Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Same-sex marriage

zdesotelle
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2009 8:21:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I'm not sure if you're being facetious or if you're completely serious... Because last time I checked I qualify as a human being xDDD
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2009 8:24:21 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/8/2009 8:21:14 PM, zdesotelle wrote:
I'm not sure if you're being facetious or if you're completely serious... Because last time I checked I qualify as a human being xDDD

He's being a jackass.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2009 8:25:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/8/2009 8:25:08 PM, zdesotelle wrote:
I think he's being facetious because on his profile it says he's pro same-sex marriage legalization...

I agree, but being so, is being a jackass.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
zdesotelle
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2009 8:29:50 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/8/2009 8:25:59 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 12/8/2009 8:25:08 PM, zdesotelle wrote:
I think he's being facetious because on his profile it says he's pro same-sex marriage legalization...

I agree, but being so, is being a jackass.

Oh ic. Oh well lol, at least he agrees with me :P score 1 for me.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2009 8:57:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Define what those you want an answer from oppose? The act, the failure to forcibly assault those who commit the act, or the application of government subsidies for the act?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Sylux
Posts: 290
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2009 7:07:30 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Psh no gays should burn in hell 'cuz God says so in the Bible.
"Can you see? Do you know?
The string behind you, it's shiny and pretty.
Where is my string.
Give me because I don't know.
Give me your string.
Give me everything."
-grasshoppa
Chaosflame
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2009 12:48:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/9/2009 7:07:30 AM, Sylux wrote:
Psh no gays should burn in hell 'cuz God says so in the Bible.

;o is there anyone who's gonna say they oppose, and not be joking?
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2009 1:02:13 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/9/2009 12:48:57 PM, Chaosflame wrote:
At 12/9/2009 7:07:30 AM, Sylux wrote:
Psh no gays should burn in hell 'cuz God says so in the Bible.

;o is there anyone who's gonna say they oppose, and not be joking?

Nope, we have a gold mine here: http://scienceblogs.com...
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Chaosflame
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2009 9:45:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/9/2009 1:02:13 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 12/9/2009 12:48:57 PM, Chaosflame wrote:
At 12/9/2009 7:07:30 AM, Sylux wrote:
Psh no gays should burn in hell 'cuz God says so in the Bible.

;o is there anyone who's gonna say they oppose, and not be joking?

Nope, we have a gold mine here: http://scienceblogs.com...

O_o where the hell does it start?
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2009 9:51:41 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Welcome to this site. There are very few people that argue with entirely religious premises on non-religious topics.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Alex
Posts: 2,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2009 11:21:50 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/9/2009 7:07:30 AM, Sylux wrote:
Psh no gays should burn in hell 'cuz God says so in the Bible.

Really now, where is this?
Why kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?
Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2009 8:43:59 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/9/2009 12:48:57 PM, Chaosflame wrote:
At 12/9/2009 7:07:30 AM, Sylux wrote:
Psh no gays should burn in hell 'cuz God says so in the Bible.

;o is there anyone who's gonna say they oppose, and not be joking?

I will: marraige is a religous cerimoney, the state should not act like its 'recognition' changes anything. So to be consistiant with bible teachings the people behind the cermoney should make it consistant with the source (the bible) of even concievieng in the minde the concept of marrage.
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2009 8:48:28 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/10/2009 8:43:59 AM, Marauder wrote:

I will: marraige is a religous cerimoney, the state should not act like its 'recognition' changes anything. So to be consistiant with bible teachings the people behind the cermoney should make it consistant with the source (the bible) of even concievieng in the minde the concept of marrage.

I too would be for the abolition of state recognition of marriage, and relegating it to being a ceremony of only religious importance.

But if this isn't what you mean, then how can the state use those religious reasons to deny gays the same rights as straights?
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Sylux
Posts: 290
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2009 9:20:09 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/9/2009 11:21:50 PM, alex_hanson911 wrote:
At 12/9/2009 7:07:30 AM, Sylux wrote:
Psh no gays should burn in hell 'cuz God says so in the Bible.

