What's new
By:

The 473

OP gives permission for this thread to be used for gay marriage discussion, btw.
 
colton said:
Will of the many is not always wrong, either. And just because gay couples want to be called "married" does not make their relationship identical to a heterosexual marriage. In fact, the two are fundamentally different. And as Gameface might say, "there's really no room to debate that point".
Click to expand...

They are different but does that make them less? Does it mean the love is any less? No it doesn't.
 
Gameface said:
I'll just say one thing and be done with it. Gay people don't think they get to marry whomever they want, they think they can marry their romantic partner who also wants to marry them. That's not a small hurdle and it's exactly what leads to most heterosexual marriages. People getting married to the person they love and are willing to make a life long commitment to.
Click to expand...

Sorry, the grammarian in me objects to that sentence. Their romantic partner is whom they want to marry, so by definition they do in fact think they should get to marry whomever they want.
 
colton said:
Sorry, the grammarian in me objects to that sentence. Their romantic partner is whom they want to marry, so by definition they do in fact think they should get to marry whomever they want.
Click to expand...

And? As long as they are two consenting adults, who can provide for themselves and any children they raise, why is it any of your or my business?

That leads into my overall stance on marriage and civil unions.
 
This is like a day too late. I had one at 6am yesterday

sorry bros... didn't mean to rerail this.
 
Stoked said:
They are different but does that make them less? Does it mean the love is any less? No it doesn't.
Click to expand...

Is the love of a polygamist any less? Do you support the full legalization of polygamy? Should a brother and sister who genuinely (in their opinion) feel romantic love for each other be allowed to marry?

(OK, gotta run now.)
 
colton said:
Is the love of a polygamist any less? Do you support the full legalization of polygamy? Should a brother and sister who genuinely (in their opinion) feel romantic love for each other be allowed to marry?

(OK, gotta run now.)
Click to expand...

No, yes, yes
 
colton said:
Sorry, the grammarian in me objects to that sentence. Their romantic partner is whom they want to marry, so by definition they do in fact think they should get to marry whomever they want.
Click to expand...

I want to marry Rashida Jones, may I marry whomever I want? I'm gonna make some calls to make sure I'm a man and she's a woman.
 
colton said:
Is the love of a polygamist any less? Do you support the full legalization of polygamy? Should a brother and sister who genuinely (in their opinion) feel romantic love for each other be allowed to marry?

(OK, gotta run now.)
Click to expand...

LazyD said:
No, yes, yes
Click to expand...

Which is where I get into civil unions and marriages. Marriage should be the domain of religions only and be recognized by the government as equal to a civil union.

Civil Unions should be done but the government, instead of marriages. They should grant all the legal rights and privileges that a marriage currently does. Any group of consenting adults, regardless of relation, sexual orientation or any other clarification should be eligible for civil unions.

Now if a homosexual (or even a random group of 3 or more) couple find a recognized religion that will marry them than good for them. They are married.
 
Stoked (among others) already said this, but majority opinion does not turn something unconstitutional into something constitutional. If a majority in a state decided they wanted to outlaw religion completely, would that make it okay, constitutionally speaking? The constitution was written specifically to protect against the majority taking rights away from everyone else.
 
Stoked said:
Which is where I get into civil unions and marriages. Marriage should be the domain of religions only and be recognized by the government as equal to a civil union.

Civil Unions should be done but the government, instead of marriages. They should grant all the legal rights and privileges that a marriage currently does. Any group of consenting adults, regardless of relation, sexual orientation or any other clarification should be eligible for civil unions.

Now if a homosexual (or even a random group of 3 or more) couple find a recognized religion that will marry them than good for them. They are married.
Click to expand...

iawtp
 
Stoked said:
Marriage should be the domain of religions only and be recognized by the government as equal to a civil union.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't it be the other way around? Seems like there's evidence to support that marriage was not religious in it's creation, but just a way to identify a protected individual or family unit. The Gods, or God at the time had nothing to do with it.
 
This is pretty funny. Even though I moved to NYC, I still have my 801 number. I received a call from this area code a few days ago, and was perspicacious enough to detect the bullpuckey without answering it (I DONT DATE GRENADIANS ANYMORE). Seems these silly Caribeños are runnin' game on the holy area code.

PS: Who still uses phonesex?
 
Last edited:
colton said:
OK, a couple of more words on gay marriage and then I'll call it quits for that topic in this thread.

First, gay people already entitled to be legally and lawfully married. Just not to someone of the same sex. I know you don't see that the way I do, but to me it is in no shape or form a discrimination/civil rights issue. There are plenty of gay people who choose to marry someone of the opposite sex. (Sometimes such marriages are successful and sometimes not, of course.)

The point is that gay people feel that they have the right to be married to whomever they want, even someone of the same sex. My reply to that is that there has NEVER been a right to be married to whomever you want. I cannot marry my sister or mother, for example (even if one or both of us is sterilized so we cannot have kids with birth defects). I cannot marry a second wife, as another example. Maybe you feel that I should be able to do both of those things, but most gay marriage supporters do not.

So if you can't marry just anyone, who should you be able to marry? To me this gets back to the point of marriage in the first place, which is to have a family and provide a secure atmosphere in which to raise the family. That leads to the next point...



"Plumbing differences" are exactly what allows a heterosexual couple to produce a family and prevents a homosexual couple from having one. A heterosexual marriage has the natural expectation that it may produce offspring. Not all do, certainly, but NO homosexual relationship can. And no, I don't buy the argument that my view implies heterosexual couples who can't have kids shouldn't be able to get married. And no, I'm don't think homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt children any more than two non-homosexual friends should be allowed to. But I don't especially want to go into either of those views any further right now.

The bottom line is that (as I said previously) there are fundamental differences between heterosexual and homosexual relationships. They are not the same. They shouldn't be called the same. Society has a fundamental need to foster strong families, which I assume is why government got into the marriage business in the first place. But I don't see a reason for society to do anything more for homosexual relationships than to provide a mechanism for a non-marital civil union (which in my view any two people should be able to enter into--such as me and my sister, if we wanted).

And all of that is just as "obvious" to me (and apparently something like 2/3 of the state) as the need for "civil rights" is to you (and the judge who allowed gay marriage). We'll see what the Supreme Court thinks.
Click to expand...

That's pretty gay of you, Colton.
 
There are FUNDAMENTAL differences between a white couple and a black couple. And don't EVEN get me started on mixed-race couples! The Bible/BOM/Torah/Q'ran says...yadda yadda yadda...my argument is going the way of the buffalo, which btw were all either black or gay and explains why they died off (that was in the Bible/BOM/Q'ran too iirc).

Get with the times, gramps.

*this is like shooting fish in a barrel*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top