For or against gay marriage.

[amrtin77]

voting to illigalize gay marraige is repressing gays. if your doing it for your religion, remember that not everyone believes in your god, so why should they have to follow laws made based on your god?

even if it is a choice, why should they not eb allowed to make that choice? why do you think that by trying to turn them straight you are helping them? they may be perfectly happy gay. i wouldnt be happy if someone tried to change my sexuality because of their religion. i dont even like people trying to convert me. im happy as an atheist.

 

[ST]

Err.I want to argue but you guys took all the good stuff.And pretty much covered it all.So someone say something about gay marriage being bad so I can argue!!

 

[Nuts]

you still havent given me anything except a definition nuts. who are you to decide what is immoral and what is not moral?

Actually, I never condemned same sex marriage as immoral, you drew that conclusion on your own. I said that permitting same sex marriage would lead to further degredation of the definition of marriage. And yes, it is a definition, so why are we trying to manipulate the system? Civil Unions afford homosexuals the exact same legal rights as a married couple, so where exactly is the problem? The problem lies in the inability for gays to recognize that they are indeed abnormal in the scientific sense of the word.

Posted by ST ST ST Do you know what your talking about?First of all "if we permit same sex marriage then you must also permit polygmay and invest".Actually no we must not permit anything.If we alloy gays to marry why would we have to allow incest?Give me a good reason.

Because the only logical argument for homosexual marriage is the fact that to ban it would deny civil rights. Perhaps you can explain how civil rights don't extend to polygamists and incestual participants?

Second:Once we unlock bla bla.Actually it isn't illegal for gays to marry so were currently not redifining any laws last time I checked.

Perhaps you're living in Canada, but In America same sex marriage is not recognized, ergo it is not legal. Aside from a few rogue courts, there is no legal means by which a homosexual may marry a person of same sex. Otherwise this thread would have no reason for existence.

And IF we did redifine one we wouldnt have to redifine any others.Dude please be more senseable.

Explain to me how you can permit the ruination of the definition of marriage, and deny polygamy and incest, considering that they are the acts of consensual adults in all three cases? You cannot come up with a single logical argument that would deny polygamy and incestual marriage, yet permit same sex marriage.

WTF are you talking about? Were you stoned while you posted?

Can I assume that you've resorted to these insults in lieu of posting an actual debate?


You cannot support gay marriage without supporting polygamy and incest. If you claim otherwise, then you should find the nearest dictionary and find the defintion of the word hypocrite. If by chance you do support polygamy and incest, then I am left to assume that your morals have flown out the window long ago.

 

[ST]

(Concerning Nuts' last post)
Most of the things you said in there were pretty valid I'll give you that.But one thing bothers me.I can think incest is wrong but not gay marriage.That's whats great about free countries.I'm entitled to my own opinion about everything.I do think incest is wrong(Although I've heard on the news that some incest make children deformed but smart)because of the deformation that it inflicts upon a helpless child that did not ask for it.

 

[Nuts]

That's where personal opinion and morality enter into the equation. Most same sex marriage advocates refuse to admit that morality has anything to do with the decision.

 

[amrtin77]

i have my own morals yes, but i drop them when talking about a system of laws. i wouldnt care if more than two people got married if all three loved eachother and wanted to.. hell, have fun. incest, whatever floats your boat, just dont have kids or they might be deformed.... im fine with legal unions as long as they give the same benifits as being married in the eyes of the law..

 

[Forged]

Civil Unions afford homosexuals the exact same legal rights as a married couple, so where exactly is the problem?

So Seperate but equal aye?

Explain to me how you can permit the ruination of the definition of marriage, and deny polygamy and incest, considering that they are the acts of consensual adults in all three cases?

I dont see it as ruining the word, maybe in a christian sense. And what ever consentual adults do is their own damn buisness, so I believe in Polygamy, but as incest has been shown to be harmful I do not think that a sexual incest marrige is ok.

 

[Nuts]

Originally posted by Forged
So Seperate but equal aye?

Exhibit A: Red Herring

I dont see it as ruining the word, maybe in a christian sense. And what ever consentual adults do is their own damn buisness, so I believe in Polygamy, but as incest has been shown to be harmful I do not think that a sexual incest marrige is ok.