Really now, where is this?

A lot of places.
Some examples: http://www.religioustolerance.org...
"Can you see? Do you know?
The string behind you, it's shiny and pretty.
Where is my string.
Give me because I don't know.
Give me your string.
Give me everything."
-grasshoppa
nickthengineer
Posts: 251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2009 2:14:59 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
The main problem with gay marriage is whether opponents of it are trying to force their right-wing-bible-thumping-christian views down the throats of homosexuals. Although I am a Christian and understand homosexuality to be a sin and would thus not condone homosexuals marrying, I think all of that misses the main point.

Many heterosexual couples find gay marriage demeaning and insulting. Liberals quickly say that just because marriage has always been between a man and a woman, that doesn't mean it can't now include gays. But that IS what it means, because we are talking about traditions here. Marriage has always been between one man and one woman, and a wedding is the ceremony you have to commence that.

If I felt like calling a circle a square, and a square a circle, who would jump on board with me? Who would support that? No one, because it is retarded. The word 'circle' already has a definition, as does the word 'square.' Similarly, gay marriage is a complete contradiction of terms. It is an oxymoron. Those words already have meanings. Mirriam-Webster isn't going to rewrite her dictionary just for you.

Gay people can be gay. They can even stand up in front of all of their friends one day and vow to only be gay with each other for as long as they both shall live, til death do they part. They just can't call that a WEDDING, and they can't call themselves MARRIED (and demand the legal rights associated with married couples). If gays think they should be legally allowed to MARRY, then I am going to start calling squares circles. And no one better bat a big fake gay eyelash at me.
I evolved from stupid. (http://www.debate.org...)
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2009 2:28:14 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/20/2009 2:14:59 AM, nickthengineer wrote:
The main problem with gay marriage is whether opponents of it are trying to force their right-wing-bible-thumping-christian views down the throats of homosexuals. Although I am a Christian and understand homosexuality to be a sin and would thus not condone homosexuals marrying, I think all of that misses the main point.

Many heterosexual couples find gay marriage demeaning and insulting. Liberals quickly say that just because marriage has always been between a man and a woman, that doesn't mean it can't now include gays. But that IS what it means, because we are talking about traditions here. Marriage has always been between one man and one woman, and a wedding is the ceremony you have to commence that.

If I felt like calling a circle a square, and a square a circle, who would jump on board with me? Who would support that? No one, because it is retarded. The word 'circle' already has a definition, as does the word 'square.' Similarly, gay marriage is a complete contradiction of terms. It is an oxymoron. Those words already have meanings. Mirriam-Webster isn't going to rewrite her dictionary just for you.

Gay people can be gay. They can even stand up in front of all of their friends one day and vow to only be gay with each other for as long as they both shall live, til death do they part. They just can't call that a WEDDING, and they can't call themselves MARRIED (and demand the legal rights associated with married couples). If gays think they should be legally allowed to MARRY, then I am going to start calling squares circles. And no one better bat a big fake gay eyelash at me.

Appeal to tradition, ahoy!!

Actually you could call a square a circle, and a circle a square, and have people catch on to it and change the very definition of those words because language is subject to the whims of individuals and society. The only reason we don't call a square a circle, and a circle a square, is because there is no reason to - we're happy with these definitions as given, as they fulfill their purpose of description and until something comes along to change it, there isn't any reason to.

Well, guess what - a reason came along to change the definition of the word 'marriage'. Society has come a long way since homosexuals were stoned to death, and the question of equal rights, of recognition, of acceptance, is at the forefront. So it seems only fair to me that the definition of the word 'marriage' be up for grabs, considering what it is related to in the longer run.

Or, think of it this way; you need to stop saying "gay," because that word had a traditional definition before it came to relate to homosexuals. I mean, you don't want to be seen as a hypocrite, right?
USAPitBull63
Posts: 668
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2009 4:25:27 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
It's amusing that this thread is in the "Religion" category, considering the most persuasive arguments against same-sex marriage are non-religious.

