66 replies to this topic

[Kail]

To be politically correct its cerimonialized not marriage, my dads gay so i do know as he's been cerimonialized.

(Poke fun but i dont care)

[Cory]

I know my arguement is flawed. I just wanted to see how far I got.

... ...


This really is a issue that I sway back and forth between. I personally think it's retarded, but who am I to say you can't love someone else?

The big "legal" issue that most people complain about is issues like taxes. The laws where implemented to help married couples, as usually only the man worked and the woman stayed at home. Now in days, especially in the U.S., I think laws like that should be reviewed seeing as the majority of households have both the husband and wife working full time jobs.

So if you want to marry another man, have at it. Prepare to be insulted though as the world is still very close minded and will be for many more years.

[Sweeney]

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.

Every individual has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.
That's true.

But what about the people who don't love people of the opposite sex?
Couples should have the right to marry, regardless of their genders.

If your only reason that they shouldn't marry, is that "they haven't had the rights before, why should they now?", then I suggest you give up.
And if you like to play Devil's Advocate in debates, I suggest you take some classes in debating technique.

[Jakerz]

I don't think theres anything wrong with gays getting married, same concept if it's a male and female, if they love each other and want to get married, no matter what their gender, let them.

[Cory]

If your only reason that they shouldn't marry, is that "they haven't had the rights before, why should they now?", then I suggest you give up.
And if you like to play Devil's Advocate in debates, I suggest you take some classes in debating technique.

^^

[chalupabatman]

I cant have fun with the subject?

[adonis]

absolutely they should have the legal benifits as a married man and woman. Basic scenario that is commonly played out could be one party of a domestic partnership going to war and losing thier life.......Should thier spose not recieve those benifits regardless of gender?

[Cory]

I cant have fun with the subject?

Sure you can, but be prepared to have people poke fun at you. =x

[oxlilshorti]

Times are changing as is tradition. People need to open their eyes and see this! If you can't get society to open their eyes then how do you expect a nation to prosper? When it came down to 9-11-01 people were absolutly horrified and it took months for society to open their eyes and realize that something has happened and that something needs to counter-act what has happened. Take Hurricane Katrina for another example. We need the people of the world to realize that homosxual merriage and heterosexual merriage all deserve the same benifets, and until we can we as a whole will go no where and continue to go no where.

[chalupabatman]

Sure you can, but be prepared to have people poke fun at you. =x

Yeah I knew I wasn't going to get very far with that arguement. It's still fun.

[Ives]

Marriage is such a bullshit concept in many ways, at least the legal aspects of it. I don't think many people say "Baby, I love you so much we need the government in on this shit!" You should be free to call your relationship whatever you want and others should be free to not recognize it provided it doesn't harm somebody (ie preventing someone from seeing their spouse in the hospital.)

Civil Unions are a bullshit way out of it, in my opinion. It's kinda like saying "Hey, you hobbits want benefits? Well you can have a couple here and there, get the hell out" It's based the idea that heterosexuals are superior, and it's fucking mind boggling to me why people still follow such illusions just because they can't have children. In many ways, not having children is doing a good favor to the world. Not that we cant hold any more people, its just that I'm a misanthrope.

Edited by Athean, 24 February 2008 - 06:29 PM.

[The Cookie Dragon]

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.

To play devil's advocate to your difficult position...

Once upon a time in this great nation, the law was written such that "Every person has the same rights under the law... as long as you fit our definition of person." This is the same thing. Not saying its as morally corrupt as slavery, don't get me wrong. But it's the same concept. If you do not fit our (current) definition, we shall not allow you 'x'. Another example: women could not vote, now we can. Why could we not vote? Because, traditionally speaking, which is what's being debated here, either religiously or not, men were seen as the decision makers. It wasn't even considered that women should be allowed to vote for the longest time, just as homosexuals haven't spoken up enmasse about marriage before. Why? Because women started losing their husbands and sons and brothers to war and depression, and suddenly were the heads of their families, charged with keeping them safe. Well, how do you do that? By putting someone in office who won't throw their lives away needlessly. You vote. Why are gays/lesbians asking for same-sex marriage? Because they are finally able to make a family without being hunted down by mobs with pitchforks or rifles or baseball bats, because their dreams of having children are now scientifically possible, and because those families get benefits, legally speaking, in this country. They are only asking for what is given freely to everyone who follows this fickle thing 'tradition'. Tradition changes, societal expectations change, people change. If once we could believe, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the world was flat, and now we can know it not to be, how can we assume our world is static? How can we believe that our traditions will stay unchanged? As someone before me mentioned, these labels have definitions, and definitions will always evolve.