Let's take a quick look at the definition of marriage:

Merriam Webster
Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>

Now, by defintion, if we "change" the definition of marriage to include same sex partnership, then we have ruined the definition. I'm not certain how much clearer I can make it?

 

[dust601]

i can think gay marriage is ok and incest is wrong easily.
gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone, they don't have affect anyone.

Incest creates deformed freaks which does hurt people.

 

[Nuts]

Originally posted by dust601
i can think gay marriage is ok and incest is wrong easily.
gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone, they don't have affect anyone.

Incest creates deformed freaks which does hurt people.

That's an interesting jump in logic. I wasn't aware that incestual relationships resulted in unwanted children. I guess birth control is simply too difficult for the dumb hicks, eh?

:fwink

 

[amrtin77]

as long as they dont have kids i have no problem with it. ive said that before. polygamy id be for too... but is it practical? is it practical to legally unite more than 2 people and get tax cuts for them all and such? eheheh i could see like 10 people getting married


i do believe what it has come down to is seperate but equal, or protection of a definition. no one with sense can go against homosexuals marrying/ legally uniting in some form. asw long as they have equal benifits im fine with it..

 

[ST]

That's true.I mean gays really don't effect you in any way do they?(unless of course as I said before their hitting on you or something)You can still talk to a gay person and not even know hes gay but than when you find out hes gay you want absolutely nothing to do with him.Whats up with that?That's kinda stereotype.Most gay people won't try to convert you or anything.People label people in bad ways.If someone is gay they are automatically "dumb" "annoying" "stupid" "weird" .Following along with my analogy:You would have still talked to the gay person if you didn't know they were gay now wouldn't you have?

 

[amrtin77]

actually i found out my freind was gay after a few months knowing him. i didnt care, if i didnt notice all that time it really didnt make a difference did it?

 

[dust601]

thats a easy cope out
claim i'm sterotyping all incest as hicks?

i find it hard to bealive that "all" incest groups would get all the necessary precautions to ensure they have 0 percent chance to have a child.
I'm sure a fair deal of them would, but unless some kind of system is setup where they all have to be made so they can't have kids (ya thats likley) i don't bealive incest is for the best of our country

 

[Forged]

Originally posted by amrtin77


i do believe what it has come down to is seperate but equal, or protection of a definition. no one with sense can go against homosexuals marrying/ legally uniting in some form. asw long as they have equal benifits im fine with it..

That is how segregation was justified.

 

[ST]

Originally posted by amrtin77
actually i found out my freind was gay after a few months knowing him. i didnt care, if i didnt notice all that time it really didnt make a difference did it?

Sorry for me not explaining clearer.I meant homophobic people would fit with that scenario.

 

[amrtin77]

true..... and looking back at segregation... im confused now... you can get married by a court right..? its not an only christian thing... if you can get married by a court it should be exactly the same as a legal union.... they should call male/females getting married in the eyes of the law legal unions... if they want to get married by a church that should be fine too.. and it should be a legal union in the eyes of the law... thats the only thing i can think of.
edit: this is replying to forged

 

[Forged]

Yes you are married by a court, that is where you get your papers from anyway. The church preforms a cermnoy you get your offical papers from the courthouse.

 

[Nuts]

Originally posted by Forged
That is how segregation was justified.

Stop with the strawman routine. This has nothing to do with segregation and everything to do with classification. Unless we're going to ask same sex partners to work and school in different buildings your arguement has zero credibility.

Do you ask that blacks be classified as caucasians? Of course not! So don't ask that same sex unions be classified as marriage. Classification is a means of identifcation, not segregation. But you knew that, right?

Originally posted by Forged
Yes you are married by a court, that is where you get your papers from anyway. The church preforms a cermnoy you get your offical papers from the courthouse.

You are only married by a court if a Justice of the Peace performs the ceremony. Even then you are married by a Justice, not the court. State governments simply recognize your marriage as a legal arrangement, nothing more.

 

[ST]

You guys are just defining marriage and church now and stuff.
Definition below
Noun
1. a. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. b. The state of being married; wedlock. c. A common-law marriage. d. .A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage. 2. A wedding. 3. A close union: "the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics" (Lloyd Rose). 4. Games The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.
Etymology
Middle English mariage, from Old French, from marier, to marry ; see marry1.

See there are same-sex marriages.If you don't beleive me message smarterchild on aim hes a bot with a hell of alot of info.All info in encyclopedias and dictionaries.