Why I'm opposed to gay marriage

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 . . . 19 NEXT
 

On a related note I want to recognize the state of Washington for passing legislation that likely is going to lead to legal recognition for same-sex marriage in the state.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16856861

I especially thought this part of the above story is significant:

***
Democratic Senator Ed Murray, the bill's sponsor, said it was a contentious issue and lawmakers who voted against gay marriage should not be accused of bigotry.

The gay lawmaker from Seattle added: "Those of us who support this legislation are not, and we should not be accused of, undermining family life or religious freedom."
***

Washington had a civil debate on the matter and the people's representatives (who presumably represent the will of the people) voted on the matter. That is the way this matter should be handled, not by courts but either by the people or the representatives of the people.

Somebody probably has already said this before me, but there's already "joke marriages". Legalizing gay marriage would stop that. Two friends can get married anyway just because. Celebrities are married for only days before getting divorces. Half of all marriages end in divorces. Marriage cannot lose its value because of gay marriage; the value is already lost.

The Lesbian Flower:
Somebody probably has already said this before me, but there's already "joke marriages". Legalizing gay marriage would stop that. Two friends can get married anyway just because. Celebrities are married for only days before getting divorces. Half of all marriages end in divorces. Marriage cannot lose its value because of gay marriage; the value is already lost.

How would gay marriage stop joke marriages? If anything it would open up the option of joke marriage to more people.

The value of marriage may be lost to you (which raises the question why you would fight so hard for marriage if it has no value) but it means something to a great many people, I hope you can at least appreciate and understand that.

Seekster:

The Lesbian Flower:
Somebody probably has already said this before me, but there's already "joke marriages". Legalizing gay marriage would stop that. Two friends can get married anyway just because. Celebrities are married for only days before getting divorces. Half of all marriages end in divorces. Marriage cannot lose its value because of gay marriage; the value is already lost.

How would gay marriage stop joke marriages? If anything it would open up the option of joke marriage to more people.

The value of marriage may be lost to you (which raises the question why you would fight so hard for marriage if it has no value) but it means something to a great many people, I hope you can at least appreciate and understand that.

Whoops. I meant to type wouldn't. It wouldn't stop joke marriages.

And I don't fight for marriage. I fight for equality.

The Lesbian Flower:

Seekster:

The Lesbian Flower:
Somebody probably has already said this before me, but there's already "joke marriages". Legalizing gay marriage would stop that. Two friends can get married anyway just because. Celebrities are married for only days before getting divorces. Half of all marriages end in divorces. Marriage cannot lose its value because of gay marriage; the value is already lost.

How would gay marriage stop joke marriages? If anything it would open up the option of joke marriage to more people.

The value of marriage may be lost to you (which raises the question why you would fight so hard for marriage if it has no value) but it means something to a great many people, I hope you can at least appreciate and understand that.

Whoops. I meant to type wouldn't. It wouldn't stop joke marriages.

And I don't fight for marriage. I fight for equality.

Ah ok if that was a typo then nevermind.

I fight for equality too but you said marriage has already lost its value. If you truly believe that then hypothetically why wouldnt you accept civil unions with all the same rights and benefits as marriage? Why do we have same-sex couples out there holding signs that say "I didnt ask them to civil union me"? I submit that even to most gay couples marriage still means something to them because if it doesnt there is no reason for them to fight so hard for a label that according to you at least has lost its value.

In short if you don't believe marriage as an institution still has value then you would not be fighting so hard for it and would be willing to accept civil unions with all the same rights and benefits as marriage.

Seekster:

The Lesbian Flower:

Seekster:

How would gay marriage stop joke marriages? If anything it would open up the option of joke marriage to more people.

The value of marriage may be lost to you (which raises the question why you would fight so hard for marriage if it has no value) but it means something to a great many people, I hope you can at least appreciate and understand that.

Whoops. I meant to type wouldn't. It wouldn't stop joke marriages.

And I don't fight for marriage. I fight for equality.

Ah ok if that was a typo then nevermind.

I fight for equality too but you said marriage has already lost its value. If you truly believe that then hypothetically why wouldnt you accept civil unions with all the same rights and benefits as marriage? Why do we have same-sex couples out there holding signs that say "I didnt ask them to civil union me"? I submit that even to most gay couples marriage still means something to them because if it doesnt there is no reason for them to fight so hard for a label that according to you at least has lost its value.

In short if you don't believe marriage as an institution still has value then you would not be fighting so hard for it and would be willing to accept civil unions with all the same rights and benefits as marriage.

Civil unions are all fine and well but it's the name that matters. Everyone in power decided that gays should have "civil unions" instead of marriages because the wording automatically depicts a difference. This difference could lead those who are married to believe that those who can only achieve civil unions are inferior and unworthy of what married people have. Even if civil unions and marriage have the exact same values and the exact same rights, why are people so unwilling to call civil unions marriages? They want to classify the gays as unequal. That's the whole reason they don't want to call it marriage. Why can't we just call it marriage and be equal?

I have to say, if I can never get married and have to have a "civil union" and can never proudly introduce my wife, then I will know that everyone (in political power at least) believes me unequal and inferior.

The Lesbian Flower:

Seekster:

The Lesbian Flower:

Whoops. I meant to type wouldn't. It wouldn't stop joke marriages.

And I don't fight for marriage. I fight for equality.

Ah ok if that was a typo then nevermind.

I fight for equality too but you said marriage has already lost its value. If you truly believe that then hypothetically why wouldnt you accept civil unions with all the same rights and benefits as marriage? Why do we have same-sex couples out there holding signs that say "I didnt ask them to civil union me"? I submit that even to most gay couples marriage still means something to them because if it doesnt there is no reason for them to fight so hard for a label that according to you at least has lost its value.

In short if you don't believe marriage as an institution still has value then you would not be fighting so hard for it and would be willing to accept civil unions with all the same rights and benefits as marriage.

