That's not what I said.
You like to put a negative spin on what I say.
I don't worry about it. It keeps them occupied.
How else could I interpret "I don't let laws dictate thing to me". Isn't that precisely what laws are for, to dictate (tell us) what we can or cannot do?
I should have been more clear. I meant that I do not let laws decide for me whether gays can marry or not/whether "gay marriage" is a valid concept or not.
Not that what I think will have any sort of impact on the lives of gays, I realize that.
I'm always okay with laws that give every American equal rights.
Do you think people can marry farm animals? And would we be "depriving them of their rights to marry" by saying no?
marriage is a legal contract . . animals cant consent and enter into a legal contract
once again you prove how severely and factually uneducated you are on this topic . . . wow
Do you think people can marry farm animals? And would we be "depriving them of their rights to marry" by saying no?
How about you simply answer my question?Now you're getting silly. You're reaching for situations in which aren't even in the realm of possibilities.
Good bye.
How about you simply answer my question?
How about you simply answer my question?
I'll plagarize the comment from AGENT J instead of typing it all out, such silliness.
"marriage is a legal contract . . animals cant consent and enter into a legal contract
once again you prove how severely and factually uneducated you are on this topic . . . wow"
This sounds to me like you are discriminating against beings that cannot enter legal contracts. The laws need to be changed.
Wow, if you're so desperate to find something to debate, why don't you try another topic, one that's actually debatable?
I see that I have painted you into a corner. Yet again.
I see that I have painted you into a corner. Yet again.
How have you done that?
You haven't been paying attention.
So, for gays to favor "marriage" over "civil union", and in fact a lot of them insist on it, are they also "being pedantic"?
Why should there be "good reason" to divide people? What's so good about not dividing people?
I am sorry to hear that you think being linguistically precise is being pedantic. Or maybe you simply enjoy putting a negative spin on what other people said.
Also, if it's just a matter of definition, why are so many gays still unsatisfied with "civil union"? That they clamor for "marriage"?
You haven't been paying attention.
I see that I have painted you into a corner. Yet again.
The code of the schoolyard #2: Always make fun of those different from you.
Nobody mentioned "harmful". It shouldn't matter anyway. I am opposed to "gay marriage" because the gays are essentially forcing the rest of society to redefine a word that has existed for a long time (namely, "marriage"), just to suit them. I don't understand why they are so brazen, aggressive and in-your-face about it. What's wrong with civil union? There is also no harm in opting for this term either, so why don't they?
I am a woman. There are washrooms that are designated for men. I cannot enter these facilities. Is this "discriminatory"? Am I being made a "second class" citizen?
I don't merely oppose gay marriage just over the definition. I have other reasons, too.You aren't being pedantic for what words you use. You are being pedantic over opposing things simply over words and definitions rather than what impacts these policies have.
If reducing complexities is important to you, its fine. I personally don't think it's important at all. I also disagree that there needs to be a "practical justification" for dividing white and black people. The fact that (some) people want this should be reason enough. Do you believe in citizens' will?Basically the idea is a variation of Occham's razor (simplest explanation is the best) and many call it KISS (keep it simple stupid). Whenever you make a system, don't introduce unnecessary complexity, and also don't introduce unnecessary complexity into laws and regulation to try to minimize complexity. Any type of extra categorization or complexity must be justified. So dividing gays and straights into "marriages" and "civil unions" types requires a practical justification. Also dividing white people and black people in bathrooms require a practical justification for why this is being done.
And who is this "we"? And why should this definition "encompass the various personal religious and cultural definitions that are worth legally recognizing"? Who determines whether this new definition is "worth recognizing"?Marriage isn't a precise word and it means different things to different people. We can't force a single definition on marriage on anyone, we can only provide a legal definition of marriage that flexibly encompasses the various personal, religious and cultural definitions of marriage that are worth legally recognizing.
So, if white people want to form an exclusive, all-white community, you will also let them? It's just a way of life, let them do what they like, right? You seem to have this really permissive attitude towards gays yet I bet you don't extend this to everybody.For the same reason you want your relationship with your spouse to be called a marriage rather than a "civil union." Legal marriages are all really civil unions but people want their love to be called what it is. Its just a word, let them call it want they like.
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?