Gay Marriage

  • Thread starter 1X83Z
  • 2,302 comments
  • 84,480 views
Originally posted by milefile
People are obviously people. Are you calling gays somehow sub-human? That is a totally weak argument.

Why is it such a weak argument? Men are obviously men, and woman are obviously woman.

The is a matter of what society is willing to accept and adopt into their social system. The push for it is because people are voicing their opinions of 'wanting' something to change. So why is my example any different?

Please, take the time to read this, I found it quite interesting:
http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/homosexuality/youcantm.htm
 
Originally posted by milefile
Why would it make any difference? So gay marriage is okay if gayness is genetic but not if it's a choice? What next? Ban interracial marriage?

If people choose to be gay, and I'm wrong, then the Christians can all step in and say they were right.
 
Originally posted by Pako
Why is it such a weak argument? Men are obviously men, and woman are obviously woman.

The is a matter of what society is willing to accept and adopt into their social system. The push for it is because people are voicing their opinions of 'wanting' something to change. So why is my example any different?

Please, take the time to read this, I found it quite interesting:
http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/homosexuality/youcantm.htm

I think RER's post brings up one good argument against yours: consent. And then there's the little issue of the species barrier. If you're likening gayness to beastiality you're equating gays with animals and see them as sub-human. That's scary.
 
Originally posted by M5Power
If people choose to be gay, and I'm wrong, then the Christians can all step in and say they were right.

People are gonna choose to do whatever they want.... reguardless if they knew it from birth or not....

how can you guy's debate something like that?,... it's 100% impossible to tell....
 
Originally posted by milefile
I think RER's post brings up one good argument against yours: consent. And then there's the little issue of the species barrier. If you're likening gayness to beastiality you're equating gays with animals and see them as sub-human. That's scary.



And both of you missed my point entirely.

By taking the words "consenting adult" out of the definition, then it would be O.K. to marry your favorite pet.

Now to further explain, as it is evidently necessary, by removing certain words from our current law, we can no longer enforce certain specifics of that law. Pet owners can choose for their pets since they cannot choose for themselves. If it makes them happy, and doesn't hurt anyone else, what's the problem?

On the subject of a sub-human sect of people running around, that would be your opinion. I, however, do not believe that gay's are of a sub-human or sub-standard race, but rather people that have made decisions that are not widely accepted by our society. In my opinion, they have made bad decisions.


[edited]
Species barrier? What about the gender barrier? There are no barriers according to the rule "As long as your not hurting anyone else".
 
Originally posted by Pako
And both of you missed my point entirely.

By taking the words "consenting adult" out of the definition, then it would be O.K. to marry your favorite pet.
There would be no reason to remove "consenting adult" from marriage law to allow gas to marry. It is sex/gender neutral.
 
Originally posted by milefile
There would be no reason to remove "consenting adult" from marriage law to allow gas to marry. It is sex/gender neutral.

That is a very good observation, again, missing the point.

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mar-ij also 'mer-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Old French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a : the state of being married b : the mutual relation of husband and wife : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>

I guess Webster didn't think about the gay population when he wrote this.... The definition is VERY gender specific, unless of course, your talking about art.
 
Originally posted by Pako
That is a very good observation, again, missing the point.



I guess Webster didn't think about the gay population when he wrote this....


according to Webster,.. that definition was written in the 14th Century :lol:
 
A dictionary definition is not a good argument. I doubt state legislatures dust of their dictionaries when debating modifications to laws.
 
Originally posted by milefile
A dictionary definition is not a good argument. I doubt state legislatures dust of their dictionaries when debating modifications to laws.

Definitions is the only thing that enforces law interpretations. How could a definition NOT be a good argument? THAT IS THE ARGUMENT

Sorry for yelling there, but the definition of marriage is the whole point now isn't?
 
Originally posted by milefile
A dictionary definition is not a good argument. I doubt state legislatures dust of their dictionaries when debating modifications to laws.

They do if it's too their advantage. I did high school debate (against the other high school) for four years, same situation.
 
Society is not based on the dictionary. The dictionary is based on society. It is a very bland representation of its most mainstream aspects. You're thinking in reverse.
 
So your saying that they need to update the dictionary? What other words do we need to change? gay perhaps?

Where does it end, to what means will people ever be satisfied? Again, this goes with Neon Dukes Entitlement thread and that line of thinking.

With that, I say :cheers: and good luck changing the world where there is no boundries or guidelines to follow, where morallity holds no weight on the hearts of individuals, until we become a race of test tube babies.

I say :cheers: for your quest of pure equal opportunity and justice for the human race.

~Good Day~​
 
That was dramatic. But the benefits of marriage could very easily apply to a "domestic unit" without the world turning into a race of test tube babies. There will still be all the people you like better, hetrosexual individuals. And they will continue to breed.

And definitions are broadened and modified all the time. It's the nature of language to change. If anything, dictionaries hurt language.

My case was already stated:
"Any society that deprives a group of the benefits of that society based solely on moral grounds is arrogant, patronizing, and oppressive. It's called coersion and and is un-American. These presumptuous, pinch-faced church-goers who think they know what's good for everybody, everywhere, are without question the single most stunting and destructive force in our country today."

And with that, I bid you ~good day~
 
I don't care, as long as they don't gloat it. It's kinda like a straight couple gloating about getting/being married. It's just like "Shut up!"
 
Originally posted by milefile
That's not it at all. I have no use for the abuse of the bible.
In that case Please see Leviticus Chapter 20, verses 9 thru 22.
I think that spells out God's viewpoint pretty clearly, on all manner of sexual transgressions.
I don't know about you, but my arms are too short to box with God.
 