Civil unions are all fine and well but it's the name that matters. Everyone in power decided that gays should have "civil unions" instead of marriages because the wording automatically depicts a difference. This difference could lead those who are married to believe that those who can only achieve civil unions are inferior and unworthy of what married people have. Even if civil unions and marriage have the exact same values and the exact same rights, why are people so unwilling to call civil unions marriages? They want to classify the gays as unequal. That's the whole reason they don't want to call it marriage. Why can't we just call it marriage and be equal?

I have to say, if I can never get married and have to have a "civil union" and can never proudly introduce my wife, then I will know that everyone (in political power at least) believes me unequal and inferior.

"Civil unions are all fine and well but it's the name that matters. Everyone in power decided that gays should have "civil unions" instead of marriages because the wording automatically depicts a difference. This difference could lead those who are married to believe that those who can only achieve civil unions are inferior and unworthy of what married people have. Even if civil unions and marriage have the exact same values and the exact same rights, why are people so unwilling to call civil unions marriages? They want to classify the gays as unequal. That's the whole reason they don't want to call it marriage."

That is, with all due respect, paranoia on your part. It may be true with the Westboro morons but they are thankfully a small minority. Most of the same-sex marriage opponents will tell you that the reason they don't call a union between two men or two women a marriage is because its not a marriage. Its not that its necessarily less equal or less deserving, its just not the same thing.

By the way the people in political power seem to be more willing to legally recognize same-sex marriage than the people in general so to me it sounds like you are attacking your supporters.

By the way you can introduce your partner as whatever you want, nobody is going to stop you doing that. Legally the state can't stop you from getting married, they just don't have to recognize that marriage and give you a marriage license.

I do want to repeat though that whether you call same-sex unions marriage or not you still have to give them all the same rights and benefits as a marriage, that isnt up for discussion for anyone who values equal rights.

Black Arrow Officer:
I'm aware that the escapist has a large homosexual community. It seems that nearly every person on here is in support of gay marriage. Well, I'm not. Before you rip me to shreds, at least consider my point before ripping me to shreds. I have nothing against homosexual people or if they want to be together, but allowing gay marriage would increase the number of "joke" or non-serious marriages. Friends would marry each other to skip on taxes. Another reason why I'm opposed is because of how far the boundaries of marriage would be pushed. Polygamous or animal marriages could follow shortly after gay marriages. Eventually, the value of marriage would be completely destroyed. I can imagine people would even marry complete strangers just to skip on taxes. Obviously, massive legal overhauls would be required to prevent people from exploiting the system. But then, people in these new marriages would complain that they don't get the same tax breaks or benefits that men and women in true relationships get. But why should that have to happen in the first place? I say stop gay marriage before any of that occurs. Gay couples already have many of the same benefits as regular marriage does. Changes would only occur on paper, and going through all the trouble of legislation would go down in history as the most wasteful and unnecessary period in history.

So, am I a complete monster? Or did I make some interesting points?

You do understand that marriage between a man and a woman is already a joke right? I don't know what the divorce rate is right now but I'm sure its some huge number. I don't doubt that Polygamous marriages might some day happen (not that there's really anything wrong with that) but Animal Marriages? Really? Why would you even think that? How would an animal actually be able to consent to marriage? Ha, you said "true relationships", you're not even serious are you? You're just trying to piss people off. You just threw in that bit about having nothing against homosexuals at the beginning as a bit of insurance so you wouldn't get banned from the forums or something. I doubt you even read this but I'm straight for all the difference that makes to my reaction.

Seekster:

That is, with all due respect, paranoia on your part. It may be true with the Westboro morons but they are thankfully a small minority. Most of the same-sex marriage opponents will tell you that the reason they don't call a union between two men or two women a marriage is because its not a marriage. Its not that its necessarily less equal or less deserving, its just not the same thing.

By the way the people in political power seem to be more willing to legally recognize same-sex marriage than the people in general so to me it sounds like you are attacking your supporters.

By the way you can introduce your partner as whatever you want, nobody is going to stop you doing that. Legally the state can't stop you from getting married, they just don't have to recognize that marriage and give you a marriage license.

I do want to repeat though that whether you call same-sex unions marriage or not you still have to give them all the same rights and benefits as a marriage, that isnt up for discussion for anyone who values equal rights.

So if we agree that civil unions and marriages have all the same rights and privileges and are basically the exact same thing, why can't we all agree to call it the same thing? We could call everything a civil union or we could call everything a marriage. This division of marriage and union is just a way to tell people that they're different from one another.

The Lesbian Flower:

Seekster:

That is, with all due respect, paranoia on your part. It may be true with the Westboro morons but they are thankfully a small minority. Most of the same-sex marriage opponents will tell you that the reason they don't call a union between two men or two women a marriage is because its not a marriage. Its not that its necessarily less equal or less deserving, its just not the same thing.

By the way the people in political power seem to be more willing to legally recognize same-sex marriage than the people in general so to me it sounds like you are attacking your supporters.

By the way you can introduce your partner as whatever you want, nobody is going to stop you doing that. Legally the state can't stop you from getting married, they just don't have to recognize that marriage and give you a marriage license.

I do want to repeat though that whether you call same-sex unions marriage or not you still have to give them all the same rights and benefits as a marriage, that isnt up for discussion for anyone who values equal rights.

So if we agree that civil unions and marriages have all the same rights and privileges and are basically the exact same thing, why can't we all agree to call it the same thing? We could call everything a civil union or we could call everything a marriage. This division of marriage and union is just a way to tell people that they're different from one another.

Sororities and Fraternities are both college student organizations, why don't we call them the same thing? Because they are not the same thing. Men and women are deserving of all the same rights and privileges as each other so why don't we call them the same things? Because they are not the same thing. This is not separate but equal, this is DIFFERENT but equal which is demonstrably fair principle. For example, men and women are different yet they are equal before the law.

Sororities and Fraternities would compare to brides and grooms, not to marriage and civil unions.

I don't buy that in an age where medical science has come far enough to be able to turn a man into a woman or a woman into a man, and most democratic governments have come far enough to legally recognise that person's changed sex, that there is enough of a difference between males and females to make a separate form of relationship for couples made up of the same sex. Not to mention that of course that while most people are born with clear male or female attributes there is a whole range of people who fall between male and female and could be considered both or neither.

