Gay Marriage 2008- Topic revisited

[Liquid Blue]

I stopped trying when everyone was literally saying they can't understand him

[DUMBRIT!]

About what Fluffz is saying, I think my post summed up his beliefs pretty well judged on what he posted after that.

And zerz, in that quote, I never mentioned myself, I said you feel.. so that whole distancing thing doesnt really apply to my post.

And DB, did you just say that Venom is gay?

If he was I don't think his girlfriend would be too happy! No, another friend

-DB!

[Galleleo]

But im a man of action. Ill give you more differences so you dont assume i couldnt; so you dont continue to assume i think "Marriage is for reproducing only":
1.) Social difference: Man and woman have a different lifespan. There is a national program that supports home care by the partner (by money and education). This program is unfair because the idealized gay couple will need care at the same age. So even if they pay the same taxes they do not get the same benefit.

In case you missed it, your posts aren't really easy to grasp. I just made an assumption about what you were saying based on what I could piece together from reading that incoherent text. Apparently it is even more difficult to understand what the hell you are talking about.

And about that quote, wtf? Seriously, that is the most bullshit argument I have ever seen. Seriously, that makes no sense, I am not even going to point out why it doesnt because.. come on it should be obvious.

And face, congrats, want a medal for it?

[Summa]

YEAH GALL!!!!! Marriage isn't just for reproducing! It's for tax breaks and reproducing!

[Zerzera]

The argument against calling the gay partnership marriage is because its a different thing. It is a different thing because of how marriage defines itself (1). Example: "Equal rights for black people" does not mean everyone has to call them white people. (Cant wait for suma to state i was racist).

I don't care, they should be -and are in my country- free to be married. Being of a certain race is a state, like being gay. Marriage is an act, a bond. Stop using analogies that confuse yourself. You aren't fooling me with your broken logic.

(1) Now what is marriage? You said you do not want to include the religious meaning of marriage in the term marriage. Thats is not the argumentation i was having but it leaves us with the legal, social and maybe ideological meaning.

Marriage, by law, is connecting two people as a unit. I don't know what factors you try to add to that, it's not an issue.
You are also not claiming that a woman that does -or doesn't- work should -or should not- have a right to be married because she's different from a woman that does -or doesn't-.

The situation on law is clear: In those countries that do not allow same sex marriage the law dictates: You need a man and a woman to marry (Since the law is based on religion there are many points that the same sex partnership can not fulfill but this one will do). Of course you can request to remove the legal meaning of marriage just alike, so we have the social and ideological meaning left.

Well, you want to know my opinion of countries ruled by religion and/or other ideologies?

Contrary to your belief most governments do not only tax individuals but also families. Either direct (family tax splitting) or indirect (family subsidy). Choosing not to produce children in the partnership is a social difference. Furthermore - as if one difference wasnt enough - majorities that interact with minorities require different rules than visa verse.
And finally the ideological meaning of marriage. I suppose this meaning would be equal for both sides. Anyway, lets say the same sex partnership differs from gay partnership by 75%. Again one point difference would be enough to justify a different word than marriage.

I am not really in favor of positive discrimination to begin with. But it's not an issue. I know families (married couples) have different taxes, that's the whole reason of why I think homosexual couples should have the right to be married! And because it's the act of marriage, it should be called so; closing a legal union.
You want a gay marriage to be called something different while it isn't. I don't care enough. I just feel lucky I live in the Netherlands after reading your post.

Conformity will lead to equality but at the cost of individuality. Now if this individuality does not cause harm to different individuals and isnt based on unchangeable properties (unlike the master/slave situation) than there is NO gain from conformity at the cost of individuality. There need to be 2 appropriate words and 2 appropriate laws for 2 different things.

But the act is a marriage. You can name it differently, but it would be white lies for the sake of some religious people. And those gay people want to be part of conformity, they want to be inside the law, and you want to deny them that because you think individuality is cute.

National marriage law includes a paragraph that allows one partner to cancel marriage as soon as the partner chooses not to reproduce. Thats the law on wedding here. You know you do not have to pay after the divorce if the partner does not want to get your children. Thats just how it is, thats how the law is defined. If the gay couple could get equally married this paragraph would have to be removed.

Yeah probably, I think it's a very old fashioned law that reeks of arranged marriage or some other medieval plot. In the Netherlands, most people are allowed to choose their own partner. This is very handy because then when you get married, you often already know that your partner! So you know if he/she does or doesn't want to have kids.
But if your countries well-being depends on that very important law, you better not adjust it!

Lets assume the polygamists want to be called married by applying exactly the same logic. Should we cut the next paragraph until nothing is left? I would guess your answer is yes but i would disagree and we both could not settle the conflict in this lifetime.

Polygamy -although I never understood why it's such a terrible thing, as long as every citizen has equal rights and freedom to choose their own partner- is just another bad anology.
Let's just say we don't give them that right, even if the bible doesn't disapprove, and even though a lot of people get away with polygamy.