The Cookie Dragon says: Ranting is fun! Weeeee!

[Aerowyn]

It says marriage is between a man and a woman in the Bible.

HOWEVER, seeing as this is America, where we have FREEDOM OF RELIGION, I don't think that the word of the Bible should be the word of the nation. We all believe different things, and while we must be tolerant of other people's religions, we must be tolerant of other people's choices in life. The Church has no business putting its nose into other people's business.

If a man wants to be with another man, and they are truly happy, fantastic. I see no reason against it. Equal protection under the law. Giving certain rights to some and not to others is discriminating, Word of God notwithstanding. God would never discriminate. So why should we?

[Fatal]

It should be legalized, but I am personally against gay marriage

[Cataliste]

I think they should be allowed to get a (I think it's called a..) civil union. Basically a marriage in the State's eyes. It's fucking wrong to stop people who love each other form receiving benefits JUST because they (for Hydrogen) "stick it in the pooper."

[Tetiel]

If America chooses legalize it or not it should not take into consideration the bible. That would be correct, however, for a debate over if churches should allow homosexuals to marry in their church.

[Ives]

^ I've always felt the same. If a unitarian church is A-OK, go for it. If a born again christian church says no, that OK too.

[Jake]

Personally I think they can do whatever they want (Less competition for me against the ladies )

Anyways, I see the world ending before we all turn gay and can't re-populate so have gay wild fun!

[sonic]

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.

I personally don't really agree with it. Call me old fashioned.

And you are a VERY SCARY person Joe, plenty of people on this forum don't agree with it, but don't post it for fear of loosing their head.

[Frizzle]

I think it's been said but unless it's in the house of the Lord then it's fine, but should still be classified as a civil union. Marriage is a religious tradition and shouldn't be changed just because some people define it as wrong or right. At the end of the day if two people want to get married in the name of religion or a religious place of worship then it should be up to said religions decision.

Personall I find homosexuality wrong based on multiple reasons (unholy, social and natural points of views and so forth) but I would never condemn a man or women because of their sexuality, I would just prefer to stay out of it.

[Gen]

Don't blame religion
Greeks(Athens specially) on ancient time had homosexual relationships, and they were very common. And they were really religious . I'll look about marriage in greek/latin:
Here we call it Casamento
Good! Actually, etymologically talking, yes, gay can have the world marriage for them
Casamento(Marriage) - Taking of mento, there's Casal, that is a word that comes from latin casa(house), and then it tells that a casal(couple) are two people that leave together with high affection(I mean, boyfriend and girlfriend living in the same house. Etymologically talking, you can't name boyfriend and girlfriend as a couple). Weird but fun. That's how I like to know about the words

Edited by Banhammer, 04 March 2008 - 05:49 PM.

[Ives]

I think it's been said but unless it's in the house of the Lord then it's fine, but should still be classified as a civil union. Marriage is a religious tradition and shouldn't be changed just because some people define it as wrong or right. At the end of the day if two people want to get married in the name of religion or a religious place of worship then it should be up to said religions decision.

Personall I find homosexuality wrong based on multiple reasons (unholy, social and natural points of views and so forth) but I would never condemn a man or women because of their sexuality, I would just prefer to stay out of it.

It shouldn't be enforced by the government, ultimately. It's not their job to enforce other religious dogma, and as such it should be up to the church and how the individual wishes to identify what their partnership is. I think if you want civil unions, ultimately it should be civil unions for everyone - straights, gays, etcetera. Just a way to formally recognize a partnership for the benefits, then you can call it what you want.

[Cory]

To restate some of hawks invised thread, removing the flames, Typically this section is to be treated a bit more mature. Attacking someone or there views, even in a joking manner, will not usually be tolerated as the person the post was directed at may laugh, but the next person may be completely insulted.

Try to stay on topic and keep your post a little more mature when they are generally a more serious topic / thread.

Also keep the flames off the boards. I've removed the posts that where generally off topic or flaming and expect this to be the end of the argument between you two.

[Grizzly]

Well, the U.S. government is way too conservative to fully consider allowing such a thing to happen for another few decades. We've got an african american and a female as candidates for the democratic party.. let's not get too ahead of ourselves yet.

[Ives]

Well, the U.S. government is way too conservative to fully consider allowing such a thing to happen for another few decades. We've got an african american and a female as candidates for the democratic party.. let's not get too ahead of ourselves yet.

I'm pretty convinced its not as bad as you think. Most people are more individualist than conservative.