Gay Marriage

[Omnis]

The concept of "marriage" doesn't have rights.

Sorry, I meant a marriage as in, like, two married people.

 

[Pako]

*snip*

Try not to just pick at whatever technicality you see in my post. Try to think about the spirit of what I'm trying to convey, I'd appreciate the courtesy. Thanks.

I have, many many many times. We have both gone round and round arriving to the same conclusion except for some reason now, you have had a awakening that Civil Unions are not good enough. It used to be, what happened in the last couple months or are you just enjoying the banter of debate? Either way this discussion is exhausting. I don't agree with you and you don't agree with me and it really doesn't matter how many times you say it, a marriage is still between a man and a woman. End of discussion. The FACTS are that marriage is between a man and a woman. Let me say it again, marriage is between a man and a woman. I could copy and paste that definition a thousand times if you like but I have a sneaky suspicion that you will continue to ignore what marriage is. Homosexuals want rights? They got 'em. That's great, I'm glad and even happy for them that their legal matters can be addressed as a couple. They had enough respect to leave 'marriage' what it is, and that is......I will say it again.......between a man and a woman.

 

[UnoMOTO]

Try not to just pick at whatever technicality you see in my post. Try to think about the spirit of what I'm trying to convey, I'd appreciate the courtesy. Thanks.

Ok...to that I would say that we should not be changing laws of the masses to console the few. Which by your sig...doesn't still well with you either. Its a no win position that you want us to argue with you.

 

[Famine]

a marriage is still between a man and a woman.

The FACTS are that marriage is between a man and a woman.

marriage is between a man and a woman

leave 'marriage' what it is, and that is......I will say it again.......between a man and a woman.

And why is it?

 

[FoolKiller]

If I knowingly, let them call themselves married as heterosexual couples are married, that would be condoning it.

How many actual crimes do you see and not report? Think about every speeder that passes you on the road. You see them and you realize they must be speeding because you are going the speed limit. You aren't calling that in to the police, so you are condoning it?

Let's go back to freedom of religion. If you think that we should have that in America then you are knowingly allowing non-Christians to worship someone/thing other than Christ/God (a much bigger sin in my book), and by your reasoning you are condoning it.

You have also sided with Danoff and I in other arguments that a business owner should be allowed to be racist because it is his business. You are knowingly allowing him to be racist, thus condonining it.

You can say that you will allow someone to do something, and you will even love that person as a human being, but you do not agree with their lifestyle. You do not have to condone something to allow someone else to do it.

You have even said that calling it a civil union is fine, thus you are knowingly allowing them to live in this way you disagree with, thus condoning it. If your issue is with their sin you can't condone it all the way to a certain point and then stop, you have to condone it altogether. Drawing your line at using the term marriage is silly at best and discriminatory at worst. Either way, by your reasoning, you have already condoned homosexuality.

If it is a civil union and they adopt kids and have a happy family unit how is the family unit protected by not using the term marriage? It is the same thing, but you are refusing to use a word.


I can't wait for the day I get to talk about my civilly united neighbors and my married neighbors trying to out do each other's flower gardens. Telling someone about your civilly united neighbors is the same as saying, "we have this gay couple next door and they have the most beautiful house." Gay has nothing to do with it unless you are making an issue of them being gay. You don't talk about your straight neighbors' house do you? Know you talk about your neighbors' house.

 

[Danoff]

I have, many many many times. We have both gone round and round arriving to the same conclusion except for some reason now, you have had a awakening that Civil Unions are not good enough.

Mind answering my question posed to both you and Swift?

Ok, substitute the word black for something you choose... like a religion. Let's say the bill said that marriage could only be between a man and a woman, and only between non-Christians. All others had to get a civil union.

Now do you see a difference between marriage and civil union?

It used to be, what happened in the last couple months or are you just enjoying the banter of debate?

