Gay Marriage 2008- Topic revisited

[DankNuggets]

Strong argument. I partly agree with you. But from a religious stance this brings forth quite a paradox. Because God told us that homo sex is an abomination. He severely punished people who, not only committed these acts, but also those who supported them. On the other hand, Jesus told us that we should love the sinner, no matter the sin. If we want to secure our spot in heaven we will have to guess what God wants. So we can't give them equal rights, and we can't hate them. So, in the meantime, we just try to maneuver between those two stances and hope we figured this out before we die. The gay people will just have to suffer during this time.
Not that it is a big difference, because they will burn in hell for eternity after this life. So we just deny them the only happiness they will ever have, for the sake of our own souls. (Unless we are wrong, and we should have loved them from day one. Then, of course, we will gladly burn with them.)

burnn (literally)

but seriously, you've been proven wrong fluffz. you say that marriage, the word in particular, shouldn't be used because it demeans the word when used with gays. (granted those aren't your words, but i'll be damned if that's not the belief you're holding on to). In response to your "i never said it demeans, blah blah blah" : well you imply that it will have a negative effect, and that you are in favor of the current (discriminatory) practices. Thus, I can conclude that you are in effect unwilling to use the term "marriage" to define an institution which you hold to be exclusively heterosexual. But wait! You said it's ok for them to have that same institution but you want it labeled different. You want two words for the same thing (ok so you put it in the other hole, but it's the same idea behind the relationship). I don't see how this isn't completely clear that is in fact discrimination.

You say that it would infringe upon the rights of good upstanding christians (once again i'm rewording, i'm not going to repost your own words, what's the point of that) to demean their word. Well Epi did a pretty good job of showing you how it's not "their" word to claim. If in fact we found out that the etemology of the word...

Origin:
1250–1300; ME mariage < OF, equiv. to mari(er) to marry 1 + -age -age

Then in fact we find out that this all because of those smelly french people anyway. Actually, the marriage didn't exist until c. 1250. Well after the institution was set into motion. In fact, it would seem that "marriage" isn't the best or correct word for a christian heterosexual partnership; if you wanted that you'd have to figure out who coined the original phrase/word for it. The entire point of all of that was to show that you're arguing over the fucking word, which is fucking stupid. You want seperate but equal, which is discrimination plain and simple. go back to pre-1950, thanks.

Whatever argument you can come up with doesn't change the fact that you're arguing for seperate but equal, and semantics on top of that.

[Vykromond]

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/enterta...ook-character/

A Japanese man has enlisted hundreds of people in a campaign to allow marriages between humans and cartoon characters, saying he feels more at ease in the "two-dimensional world."

Comic books are immensely popular in Japan, with some fictional characters becoming celebrities or even sex symbols.

Marriage is meanwhile on the decline as many young Japanese find it difficult to find life partners.

Taichi Takashita launched an online petition aiming for one million signatures to present to the government to establish a law on marriages with cartoon characters.

Within a week he has gathered more than 1,000 signatures through the Internet.

"I am no longer interested in three dimensions. I would even like to become a resident of the two-dimensional world," he wrote.

"However, that seems impossible with present-day technology. Therefore, at the very least, would it be possible to legally authorise marriage with a two-dimensional character?"

Befitting his desire to be two-dimensional, he listed no contact details, making it impossible to reach him for comment to explain if his campaign is serious or tongue-in-cheek.

But some people signing the petition are true believers.

"For a long time I have only been able to fall in love with two-dimensional people and currently I have someone I really love," one person wrote.

"Even if she is fictional, it is still loving someone. I would like to have legal approval for this system at any cost," the person wrote.

Japan only permits marriage between human men and women and gives no legal recognition to same-sex relationships.

Japan's fans of comic books, or "manga," sometimes go to extremes.

Earlier this month, a woman addicted to manga put out an online message seeking to kill her parents for asking her to throw away comic books that filled up three rooms.

