to be written: A marriage consists of human being and a human being and a human being. How should they be treated? Why does having multiple wives have to be wrong if 2 men marrying is ok? I don't see the difference.
I'm not getting personal. Do you not have a sense of humor?SenorToenails wrote:
When marriage was defined, homosexuals were not tolerated in society. Since the law never knew to take them into account way back, how could the traditional meaning of the word marriage be used as proof of anything today? That was my point.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
Oh really?? It's crap you say? In case you haven't noticed, this is the very thing that we have been debating about for several dozen years. If I'm not mistaken, you were just part of that debate. If this "baloney" you referred to is "crap", then you, my friend are perpetuating this endless cycle of crappy baloney. You are the very same shitty sausage maker that you are putting down.
Try not to get personal. I haven't insulted anyone here.
SenorToenails wrote:
Try not to get personal. I haven't insulted anyone here.
SenorToenails wrote:
Equating gay marriage to polygamy is foolish...Be reasonable.
SenorToenails wrote:
Woooo, condescension. You're really not worth talking to.
Neither of those are insults or personal attacks.LividBovine wrote:
SenorToenails wrote:
Try not to get personal. I haven't insulted anyone here.
That is not an insult. I did not mock you in any way.LividBovine wrote:
SenorToenails wrote:
Equating gay marriage to polygamy is foolish...Be reasonable.
When I said "Try not to get personal", I was referring to this and that other post where I made that comment.LividBovine wrote:
SenorToenails wrote:
Woooo, condescension. You're really not worth talking to.
Maybe because you are taking something personally. Internetz, srz.SenorToenails wrote:
I don't even know why I bother trying to explain myself.