Having the thread here is basically bait. Too easy.
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2009 7:39:59 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/8/2009 8:25:59 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 12/8/2009 8:25:08 PM, zdesotelle wrote:
I think he's being facetious because on his profile it says he's pro same-sex marriage legalization...

I agree, but being so, is being a jackass.

I'm gay. I get to say whatever I please, and if you call me a jackass for it then it's homophobia.

At 12/20/2009 4:25:27 AM, USAPitBull63 wrote:
It's amusing that this thread is in the "Religion" category, considering the most persuasive arguments against same-sex marriage are non-religious.

Ha! The most persuasive? The absolute worst arguments come from religion because any moderate can see through them in a half a second. It translates to "Listen to my God! I hear him talking, listenlistenlisten to me!"

The most compelling arguments are by morons who say that the status quo must be upheld and that anything new is scary. I feel for these people, but I don't have any qualms about bursting their bubble and letting them know that gays exist and we deserve equal rights, and they just have to put up and shut up.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2009 7:59:50 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/20/2009 2:14:59 AM, nickthengineer wrote:

Many heterosexual couples find gay marriage demeaning and insulting. Liberals quickly say that just because marriage has always been between a man and a woman, that doesn't mean it can't now include gays. But that IS what it means, because we are talking about traditions here. Marriage has always been between one man and one woman, and a wedding is the ceremony you have to commence that.

Well many homosexual couples find straight marriage demeaning and insulting. What's your point? Also, at one point it was traditional to throw gladiators in a Colosseum and feed them to the lions. Ergo, what's traditional isn't always "right" or morally correct. Further, marriage originated as a political thing - not a religious thing - in the form of trades (like dowries) and to symbolize political unions amongst other reasons -- not for love.

In fact, the Ancient Romans and especially the Ancient Greeks were very open about their homosexual desires and tendencies. Alexander the Great was a big homo. And in Athens, when a boy turned 13, he would swallow the semen of older male citizens (amongst commit other gay sex acts) because they believed that he would inherit the male's sense of honor and citizenship by swallowing his jizz. This is a true story - look it up. So, what about THAT tradition?

If I felt like calling a circle a square, and a square a circle, who would jump on board with me? Who would support that? No one, because it is retarded. The word 'circle' already has a definition, as does the word 'square.' Similarly, gay marriage is a complete contradiction of terms. It is an oxymoron. Those words already have meanings. Mirriam-Webster isn't going to rewrite her dictionary just for you.

Okay, so when blacks were given the opportunity to sit at the front of the bus, did they change he word "front" to be "beginning" because it just was not normal for them to sit at the front? No. That's retarded. I've used this analogy several times because it proves the stupidity of that argument. In expanding the rights of African Americans to sit at the front of the bus, we didn't change any words. Similarly, in expanding the rights of gays to get married doesn't require any changing of a word either.

Further, if you support gay unions but just don't like the term marriage, then you're really not arguing for anything other than a word change which is a terrible and completely useless argument. You can give gays equal rights and call it a civil union if you'd like, but we're here, we're queer, and we're going to call it marriage - and each other husbands and wives - and we're going to have lots of gay sex, and that's just too damn bad for you :)

Gay people can be gay. They can even stand up in front of all of their friends one day and vow to only be gay with each other for as long as they both shall live, til death do they part. They just can't call that a WEDDING, and they can't call themselves MARRIED (and demand the legal rights associated with married couples).

We can be gay?! Omgosh thank you so much for your permission! Now, as far as a wedding goes, we can have any commitment we want - and guess what - we can call it a wedding and you can't stop us. Onto the legal aspect, if we can't demand equal rights (the same as married couples) then we should demand that the government take less taxes from us. Yep. If we aren't afforded the same opportunities and benefits, then the government should be taking less money from us. If the government wants to take the same amount of money (tax expectations) from gays but not give them marriage breaks - then we should be getting civil union breaks (or whatever it is that you want to call it -- we're still going to be doing the same exact things as a "married" couple).