I don't remember thinking the civil unions were ok. Maybe when we very first started arguing about this I thought it would be a good start. But I think you can easily see why separating the category doesn't make sense. I've provided numerous examples of why it's wrong for the government to unecessarily categorize people, but you've ignored those posts (or picked at technicalities).

Either way this discussion is exhausting. I don't agree with you and you don't agree with me and it really doesn't matter how many times you say it, a marriage is still between a man and a woman. End of discussion.

Except it isn't. I mean transport me back in time and I could sit here and say "White people are free and black people are slaves. End of discussion."

But that doesn't exactly end the discussion does it? Mainly because from a governmental point of view it's immoral for marriage to be defined that way. I have logical reasoning backing my conclusion that it's immoral for marriage to be defined the way you define it. You have a religion. Who wins?

I'd say in a country that practices freedom of religion, I win.

 

[Zrow]

I would appreciate a direct answer to this, because some of the perspectives in this thread are really upsetting me.


How is gay marriage immoral to people who are not religious?

What morality law does it break?

 

[Famine]

How is gay marriage immoral to people who are not religious?

What morality law does it break?

I am not religious, so I will answer.

It isn't.

I think you'll get similar answers from Duke and danoff, but I won't pre-empt them.

 

[Zrow]

Ooh, no, I meant it as "how could it be considered immoral to people that aren't religious?"

I'm aiming the question at Pako and Swift, really.

 

[Swift]

I've been looking over this thread and the past 40 pages or so. Most of it from about two years ago. Man, I was seriously out there wasn't I? I mean I was calling people sinners and condemning people and the like. I wasn't wrong, but I can really see how some people could find what I was saying insulting. So for that, I really want to apologize.

Looking at Danoff's latest question.

It goes against the freedom of religion. I know you'll reply and say the same thing about my stance. However, same sex marriage is inherently different from heterosexual marriage by pure design. It changes the form of what a family is supposed to be. Not just from a perspective of color, religion or heritage. But at a completely physical level. Getting back to, again, my problem with gay couples calling it a "marriage"

 

[Danoff]

It goes against the freedom of religion. I know you'll reply and say the same thing about my stance. However, same sex marriage is inherently different from heterosexual marriage by pure design. It changes the form of what a family is supposed to be. Not just from a perspective of color, religion or heritage. But at a completely physical level. Getting back to, again, my problem with gay couples calling it a "marriage"

What??

Ok, I'll take my own advice and try to capture the spirit of this post. Somehow you're saying that same-sex marriage violates your freedom of religion. That doesn't make sense to me because it doesn't force religious beliefs on you in any way, but I think that's what you're saying. Then you say that same sex marriage is different than heterosexual marriage phsyically - which is about as obvious as it gets. Then you say what I think is probably the most telling part of this post:

"It changes the form of what a family is supposed to be."

Your concern is that somehow if the government recognizes same-sex marriage, it damages the entire concept of the family. How? And why is it ok for the government to dictate what a family is supposed to be?

 

[Swift]

It all goes back to my points about 10 pages ago.

And no, gay marriage doesn't infringe on my freedom of religion. That was in direct response to your question about if it was a union with only non-Christians.

 

[Danoff]

It all goes back to my points about 10 pages ago.

I take it by that you mean that this country was founded on the concept of a family - which I completely debunked earlier and you haven't responded since.

And no, gay marriage doesn't infringe on my freedom of religion. That was in direct response to your question about if it was a union with only non-Christians.

No it doesn't. You have the option to use the civil union. Sure you can't call yourself married... you're a christian. Marriage is defined as being between a non-Christian man and a non-Christian woman. But you get all the same benefits from a civil union, so what's the problem?

 

[3-Wheel Drive]

I would appreciate a direct answer to this, because some of the perspectives in this thread are really upsetting me.


How is gay marriage immoral to people who are not religious?

What morality law does it break?

It isn't immoral to those not religious, as they do not believe homosexuality is any sort of sin/abomination to God.