A gay male couple, a lesbian couple, a straight couple or any other couple are all fundamentally the same, their love and commitment is exactly the same and I can't see how they don't all deserve to be able to have their relationships recognised as a marriage. And before someone says childbirth, childbirth has never been a requirement of marriage and marriage has never been a requirement of childbirth.

ten.to.ten:
Sororities and Fraternities would compare to brides and grooms, not to marriage and civil unions.

I don't buy that in an age where medical science has come far enough to be able to turn a man into a woman or a woman into a man, and most democratic governments have come far enough to legally recognise that person's changed sex, that there is enough of a difference between males and females to make a separate form of relationship for couples made up of the same sex. Not to mention that of course that while most people are born with clear male or female attributes there is a whole range of people who fall between male and female and could be considered both or neither.

A gay male couple, a lesbian couple, a straight couple or any other couple are all fundamentally the same, their love and commitment is exactly the same and I can't see how they don't all deserve to be able to have their relationships recognised as a marriage. And before someone says childbirth, childbirth has never been a requirement of marriage and marriage has never been a requirement of childbirth.

That wasnt the point, they are called different things because they are different things.

Technology doesnt turn a man into a woman, it turns a man into a man with mutilated genitalia and a feminine appearance but he is still technically a man even if legally he can be considered a woman.

I understand there are people who are born with tails too but thats not enough of a reason to claim that "humans don't have tails" is a false statement. Normally they don't, just like normally a person is either male or female barring some genetic or chromosomal defect or syndrome.

Same reason I don't deserve to be recognized as Hispanic, because I am not even though Hispanic people are people just like me and have all the same right and benefits.

Really this boils down to an argument over grammar, if you consider marriage as between any two people then lobby to call same-sex unions a marriage but if most people see marriage as between a man and a woman only then that is what it will be defined as so long as government is in the business of defining marriage.

Seekster:
That wasnt the point, they are called different things because they are different things.

That's a pretty poor response to someone stating they are the same.

Marriage being only for a man and woman is a strictly religious definition with no meaning a centimetre outside the church. Actual marriage is a matter of state, a formal recognition of a relationship. You seem to be reasoning on the basis of the religious definition, while this discussion is about actual marriage.

Blablahb:

Seekster:
That wasnt the point, they are called different things because they are different things.

That's a pretty poor response to someone stating they are the same.

Marriage being only for a man and woman is a strictly religious definition with no meaning a centimetre outside the church. Actual marriage is a matter of state, a formal recognition of a relationship. You seem to be reasoning on the basis of the religious definition, while this discussion is about actual marriage.

A man and a woman are different yes. Therefore you cant take the union of a man and woman and replace one of the two with the opposite sex and expect it to be the same thing.

No this discussion is about the difference between same-sex unions and actual marriage. They are different things but are deserving of the same rights.

Seekster:

ten.to.ten:
Sororities and Fraternities would compare to brides and grooms, not to marriage and civil unions.

I don't buy that in an age where medical science has come far enough to be able to turn a man into a woman or a woman into a man, and most democratic governments have come far enough to legally recognise that person's changed sex, that there is enough of a difference between males and females to make a separate form of relationship for couples made up of the same sex. Not to mention that of course that while most people are born with clear male or female attributes there is a whole range of people who fall between male and female and could be considered both or neither.

A gay male couple, a lesbian couple, a straight couple or any other couple are all fundamentally the same, their love and commitment is exactly the same and I can't see how they don't all deserve to be able to have their relationships recognised as a marriage. And before someone says childbirth, childbirth has never been a requirement of marriage and marriage has never been a requirement of childbirth.

That wasnt the point, they are called different things because they are different things.

Technology doesnt turn a man into a woman, it turns a man into a man with mutilated genitalia and a feminine appearance but he is still technically a man even if legally he can be considered a woman.

I understand there are people who are born with tails too but thats not enough of a reason to claim that "humans don't have tails" is a false statement. Normally they don't, just like normally a person is either male or female barring some genetic or chromosomal defect or syndrome.

Same reason I don't deserve to be recognized as Hispanic, because I am not even though Hispanic people are people just like me and have all the same right and benefits.

Really this boils down to an argument over grammar, if you consider marriage as between any two people then lobby to call same-sex unions a marriage but if most people see marriage as between a man and a woman only then that is what it will be defined as so long as government is in the business of defining marriage.

They should only have different names if black people are instead only allowed "Black person state-recognized relationship" documents and not marriages.

I FULLY support both things to get the exact same rights, I just think that they should be called different things, that way black people can still get all the benefits of marriage just with a different name.

It's weird because people like Britney Spears can get married for 55 hours:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/3366529.stm

And that's considered better than 2 people of the same-sex being together for years. The fact that they can even get divorced after 55 hours is a right gay couples don't even get.

Seekster:
No this discussion is about the difference between same-sex unions and actual marriage.

Are too, am not, blablabla. Except there's no real basis to assume that religion is marriage, and every reason why the state is marriage. Mostly, because it's the state making taxation rules and such, also for making laws guaranteeing it is secular and such. It's the state that provides marriage with a meaning. That churches want to call the ritual they conduct the same is entirely their problem.

Much like you don't want somebody telling you you need to put in your will that if you die, your wife must be murdered so she can look after you in the afterlife, or tell you you have to cover your wife in a tent because god forbid any other man ever notices she is a woman, other people would like to go without being their marriage is actually not a marriage because [insert silly religious banter].

Actually, in many countries it is a crime to conduct a religious marriage ritual between unmarried people. For my own, doing it more than once will even land the priest who did it in prison.

Pluvia:

Seekster:

ten.to.ten:
Sororities and Fraternities would compare to brides and grooms, not to marriage and civil unions.

I don't buy that in an age where medical science has come far enough to be able to turn a man into a woman or a woman into a man, and most democratic governments have come far enough to legally recognise that person's changed sex, that there is enough of a difference between males and females to make a separate form of relationship for couples made up of the same sex. Not to mention that of course that while most people are born with clear male or female attributes there is a whole range of people who fall between male and female and could be considered both or neither.

