Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Nobody owns the definition. It is what it is. You imply that gays and leftists do not own the word or its definition, so why should they be allowed to change it?


W.

   

They don't want to change it, merely use it as it applies in their situation, and be allowed the legal rights and responsibilities that go with it. The "anti" argument is the side wishing to limit and restrict its use according to their definition .

   

Personally, I feel that gays should be entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals. People don't choose to become gay or lesbian; they're born that way. Why can't people see that? For that matter, what's the big deal if gay people marry? Love is love; we don't choose who we fall in love with...

   

Oh, for Christ's sake! Please read the thread before you comment. The laws apply ABSOLUTELY EQUALLY. A man may marry any woman, a woman may marry any man, sexual orientation aside. The law applies equally.




Again, what if we fall in love with TWO people and they are in love with eachother as well? Who are we to tell them that they cannot get married? If gay marriage should be legal because two people "love eachother," then why not allow three people to "marry?"


W.

   

Did you take a page out of the "manual of fear"

The same rationalization against interacial marriages was used in the 50's/60's if allowed the downfall of society was coming.
Same rational as the war on drugs "we let em' smoke pot and they will all be crack/heroine abusers.

The science and research aint there to support your fear mongering based conclusions

   

STill waiting for an honest answer to that question. I believe that I will be waiting for ever because there is no answer to that question. If we can change marriage for the sake of gays, then why not for the sake of polygamists? ARe you a bigot? <b>HOW DOES A POLYGAMIST'S MARRIAGE AFFECT YOUR LIFE??</B> I can hear it already...




Oh really? Well, "logic" supports my racist conclusions. Also, since when are scientists asked questions of morality and logic? Since when should I care what scientists have to say about anything other than science? We're talking about marriage here, as well as social institutions, not a genome.



W.

   

Good to see your true colors, quit hiding behind some veil and come right out and say that your argument is one based some archaic based belief of what is "right and wrong" a belief that is fueled by homophobia.

   

I'll be happy to oblige you when YOU answer the question that has yet to be answered, "If we are to redefine marriage for the sake of gays, then why not for the sake of polygamists?"

Are you a bigot? Why do you hate polygamists? Who are you, LOL, to judge THEIR way of life?




W.

   

Is it I that is the biggot? Am I the one spinning fear/hatred by lumping same sex marriage in with polygamists ?


Current marriage laws are full of "discrimination" . They will not issue marriage licenses to certain persons basd on: Age- a couple has to be old enough to marry, Disability-those who are severely mentally disabled are often prevented from marrying, Consanguinity-those who are too closely related cannot marry, Religion-the law discriminates against those faith groups that promote polygyny, Sex-jurisdictions in the US do not allow couples of the same sex cannot marry, Species-Humans can only marry other humans, not their pets or other animals, Quantity- All known marriage laws prohibit the marriage of three or more persons to each other and Sex-do not allow couples of the same sex cannot marry

Allowing two persons of the same sex to marry is one decision. Allowing more than two persons to marry is a separate decision. To suggest we are going to open pandoras box with some cause-and-effect relationship between the two. A government could approve of neither, of both, or of one without the other. They are independent expansions to the traditional concept of marriage.

   

Why should anyone have to ask the government permission to marry in the first place? That is the real issue.

In the U.S. this whole thing goes back to slavery. The U.S. government wanted to stop inter-racial relationships so they required people to get a marriage license(AKA asking permission to marry) and that is how they stopped a black man from marrying a white woman or a white man from marrying a black woman. It became a union of man, woman, and the state and not just man and woman.

Much like everything it touches, the government ruined marriage. It is clear that asking the government permission to marry does nothing to improve the chances of your marriage lasting. If anything, the exact opposite appears to be true, although I'm sure you can chalk it up to a lot of factors.

The government should not have the authority to grant anyone permission to marry or not to marry. This whole debate is a red herring.

   

If you can change one, why not all? A precedent has been set, that marriage is no longer exclusionary. Fifty years ago if you had said that gays could marry, you'd be laughed out of the room. Another fifty and you'll have polygamous weddings to goats. This is not a fear or hatred inducing tactic, it is people smart enough to see the writing on the wall and recognize it for what it is.

   

Taking the historical view of marriage it used to be until death do us part, that no longer holds true (just feels like an eternity, death would be more pleasurable)Things have changed we are a different society from what we were 20, 30....100.....1000 years ago, a great deal of are laws are canon based, and to not allow laws the ability to represent a societies current norms and mores makes them ineffective.......take minor possession of marijuana in Canada it is still on the books as illegal but will any cop charge you, any prosecutor follow through on the charge for possessing a joint "not bloody likely"

   

Are there a lot of people agitating for polygamous marriage to goats? How would a goat sign the marriage certificate or is that just a straw-man argument because there is really no sensible argument against same-sex marriage? I'm happy to read a sensible argument but so far all the anti same-sex marriage side can offer is NONsense arguments or arguments wholly inconsistent with the non-existant sanctity of heterosexual marriages.

   

That does open up an interesting question...If the goat can't read and isn't able to sign, how do we find a legal way of a guy marrying his goat? I guess that's something the freaks will have to work on because it's beyond me. As far as I'm concerned, as long as no children are involved, for example, no one is marrying anyone under 18, I couldn't give a shit what gender is marrying what gender. What two adults do in the privacy of their home is their business...I know, very un-conservative, but many of us exist and will stand up for fudge packers and canoe lickers getting married. As I said before, everyone should have the right to be miseable, not just the straights!

   

OMG. We are talking about two human beings. How come someone can think it opens a breach for marrying a GOAT ?!

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next