If gays think they should be legally allowed to MARRY, then I am going to start calling squares circles. And no one better bat a big fake gay eyelash at me.

You can call them whatever you want. Circles and squares don't take your money or govern your life, so your analogy sucks.
President of DDO
nickthengineer
Posts: 251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2009 9:19:09 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Well many homosexual couples find straight marriage demeaning and insulting. What's your point?

Goodness gracious, if I have to spell it out, then here it is. Um, the uh straight marriages were here first, dude. So the straightly married peeps claim they have first dibs.

Further, marriage originated as a political thing - not a religious thing - in the form of trades (like dowries) and to symbolize political unions amongst other reasons -- not for love.

Your contention only holds as much water as your ability to prove that there was a political institution of marriage before God instituted marriage with Adam and Eve, which I'm betting you don't take as anything more than a myth. Be that as it may, the Bible is full of historical claims, one of them being that God instituted marriage around 4000BC-ish. Is there a credible historical claim that the dowry business predates the approximate Biblical date of Adam and Eve?

In fact, the Ancient Romans and especially the Ancient Greeks were very open about their homosexual desires and tendencies. Alexander the Great was a big homo. And in Athens, when a boy turned 13, he would swallow the semen of older male citizens (amongst commit other gay sex acts) because they believed that he would inherit the male's sense of honor and citizenship by swallowing his jizz. This is a true story - look it up. So, what about THAT tradition?

I was never referring to all traditional acts throughout history. I was referring to the traditionally understood meaning of the word marriage and the meaning it has to certain individuals. You'd do well to refrain from unreasonable extrapolations.

Okay, so when blacks were given the opportunity to sit at the front of the bus, did they change he word "front" to be "beginning" because it just was not normal for them to sit at the front? No. That's retarded. I've used this analogy several times because it proves the stupidity of that argument. In expanding the rights of African Americans to sit at the front of the bus, we didn't change any words. Similarly, in expanding the rights of gays to get married doesn't require any changing of a word either.

Truthfully, I couldn't follow your wording here. Could you try again?

Further, if you support gay unions but just don't like the term marriage, then you're really not arguing for anything other than a word change which is a terrible and completely useless argument. You can give gays equal rights and call it a civil union if you'd like, but we're here, we're queer, and we're going to call it marriage - and each other husbands and wives...

If you really need help understanding this one, I encourage you to poll some of the married heterosexual couples that you know who are against gay marriage and ask them if it would make them feel better if gays were not legally allowed to have what is called a "wedding" and could not legally call themselves "married." Ask them if they would view that as protecting the sanctity of marriage, at least to some degree. That was my point.

We can be gay?! Omgosh thank you so much for your permission!

I respectfully request that you abstain from commenting on my arguments while under the influence of hallucinogens, or while not in the possession of brains, whichever describes your state when you said that. A sober sixth grader could tell that I wasn't blessing gays with my permission to continue to be gay. In context, I was clearly saying that opponents of legalizing gay marriage aren't necessarily out to preach to gays about the evils of their ways. The vast majority simply just don't want a legal recognition of the term "marriage" applying to gay couples. Opponents of gay marriage by and large aren't telling gays they can't be gay anymore, just that they don't want them to be legally recognized as "married."

Onto the legal aspect, if we can't demand equal rights (the same as married couples) then we should demand that the government take less taxes from us. Yep. If we aren't afforded the same opportunities and benefits, then the government should be taking less money from us. If the government wants to take the same amount of money (tax expectations) from gays but not give them marriage breaks - then we should be getting civil union breaks (or whatever it is that you want to call it -- we're still going to be doing the same exact things as a "married" couple).

The closest thing you will come to this is to move to Washington D.C, where the bottom of your license plate will read TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.
I evolved from stupid. (http://www.debate.org...)
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2009 11:06:24 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Yes marriage means a union between man and a woman and anyone who says otherwise is a dirty communist.

Like these people and their new fangled liberal nonsense.