[Zerzera]

1.) Social difference: Man and woman have a different lifespan.

Yeah, that's why there should be a law against smokers and non-smokers to be married too. Not to forget the obese and the gipsies.

[Epinephrine]

Zerz, your missing more arugmentations about this facts of marriage:
(1) Meterological - the sun and the moon are only two things and they are very different from men and women, why call it the same thing?
(2) Blackhawk down - government support for somalia people got killed by soldiers, do you really want this?
(3) Law - If you run a red light it is treated different from running into 67 people at a stop sign and making sure they are all dead. So why should we treat this any different?

[genocidal]

Haha Epi.

[Fluffz]

And about that quote, wtf? Seriously, that is the most bullshit argument I have ever seen. Seriously, that makes no sense, I am not even going to point out why it doesnt because.. come on it should be obvious.

What argument makes no sense? There is no argument in your quote, i was only stating a fact. The corresponding arguments is: "Same sex relationships are different because of the facts i stated. The difference is affecting the definition of marriage and thus the same sex relationship should not be called marriage. Following condition is true: The difference is not violating ethic rules." Unless you can magically equalize male and female life expectancy my argument is untouched (which means you are wrong).

(1) Being of a certain race is a state, like being gay. Marriage is an act, a bond. Stop using analogies that confuse yourself. You aren't fooling me with your broken logic.
(2) Marriage, by law, is connecting two people as a unit. I don't know what factors you try to add to that, it's not an issue.
You are also not claiming that a woman that does -or doesn't- work should -or should not- have a right to be married because she's different from a woman that does -or doesn't-.
(3) Well, you want to know my opinion of countries ruled by religion and/or other ideologies?
(4) You want a gay marriage to be called something different while it isn't. I don't care enough.
(5) And those gay people want to be part of conformity, they want to be inside the law, and you want to deny them that because you think individuality is cute.
(6) But if your countries well-being depends on that very important law, you better not adjust it!
(7) Polygamy is just another bad anology.
(8) Yeah, that's why there should be a law against smokers and non-smokers to be married too. Not to forget the obese and the gipsies.

(1) There is no contradiction. It just shows that you do not call 2 different things by the same name. And you could not disproof any difference i stated. It shows further that conformity is just another form of discrimination.
(2) Our law is definitely not only about "connecting two people as a unit". I don't know what factors you try to remove from it but you have to address the whole meaning of the law in order to make sense.
Unlike my analogy yours doesnt work. I repeat this for the 502nd time: Not the gay person is different but the relationship of two gay people.
(3) No, i want you to accept marriage has a religious meaning.
(4) Your counter argument is: "I don't care enough". Fine with me but if that were true couldnt you quit arguing as a whole? Would save me some trouble.
(5) I think what they want is fair treatment, and you deny them that.
(6) Why would we apply a band aid when we could fix the problem?
(7) Another wrong analogy. The choice to smoke is something bad that reduces your life expectancy, its just fair when benefits for non smokers do not apply. The same sex couple on the other hand did not do something bad and deserve fair treatment in their retirement.
(8) It isnt and i dont know why you think that way.

[Facetious]

Zerz, your missing more arugmentations about this facts of marriage

oh shit

[genocidal]

Indeed, it is a brilliantly crafted post.

[Vykromond]

Zerz, your missing more arugmentations about this facts of marriage:
(1) Meterological - the sun and the moon are only two things and they are very different from men and women, why call it the same thing?
(2) Blackhawk down - government support for somalia people got killed by soldiers, do you really want this?
(3) Law - If you run a red light it is treated different from running into 67 people at a stop sign and making sure they are all dead. So why should we treat this any different?

10/10

[Fluffz]

im sorry, for some people it is just not enough to repeat what society preaches.

[froedrick]

im sorry, for some people it is just not enough to repeat what society preaches.

Fag

[404 Not Found]

The entire debate over such an issue is retarded, considering that the term "civil union" is not good enough? When the same rites of those that are married will be given to those in a civil union, then what difference does it make solely based upon the term "Marriage"?


Does the term "Married" really need to be applied if both will give the couples the same rites?

I am all for civil unions that give the couples the same rites as a married couple. To me the difference is between the logo for Adidas and Nike.

The term married is an abused term in our society today when one considers if it held such importance, why are there so many divorces with less couples even considering marriage in today's world? You even get penalized with taxes for being married in the States...I actually know a couple that had been married for over 10 years that for financial reasons got a divorce for tax reasons and yet still live together.

The term "Marriage" is an abused word and ideal that hold little to no merits other than ceremonial, religious and a spouses rites upon hospitalization (of which will be the same under a civil union for insurance and hospitalization).

It will not effect me and how I live day to day and I could care less if it goes either way as long as the rites of those joined are not jeopardized by an elected official with some religious agenda behind them to penalize someone for being different.

Take the relegion out of the mix for a minute and drop the term marriage and use civil union with the same rites and what difference will it make or even effect how you live and run your own family and life? Probably and most likely...it will have no impact!