Again, the problem lies with morality. "Gay marriage is immoral", opponents say. Immoral to whom? In reality, it is only immoral to the ones that oppose it. As I stated before, morality is subjective. No one person share the exact same morals. One man's crusade is another man's persecution. That being said, no one should have to tolerate other people's morality pushed onto them, least of all in the form of a binding law. Why should homosexuals tolerate being denied marriage because it goes against someone else's morals? It should not be up to any one to restrict how any one else chooses to live their life, unless it poses actual harm to others.

 

[Swift]

I take it by that you mean that this country was founded on the concept of a family - which I completely debunked earlier and you haven't responded since.

I didn't respond because the point is completely ideological and hence no matter what I say you can refute it.

No it doesn't. You have the option to use the civil union. Sure you can't call yourself married... you're a christian. Marriage is defined as being between a non-Christian man and a non-Christian woman. But you get all the same benefits from a civil union, so what's the problem?

Nice hypothetical. But that's not the case now is it? Nor could it have been with the constitution the way it is.

 

[Danoff]

I didn't respond because the point is completely ideological and hence no matter what I say you can refute it.

I explained earlier how you can validate your claim. The claim "America is built on the idea of the family" is not something that's impossible to validate (if it were true). You're just finding it impossible because it isn't true.

Nice hypothetical. But that's not the case now is it? Nor could it have been with the constitution the way it is.

...and what exactly is in the constitution is it that prevents such a thing... and what bearing might that have on our discussion here?

 

[a6m5]

How is gay marriage immoral to people who are not religious?

What morality law does it break?

I don't know about morality, but the main question to me is: Is marriage between a man and a woman, a husband and a wife? Or should it be between two people, forget the husband/wife?

As I noted before, I don't think this discussion is going anywhere, because we can't agree on what "marriage" is. Again, if marriage indeed is something between a husband and a wife, there is no discrimination. Man can not get "married" to another man, because that's not what marriage is.

With my track record, you guys would probably guess that I'm against gay marriage, and I have actually stated that I'm all for civil union, WAY earlier in this thread.

As Omnis said in his post, I do agree that gay marriage is attack on the foundation of marriage, because it will change what marriage is. At least what it is, currently.

Question is, is this the direction our society wants to take it? Religious, traditional, bigots( ), whatever, etc., we want to keep the marriage what it is, but according to some people(some, because majority is still against it), it is a discrimination.

I think what fair would be to allow gay marriage, when the majority vote it in. I'm kinda like Mark T, that if enough people supports it, I wouldn't stand in the way. Husband-husband, wife-wife, to me is not marriage, but like Christmas, it wouldn't be the first religious content taken out of some religion, turned into whatever "the people" wanted it to be.

 

[Zrow]

My question to you, or anyone: do you think that two homosexuals' loving relationship is any less signficant than a straight one?











By the way, remember when Brittany Spears got drunk and married that guy in Vegas? Real sacred.

 

[a6m5]

My question to you, or anyone: do you think that two homosexuals' loving relationship is any less signficant than a straight one?

Personally, no. But do keep in mind that I do not belong in any religious organizations, so I can not speak for Pako and others.

 

[Mark T]

My question to you, or anyone: do you think that two homosexuals' loving relationship is any less signficant than a straight one?


By the way, remember when Brittany Spears got drunk and married that guy in Vegas? Real sacred.

No it isn't any less siginificant which is why in the UK and several other countries it has been recognised with a civil union.

 

[Casio]

Gays getting married isn't what you all should be debating about.

It's the people who marry snakes that you should be questioning...

 

[Mark T]

Once you change the law to allow gay couples to be married you could see under 18's disputing the fact that they need parental consent. They could claim it is age discrimination.

 

[FoolKiller]

Once you change the law to allow gay couples to be married you could see under 18's disputing the fact that they need parental consent. They could claim it is age discrimination.

There is a HUGE difference there.

A homosexual marriage would be a marriage between two consenting adults. People under 18 getting married are minors getting married.

 

[Mark T]

There is a HUGE difference there.

