Personally I think yes because it's segregation otherwise. Saying gays can't marry is saying blacks can't use this bathroom or islams can't get on a plain. What kind of free nation is this if people don't have the same rights as everyone else?
Gay marrige?
#1
Posted 24 February 2008 - 12:14 PM
Personally I think yes because it's segregation otherwise. Saying gays can't marry is saying blacks can't use this bathroom or islams can't get on a plain. What kind of free nation is this if people don't have the same rights as everyone else?
#2
Posted 24 February 2008 - 12:17 PM
/thread
#3
Posted 24 February 2008 - 12:33 PM
#4
Posted 24 February 2008 - 12:35 PM
#5
Posted 24 February 2008 - 12:41 PM
Marriage was intended to be soley for a man and a woman according to The Book. That mean that two men can never be married. They would have to fall in another category say union?
#6
Posted 24 February 2008 - 12:44 PM
Fortunately we aren't all sheep who listen to a book to tell us how to live our lives. Marriage is a social construct and as such can be reconstructed in any way we want.
#7
Posted 24 February 2008 - 12:51 PM
lol I don't go by the book, I just refer back to it. I'm just saying if gay people want to get leagally closer they shouldn't call it marriage.
#8
Posted 24 February 2008 - 12:53 PM
*sigh*
And you were doing so well...
Is there any reason why a male couple who love each other shouldn't be able to benefit from the same things as a married heterosexual couple?
Forgetting the name, the institution of marriage, whatever, simply considering the legal benefits.
Now, is there any reason why these two unions should have different names?
I'm talking real, logical reasons. Not "the Bible says so".
The answer, all things considered, to both of these questions, is no.
#9
Posted 24 February 2008 - 12:54 PM
Why not?
#10
Posted 24 February 2008 - 12:54 PM
What should it be called if two people fall in love and want to be togther and start a family?
#11
Posted 24 February 2008 - 01:02 PM
And you were doing so well...
Is there any reason why a male couple who love each other shouldn't be able to benefit from the same things as a married heterosexual couple?
Forgetting the name, the institution of marriage, whatever, simply considering the legal benefits.
Now, is there any reason why these two unions should have different names?
I'm talking real, logical reasons. Not "the Bible says so".
The answer, all things considered, to both of these questions, is no.
Companys recongnize and still give benefits to gay couples
#12
Posted 24 February 2008 - 01:02 PM
Er.. love?
This wouldn't necissaraly happen in a gay marriage/ Civil partnership.
(dont quote me on grammar lol)
Edited by -GaMeZ-, 24 February 2008 - 01:03 PM.
#13
Posted 24 February 2008 - 01:04 PM
#14
Posted 24 February 2008 - 01:07 PM
#15
Posted 24 February 2008 - 01:10 PM
You sidestepped the actual question there.
He asked why it would need to be called a "union" rather than a marriage other than because of religious reasons.
#16
Posted 24 February 2008 - 01:12 PM
#17
Posted 24 February 2008 - 01:14 PM
He asked why it would need to be called a "union" rather than a marriage other than because of religious reasons.
lol guilty I did take debate classes thats all I did lol
I know my arguement is flawed. I just wanted to see how far I got.
#18
Posted 24 February 2008 - 01:17 PM
No but why should people care what others do?
#19
Posted 24 February 2008 - 01:21 PM
I think you misunderstood me. I'm saying that the people who condemn gay marriage probably eat shellfish, thus they're hypocrites.
#20
Posted 24 February 2008 - 01:22 PM
Society thinks its against tradition to marriages of the same sex. That's why I think everyone has a problem with it.
#21
Posted 24 February 2008 - 01:22 PM
oh lol my bad I did misunderstand you ..
Edited by Sunset, 24 February 2008 - 01:28 PM.
#22
Posted 24 February 2008 - 01:24 PM
If there were no religion, no one would care about gettin married ect.
Its only a name... marraige, partnerships, unions...
What does marriage have that unions/ partneships dont?
Edited by -GaMeZ-, 24 February 2008 - 01:25 PM.
#23
Posted 24 February 2008 - 01:26 PM
#24
Posted 24 February 2008 - 01:43 PM
Not everyone has a problem with it.
In fact, so far, you seem to be the only person here who does.
And you still haven't answered my question, either.
#25
Posted 24 February 2008 - 02:13 PM
In fact, so far, you seem to be the only person here who does.
And you still haven't answered my question, either.
I don't have the info to answer your question sunscorch but I do have this to say
Everyone has the same rights under the law. This includes marrying anyone of the opposite sex and not marrying someone of the same sex. Gay couples do not want equality but "extra-rights" given to them so they can reap the benefits of marriage without actually marrying in its traditional sense. Why should those who refuse traditional marriage be given this right?
Oh and by the way, I don't really care for gay marriages. They can get married if they want. I just like to argue for a difficult postion.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users