A gay male couple, a lesbian couple, a straight couple or any other couple are all fundamentally the same, their love and commitment is exactly the same and I can't see how they don't all deserve to be able to have their relationships recognised as a marriage. And before someone says childbirth, childbirth has never been a requirement of marriage and marriage has never been a requirement of childbirth.

That wasnt the point, they are called different things because they are different things.

Technology doesnt turn a man into a woman, it turns a man into a man with mutilated genitalia and a feminine appearance but he is still technically a man even if legally he can be considered a woman.

I understand there are people who are born with tails too but thats not enough of a reason to claim that "humans don't have tails" is a false statement. Normally they don't, just like normally a person is either male or female barring some genetic or chromosomal defect or syndrome.

Same reason I don't deserve to be recognized as Hispanic, because I am not even though Hispanic people are people just like me and have all the same right and benefits.

Really this boils down to an argument over grammar, if you consider marriage as between any two people then lobby to call same-sex unions a marriage but if most people see marriage as between a man and a woman only then that is what it will be defined as so long as government is in the business of defining marriage.

They should only have different names if black people are instead only allowed "Black person state-recognized relationship" documents and not marriages.

I FULLY support both things to get the exact same rights, I just think that they should be called different things, that way black people can still get all the benefits of marriage just with a different name.

It's weird because people like Britney Spears can get married for 55 hours:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/3366529.stm

And that's considered better than 2 people of the same-sex being together for years. The fact that they can even get divorced after 55 hours is a right gay couples don't even get.

Ha ha ha yeah no. Race has nothing to do with marriage and we already removed it from marriage after someone tried to add it in last century. Nice try though but race has nothing to do with marriage nor should it. Sex on the other hand most certainly does.

Yeah if same-sex marriage is legally recognized then Britney Spears can marry Kim Kardashian for a day or two. Whats your point? The institution of marriage is already under attack so the solution is to open it up to even more attacks?

Blablahb:

Seekster:
No this discussion is about the difference between same-sex unions and actual marriage.

Are too, am not, blablabla. Except there's no real basis to assume that religion is marriage, and every reason why the state is marriage. Mostly, because it's the state making taxation rules and such, also for making laws guaranteeing it is secular and such. It's the state that provides marriage with a meaning. That churches want to call the ritual they conduct the same is entirely their problem.

Much like you don't want somebody telling you you need to put in your will that if you die, your wife must be murdered so she can look after you in the afterlife, or tell you you have to cover your wife in a tent because god forbid any other man ever notices she is a woman, other people would like to go without being their marriage is actually not a marriage because [insert silly religious banter].

Actually, in many countries it is a crime to conduct a religious marriage ritual between unmarried people. For my own, doing it more than once will even land the priest who did it in prison.

Actually the only reason the state has any basis to define marriage at all is that it gives out the benefits based on marriage. Otherwise the state would have no business telling people what is and is not a marriage.

Why do you keep trying to inject religion into this issue Blab? I thought you didnt think religion belonged in a discussion about same-sex marriage?

Ok Blab I know religion touched you inappropriately when you were a child and now you have a chip on your shoulder but it got old a LONG time ago. If you have something useful to say then say it but do not go around trashing religion in an attempt to provoke me.

Seekster:

Pluvia:

They should only have different names if black people are instead only allowed "Black person state-recognized relationship" documents and not marriages.

I FULLY support both things to get the exact same rights, I just think that they should be called different things, that way black people can still get all the benefits of marriage just with a different name.

It's weird because people like Britney Spears can get married for 55 hours:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/3366529.stm

And that's considered better than 2 people of the same-sex being together for years. The fact that they can even get divorced after 55 hours is a right gay couples don't even get.

Ha ha ha yeah no. Race has nothing to do with marriage and we already removed it from marriage after someone tried to add it in last century. Nice try though but race has nothing to do with marriage nor should it. Sex on the other hand most certainly does.

Yeah if same-sex marriage is legally recognized then Britney Spears can marry Kim Kardashian for a day or two. Whats your point? The institution of marriage is already under attack so the solution is to open it up to even more attacks?

Wrong.

Your ENTIRE argument is male and females are different, therefore their union should be called something different from same sex unions. If you acknowledge the differences between men and women you must also acknowledge the differences between black and white.

While both black and white people are humans, they are different, a black person cannot become white and vice versa. A union between a black man and a white woman is different from a union between a white man and a white woman.

You obviously believe that they are the same, despite the fact they clearly aren't, so if you can find a good reason as to why humans with differences should be treated equally, yet other humans with differences shouldn't, then go for it.

To clarify, why is a black person (AKA not a white person) allowed to have equal treatment despite being different?

Pluvia:

Seekster:

Pluvia:

They should only have different names if black people are instead only allowed "Black person state-recognized relationship" documents and not marriages.

I FULLY support both things to get the exact same rights, I just think that they should be called different things, that way black people can still get all the benefits of marriage just with a different name.

It's weird because people like Britney Spears can get married for 55 hours:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/3366529.stm

And that's considered better than 2 people of the same-sex being together for years. The fact that they can even get divorced after 55 hours is a right gay couples don't even get.

Ha ha ha yeah no. Race has nothing to do with marriage and we already removed it from marriage after someone tried to add it in last century. Nice try though but race has nothing to do with marriage nor should it. Sex on the other hand most certainly does.

Yeah if same-sex marriage is legally recognized then Britney Spears can marry Kim Kardashian for a day or two. Whats your point? The institution of marriage is already under attack so the solution is to open it up to even more attacks?

Wrong.

Your ENTIRE argument is male and females are different, therefore their union should be called something different from same sex unions. If you acknowledge the differences between men and women you must also acknowledge the differences between black and white.

While both black and white people are humans, they are different, a black person cannot become white and vice versa. A union between a black man and a white woman is different from a union between a white man and a white woman.

