- Joined
- Sep 9, 2005
- Messages
- 34,965
- Reaction score
- 12,362
- Location
- Pennsylvania
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
As I understood it, he said that the word "marriage" originated ~700 years ago.what the heck are you talking about, you told me that I was wrong that the word is only 700 years old now you are saying you didnt say that? LMAO
the word is OLDER than 700 years period and thats a fact
if you are so misunderstood explain your stance on the TOPIC AT HAND, do you think its right to stop it, why? and explain how its not discrimination?
or just run away because you know you cant answer the questions, thats what I thought. make excuses and hide and attempt to write me off and discredit what i said but it wont work and anybody that can read can see that. Like I said what YOU wrote has NO barring on my OP and this thread if you want to debate something else make your own thread LMAO or dont get up set when I tie them (big gasp) to the subject at hand, otherwise answer my questions or move on in defeat
what the heck are you talking about, you told me that I was wrong that the word is only 700 years old now you are saying you didnt say that? LMAO
the word is OLDER than 700 years period and thats a fact
if you are so misunderstood explain your stance on the TOPIC AT HAND, do you think its right to stop it, why? and explain how its not discrimination?
or just run away because you know you cant answer the questions, thats what I thought. make excuses and hide and attempt to write me off and discredit what i said but it wont work and anybody that can read can see that. Like I said what YOU wrote has NO barring on my OP and this thread if you want to debate something else make your own thread LMAO or dont get up set when I tie them (big gasp) to the subject at hand, otherwise answer my questions or move on in defeat
As I understood it, he said that the word "marriage" originated ~700 years ago.
However, he also said that the meaning applied to it was used long before, although obviously different words were used to communicate that meaning.
Queer marriage is a detriment to society. Although the definition of acceptable marriage has been refined over 5000 years of human history, the legal union of two men or two women has never been sanctioned by a successful society.
Please save derogatory terms has they just make you look foolish and show your obvious bias and bigotry
also who says its a detriment? Probably the same people that said the same thing about equal rights for women and minorities lol
also define successful society? LMAO who gets to determine that? was rome successful? The Mayans? only till the end i guess. If in 100 years our society is gone will we be successful or no? successful is totally subjective.
We still stand at zero
Thanks again to everybody
Gah.thanks but i got what he meant but the word itself has been proven to be older and extremely older if you ignore the current word marriage and go by its other names,
Gah.
No.
A word (or anything, for that matter) is only as old as when it first came into being.
Previously, other words may have been used to convey the same meaning...But you are incorrect in contending that the word is older than he stated - if Webster is to be believed.
If I understood correctly, he was saying that "marriage", as a concept, has been around for much longer than the word marriage.
Ah.when I ave the time ill look up its first origin for you in my research and hopefully i can tie it to a link but it is in fact older, websters is using its orgin date of its CURRENT definitions
so both the word and concept are older
I know what you are saying but I didnt misunderstand him, he is wrong plan and simple but I get the point you are trying to make
Ah.
It is entirely possible that you are correct, as I really have no idea.
Stupid ****ing moronic poll spammers.
:2mad:
That would work if they would give us the same benefits of a STR8 'marriage'.There are about 1200 of them.I don't want it legally defined as marriage. Just have the state issue partnership licenses and end it at that.
I wouldn't say "resolved", exactly...More like argued to a standstill, with all parties still holding to the majority of their positions.Months after this issue has been resolved on DP, it amazes me how many people still care about getting votes than actually debating.
I wouldn't say "resolved", exactly...More like argued to a standstill, with all parties still holding to the majority of their positions.
All arguments having been used, however, the debate stopped...although apparently the voting didn't.
yes its funny spammers keep voting
on a general side note
the debate basically stopped because no one has come up with any good reasons to stop it and support discrimination yet
Maybe people are not willing to acknowledge other arguments? I oppose gay marriage not simply because of my religious belief's but because homosexuality is not equal with conventional marriage between a man and a woman. They aren't the same union and thus homosexuals can never marry each other. Because of my Christian belief's I could never support something or vote in favor of something that I know is wrong (homosexuality).