A homosexual marriage would be a marriage between two consenting adults. People under 18 getting married are minors getting married.

Exactly. The law says that you have to be 18 whether your gay or straight. Should it be changed to 17 years old? Well, no.

Is that age discrimination? No.

Could changing the law open a can of worms for all sorts of different adjustments to marriage laws? I think it could. I believe that sometimes a government needs to stick by it's laws especially when they have already fulfilled the commitment needs of gay couples.

 

[FoolKiller]

Exactly. The law says that you have to be 18 whether your gay or straight. Should it be changed to 17 years old? Well, no.

Is that age discrimination? No.

Could changing the law open a can of worms for all sorts of different adjustments to marriage laws? I think it could. I believe that sometimes a government needs to stick by it's laws especially when they have already fulfilled the commitment needs of gay couples.

OK, apparently I have to explain the difference between underage kids and homosexual consenting adults.

Anyone under 18 is not considered to be old enough, or mature enough to consent to certain legal decisions. Is this age arbitrarily set? Yes and no. Some teenagers can think through a decision maturely, however due to puberty and other adolescent changes their decision making abilities may be clouded by other factors. If you were to allow minors to make these kinds of decisions they may not understand the complexities behind it and thus be taken advantage of by preying adults, violating their rights.

With a homosexual adult wishing to be married there is no reasoning to not be allowed to make that decision, other than the various reasons we've heard here, such as traditions and changing what a family unit is defined as. A homosexual entering into a marriage is not unable to make these decisions and thus would not be having their rights violated by such an act.


Honestly, should we also stick to sodomy laws because otherwise it might mean that NAMBLA would actually have a case?

 

[Mark T]

OK, apparently I have to explain the difference between underage kids and homosexual consenting adults.

Anyone under 18 is not considered to be old enough, or mature enough to consent to certain legal decisions. Is this age arbitrarily set? Yes and no. Some teenagers can think through a decision maturely, however due to puberty and other adolescent changes their decision making abilities may be clouded by other factors. If you were to allow minors to make these kinds of decisions they may not understand the complexities behind it and thus be taken advantage of by preying adults, violating their rights.

With a homosexual adult wishing to be married there is no reasoning to not be allowed to make that decision, other than the various reasons we've heard here, such as traditions and changing what a family unit is defined as. A homosexual entering into a marriage is not unable to make these decisions and thus would not be having their rights violated by such an act.


Honestly, should we also stick to sodomy laws because otherwise it might mean that NAMBLA would actually have a case?

I know the difference between consenting sexual adults and underage kids.

What I'm trying to get at is that a 17 year old with one month to his/her 18th birthday could say "what's the difference between me at the age of 17 and then next month when I'm 18? Well not much to be honest. Is that discrimination? Are we saying to everyone under the age of 18 you can't get married because you do not fit in the over 18 group. Yes we are if you go by the dictionary meaning of discrimination.

Discrimination
Treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit.

Discriminsation can be applied to hundreds of laws but it doesn't mean they should be changed to accommodate everyone.

 

[Famine]

Exactly. The law says that you have to be 18 whether your gay or straight. Should it be changed to 17 years old? Well, no.

Is that age discrimination? No.

Actually 16, with parental consent.


Unless you're gay. Then it's 18.

 

[Mark T]

Actually 16, with parental consent.


Unless you're gay. Then it's 18.

Sorry, my mistake.

Well sort of. I was trying to establish that people under 18 need consent which is discriminating against a group based on age.

 

[TheCracker]

Are we saying to everyone under the age of 18 you can't get married because you do not fit in the over 18 group. Yes we are if you go by the dictionary meaning of discrimination.

Actually, in the UK you can get married at 16

 

[Pako]

There is discrimination in our government, society, etc. You have to have some, some of it is necessary. Communism works great on paper, but not so good in practice.

Tax law, business law, civil law......it's all discriminatory, but what's the key difference between slavery and the womans rights movement and these other discriminations?