Woman-woman marriage has been documented in more than 30 African populations, including the Yoruba and Ibo of West Africa, the Nuer of Sudan, the Lovedu, Zulu and Sotho of South Africa, and the Kikuyu and Nandi of East Africa.1 Typically, such arrangements involved two women undergoing formal marriage rites; the requisite bride price is paid by one party as in a heterosexual marriage. The woman who pays the bride price for the other woman becomes the sociological 'husband'. The couple may have children with the help of a 'sperm donor', who is a male kinsman or friend of the female husband, or a man of the wife's own choosing, depending on the customs of the community. The female husband is the sociological father of any resulting offspring. The children belong to her lineage, not to their biological father's.2

Formalized, socially-recognized relations between two men also exist in Africa. Among the Zande (located in southwestern Sudan, northeastern Congo, and the Central African Republic), a male warrior could marry a teenage boy by paying bridewealth to the boy's parents. The man addressed the boy-wife's parents as his in-laws, and performed services for them as befitted a son-in-law. Unlike women-women marriages, man-boy marriages end when the boy comes of age. The former boy-wife can now take his own boy wives, and his former husband can marry another boy-wife.3

Same sex marriages among indigenous North Americans
Many indigenous societies in the Americas supported alternative gender roles for both biological men and women. These identities have been termed 3rd and 4th genders (though some cultures recognized up to 6 genders) and are usually coupled with supernatural powers and shamanistic roles. These gender-bending social roles sometimes begin in childhood preferences for dress and work roles.4 Among the Mohave, men have married alyha (biological males who are officially initiated into a 'female' gender role) and women have married hwame (the female equivalent of alyha).5

Same-sex marriage in pre-modern China
Hu Pu'an records the phenomenon of two-women commitment ceremonies in "A Record of China's Customs: Guangdong": Within the Golden Orchid women's societies, if two women "have intentions" towards each other, one of them would prepare peanut candy, dates and other goods as a formal gift to show her intent. If the other woman accepts the gift, she is now bound by honor to her suitor. If she refuses the gift, it indicates a rejection of the proposal. A contract-signing ceremony follows the acceptance and is usually attended by a group of friends who celebrate by drinking through the night. After the contract is completed, the two women "become like each other's shadows in sitting, lying down, rising, and living". If one party breaks the oath, the group of women will hold her accountable and subject her to "a hundred humiliations", "for such is their custom". 6

In the neighboring province of Fujian, same-sex marriages between males were also recognized. Ming dynasty literati Shen Defu writes in "Miscellaneous musings from the Humble Broom Book Room" (Bizhouzhai Yutan):

The Fujianese take male-on-male passion very seriously. Men from all strata of society form partnerships within their own social classes. The older man is the "sworn older brother", and the younger man is the "sworn younger brother". When the "older brother" goes to the home of his "younger brother", the parents of the "younger brother" treat him like a son-in-law. From henceforth, any living costs or heterosexual marriage expenses of the "younger brother" will be paid by the "older brother". Those who love each other ... also sleep together as spouses.7

Similar to the Zande model in Central Africa, Fujian boy-marriages involved a man paying bridewealth to a teenage boy's parents, and the union typically ended when the boy came of age, though there were exceptions. Sometimes same-sex couples adopted and raised children.8

http://www.colorq.org...
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
USAPitBull63
Posts: 668
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2009 11:32:26 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/20/2009 7:39:59 AM, MistahKurtz wrote:

At 12/20/2009 4:25:27 AM, USAPitBull63 wrote:
It's amusing that this thread is in the "Religion" category, considering the most persuasive arguments against same-sex marriage are non-religious.

Ha! The most persuasive? The absolute worst arguments come from religion because any moderate can see through them in a half a second. It translates to "Listen to my God! I hear him talking, listenlistenlisten to me!"

The most compelling arguments are by morons who say that the status quo must be upheld and that anything new is scary. I feel for these people, but I don't have any qualms about bursting their bubble and letting them know that gays exist and we deserve equal rights, and they just have to put up and shut up.