Oh, so what is your hatefulness in the name of? Hmmmmmm?

Pako, it's not just a question of changing the dictionary to suit a vocal but politically correct minority. The words "consenting adults" are the crux of the biscuit, not just a few more words in a definition.

Bill and Bob, loving each other and wishing to get married, can in no way affect your morality. Nor can they possibly do any harm to any one. That's what "consenting adults" means - they are freely doing what they wish and they are not harming anyone by doing it.

There's no rational justification for making it illegal, whatsoever. It doesn't even have the baggage that is present in the abortion issue - there is a difficult line to draw between when a fetus becomes a baby, so there is a potential, non-consenting party involved.

Gay marriage cannot injure your morality if you choose not to be in a gay marriage. Seeing happy gay people may offend you, but you know what? I'm offended by seeing fat people in tiny bathing suits. I saw plenty of offensive ones on my recent vacation... but I'm not out campaiging against their right to wear little Speedos that disappear under their bellies.

I'd like to impose on Gil's good nature here, to illustrate a point. You mentioned that gay people are making a poor choice, in the face of the popular majority opinion against it.

Interracial marriages can be described in precisely the same manner. Should they be banned? Many people - the majority? - have a serious problem with it. My good friend Gil would have literally been taking his life in his hands marrying a white woman just a few decades ago and just a few degrees farther southeast. Lynchings were still happening in the 60s - and for a black man to even look twice at a white woman was a sure way to invite one.

That is a God-damned abomination. Not homosexuality. And it's got nothing to do with religion, so can it for the moment, DGB.

Or is it "OK" if Gil was just "genetically programmed" to be attracted to white women? Why isn't he simply allowed to love his wife? He's made a choice which is largely unpopular with the hyper-conservative crowd, just as if he had chosen to be gay. Being gay didn't fit his morality, so he didn't. Falling in love with a white woman did fit his morality, so he did that instead.

Consenting adults, right? No harm, no foul. So why not let other consenting adults choose their own morality, so long as they don't make you do it?

And on the children issue, DGB, I've seen gay couple who would be far better parents than many straight couples who are. Any idiots with the right plumbing can make a baby - but that doesn't give you what it takes to be a parent.
 
Originally posted by neon_duke
but you know what? I'm offended by seeing fat people in tiny bathing suits. I saw plenty of offensive ones on my recent vacation...


Where'd you go, anyway?
 
Originally posted by Gil

I don't know about you, but my arms are too short to box with God.

So then let God sort it out - what's the point of you getting involved here and now? God's smarter than all of us, right?
 
Originally posted by neon_duke
Oh, so what is your hatefulness in the name of? Hmmmmmm?

Pako, it's not just a question of changing the dictionary to suit a vocal but politically correct minority. The words "consenting adults" are the crux of the biscuit, not just a few more words in a definition.

Bill and Bob, loving each other and wishing to get married, can in no way affect your morality. Nor can they possibly do any harm to any one. That's what "consenting adults" means - they are freely doing what they wish and they are not harming anyone by doing it.

*snip*

I told myself I wasn't going to return to this thread, but after I saw your return, I just couldn't leave it alone. What better way to welcome you back! ;)

Let it be known that it was I, Pako, who stated the words of "Consenting Adults" and NOT the States of America who's state laws govern marital rights. In Montana, same sex marriages are not allowed. They have never been allowed because the requirements for marriage under the State of Montana is very gender specific. It does NOT say "Consenting Adults" but rather "Man" and "Woman" and later stated as "Husband" and "Wife".

There was a push in 1999 at our state capital in Helena to remove all gender specifics from the marriage laws which would open the doors to same sex marriages.

So, the argument of making something illegal that can't exist is a mute argument. Same sex marriages in sanctioned under the State of Montana cannot be illegal because it is not allowed, therefore, the act can never be committed.

It must be getting late because the above paragraph made little sense, but I hope you can sift through enough of it to get my point.

To summarize:
It's not that same sex marriages is illegal, but rather, gay rights activists would like to reap the benefits of heteroral marriages by making same sex marriages legal under different states jurisdiction.
 
Originally posted by Pako
It's not that same sex marriages is illegal, but rather, gay rights activists would like to reap the benefits of heteroral marriages by making same sex marriages legal under different states jurisdiction.

So - it's about inheritance.

Even when we say it's not about the money - it's actually about the money.
 
Originally posted by vat_man
So - it's about inheritance.

Even when we say it's not about the money - it's actually about the money.
It's not about money, it's a bunch of right wing crap about gay people being worth less than heteros..

So - Who pissed in the genepool this time....
 
Should put up at this point that if gay people wish to go public with their relationship and exchange vows - more power to them. People are fully entitled to pursue happiness in their relationships.

Call it the tired Friday night/couple of beers cynicism point of view. Note I didn't say that was a bad thing - there have been some awful examples in Sydney of the bereaved partner of the deceased being completely frozen out of the will by families - and that's unfair.
 
Duke, I just have to say it. D***, You're Good!!:D
I realize that folks are gonna do what folks are gonna do. It is still my Christian duty to show them the same love and support as I show anyone else.
I don't have to condone or support their lifestyle to do that.
I'm not for taking them out in the back and "stoning" them. Christ said, "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone." I'd like to say that I'm without sin. But it'd be a lie. (not so's I could be casting stones BTW) He also said to "love your neighbor as yourself." & "judge not, lest ye be judged" (see book of Matthew)
It takes a long time to realize it, but God is more than capable of sorting things out for himself (see Isiah 55:8). Where I stand, what my feelings are, are moot, based on that passage alone.
Once your gay friends know that you don't support their lifestyle, but, you aren't going to withdraw friendship, that should be the end of it.
 
Back