You obviously believe that they are the same, despite the fact they clearly aren't, so if you can find a good reason as to why humans with differences should be treated equally, yet other humans with differences shouldn't, then go for it.

To clarify, why is a black person (AKA not a white person) allowed to have equal treatment despite being different?

That is incorrect (if you can do it I can do it).

Race is a rather arbitrary distinction that has more to do with how a person looks than anything else. The difference between man and woman is much deeper than that (both mentally and biologically). In short a white man is more similar to a black man than he is to a white woman.

Race is immaterial to what marriage means (at least to me and to most people throughout history, if you are out to change what marriage means then thats a different matter), sex is very much otherwise. The legal definition of marriage was once changed to add race to it. This was a mistake and that mistake was rectified. Now you want to change the legal definition of marriage to remove sex from it. This, at least in the opinion of many, would also be a mistake because it would alter what marriage means and lead to even further damage to the institution of marriage which is, as has been pointed out, already under serious attack. What I want is for the same-sex union issue to be settled so we can move on to address more important issues, like adultery and frivolous divorce.

"To clarify, why is a black person (AKA not a white person) allowed to have equal treatment despite being different?"

Because the differences between races are negligible and based almost entirely on appearances. Race, as I said, is highly arbitrary. A few more centuries of inter-racial breeding and race will become so mixed up that people will either have to drop the classification altogether or come up with new ones. No matter how many generations pass though, you are always going to have male and female. No amount of inter-breeding...or in this case just plain breeding, is going to make the offspring of a man and a woman any less male or female.

Your opinion on them being negligible does not negate the FACT that they are different.

Now I'll ask you again, why is a black man, despite being different from a white man, allowed to have equal treatment in marriage despite being different?

I want facts here, not opinions.

Pluvia:
Your opinion on them being negligible does not negate the FACT that they are different.

Now I'll ask you again, why is a black man, despite being different from a white man, allowed to have equal treatment in marriage despite being different?

I want facts here, not opinions.

You arent providing facts you know. If the fact is that black people and white people are fundamentally different in a manner comparable to how men and women are different then lets hear some evidence, at the very least come up with a reasonable argument to support what you assert to be a fact.

I will repeat my earlier assertion and summarize that a black man is no more different from a white man than that white man is different from another unrelated white man.

Seekster:

Pluvia:
Your opinion on them being negligible does not negate the FACT that they are different.

Now I'll ask you again, why is a black man, despite being different from a white man, allowed to have equal treatment in marriage despite being different?

I want facts here, not opinions.

You arent providing facts you know. If the fact is that black people and white people are fundamentally different in a manner comparable to how men and women are different then lets hear some evidence, at the very least come up with a reasonable argument to support what you assert to be a fact.

I will repeat my earlier assertion and summarize that a black man is no more different from a white man than that white man is different from another unrelated white man.

Stop avoiding the question. You ask for facts from me, which I assume means you have never seen a black man (or a white man if you are black), but if you have then you can clearly see that they are different.

I am asking you again, WHY is a black man allowed equal treatment to a white man in marriage despite CLEARLY being different. I don't want opinions (AKA In my opinion they are negilible) because it is a clear FACT that they aren't.

So answer the question. Don't try and avoid it again, answer it with plain simple facts.

Pluvia:

Seekster:

Pluvia:
Your opinion on them being negligible does not negate the FACT that they are different.

Now I'll ask you again, why is a black man, despite being different from a white man, allowed to have equal treatment in marriage despite being different?

I want facts here, not opinions.

You arent providing facts you know. If the fact is that black people and white people are fundamentally different in a manner comparable to how men and women are different then lets hear some evidence, at the very least come up with a reasonable argument to support what you assert to be a fact.

I will repeat my earlier assertion and summarize that a black man is no more different from a white man than that white man is different from another unrelated white man.

Stop avoiding the question. You ask for facts from me, which I assume means you have never seen a black man (or a white man if you are black), but if you have then you can clearly see that they are different.

I am asking you again, WHY is a black man allowed equal treatment to a white man in marriage despite CLEARLY being different. I don't want opinions (AKA In my opinion they are negilible) because it is a clear FACT that they aren't.

So answer the question. Don't try and avoid it again, answer it with plain simple facts.

I didn't avoid the question, I answered the question, you refused to accept my answer and now I am trying to figure out on what basis you think my answer is invalid.

If you want me to answer the question again then fine.

Seekster:

Race is a rather arbitrary distinction that has more to do with how a person looks than anything else. The difference between man and woman is much deeper than that (both mentally and biologically). In short a white man is more similar to a black man than he is to a white woman.

Race is immaterial to what marriage means (at least to me and to most people throughout history, if you are out to change what marriage means then thats a different matter), sex is very much otherwise. The legal definition of marriage was once changed to add race to it. This was a mistake and that mistake was rectified. Now you want to change the legal definition of marriage to remove sex from it. This, at least in the opinion of many, would also be a mistake because it would alter what marriage means and lead to even further damage to the institution of marriage which is, as has been pointed out, already under serious attack. What I want is for the same-sex union issue to be settled so we can move on to address more important issues, like adultery and frivolous divorce.

"To clarify, why is a black person (AKA not a white person) allowed to have equal treatment despite being different?"

Because the differences between races are negligible and based almost entirely on appearances. Race, as I said, is highly arbitrary. A few more centuries of inter-racial breeding and race will become so mixed up that people will either have to drop the classification altogether or come up with new ones. No matter how many generations pass though, you are always going to have male and female. No amount of inter-breeding...or in this case just plain breeding, is going to make the offspring of a man and a woman any less male or female.

Black people and white people are no more different from each other than white people and other white people, that sir is a fact, not an opinion.

No it is not. Anyone with eyes can see this. It is a clear FACT that they are different.

Now look at your answer, you say "at least to me" AKA "in my opinion". You say they are negligible despite not giving any reason as to why. I have facts to back me up, anyone that has seen a black person and a white person can agree with this as they are CLEARLY different, you use opinions. I have presented evidence (though if you want to nitpick I can just link to a picture of a black man and one of a white man, though I really don't think I'll need to unless you've never seen them before) and unless you can actually find something that dismisses it that isn't your opinion, something that is fact then that evidence still holds up.