Whether you're being satirical or not, fix your glasses.

I said, "...non-religious."
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2009 5:46:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/20/2009 11:32:26 AM, USAPitBull63 wrote:
At 12/20/2009 7:39:59 AM, MistahKurtz wrote:

At 12/20/2009 4:25:27 AM, USAPitBull63 wrote:
It's amusing that this thread is in the "Religion" category, considering the most persuasive arguments against same-sex marriage are non-religious.

Ha! The most persuasive? The absolute worst arguments come from religion because any moderate can see through them in a half a second. It translates to "Listen to my God! I hear him talking, listenlistenlisten to me!"

The most compelling arguments are by morons who say that the status quo must be upheld and that anything new is scary. I feel for these people, but I don't have any qualms about bursting their bubble and letting them know that gays exist and we deserve equal rights, and they just have to put up and shut up.

Whether you're being satirical or not, fix your glasses.

I said, "...non-religious."

Ah! An unusual slip-up on my part. Apologies.

At 12/20/2009 9:19:09 AM, nickthengineer wrote:
Well many homosexual couples find straight marriage demeaning and insulting. What's your point?

Goodness gracious, if I have to spell it out, then here it is. Um, the uh straight marriages were here first, dude. So the straightly married peeps claim they have first dibs.

Yes, because most socities are based on who got there first. Such as women being unable to vote because Adam came before Eve.

Nothing about two guys marrying lessens the sanctity (or as some would see it, frivolousness) of every other marriage.

In fact, it's almost demeaning to differentiate. There is no 'gay marriage' and 'heterosexual marriage', there is marriage. Marriage is the lawful union between two consenting adults, end of story.

Your contention only holds as much water as your ability to prove that there was a political institution of marriage before God instituted marriage with Adam and Eve, which I'm betting you don't take as anything more than a myth. Be that as it may, the Bible is full of historical claims, one of them being that God instituted marriage around 4000BC-ish. Is there a credible historical claim that the dowry business predates the approximate Biblical date of Adam and Eve?

Your contention only holds as much water as your ability to prove that the Bible is a historical document and God is real.

I was never referring to all traditional acts throughout history. I was referring to the traditionally understood meaning of the word marriage and the meaning it has to certain individuals. You'd do well to refrain from unreasonable extrapolations.

Blacks were not considered people under the traditional understood meaning of the word.

Truthfully, I couldn't follow your wording here. Could you try again?

Translation: "I see no correlation between two connectible situations in history because doing so would make me a racist."

If you really need help understanding this one, I encourage you to poll some of the married heterosexual couples that you know who are against gay marriage and ask them if it would make them feel better if gays were not legally allowed to have what is called a "wedding" and could not legally call themselves "married." Ask them if they would view that as protecting the sanctity of marriage, at least to some degree. That was my point.

I don't care what everyone else thinks. No country in the world operates as a perfect democracy; we do not allow the rights of the minorities to be decided by the majority. That's oppression. If people don't like the fact that I want to marry a dude, they can (with no due respect) shove it.

I respectfully request that you abstain from commenting on my arguments while under the influence of hallucinogens, or while not in the possession of brains, whichever describes your state when you said that. A sober sixth grader could tell that I wasn't blessing gays with my permission to continue to be gay. In context, I was clearly saying that opponents of legalizing gay marriage aren't necessarily out to preach to gays about the evils of their ways. The vast majority simply just don't want a legal recognition of the term "marriage" applying to gay couples. Opponents of gay marriage by and large aren't telling gays they can't be gay anymore, just that they don't want them to be legally recognized as "married."

Exactly! And we don't care what you think because you have no right to tell me how to live.

The closest thing you will come to this is to move to Washington D.C, where the bottom of your license plate will read TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.

Does your's read "IT'S ADAM AND EVE, NOT ADAM AND STEVE."?
breanna_jean
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2010 11:53:56 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
How come gay marriage isnt right? Just because the bible states it does not mean its wrong, how come that two straight people who are in love can get married but 2 gay men or woman cant get married if they are in love? I do not see how this is fair... Explanations?
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2010 12:02:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/20/2009 9:19:09 AM, nickthengineer wrote:
Well many homosexual couples find straight marriage demeaning and insulting. What's your point?