But applying it to them forces everyone to acknowledge gay marriage and by law treat their union as equal to real marriage. It's not discrimination, as far as things go homosexuals have every right as anyone else does, they can marry as well... a member of the opposite sex. Homosexuals are regular people, they aren't a race or religion, they are just people with a different sexual preference. I discriminate against the act of homosexuality and see it as sinful and wrong, not against the homosexuals themselves. No one is stopping them from having sex, however we are not going to extend marital benefits to something that is not marriage. I find it hypocritical for the homosexual community to impose upon religious individuals their secular morality and belief that homosexuality is not wrong or immoral. It can be spun both ways. You are right in that I have no business in other's affairs, but I do have the right to vote according to my belief's and believe that what others do is wrong and should be stopped (just like in the case of abortion).Like the OP i dont think its a mater of "aknowledgment" its a matter of it being justly applicable to OTHERS, the LAW and choosing to not DISCRIMINATE. Believe what YOU want but in this case once you choose to stop others I find it very hypocritical and pompus. I respect you right to think how you want and your religious beliefs but you have no buisness in other peoples affairs. What if other religions are fine with it? So your gonns force yours on them?
What gays do is none of my business as well. However it does affect me and my society if we extend full legal rights to homosexual unions and call it marriage. I do think homosexual's and their significant others should be allowed to visit each other in the hospital (I also think the wife/husband shouldn't be the only one allowed to visit at times either). It is not discrimination against homosexuals to not allow them to marry each other. The only discrimination is against the act of homosexuality and not accepting it as equal and moral with true marriage. Homosexuals have all the rights and services that anyone else does, the one thing they don't have is the public condoning the act of homosexuality and recognizing it as moral and equal with a heterosexual marriage.I myself am not gay and can honestly say im not exactly a "fan" of it but as an American I clearly understand its none of my buisness, it has ZERO effect on me in real life and i would never force my views on them. I cant even imagine how anybody is pompus enough to think it is there buisness. They should clearly be allowed to marry because its discrimination and i havent read anything in this thread that would be classified as such. At best if it bothered me too bad, it doesnt, but if it did i just wouldnt vote at all on the subject. I may not vote yes to "support" it but i could never bring myself to vote no to "discriminate" against m fellow americans
But applying it to them forces everyone to acknowledge gay marriage and by law treat their union as equal to real marriage. It's not discrimination, as far as things go homosexuals have every right as anyone else does, they can marry as well... a member of the opposite sex. Homosexuals are regular people, they aren't a race or religion, they are just people with a different sexual preference. I discriminate against the act of homosexuality and see it as sinful and wrong, not against the homosexuals themselves. No one is stopping them from having sex, however we are not going to extend marital benefits to something that is not marriage. I find it hypocritical for the homosexual community to impose upon religious individuals their secular morality and belief that homosexuality is not wrong or immoral. It can be spun both ways. You are right in that I have no business in other's affairs, but I do have the right to vote according to my belief's and believe that what others do is wrong and should be stopped (just like in the case of abortion).
What gays do is none of my business as well. However it does affect me and my society if we extend full legal rights to homosexual unions and call it marriage. I do think homosexual's and their significant others should be allowed to visit each other in the hospital (I also think the wife/husband shouldn't be the only one allowed to visit at times either). It is not discrimination against homosexuals to not allow them to marry each other. The only discrimination is against the act of homosexuality and not accepting it as equal and moral with true marriage. Homosexuals have all the rights and services that anyone else does, the one thing they don't have is the public condoning the act of homosexuality and recognizing it as moral and equal with a heterosexual marriage.
Yes it is discrimination, it's the state saying secular morals are superior to that of religious Christians. Personally if a state voted by popular majority to accept gay marriage then I would be fine with it. I wouldn't support it personally and I would vote against it, but I would obey the law. Who is necessarily imposing on others? In California they voted on gay marriage (proposition 8) and gay marriage was turned down by a popular vote. Now they are trying to find some way to impose gay marriage upon everyone even though it was voted down.nope its NOT discrimination against you at all, unless you are in denial and trying to be illogical and bias. nice try but religion doesnt own the word marriage and that FACT is undenialable. Sorry you argument hold not water based on this fact, marriage has NOTHING to do with religion unless the parties involve CHOOSE it too.Religion still wouldnt have to "extend marital benefits" to anyone they doent see fit JUST LIKE RIGHT NOW, that wouldnt change.