Now, again, WHY is a black man allowed equal treatment to a white man in marriage despite CLEARLY being different?

I don't want opinions. I want facts. Not opinions that you say are facts, plain simple facts. There is something out there that negates the clear differences for you, and I want you to present that, otherwise what you are saying is just an opinion.

Pluvia:
No it is not. Anyone with eyes can see this. It is a clear FACT that they are different.

Now look at your answer, you say "at least to me" AKA "in my opinion". You say they are negligible despite not giving any reason as to why. I have facts to back me up, anyone that has seen a black person and a white person can agree with this as they are CLEARLY different, you use opinions. I have presented evidence (though if you want to nitpick I can just link to a picture of a black man and one of a white man, though I really don't think I'll need to unless you've never seen them before) and unless you can actually find something that dismisses it that isn't your opinion, something that is fact then that evidence still holds up.

Now, again, WHY is a black man allowed equal treatment to a white man in marriage despite CLEARLY being different?

I don't want opinions. I want facts. Not opinions that you say are facts, plain simple facts. There is something out there that negates the clear differences for you, and I want you to present that, otherwise what you are saying is just an opinion.

This is ridiculous.

Seekster:

Race is a rather arbitrary distinction that has more to do with how a person looks than anything else. The difference between man and woman is much deeper than that (both mentally and biologically). In short a white man is more similar to a black man than he is to a white woman.

Race is immaterial to what marriage means, sex is very much otherwise. The legal definition of marriage was once changed to add race to it. This was a mistake and that mistake was rectified. Now you want to change the legal definition of marriage to remove sex from it. This, at least in the opinion of many, would also be a mistake because it would alter what marriage means and lead to even further damage to the institution of marriage which is, as has been pointed out, already under serious attack. What I want is for the same-sex union issue to be settled so we can move on to address more important issues, like adultery and frivolous divorce.

"To clarify, why is a black person (AKA not a white person) allowed to have equal treatment despite being different?"

Because the differences between races are negligible and based almost entirely on appearances. Race, as I said, is highly arbitrary. A few more centuries of inter-racial breeding and race will become so mixed up that people will either have to drop the classification altogether or come up with new ones. No matter how many generations pass though, you are always going to have male and female. No amount of inter-breeding...or in this case just plain breeding, is going to make the offspring of a man and a woman any less male or female.

Happy now?

What you are saying is just wrong but you are saying it is fact when it is not and then refusing to accept facts when I give them. If you want to show me a picture of a white guy and a black guy then go right ahead, while you are at it show me a picture of two different white guys or two different black guys. Then I could show you a picture of a man and a woman and provide links that explain the differences in both physiology and thought process.

Stop avoiding the question. Yet again you tried to change the subject to men and women despite the fact it's about black and white.

Don't you realise that saying "Yes they're different but in my opinion it's negligible plus men and women are more different" DOESN'T negate the FACT that they are different?

Again, men and women being different doesn't negate the FACT that black and white are different.

Now answer the question and STOP AVOIDING IT. WHY is a black man allowed equal treatment to a white man in marriage despite CLEARLY being different?

I have presented evidence. You have to dismiss this evidence. If you disagree with this fact you must present evidence that negates it, using a completely different subject (AKA men and women) does NOT negate it.

And one more time, just to really make sure you know the question, WHY is a black man allowed equal treatment to a white man in marriage despite CLEARLY being different?

Seekster:

A man and a woman are different yes. Therefore you cant take the union of a man and woman and replace one of the two with the opposite sex and expect it to be the same thing.

No this discussion is about the difference between same-sex unions and actual marriage. They are different things but are deserving of the same rights.

This is basically where I find the arguments break down for me.
What is the difference?
I seriously can't find any differences. I actually CAN take a straight couple, compare it to a gay couple, and find no differences aside from their sexual organs. But then again, I can also compare two straight couples and still find differences in their sexual organs (these cases are few and far between, but the point is that it's possible). So yeah. I don't know what the differences are and therefore have a hard time justifying to myself that taking the flimsy and often counterproductive route of making them "different but equal" is a good thing.

Pluvia:
Stop avoiding the question. Yet again you tried to change the subject to men and women despite the fact it's about black and white.

Don't you realise that saying "Yes they're different but in my opinion it's negligible plus men and women are more different" DOESN'T negate the FACT that they are different?

Again, men and women being different doesn't negate the FACT that black and white are different.

Now answer the question and STOP AVOIDING IT. WHY is a black man allowed equal treatment to a white man in marriage despite CLEARLY being different?

I have presented evidence. You have to dismiss this evidence. If you disagree with this fact you must present evidence that negates it, using a completely different subject (AKA men and women) does NOT negate it.

And one more time, just to really make sure you know the question, WHY is a black man allowed equal treatment to a white man in marriage despite CLEARLY being different?

I'm done. I've answered the question and you just won't accept the answer.

A black man and a white man are going to be different sure, just as one black man is going to be different from another black man or one white man is going to be different from another black man. They are all men though and in marriage you need one man and one woman (again, unless you intend to change the definition of marriage). It doesnt matter what races the man and woman are so long as you have one man and one woman.

You havnt presented a damn thing, evidence or otherwise.

Pingieking:

Seekster:

A man and a woman are different yes. Therefore you cant take the union of a man and woman and replace one of the two with the opposite sex and expect it to be the same thing.

No this discussion is about the difference between same-sex unions and actual marriage. They are different things but are deserving of the same rights.

This is basically where I find the arguments break down for me.
What is the difference?
I seriously can't find any differences. I actually CAN take a straight couple, compare it to a gay couple, and find no differences aside from their sexual organs. But then again, I can also compare two straight couples and still find differences in their sexual organs (these cases are few and far between, but the point is that it's possible). So yeah. I don't know what the differences are and therefore have a hard time justifying to myself that taking the flimsy and often counterproductive route of making them "different but equal" is a good thing.