Goodness gracious, if I have to spell it out, then here it is. Um, the uh straight marriages were here first, dude. So the straightly married peeps claim they have first dibs.

Native Americans were first race in America. Do they get first dibs?


Further, marriage originated as a political thing - not a religious thing - in the form of trades (like dowries) and to symbolize political unions amongst other reasons -- not for love.

Your contention only holds as much water as your ability to prove that there was a political institution of marriage before God instituted marriage with Adam and Eve, which I'm betting you don't take as anything more than a myth. Be that as it may, the Bible is full of historical claims, one of them being that God instituted marriage around 4000BC-ish. Is there a credible historical claim that the dowry business predates the approximate Biblical date of Adam and Eve?

Seeing as Adam and Eve aren't real, I'd say the political thing came about first.


In fact, the Ancient Romans and especially the Ancient Greeks were very open about their homosexual desires and tendencies. Alexander the Great was a big homo. And in Athens, when a boy turned 13, he would swallow the semen of older male citizens (amongst commit other gay sex acts) because they believed that he would inherit the male's sense of honor and citizenship by swallowing his jizz. This is a true story - look it up. So, what about THAT tradition?

I was never referring to all traditional acts throughout history. I was referring to the traditionally understood meaning of the word marriage and the meaning it has to certain individuals. You'd do well to refrain from unreasonable extrapolations.

Definitions are subjective.

Further, if you support gay unions but just don't like the term marriage, then you're really not arguing for anything other than a word change which is a terrible and completely useless argument. You can give gays equal rights and call it a civil union if you'd like, but we're here, we're queer, and we're going to call it marriage - and each other husbands and wives...

If you really need help understanding this one, I encourage you to poll some of the married heterosexual couples that you know who are against gay marriage and ask them if it would make them feel better if gays were not legally allowed to have what is called a "wedding" and could not legally call themselves "married." Ask them if they would view that as protecting the sanctity of marriage, at least to some degree. That was my point.

The majority don't get to restrict the freedom of the minority.


We can be gay?! Omgosh thank you so much for your permission!

I respectfully request that you abstain from commenting on my arguments while under the influence of hallucinogens, or while not in the possession of brains, whichever describes your state when you said that. A sober sixth grader could tell that I wasn't blessing gays with my permission to continue to be gay. In context, I was clearly saying that opponents of legalizing gay marriage aren't necessarily out to preach to gays about the evils of their ways. The vast majority simply just don't want a legal recognition of the term "marriage" applying to gay couples. Opponents of gay marriage by and large aren't telling gays they can't be gay anymore, just that they don't want them to be legally recognized as "married."

Because

A) Their bible
B) Their bible
C) Their bible

Onto the legal aspect, if we can't demand equal rights (the same as married couples) then we should demand that the government take less taxes from us. Yep. If we aren't afforded the same opportunities and benefits, then the government should be taking less money from us. If the government wants to take the same amount of money (tax expectations) from gays but not give them marriage breaks - then we should be getting civil union breaks (or whatever it is that you want to call it -- we're still going to be doing the same exact things as a "married" couple).

The closest thing you will come to this is to move to Washington D.C, where the bottom of your license plate will read TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.

Doesn't address her argument.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
alyssa_16
Posts: 97
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2010 1:09:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
ok same sex marriage is okay I am straight yes but if you love some one you should be allowed to marri them no matter what there is nothing wrong with them they are people too :) and very good friends
you took me back to the time we had had our very first fight the slamming of doors in stead of a kiss good night you stayed out side all night a few years have come and gone and we were sitting at our favorite spot in town and you looked at me got down on one knee your momma cryed and so did my daddy, i said yes !!we went home were we met 10 years ago after all this time you and me WOW!! I never would have guessed i am so excited!!!!!!!!!!