Do you think gays should be allowed to marry?

[Navy Pride]

I vote yes.

I have two brothers who are gay. They have never ever done anything to harm me or anyone else. They deserve to have the same decision making rights as married heterosexual couples do in healthcare. They also deserve to have the same privledges and penalties shared by married couples.

Homosexuals are human beings made by god. Who are we to say who can love who and why?

Why couldn't they get equal rights through Civil Unions? I think most Americans would go for that?

 

[jallman]

Thats a convenient definition yo';re using there.
"Union of a man and woman" is the -actual- definition.
Chaning "a" "man" or "woman" is a fundamental change, as those are the fiundamenal terms of the definition.

Convenience is just a pleasant bonus when looking at the definition. Lets look at the term fundamental, shall we?

fun·da·men·tal ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fnd-mntl)
adj.

1. Of or relating to the foundation or base; elementary: the fundamental laws of the universe.
2. Forming or serving as an essential component of a system or structure; central: an example that was fundamental to the argument.
3. Of great significance or entailing major change: a book that underwent fundamental revision.

The union is the fundamental or elementary foundation of marriage. Man and woman are simply descriptors included to reflect who may take part. You dig yourself deeper and deeper with your illogic. You are beginning your entire argument on false grounds.

Wow. Thats deep.
You clearly dont understand his implication.
I'm not surprised.

No, I certainly dont see how pedophilia in a religious organization relates to the secular institution of marriage.

Pssst...
Marriage isnt a right.

Psst...
Equality, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are rights. If marriage isnt a right, then why are you trying so hard to debate its restriction against a group of people?

Its his argument, not mine,

I read it in your post. I know you were being sarcastic, but your sarcasm does nothing to create substance for your other inadequacies in this debate.

Yes.... because YOU say so.
LOL

Well, I am glad we agree on one point, but the real reason your argument is failing is because you are failing your own argument.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well? If no one is harmed by permitting those individuals that freedom, why would anyone oppose it? Like I say, polygamy is a separate issue that has no relevance to the same sex marriage case and it would have to be debated on it's own merits.

AGAIN you arent addressing the issue.
Either that or you've accepted that the argument does apply to marriage of muliple partners and you're trying to admit it without expressedly doing so.

So, what are the societal benefits of marriage?

Yer kidding, right?
If there arent any societal benefits - why then do homosexuals and polygamists want to marry?

Yeah, thought it worked pretty good.:lol:

Of course, the ad-hominen attack is the last reaort of someone with tnothing to say, so...

 

[Navy Pride]

Hey you entrepreneurs out there!!!!
Think how much money your town / state / country is losing with gay couples going to Canada and MA. for same-sex marriages.

There is profit to be made $$$$$$$$$$$

/sarcasm off

- maybe that's the angle to take for equality in America.

You are absolutely right......If we legalize gay marriage then we have to legalize Polygamy and family members marrying under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment........Wow!!!! think of the money that could be made there......:roll:

 

[M14 Shooter]

The union is the fundamental or elementary foundation of marriage. Man and woman are simply descriptors included to reflect who may take part.

LOL
Thats amazingly funny.
Marriage is a component of the porpgation of the species, applied to societal order. There's nothing more fundamental to the propogation of the species than 'a man' and 'a woman'; and therefore marriage, as its deriviative, shares the same fundamental components.

No, I certainly dont see how pedophilia in a religious organization relates to the secular institution of marriage.

Better talk to Ackbar. He brought up the idea that 'if you're arguing against it, it must be because of a bad experience' idea.

Psst...
Equality, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are rights. If marriage isnt a right, then why are you trying so hard to debate its restriction against a group of people?

Marriage is a creation of the state, something that would not exist if not defined by the state - making it a privilege. If it were a right, it would exist independent of the state - which marriage does not.

I read it in your post. I know you were being sarcastic, but your sarcasm does nothing to create substance for your other inadequacies in this debate.

So you agree - you do not have to be 'harmed' by something to have a sound argument agianst that something.

Well, I am glad we agree on one point, but the real reason your argument is failing is because you are failing your own argument.

Not that YOU'VE been able to show...

 

[jallman]

LOL
Thats amazingly funny.
Marriage is a component of the porpgation of the species, applied to societal order. There's nothing more fundamental to the propogation of the species than 'a man' and 'a woman'; and therefore marriage, as its deriviative, shares the same fundamental components.