Yes it does spin both ways. In reality it would be just as I said it would be. It would be the state forcing everyone to acknowledge two men or two women as a legally married couple. Like I said, in California they are discriminating against the popular majority that voted to prevent gay marriage. They want to ram it through regardless of what the voters said. They are disrespecting their votes and discrimination against their beliefs.So NO it isnt NOT spinning both ways in REALITY that just an argument you are trying to use that actually has no barring. Unless of course you already believe that you are discminated everyday in every single way that doesnt follow your religious belifes
My religious belief's would only hold that premarital sex, masturbation, and becoming too drunk with alcohol as being wrong. However, these things are different when compared to homosexual marriage. I don't support any of these things and neither does the state. The state hasn't made these things illegal (just like how homosexuality isn't a crime either). It would be discrimination if the state were to pass laws saying every couple that has premarital sex deserves special rights or that everyone who masturbates deserves free pornography. The government doesn't impose morality on those areas that you mentioned, they aren't respecting those acts and giving them special protection/extending rights to them.people that get married by a majistraite
woemen having equal rights
miniorites havung equl rights
permarital sex
masturbation
cussing
drinking alcohol
etc etc
Again, the things you posted above are not given a moral seal of approval by the government. They are not extended special rights and the government is not telling everyone to accept those behaviors as equal to moral ones. They aren't telling people that premarital sex is morally equal to sex within marriage.not saying YOUR religion belives my list above because i dont know but thats just a small list of thinkgs religions do not agree with that are allowed by law so NO its not hypocritical for gays to want marriage nor does it discrimate against you and yes it is discrimination againt them not to allow it.
I agree with you on your first sentence. I also believe that those who support homosexuality have the right to vote for it based on their belief's and convictions. They have theirs and I have mine and I respect their views even though I don't agree with them. However, I don't think I'm pompous for not supporting homosexual marriage. I am not anti-homosexuals, I just doesn't support homosexuality as moral and equal to marriage. I would be against any law that criminalize homosexuals or repeals any rights from them as people just like anyone else. What I think is pompous is in the case of California where they want to go against the popular vote and impose homosexual marriage on a state that voted to keep marriage between a man and woman. I don't think it's pompous to support homosexual marriage either (I am not saying having that stance makes on pompous nor am I calling you pompous).Allso i dont dissagree that its you RIGHT to vote what you believe, that was never said that you simply dont have the right to vote. You do, that is right, I agree 100%. Its a matter of in aMERICA DO YOU THINK ITS RIGHT TO STOP IT. i was just pointing out how hypicritical i find it has an american and how pompus i think it makes you in this case to stop others and be in their business. You do have the right to vote how you seem fit but stopping them will still be arrogant and discimintive.
It does effect me though. It means that the state and society that I live in views a practice I hold as immoral as being moral and equal to a heterosexual marriage. I plan on going into the medical field, and I would be required to extend spousal benefits to a homosexual couple even though in my eyes they are living in a sinful union. I would have to uphold their "marriage" and legally be required to treat them as any normal married couple. It would effect me personally, and it would effect the society I live in.It actually doesnt effect you in reality, it effects your moral compass and maybe in some other shallow ways but not you in general. Two ugly people kissing may effect me to in a very shallow way but not in reality, shouls i stop them? when we are talking about freedoms and discrimination and fellow americans the effect has to be a real one and apply to your fundemantal lifestyle, yours wouldnt be effected.
They do have the same rights. In fact, they aren't a "they" group. Homosexuals are normal people with a different sexual preference. Is it discrimination to make bestiality illegal? That is a sexual preference as well. Do we discriminate against them by not allowing a man to legally marry his horse? Homosexuality, heterosexuality, and bestiality are not racial or religious groups. They are all sexual preferences and acts of sexuality. "Discriminating" against homosexuality is discriminating against the act of homosexual sex in the same way that discriminating against murderers is discriminating against the act of murder.and they do NOT have the same rights and it is in FACT discrimination, you are playing semantics and I wont let you its such a cop out argument to say they can marry anyone they want just not same sex lol thats just dumb.
They are denied nothing, they have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex that I do. They have the right to live and travel and receive all rights that I do as a heterosexual male. The only difference between me and a homosexual is the fact that they are sexually attracted to the same gender while I am not.They are denied equal fair marriage and its a shame, it nobodys buisness who two consenting adults marry. ANd like i said Im not exactly a gay fan Im an nondiscrimanation fan and stick up for my fellow americans.