Men and women are different yes? Not just different individuals but different in terms of sex. Men and women are two sides of the same coin so to speak and marriage is a union wherein the two sides of this coin are brought together. The union of the sexes is one of the things that makes marriage different from other unions.

Men and women are different as I said and as such they are not interchangeable. So to put it in mathematical terms:

x is not y so lets say x=2 and y=1.

X+Y=3

X+X=4

Y+Y=2

(the numbers or the sums have no more significance than the fact that they are different, I am not trying to say any one union is superior to the others just that the unions are no the same).

And that people, is how you destroy Seeksters silly argument.

He knew that he couldn't utter the fact that they are both human, therefore should be treated equally despite their differences, he kept on trying to make the argument about men and women.

Now lets watch him try and confuse people and avoid subjects and try to twist it like he tried, and failed spectacularly, to do to me. As you can see his entire argument relies on him not saying "human rights" and instead relies on "differences that I IN MY OPINION think count".

The best part was he even tried dismissing what I said at the start and then couldn't find a reason why, other than his opinion, when he was called out on it.

Black and white men are different, that's clear to see for anyone that isn't blind, yet should be treated equally. Seekster believes in equal treatment not for all adult humans, only adult humans that fit his specific beliefs. He believes that, despite being different, black men should have the same rights as white men, yet he doesn't believe that gay men should have the same rights as straight men. He tries to point out differences between men and women which fails to hold water as he also refuses to accept the differences in black and white. In some cases for him it's "different but equal" and in others it's "different but not equal". He can't say human rights as that ignores all differences, so he has to stutter about trying to find reasons to justify his laughable points.

My god that was ridiculously easy. This was like a walk in the park when it comes to debates, I was expecting more to be honest, but hey an easy win is still a win.

Cheerio. Have fun.

I aint read all 13 pages, but I'll agree with one point, that allowing gays tax breaks for getting married is a terrible thing.

So we should immediately scrap all the tax breaks for all married couples, then let them get on with it.

If you're not marrying for love, you're doing it wrong.

Pluvia:
And that people, is how you destroy Seeksters silly argument.

He knew that he couldn't utter the fact that they are both human, therefore should be treated equally despite their differences, he kept on trying to make the argument about men and women.

Now lets watch him try and confuse people and avoid subjects and try to twist it like he tried, and failed spectacularly, to do to me. As you can see his entire argument relies on him not saying "human rights" and instead relies on "differences that I IN MY OPINION think count".

The best part was he even tried dismissing what I said at the start and then couldn't find a reason why, other than his opinion, when he was called out on it.

Black and white men are different, that's clear to see for anyone that isn't blind, yet should be treated equally. Seekster believes in equal treatment not for all adult humans, only adult humans that fit his specific beliefs. He believes that, despite being different, black men should have the same rights as white men, yet he doesn't believe that gay men should have the same rights as straight men. He tries to point out differences between men and women which fails to hold water as he also refuses to accept the differences in black and white. In some cases for him it's "different but equal" and in others it's "different but not equal". He can't say human rights as that ignores all differences, so he has to stutter about trying to find reasons to justify his laughable points.

My god that was ridiculously easy. This was like a walk in the park when it comes to debates, I was expecting more to be honest, but hey an easy win is still a win.

Cheerio. Have fun.

Please have my babies? <3

And yeah, Seekster, hate to break it to ya, but you're completely and utterly wrong. I hope it isn't too mean for me to say "as usual".

Seekster:
Washington had a civil debate on the matter and the people's representatives (who presumably represent the will of the people) voted on the matter. That is the way this matter should be handled, not by courts but either by the people or the representatives of the people.

Yes, because the judicial branch of government doesn't exist largely for this reason.

Volf99:

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

Polygamous or animal marriages could follow shortly after gay marriages.

LOL WUT

You're gonna have to explain that one, champ.

It's not that hard to imagine, it's the idea of the slipper slope. If we shouldn't say that marriage should be "limited" to just two people of the opposite sex, then why should we be able to say that it should be "limited" towards the idea of just two people? Why should one be ok, and not the other since it would be between consenting adults? I think that is the idea.

To the argument that gay marriage leads to beastiality marriage?

Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?

Pluvia:
And that people, is how you destroy Seeksters silly argument.

He knew that he couldn't utter the fact that they are both human, therefore should be treated equally despite their differences, he kept on trying to make the argument about men and women.

Now lets watch him try and confuse people and avoid subjects and try to twist it like he tried, and failed spectacularly, to do to me. As you can see his entire argument relies on him not saying "human rights" and instead relies on "differences that I IN MY OPINION think count".

The best part was he even tried dismissing what I said at the start and then couldn't find a reason why, other than his opinion, when he was called out on it.

Black and white men are different, that's clear to see for anyone that isn't blind, yet should be treated equally. Seekster believes in equal treatment not for all adult humans, only adult humans that fit his specific beliefs. He believes that, despite being different, black men should have the same rights as white men, yet he doesn't believe that gay men should have the same rights as straight men. He tries to point out differences between men and women which fails to hold water as he also refuses to accept the differences in black and white. In some cases for him it's "different but equal" and in others it's "different but not equal". He can't say human rights as that ignores all differences, so he has to stutter about trying to find reasons to justify his laughable points.

My god that was ridiculously easy. This was like a walk in the park when it comes to debates, I was expecting more to be honest, but hey an easy win is still a win.

Cheerio. Have fun.

No that people is how you annoy Seekster until he just loses interest in you.

"Whats 2+2?"

"4"

"No, thats your opinion. What is 2+2?"

"4"

"NO! THATS YOUR OPINION!!! What is 2+2?"

"..."

Um yeah they are both human and should both be treated as humans but that doesnt change the fact that men and women are different and not interchangeable.

Bye Pluvia! Have fun in whatever fantasy land you came from.

Stagnant:

And yeah, Seekster, hate to break it to ya, but you're completely and utterly wrong. I hope it isn't too mean for me to say "as usual".