Prime Minister Taro Aso is an avid fan of manga and recently complained that he has been too busy to read comic books since taking office.

[Epinephrine]

To be fair, everyone in Japan reads manga. Just sit on any Japanese subway during rush hour, everyone's reading manga, whether it be kid's stuff or manga about wine tasting.

[froedrick]

Epi's a closet homo

[Jerome Scuggs]

The more laws and restrictions there are,
The poorer people become.
The sharper men's weapons,
The more trouble in the land.
The more ingenious and clever men are,
The more strange things happen.
The more rules and regulations,
The more thieves and robbers.

Therefore the sage says:
I take no action and people are reformed.
I enjoy peace and people become honest.
I do nothing and people become rich.
I have no desires and people return to the good and simple life.

I find joy in eastern religion, fuck all that noize

[Fluffz]

BUT NO ONE'S SAYING THAT RELIGIOUS PEOPLE CAN'T GET MARRIED. You're stating that homosexuals should not be able to get married--there is no counter "straight, religious people should not be able to get married" argument.

No? "the word 'married' is NOT religious", remember? According to your argumentation one group of people would have to use a different word to express their definition of marriage and this idea is essential for your idea of equalisation. Actually we want the same, i just dont call it equality.

Why would any of this matter? Just make it equal across the board. This isn't rocket science, and it's not like there's a loophole where a man could marry a donkey, or a woman could marry her car. Stop trying to make it into a bigger issue than just: Married couples (heterosexual or homosexual) have such-and-such rights. The total change in the written law would be less than two sentences, probably.

What such-and-such rights do you mean? The right to reproduce? Conformity is why there wont be any rights left in the future of marriage! Today there are basically only some divorce rules left that are overridden by private contracts anyway. Actually it would be the best to get the state out of marriage business as a whole. Let marriage contracts do the job. Whether or not you want to call this contract marriage is than up to you. But thats not what you want. You want society to threat your contract the same as everybody else's. Even tho there are undeniable social differences in those contracts regarding birth, care at age or minority support (cue: page 1, gay friendly high school). What you want is a lie!
And in 100 years all those manga lovers, polygamists and animal cuddlers are married too and each time it has been only a few changes to the law. How is the law equal across the board if it discriminates gay cousins compared to gay strangers. I can absolutely see the future hippies protest against that "discrimination".

Again, what is fair about you infringing on someone else's right to get married to the person they love? You're being discriminatory. I know that's hard to own up to, but you are.

In the following cases it is fair stop the pair from marrying: partners have the same sex, partner being married to someone else, partner being to young, partners do not want to have physical contact, partners do not share a household, ... Its just like "car owner". People without cars are no car owners and it doesnt matter if they do a good job at moving from A to B.

But you can create freedom of the individual with laws that make people equal. People can be nonconforming if you create rights that are -and can be!- equal to all.

I do not seek freedome for marriage just like i do not seek freedome for the word "cube" so that it could be applied to a ball.

you say that marriage, the word in particular, shouldn't be used because it demeans the word when used with gays. (granted those aren't your words, but i'll be damned if that's not the belief you're holding on to). In response to your "i never said it demeans, blah blah blah" : well you imply that it will have a negative effect, and that you are in favor of the current (discriminatory) practices. Thus, I can conclude that you are in effect unwilling to use the term "marriage" to define an institution which you hold to be exclusively heterosexual. But wait! You said it's ok for them to have that same institution but you want it labeled different. You want two words for the same thing (ok so you put it in the other hole, but it's the same idea behind the relationship). I don't see how this isn't completely clear that is in fact discrimination.