I'm not a bigot. I have gay friends and ex gay friends and I treat them with no disrespect or any differently then my other friends. You judge my character based off of my beliefs. You are not only wrong, but you are asserting your own bigotry by assuming that I myself am bigoted against homosexuals simply because I view homosexuality as a sin. :respekt:Here we go again.
Don't argue with a bigot; their prejudices almost make perfect sense to them.
No.on a general side note
the debate basically stopped because no one has come up with any good reasons to stop it and support discrimination yet
Yes it is discrimination, it's the state saying secular morals are superior to that of religious Christians. Personally if a state voted by popular majority to accept gay marriage then I would be fine with it. I wouldn't support it personally and I would vote against it, but I would obey the law. Who is necessarily imposing on others? In California they voted on gay marriage (proposition 8) and gay marriage was turned down by a popular vote. Now they are trying to find some way to impose gay marriage upon everyone even though it was voted down.
Yes it does spin both ways. In reality it would be just as I said it would be. It would be the state forcing everyone to acknowledge to men or two women as a legally married couple. Like I said, in California they are discriminating against the popular majority that voted to prevent gay marriage. They want to ram it through regardless of what the voters said. They are disrespecting their votes and discrimination against their beliefs.
My religious belief's would only hold that premarital sex, masturbation, and becoming too drunk with alcohol as being wrong. However, these things are different when compared to homosexual marriage. I don't support any of these things and neither does the state. The state hasn't made these things illegal (just like how homosexuality isn't a crime either). It would be discrimination if the state were to pass laws saying every couple that has premarital sex deserves special rights or that everyone who masturbates deserves free pornography. The government doesn't impose morality on those areas that you mentioned, they aren't respecting those acts and giving them special protection/extending rights to them.
Again, the things you posted above are not given a moral seal of approval by the government. They are not extended special rights and the government is not telling everyone to accept those behaviors as equal to moral ones. They aren't telling people that premarital sex is morally equal to sex within marriage.
I agree with you on your first sentence. I also believe that those who support homosexuality have the right to vote for it based on their belief's and convictions. They have theirs and I have mine and I respect their views even though I don't agree with them. However, I don't think I'm pompous for not supporting homosexual marriage. I am not anti-homosexuals, I just doesn't support homosexuality as moral and equal to marriage. I would be against any law that criminalize homosexuals or repeals any rights from them as people just like anyone else. What I think is pompous is in the case of California where they want to go against the popular vote and impose homosexual marriage on a state that voted to keep marriage between a man and woman. I don't think it's pompous to support homosexual marriage either (I am not saying having that stance makes on pompous nor am I calling you pompous).
It does effect me though. It means that the state and society that I live in views a practice I hold as immoral as being moral and equal to a heterosexual marriage. I plan on going into the medical field, and I would be required to extend spousal benefits to a homosexual couple even though in my eyes they are living in a sinful union. I would have to uphold their "marriage" and legally be required to treat them as any normal married couple. It would effect me personally, and it would effect the society I live in.
They do have the same rights. In fact, they aren't a "they" group. Homosexuals are normal people with a different sexual preference. Is it discrimination to make bestiality illegal? That is a sexual preference as well. Do we discriminate against them by not allowing a man to legally marry his horse? Homosexuality, heterosexuality, and bestiality are not racial or religious groups. They are all sexual preferences and acts of sexuality. "Discriminating" against homosexuality is discriminating against the act of homosexual sex in the same way that discriminating against murderers is discriminating against the act of murder.
I'm not a bigot. I have gay friends and ex gay friends and I treat them with no disrespect or any differently then my other friends. You judge my character based off of my beliefs. You are not only wrong, but you are asserting your own bigotry by assuming that I myself am bigoted against homosexuals simply because I view homosexuality as a sin. :respekt:
No.
It's not that no one has come up with any good reasons, it is that those debating realized that they would not convince each other, and thus saw no point in continuing.
Many good reasons were given...but no good reason that all could agree with.
Of course, such a strange entity does not and never will exist.
Thank you for proving my point.We’ll just have to agree to disagree then because per the OP I didn’t see one has they all fit the OPs description. There wasn’t on that was sound, reasonable, logical, non-bias, non-selfish, non-arrogant, hypercritical, non anti-American and didn’t support discrimination.
They all fit the mold of not a good reason by the OP, Some of them didn’t match all those reasons but all of them certainly failed the test
Maybe that will change but I doubt it, with other things and discrimination being among the list that will be probably impossible.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?