What is amazingly funny is your ability to cherry pick fact and fiction and roll it into a flimsy stance advocating the discrimination of a group of people. Marriage is hardly a component of propogation of the species. Reproductive coitus is a component of propogation of the species. Marriage is an institution of social construction meant to give favor to those who take part and to protect the unity of the relationship. In a religious sense, it is a sacrament to be held in high esteem and to give deferential treatment to those who have taken part in it. In a governmental sense, it is a legally binding contract that promotes the mutual protection of the two people involved. The only fundamental component of marriage as a definition is its application to bonding a pair of people...the terms man and woman are only part of the definition as a means of demonstrating who may be involved AT THIS TIME. I find it both telling and amusing that you have not commented on the proof offered to you that at one time only a man and a woman of the same race could take part. Dont take that as surprise...you have aptly demonstrated your habit of ignoring fact and relying on poorly formed opinion.

Better talk to Ackbar. He brought up the idea that 'if you're arguing against it, it must be because of a bad experience' idea.

I am not ackbar, now am I? He is slaughtering you in this debate with as much ease as I am. Take your problems with Ackbar up with Ackbar and focus whats left of your feeble stance if you have anything left.

Marriage is a creation of the state, something that would not exist if not defined by the state - making it a privilege. If it were a right, it would exist independent of the state - which marriage does not.

So are we flip flopping? Just above you said it was a component of propogation, which leaves implications that marriage is a creation of nature. If it is a creation of state and state is exclusive of nature, then it cant be a component of propogation. You make no sense.

Now onto the debunking of your privilege stance. If it is, in fact, a privilege and our constitution, from its very preamble asserts that all men are created equally, then it is a privilege that must be afforded all. A heterosexual marriage enjoys certain securities and benefits and so, those benefits and securities must be extended to the homosexual relationship as long as the relationship remains within the parameters of the established marriage contract. Case closed...unless of course, you dont believe in the fundamental rights of the Constitution and then that would make you unpatriotic and therefore a traitor against the state. (I love turning neocon tactics back against them).

So you agree - you do not have to be 'harmed' by something to have a sound argument agianst that something.

You can argue against it all you want. Your arguments are not a basis for legislation, especially when you have no sound reasoning behind them.

Not that YOU'VE been able to show...

:rofl You have been utterly trounced in this debate. As I said before, passion seems to be your only motivation because logic and reason are not. This is becoming like kicking a man when he is down. I almost feel bad about it...almost.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What is amazingly funny is your ability to cherry pick fact and fiction

Speaking of which....

Marriage is hardly a component of propogation of the species. Reproductive coitus is a component of propogation of the species.

And the REST of my statement? Oh yes, conveninely ignored.
But I understand - you can;t do any better with what you have.

I am not ackbar, now am I? He is slaughtering you in this debate with as much ease as I am. Take your problems with Ackbar up with Ackbar and focus whats left of your feeble stance if you have anything left.

Hold on a second...
You're takimg ME to task about something Ackbar presented...
...and THEN you claim that you're 'easily' slaughtering me?
:rofl

So are we flip flopping? Just above you said it was a component of propogation, which leaves implications that marriage is a creation of nature.

There you go, cherry picking...

If it is a creation of state and state is exclusive of nature, then it cant be a component of propogation. You make no sense.

I do when you actually read what I write.
But you can't do that, for if you should you'd have nothing to say.

Now onto the debunking of your privilege stance. If it is, in fact, a privilege and our constitution, from its very preamble asserts that all men are created equally, then it is a privilege that must be afforded all.

Hardly.
There are MANY privileges (and rtights) that are afforded to some people and not to others.
Note that this doesnt have anyting to do with the idea that marriage is a privilege and not a right.

A heterosexual marriage enjoys certain securities and benefits and so, those benefits and securities must be extended to the homosexual relationship as long as the relationship remains within the parameters of the established marriage contract.

You're not really saying anything here, especially regarding the argument that marriage is a right not a privilege.

Marriage laws, as they stand, presnetly, do not keep anyone from getting married, and as such, equally extend the privilgege to anyone that wants it.

Oh, you'll say that 'but as a gay man, I can't marry whoever I want" - whch is a non starter, predicated on the false premise that you should be able to marry whoever you want. We all know there are perfectly legitimate restrictions on who you can marry - restrictions all created by the state when it created the privilege of marriage.

Am I supposed to feel debunked now?

You can argue against it all you want. Your arguments are not a basis for legislation, especially when you have no sound reasoning behind them.

LOLs
And what the sound reason behind allowing same-sex marriage?
"As a gay man, I should be able to marry whoever I want"?
(How does that not apply to multi-partner marriages again?)
This has been addressed - you cant just marry whoever you want, even as a heterosexual man,

Bring it on, son - you havent eveb come close to a sound argument.

 

[shinigami_axel]

I voted yes but really I don't think the government should be allowed to decide who can marry. The matter should be left up to the churches. The government can and should recognize civil union, but on the matter of marriage churches should have the only say. Marriage is strictly a religious practice and if the government promotes marriage by allowing benefits or prohibits others from marriage then they are breaking the wall of separation.

 

[jallman]

Speaking of which....
And the REST of my statement? Oh yes, conveninely ignored.
But I understand - you can;t do any better with what you have.

:yawn: Not this tired old dance again. It didnt work for you the first time, what makes you think it will this time. You do know the mark of insanity, dont you? Its repeatedly trying the same thing expecting different results. Your statement was addressed in full just like last time...man, you just keep trying so hard even I am almost rooting for you as the underdog.

Hold on a second...
You're takimg ME to task about something Ackbar presented...
...and THEN you claim that you're 'easily' slaughtering me?
:rofl

:wow: Are you really that flustered with your inability to hold your position? I took you to task on the irrelevance of your statement. So far your only "defense" has been to claim that you havent been answered on your points. Now which is it? I am confused.

There you go, cherry picking...
I do when you actually read what I write.
But you can't do that, for if you should you'd have nothing to say.

Yeah and I heard the same argument from my neighbor kid. Went something like:

:nahnah: I'm rubber you're glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks back onto you!

It was actually cute when she said it...from you its just hilarious.
Hardly.

There are MANY privileges (and rtights) that are afforded to some people and not to others.
Note that this doesnt have anyting to do with the idea that marriage is a privilege and not a right.

You will need to give examples of those privileges along with proof that they are granted by the Constitution for me to believe that some get enjoyment of privileges and some do not. And I beg to differ; it has everything to do with marriage being a privilege and not a right.

You're not really saying anything here, especially regarding the argument that marriage is a right not a privilege.

And you just arent saying anything. The "its a privilege not a right" song only carries carries until you are faced with the question of why a certain group should be banned from that privilege.

Marriage laws, as they stand, presnetly, do not keep anyone from getting married, and as such, equally extend the privilgege to anyone that wants it.

No, I guess they dont any more than they did when they barred two people of different races from marrying.

Oh, you'll say that 'but as a gay man, I can't marry whoever I want" - whch is a non starter, predicated on the false premise that you should be able to marry whoever you want. We all know there are perfectly legitimate restrictions on who you can marry - restrictions all created by the state when it created the privilege of marriage.

Obviously, by your own poll, near half the country doesnt see the restriction as legitimate. And as a citizen of the united states, I should be able to marry the 1 legally consenting adult of my choice. Unless you can find grounds for restricting that choice based on the infringement of your rights, then your argument is moot and your logic unsound...at least in a legal sense.

Am I supposed to feel debunked now?

No, if I were you I would feel foolish. Pride is what keeps you debating this topic. That and stubborness in the face of defeat. Admirable traits when expressed with dignity. With you...not so much.

LOLs
And what the sound reason behind allowing same-sex marriage?
"As a gay man, I should be able to marry whoever I want"?
(How does that not apply to multi-partner marriages again?)
This has been addressed - you cant just marry whoever you want, even as a heterosexual man,

But you have the option of choosing a satisfying life partner as a heterosexual man or woman. You cant as a homosexual, as it stands now. Well, you can, but you are denied certain securities offered to heterosexuals based on nothing more than a bias and a moral disapproval that has no place in legislation. The sound reasoning behind at least implementing civil union is that we are an inclusive society with liberty and justice for all. These are our FUNDAMENTAL (remember that word) premises for our legal philosophy. I didnt make the law this way, I am just pointing it out.

Bring it on, son - you havent eveb come close to a sound argument.

Heh, you just keep running head first into this and you just keep landing on your rear, sport. Keep coming back for more. Its okay though, I will be gone on a hunting trip tomorrow through thursday...maybe you can shadow box until I get back. Here is a better idea...spend the time asking around for some help with your argument. I wont laugh...at least no more than I already am.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

AGAIN you arent addressing the issue.
Either that or you've accepted that the argument does apply to marriage of muliple partners and you're trying to admit it without expressedly doing so.

I am addressing the issue. When the issue of polygamy comes up, I'll support it and provide arguments in favor. Since we're discussing same-sex marriages, the arguments I'm raising are relevant to that topic.

When I discuss sailing, I tend to leave Richard Bach out of the discussion, since he only writes about flying. The one topic can lead to the other, but they're not directly connected. Same is true about same-sex marriages and polygamy.


I'm fully aware of the societal benefits of marriage, being married myself. I'm wondering if you're able to identify them and then explain why you're willing to prevent society from taking the fullest advantage possible.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Yer kidding, right?
If there arent any societal benefits - why then do homosexuals and polygamists want to marry?

I can't rely on you to answer the question to my satisfaction, so I'll post the answer you refuse:

The principle purpose of marriage in a society is to recognize bonded pairs which are then removed from consideration by the general population as available sexual partners.

In small words, marriage permits the couple to have sex without social stigma.

Another purpose of marriage is to share resources. It's why Bill married Hill.

A third reason is the true emotion of selfish love, wherein the couple wishes to tie the other to them with "battleship chains".

A fourth purpose of marriage is procreation. Yes, that's fourth. If it was the only reason, why would octogenarians get married?

 

[SKILMATIC]

IMO gays shouldnt be allowed to marry. It is an institution that is quite frankly designed for a man and a woman. Marriage was never designed for a 2 PENI5ES.

On the other hand, I love gay people cause that means more PU55Y for me. :rofl

I would love for all guys to be gay and all the women for me. hahahhaha

 

[jallman]

IMO gays shouldnt be allowed to marry. It is an institution that is quite frankly designed for a man and a woman. Marriage was never designed for a 2 PENI5ES.

On the other hand, I love gay people cause that means more PU55Y for me. :rofl

I would love for all guys to be gay and all the women for me. hahahhaha

Well, at least you have a more logical grounds for your argument than ole m14 has conceived of presenting. I will take exception to your assertion that marriage was never designed for 2 penises. Marriage wasnt designed with any biological considerations...it is a purely social mechanism.

 

[Kandahar]

IMO gays shouldnt be allowed to marry. It is an institution that is quite frankly designed for a man and a woman. Marriage was never designed for a 2 PENI5ES.

In what way does the "design" of marriage exclude the possibility of two men or two women getting married? All marriage is, in the legal sense, is a contract allowing for sharing of resources and some legal benefits.

The institution of marriage hasn't crumbled anywhere that same-sex marriage has been legalized. By saying it was "designed for a man and a woman," you're basically just saying "gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because that's the way it's been in the past."

 

[Conflict]

In what way? The only state that allows gay marriage, Massachusetts, has the lowest divorce rate in the country. Is divorce a family value?

Of course divorce is not a value of a structural family enviroment. Neither is having two same sex partners as parents. I don't agree with the Christian doctine of holy matrimony because I'm not Christian. That being said why do homosexuals need to be justified by the Christian sect to live their way? I never said they shouldn't be able to have the amenities that non-christians have. I baited and switched the thread. It worked quite well. Whatever Gay people do is of no concern to me.

Umm...Are you sure that's the word you're looking for?

I'm positive.

Even if that was true (which I'd argue with...in another thread), what "the Christian doctrine" says should NOT be the determining factor in whether or not the state allows its citizens to be equal.

I agree. It has more to do with freedom of religion in terms of equality than anything. There is one thing that I learned about politics at a very young age. One should never take belief in the words of other in a holistic sense.. rather the actions of others must be the primary factor in determining their intent.

 

[Gilluin]

I would have to agree.

Now don't take me wrong... I don't hate gay people. However I think the concept of gay marriage would be detrimental to family values. I don't dislike gay people. I have friends who are gay. Despite that I just don't see anything holistic in embracing the concept of gay marriage. It's a complete contradiction to the christian doctrine behind the concept of holy matrimony. (meaning that the gay people are only attempting to taunt and instigate the beliefs of matrimony).

So we should not be allowed to protect our families legally? What of our religious freedom if our religious beliefs allow for gay marriage? Should our rights be set aside and denied because of someone elses beliefs?

 

[Deathhound]

Im all for gay marriage. It's hard for me to see the opposition to this as not being influenced by their religious views. I just don't see the point in not allowing gays to get married.

The fundamental changing of the definition of marriage or the discouraging of traditional family values seems like just a bunch of crap to me. Gays getting married doesn't change how I see marriage, or how my family life is, so I simply don't care.

Even if those against gay marriage weren't influenced by religious beliefs, if I were to choose that position, it would have to be my religious beliefs that were behind such a decision. To support legislation based solely on religious values would be the same as physically enforcing your religion on others. Seeing as God gave man the choice to sin or not, I see forcing someone to obey your religion as spitting in God's face. This is why I can not support legislation against gay marriage.

 

[SKILMATIC]

Well, at least you have a more logical grounds for your argument than ole m14 has conceived of presenting. I will take exception to your assertion that marriage was never designed for 2 penises. Marriage wasnt designed with any biological considerations...it is a purely social mechanism.

Well your welcome. I actually am all for gay dudes. I think its a great mutual relationship cause you both know what you want(which is sex). Guys love sex and to be with someone with the same charactaristic its great. I think you guys are lucky. Hell, I have to sweet talk my way into having sex :rofl .

However, society predicates how we do things in how the first way it was done. For example, when this country was formed after the revolutionary war and the first president came to office. He served 2 terms and volunteerily stepped down. And for now on we have been doing things that way except in FDR's case. Well same analogy goes for marriege. The first 2 peopel were adam and eve not adam and steve. The first marriages were between a man and a woman. Besides if men were supposed to be with each other there would be all men here. :lol: That would be scary. Well for me anyways.

Also IMO why do people need a piece of paper and a ring to know that they love each other? If you love each other then you really dont need a marriage to tell yourself that you do. If you need marriage to show that you love someone then thats kinda pitiful IMO.

But anways, yeah biologically it doesnt coincide but its up to you who you want to love and be with.

But IMO PU55Y feels far better. Even a girls a$$ does. :lol: Plus they tend to be cleaner and less hairy. :lol:

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

So we should not be allowed to protect our families legally? What of our religious freedom if our religious beliefs allow for gay marriage? Should our rights be set aside and denied because of someone elses beliefs?

Protect your family from what? Marriage is usually a voluntary matter, outside of the mythical irate farmer with a shotgun.

 

[Kelzie]

Well your welcome. I actually am all for gay dudes. I think its a great mutual relationship cause you both know what you want(which is sex). Guys love sex and to be with someone with the same charactaristic its great. I think you guys are lucky. Hell, I have to sweet talk my way into having sex :rofl .

However, society predicates how we do things in how the first way it was done. For example, when this country was formed after the revolutionary war and the first president came to office. He served 2 terms and volunteerily stepped down. And for now on we have been doing things that way except in FDR's case. Well same analogy goes for marriege. The first 2 peopel were adam and eve not adam and steve. The first marriages were between a man and a woman. Besides if men were supposed to be with each other there would be all men here. :lol: That would be scary. Well for me anyways.

You're using biblical characters to support your argument? So who did Adam and Eve's children marry? Does this mean incest is okay because they obviously did? When this country was formed and far before that, slavery was okay. Just becuase something changes does not make it wrong. Even if it does scare you.

Also IMO why do people need a piece of paper and a ring to know that they love each other? If you love each other then you really dont need a marriage to tell yourself that you do. If you need marriage to show that you love someone then thats kinda pitiful IMO.

If it's just a little scrap of paper and a ring, why not just give it to them?

But IMO PU55Y feels far better. Even a girls a$$ does. :lol: Plus they tend to be cleaner and less hairy. :lol:

[mod mode]

And this is a no. We have 13 year-old members. Lets keep it PG-13 in here or take it to the basement.

[/mod mode]

 

[LeftyHenry]

I think people who don't want gays to marry are predjudice. I think the way right wingers are acting is like a 21st century seperate but equal. If gays can't marry, then their eing treated as second class citizens. If you try to argue that gay couples make their children gay, you have no evidence of that this is true because there is no study that indicates this. Also it's a question of freedom of speech, they're expressing their sexuality and that should be allowed just like straights are allowed.

 

[Navy Pride]

I think people who don't want gays to marry are predjudice. I think the way right wingers are acting is like a 21st century seperate but equal. If gays can't marry, then their eing treated as second class citizens. If you try to argue that gay couples make their children gay, you have no evidence of that this is true because there is no study that indicates this. Also it's a question of freedom of speech, they're expressing their sexuality and that should be allowed just like straights are allowed.

And Civil Unions will accomplish exactly that...........

 

[Kandahar]

And Civil Unions will accomplish exactly that...........

Civil unions are fine...as long as the state also stops recognizes heterosexual marriages and grants them civil unions instead. Otherwise, it's just "separate but equal."

 

[Navy Pride]

Civil unions are fine...as long as the state also stops recognizes heterosexual marriages and grants them civil unions instead. Otherwise, it's just "separate but equal."

That ain't gonna happen.........The government believes that the relationship between a man and a woman in a marriage is beneficial to the country......The majority of American people do not believe the same when it comes to gay marriage..........

 

[Connecticutter]

That ain't gonna happen.........The government believes that the relationship between a man and a woman in a marriage is beneficial to the country......The majority of American people do not believe the same when it comes to gay marriage..........

I happen to disagree with what the government believes, and I also happen to disagree with what the majority of Americans believe. We should have equality under the law, period. Let the people and private institutions decide on the social norms, and we'll end up with a society that is not only tolerant and diverse, but respects tradition.