You say that it would infringe upon the rights of good upstanding christians (once again i'm rewording, i'm not going to repost your own words, what's the point of that) to demean their word. Well Epi did a pretty good job of showing you how it's not "their" word to claim. If in fact we found out that the etemology of the word...

yes minus the discriminatory part plus its not the same thing. It is not discrimination because i am not denying anyone the right to marry, gay or not. Its just that you need a man and a woman to marry. Its just that you need a car to be called car owner.

etymology? I could care less. The equalisation itself is the problem when it replaces tolerance. You think it solves the problem and claim "the word 'married' is NOT religious" or "getting children has nothing to do with marriage" in the same thread, thats a little irritating. You are only tolerant towards your own ideology, which is nothing better than the current one.

[Vykromond]

[Epinephrine]

I do not seek freedome for marriage just like i do not seek freedome for the word "cube" so that it could be applied to a ball.

WAZZAH?

It is not discrimination because i am not denying anyone the right to marry, gay or not. Its just that you need a man and a woman to marry. Its just that you need a car to be called car owner.

LOL?! Holy contradictions Batman!

[Kolar]

What such-and-such rights do you mean?

Why the hell is it so hard for you to understand? What right?: The right to marry another person.

You want society to treat your contract the same as everybody else's. Even tho there are undeniable social differences in those contracts regarding birth, care at age or minority support (cue: page 1, gay friendly high school).

There is no difference. If a gay couple wanted to have a child then the process would be no different then if the couple were a straight couple using a surrogate mother (which many couples use due to infertility). One party would likely be the biological father or mother, the second party would adopt the child and be entitled to all legal and social privileges as their parent/guardian. In cases of pure adoption the process is again the same. There is no different in care of a child or in the requirements for hospital visitation or anything else I can think of. As for being a minority it means absolutely nothing to what the state must provide them with, at least not anymore then what a Hispanic couple, a Black couple ect... is required by law to be given. That's right, Nothing.

We have a lot of legal ambiguities in this life and we want to make sure those we love are not restricted or overly burdened by them. That's one of the main functions of marriage and Adam and Steve doesn't degrade the meaning of the word or act.

And in 100 years all those manga lovers, polygamists and animal cuddlers are married too and each time it has been only a few changes to the law. How is the law equal across the board if it discriminates gay cousins compared to gay strangers. I can absolutely see the future hippies protest against that "discrimination".

Everything you've listed here is on the extreme fringe of society. Polygamy is illegal because it encourages underage marriage and subjugation of women into some backwards society and burdens the state welfare, it will never be seen in a different light. You know why beastility is illegal so I won't go into it. Marrying an inanimate object is pointless because again the main function of marriage is a contract between two people, the courts can not give legal status to a blow up doll or give it ownership of assets.

If you don't deny that two people of the same sex can have the same emotional connection and love for one another then what is the point of denying them the same social status as a straight couple? It's not mainstream, you guys will always keep it that way and 99% of the world isn't about to suit up in their assless chaps or strap-ons, so why is it such a big fucking deal?

[froedrick]

This is really funny

[Fluffz]

That's one of the main functions of marriage and Adam and Steve doesn't degrade the meaning of the word or act.

No wonder you don't make sense.

[Kolar]

No wonder you don't make sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_and_Steve

"Adam and Steve" is a phrase that originated from a conservative Judeo-Christian argument against homosexual practices and/or homosexuality. According to certain arguments, the natural way of life illustrated by the Biblical account of creation is the story of "Adam and Eve," a man and a woman, as opposed to a man and a man as in "Adam and Steve."

Forgot I wasn't arguing with an American.

[Cops]

i like hot steaming weiners

with catsup, onions and a bit of hot sauce

[Facetious]

who calls it catsup

are you jon arbuckle or what here

[Zerzera]

I do not seek freedome for marriage just like i do not seek freedome for the word "cube" so that it could be applied to a ball.

That's why I don't want interracial marriages either. They just aren't the same kind of shapes. It's like a sphere marrying a square.
And short people shouldn't marry either, that's like a plane marrying a cube. What to think about handicapped? They need different support too. So that's like a line marrying a sphere.
What about incontinent people? They aren't mentioned in the law either. How the fuck does a dot get married to a pyramid?