You disagreeing with me is not the same as being wrong, if anything its more likely that I am right if you disagree with me. You are out of Pluvia's league though Stagnant, I hate to say it but he is even more detached from reality than you are.

Pluvia:
And that people, is how you destroy Seeksters silly argument.

He knew that he couldn't utter the fact that they are both human, therefore should be treated equally despite their differences, he kept on trying to make the argument about men and women.

Now lets watch him try and confuse people and avoid subjects and try to twist it like he tried, and failed spectacularly, to do to me. As you can see his entire argument relies on him not saying "human rights" and instead relies on "differences that I IN MY OPINION think count".

The best part was he even tried dismissing what I said at the start and then couldn't find a reason why, other than his opinion, when he was called out on it.

Black and white men are different, that's clear to see for anyone that isn't blind, yet should be treated equally. Seekster believes in equal treatment not for all adult humans, only adult humans that fit his specific beliefs. He believes that, despite being different, black men should have the same rights as white men, yet he doesn't believe that gay men should have the same rights as straight men. He tries to point out differences between men and women which fails to hold water as he also refuses to accept the differences in black and white. In some cases for him it's "different but equal" and in others it's "different but not equal". He can't say human rights as that ignores all differences, so he has to stutter about trying to find reasons to justify his laughable points.

My god that was ridiculously easy. This was like a walk in the park when it comes to debates, I was expecting more to be honest, but hey an easy win is still a win.

Cheerio. Have fun.

Win.

So much win.

Seekster:

No that people is how you annoy Seekster until he just loses interest in you.

"Whats 2+2?"

"4"

"No, thats your opinion. What is 2+2?"

"4"

"NO! THATS YOUR OPINION!!! What is 2+2?"

"..."

Um yeah they are both human and should both be treated as humans but that doesnt change the fact that men and women are different and not interchangeable.

Bye Pluvia! Have fun in whatever fantasy land you came from.

Stagnant:

And yeah, Seekster, hate to break it to ya, but you're completely and utterly wrong. I hope it isn't too mean for me to say "as usual".

You disagreeing with me is not the same as being wrong, if anything its more likely that I am right if you disagree with me. You are out of Pluvia's league though Stagnant, I hate to say it but he is even more detached from reality than you are.

Seekster, by using your own logic, you are quite patently wrong.

- Men are different from women, due to the nature of their genitalia.

- Therefore, because men and woman are different, they should have separate words for same-sex marriages as they do regular ones.

The criteria that you have selected to use for the definition of the word 'marriage' is based on how 'different' the two participants are from each other.

Because you have decided that 'different' is the criteria for marriage, that exact same logic can then be taken and applied in exactly the same way to other minority groups.

- Black men are different from white men, due to the pigmentation of their skin.

- Therefore, because black men are different to white men, they should have separate words of same-race marriages.

It is the exact same logic. That does not justify the argument. The second argument is patently absurd, and in its absurdity it also shows just how ridiculous the first argument is. If it is wrong to discriminate marriage based on skin colour, then it is also wrong to discriminate marriage based on genitalia. They are, after all, merely physical differences (or indeed similarities) between the two participants. And I thought the idea of true love was that it could look past physical differences?

Also:

Seekster:

That wasnt the point, they are called different things because they are different things.

Technology doesnt turn a man into a woman, it turns a man into a man with mutilated genitalia and a feminine appearance but he is still technically a man even if legally he can be considered a woman.

Jesus fucking christ...

You know, there are entire schools of psychologists who have studied transexualism and gender confusion. And all of them are laughing at you right now.

Beyond that, your argument against people going through gender changes is not just completely ignorant, it is downright offensive. It may surprise you, but there really are people. If someone feels that their own penis is utterly alien to them, and feels they should have been born with breasts and a vagina, then psychologically that person is a woman. Once they've had the operation, then their physicality matches their psychology: ie- they've turned into a goddam woman!

I know the 21st Century may seem like a strange, alien place, but you may want to jump in sometime. Come on in, the water's fine...

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:
-snip-

Right and wrong is based on fact, not popularity.

"- Men are different from women, due to the nature of their genitalia."

And other aspects of their physiology and the way the brain works, and a number of other things that I don't consider myself qualified enough to explain in detail. Look it up if you want to know more.

"- Therefore, because men and woman are different, they should have separate words for same-sex marriages as they do regular ones."

Incorrect, therefore a union of a man and a woman is different than a union between a man and a man or a union between a woman and a woman.

"- Therefore, because black men are different to white men, they should have separate words of same-race marriages."

...well hmm lets think about that, no no the differences between men of different races are negligible compared with the differences between men and women so no that logic does not match my own.

The differences between races are appearance based, the differences between men and women go much deeper. That is why you and the other guy were so stumped by what I was saying, you disagree with that don't you? You think appearance is the only difference between men and women don't you?

I won't even address the last part of your post. Homosexuals and Bisexuals I can understand, they have unorthodox sexual tastes in partners, I can understand that, creeps me out a bit but I can at least understand that and go to each their own. A transvestite (dude who goes around dresses as a woman...I don't think they have female transvestites because girls can dress like guys now anyway) is a little weird but thats a choice. Transgendered people just strike me as being unable to come to grips with the fact that they were born male or female. I am sure that a psychiatrist would be helpful in coming to grips with that. I am not a psychologists but I can't imagine its healthy to let a person live out a fantasy of being a woman when they are a man or being a man when they are a woman.

"Once they've had the operation, then their physicality matches their psychology: ie- they've turned into a goddam woman!"

So they can get pregnant and have periods and everything? (already know the answer, just felt like returning some of your fire while proving your wrong).

Edit: And just to clarify before someone gets pissy, when I say that a transgendered person or a transexual person (yeah I know the difference, do you) would be helped by a psychiatrist I dont mean to make them get over their issues with gender identity (though if its possible to do that without mentally damaging them then you might look into it). Rather I mean to help them deal with their confusion and depression and what not. If we are talking about a person with a condition so severe that they may kill themselves out of sheer depression then ok fine if surgery would help them then do that, we don't want people getting all depressed and killing themselves.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 . . . 19 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked