24

Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
…
11

24
Tweet Topic Started: Jul 9 2011, 09:09 PM (4,101 Views)
Incog	Jul 14 2011, 11:06 AM Post #91
CHEERIO! Posts: 21,769 Group: French Member #6 Joined: December 13, 2007	Incest is just plain bad, leading to actual genetic problems in the case of sexual intercourse. Homosexuality has none of those issues. There's really nothing wrong with gay marriage, I agree with what Jam said.
	Black tulip Tribute to the the greatest of the great.


_Saladin_	Jul 14 2011, 09:34 PM Post #92
Major Bullshit Posts: 2,763 Group: A414A Member Member #28 Joined: January 1, 2008	DragonLegend Jul 13 2011, 10:20 PM You want to allow gays to marry. OK. Why not allow fathers and sons to marry? Or entire communities to have a group marriage? Read my post.



DragonLegend	Jul 16 2011, 06:22 PM Post #93
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	Hyperactive Jam Jul 14 2011, 12:54 AM Appeal to tradition. That's not the point. My point is that it's the status quo ─ a fact of life. Quote: Same slippery slope. Guess what, some countries have legalized gay marriage decades ago and nobody is marrying their grandchildren, I'm not seeing the incest pride parades. This is alarmist nonsense. That's because they haven't legalized those things. I never claimed recognizing gay marriage would inevitably lead to recognition of incest or group marriage. My argument is: if a gay marriage should be recognized simply because the couple are in a loving relationship, what reason do you have for not recognizing the marriage of two close family members (for the sake of argument, let's say they're infertile)? Or a man and eight women? Or 50 men and 50 women in a group marriage? They're not harming anyone, are they? And they're in love, or so they say, and in a stable relationship, etc. Just like heterosexuals and everyone. Marriage is a right, correct? Quote: His argument is arbitrary, not mine, and so is yours if you argue based on tradition. You are making the same argument I already addressed: "He then, by his first assertion, claims that gay marriage is equivalent to, or of the same nature as polygamy, incest, or marrying a goat or something. Obviously false." http://www.theonion.com/video/new-law-would-ban-marriages-between-people-who-don,14401/ You are arguing that gay marriage should not be legal because-oh hey some guy marrying his six year old is bad. Tell me what is so terrible about homosexual marriage when it is exactly the same as heterosexual marriage except that there are two penises/vaginae. Allowing gays to marry changes next to nothing about marriage as a social/economic construct. I do support the recognition of all possible marriages, unfortunately being automatically married to every woman in my city between the ages of 20 and 60 is not a possible marriage so I can't live out my sick liberal fantasies. I don't care about the author. I've already said the article is contradictory, and that the only relevant part of the article here is the last paragraph. I never compared homosexuality to pedophilia. I don't oppose gay marriage.



Jam	Jul 16 2011, 06:31 PM Post #94
Fruit Based Jam Posts: 7,945 Group: A414A Member Member #98 Joined: July 11, 2008	"My argument is: if a gay marriage should be recognized simply because the couple are in a loving relationship, what reason do you have for not recognizing the marriage of..." Gay marriage should not be recognized simply because the couple are in a loving relationship. I already talk about that in the first sentence of my first reply. "First thing that is wrong about it is the false assertion that for gay marriage to be justified requires that love is "the sole criterion for marriage".
	Long live Carolus


DragonLegend	Jul 16 2011, 06:32 PM Post #95
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	Why should gay marriage be recognized?



The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom	Jul 16 2011, 06:34 PM Post #96
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN Posts: 18,587 Group: A414A Member Member #35 Joined: January 11, 2008	To respect their sexual inclinations. So, they were born different; what affords us the justification to oppress them into a state where they cannot perform their social rituals?
	Jam It's okay to be mad at your fiends sometimes


DragonLegend	Jul 16 2011, 06:36 PM Post #97
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	They weren't born that way.



Jam	Jul 16 2011, 06:41 PM Post #98
Fruit Based Jam Posts: 7,945 Group: A414A Member Member #98 Joined: July 11, 2008	DragonLegend Jul 16 2011, 06:32 PM Why should gay marriage be recognized? Same reason as heterosexualy mariage, because the two are are entirely the same except for the relative number of genitals.
	Long live Carolus


DragonLegend	Jul 16 2011, 07:05 PM Post #99
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	Hyperactive Jam Jul 16 2011, 06:41 PM DragonLegend Jul 16 2011, 06:32 PM Why should gay marriage be recognized? Same reason as heterosexualy mariage, because the two are are entirely the same except for the relative number of genitals. That's a pretty big difference. If it's okay to change the definition from "man and woman" to "man/woman, man/man, woman/woman", why isn't it okay to change it to, for example, "brother and sister"? I mean, I get your point. I do. Normal homosexual marriage is closer to normal heterosexual marriage than to incest or group marriage. But it's that slippery slope again. Once you give a right to a certain group, other groups will demand it too, and there would be no logical reason to deny it to them. In my opinion, the slippery slope began with recognition of heterosexual marriage. I'm generally indifferent to this issue, but I'm heavily leaning toward the view that marriage is private and none of the government's business.



gs	Jul 16 2011, 07:13 PM Post #100
Slow down Posts: 16,297 Group: Animals Member #1 Joined: December 12, 2007	DragonLegend Jul 13 2011, 10:20 PM I said I didn't agree with most of what he said, and that he contradicted himself. The relevant part of the article is the last paragraph. Quote: Then comes the slippery slope fallacy when he asserts that if you were to allow gay marriage then you'd also have to allow polygamy, etc. Frankly, you don't. Ultimately this guys argument is that if we don't restrict marriage to a man and a woman then there is no longer any basis to determine who can and can't get married. The laws around marriage are arbitrary, we can allow gays to marry without allowing 5 people to be married to each other. But see, marriage has been between a man and a woman for a very long time, to the point that it's become a fact of life. When you suggest changing the definition, that is opening a Pandora's Box. Your argument is arbitrary, yes. But arbitrary arguments have no business in the law. You want to allow gays to marry. OK. Why not allow fathers and sons to marry? Or entire communities to have a group marriage? "No reason" is not a valid reason. Either you support 1) recognition of all possible marriages, 2) keeping the status quo, or 3) no recognition of any marriage. marriage is a bond between 2 people. which 2 people should be irrelevant. if father and son want to marry each other that's fine with me as long as it's not breaking any other laws (is incest illegal?).



DragonLegend	Jul 16 2011, 07:20 PM Post #101
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	And that is where we disagree. Why should the government recognize their marriage?



Jam	Jul 16 2011, 07:41 PM Post #102
Fruit Based Jam Posts: 7,945 Group: A414A Member Member #98 Joined: July 11, 2008	DragonLegend Jul 16 2011, 07:05 PM Hyperactive Jam Jul 16 2011, 06:41 PM DragonLegend Jul 16 2011, 06:32 PM Why should gay marriage be recognized? Same reason as heterosexualy mariage, because the two are are entirely the same except for the relative number of genitals. That's a pretty big difference. If it's okay to change the definition from "man and woman" to "man/woman, man/man, woman/woman", why isn't it okay to change it to, for example, "brother and sister"? I mean, I get your point. I do. Normal homosexual marriage is closer to normal heterosexual marriage than to incest or group marriage. But it's that slippery slope again. Once you give a right to a certain group, other groups will demand it too, and there would be no logical reason to deny it to them. In my opinion, the slippery slope began with recognition of heterosexual marriage. I'm generally indifferent to this issue, but I'm heavily leaning toward the view that marriage is private and none of the government's business. No it's not a big difference at all. And yes there would be a logical reason to deny one man from marrying eight women, there are many economic, tax, legal, etc, benefits that come with marriage which would be messed up with group marriages or exploited by group marriages.
	Long live Carolus


DragonLegend	Jul 16 2011, 07:55 PM Post #103
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	Hyperactive Jam Jul 16 2011, 07:41 PM DragonLegend Jul 16 2011, 07:05 PM Hyperactive Jam Jul 16 2011, 06:41 PM DragonLegend Jul 16 2011, 06:32 PM Why should gay marriage be recognized? Same reason as heterosexualy mariage, because the two are are entirely the same except for the relative number of genitals. That's a pretty big difference. If it's okay to change the definition from "man and woman" to "man/woman, man/man, woman/woman", why isn't it okay to change it to, for example, "brother and sister"? I mean, I get your point. I do. Normal homosexual marriage is closer to normal heterosexual marriage than to incest or group marriage. But it's that slippery slope again. Once you give a right to a certain group, other groups will demand it too, and there would be no logical reason to deny it to them. In my opinion, the slippery slope began with recognition of heterosexual marriage. I'm generally indifferent to this issue, but I'm heavily leaning toward the view that marriage is private and none of the government's business. No it's not a big difference at all. And yes there would be a logical reason to deny one man from marrying eight women, there are many economic, tax, legal, etc, benefits that come with marriage which would be messed up with group marriages or exploited by group marriages. Gender is a big difference. All those issues can be clarified and dealt with prior to the marriage.



gs	Jul 16 2011, 08:48 PM Post #104
Slow down Posts: 16,297 Group: Animals Member #1 Joined: December 12, 2007	DragonLegend Jul 16 2011, 07:20 PM And that is where we disagree. Why should the government recognize their marriage? i personally don't think the government should be 'recognizing' anyone's marriage, but if they insist on doing so why not gay marriage too? it's a sexual/love bond between 2 people that isn't illegal, why should their official bonding be illegal?



Jack the IV	Jul 16 2011, 09:30 PM Post #105
The Gent's Club Posts: 7,869 Group: Mr. Pink Member #43 Joined: February 19, 2008	Cause then guys will fake marriages to get tax breaks. And girls too but they wouldn't be faking
	In battle, in the forest, at the precipice in the mountains, On the dark great sea, in the midst of javelins and arrows, In sleep, in confusion, in the depths of shame, The good deeds a man has done before defend him.


gs	Jul 16 2011, 09:36 PM Post #106
Slow down Posts: 16,297 Group: Animals Member #1 Joined: December 12, 2007	well, the economic advantages marriage gives are ridiculous anyway. who ever thought of that



Jack the IV	Jul 16 2011, 09:39 PM Post #107
The Gent's Club Posts: 7,869 Group: Mr. Pink Member #43 Joined: February 19, 2008	The person who thought maybe married couples need more money to support kids?
	In battle, in the forest, at the precipice in the mountains, On the dark great sea, in the midst of javelins and arrows, In sleep, in confusion, in the depths of shame, The good deeds a man has done before defend him.


gs	Jul 16 2011, 09:43 PM Post #108
Slow down Posts: 16,297 Group: Animals Member #1 Joined: December 12, 2007	lol people do get money when they get kids and their income is low. marriage has nothing to do with kids.



Big Richard	Jul 16 2011, 11:30 PM Post #109
Gay People Read This. Posts: 5,323 Group: World's Finest Member #113 Joined: July 26, 2008	DragonLegend Jul 16 2011, 06:36 PM They weren't born that way. ???????



Jack the IV	Jul 17 2011, 12:00 AM Post #110
The Gent's Club Posts: 7,869 Group: Mr. Pink Member #43 Joined: February 19, 2008	gs Jul 16 2011, 09:43 PM lol people do get money when they get kids and their income is low. marriage has nothing to do with kids. Must be different where you live. And isn't more expensive to be married in europe anyways? It is in germany at least i think.
	In battle, in the forest, at the precipice in the mountains, On the dark great sea, in the midst of javelins and arrows, In sleep, in confusion, in the depths of shame, The good deeds a man has done before defend him.


Vondongo	Jul 17 2011, 12:09 AM Post #111
Moo. Posts: 5,434 Group: Member Member #130 Joined: October 15, 2008	gs Jul 16 2011, 09:36 PM well, the economic advantages marriage gives are ridiculous anyway. who ever thought of that That's the POINT of marriage. It's an economic treaty that partners up two families and combines their resources. Back when people were living off the land it made way more sense than it does now.



Jam	Jul 17 2011, 02:45 AM Post #112
Fruit Based Jam Posts: 7,945 Group: A414A Member Member #98 Joined: July 11, 2008	DragonLegend Jul 16 2011, 07:55 PM Gender is a big difference. All those issues can be clarified and dealt with prior to the marriage. Men aren't from Mars and women aren't from Venus. I'm not talking about personal finances. The government gives economic and social benefits to married people,
	Long live Carolus


DragonLegend	Jul 18 2011, 02:53 AM Post #113
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	gs Jul 16 2011, 08:48 PM DragonLegend Jul 16 2011, 07:20 PM And that is where we disagree. Why should the government recognize their marriage? i personally don't think the government should be 'recognizing' anyone's marriage, but if they insist on doing so why not gay marriage too? it's a sexual/love bond between 2 people that isn't illegal, why should their official bonding be illegal? I agree the government shouldn't recognize any marriage. But marriage recognition isn't a right, or a necessary function of the government, so it should be almost entirely left to the people to decide whether to do it or not. If people want their government to recognize gay marriage, fine by me. New York just did it, for example, and most New Yorkers approve of it.



DragonLegend	Jul 18 2011, 03:04 AM Post #114
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	Hyperactive Jam Jul 17 2011, 02:45 AM DragonLegend Jul 16 2011, 07:55 PM Gender is a big difference. All those issues can be clarified and dealt with prior to the marriage. Men aren't from Mars and women aren't from Venus. I'm not talking about personal finances. The government gives economic and social benefits to married people, Do you believe gender is a social construct and the only difference between males and females is genitalia? Quote: I'm not talking about personal finances. The government gives economic and social benefits to married people, I know. Which of them can't be dealt with before marriage? By the way, if it's the legal benefits that make you support gay marriage, why not simply give homosexuals civil unions? Why the 'marriage' bit? They can have a normal wedding, with the rings and vows and whatnot, and have the same legal benefits as married heterosexual couples.



The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom	Jul 18 2011, 05:20 AM Post #115
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN Posts: 18,587 Group: A414A Member Member #35 Joined: January 11, 2008	In China, you receive tax penalties for having kids.
	Jam It's okay to be mad at your fiends sometimes


gs	Jul 18 2011, 12:47 PM Post #116
Slow down Posts: 16,297 Group: Animals Member #1 Joined: December 12, 2007	DragonLegend Jul 18 2011, 02:53 AM gs Jul 16 2011, 08:48 PM DragonLegend Jul 16 2011, 07:20 PM And that is where we disagree. Why should the government recognize their marriage? i personally don't think the government should be 'recognizing' anyone's marriage, but if they insist on doing so why not gay marriage too? it's a sexual/love bond between 2 people that isn't illegal, why should their official bonding be illegal? I agree the government shouldn't recognize any marriage. But marriage recognition isn't a right, or a necessary function of the government, so it should be almost entirely left to the people to decide whether to do it or not. If people want their government to recognize gay marriage, fine by me. New York just did it, for example, and most New Yorkers approve of it. then where do we disagree



_Saladin_	Jul 18 2011, 01:07 PM Post #117
Major Bullshit Posts: 2,763 Group: A414A Member Member #28 Joined: January 1, 2008	Quote: By the way, if it's the legal benefits that make you support gay marriage, why not simply give homosexuals civil unions? Why the 'marriage' bit? They can have a normal wedding, with the rings and vows and whatnot, and have the same legal benefits as married heterosexual couples. So in other words, you want to give them marriage but call it something else. Why?



Jam	Jul 19 2011, 04:15 AM Post #118
Fruit Based Jam Posts: 7,945 Group: A414A Member Member #98 Joined: July 11, 2008	Quote: Do you believe gender is a social construct and the only difference between males and females is genitalia? There are legitimate, but trivial differences. Most of what we would call gender role is cultural. It is a spectrum with some men being very effeminate and some women being very 'macho', which is my preference. Quote: I know. Which of them can't be dealt with before marriage? By the way, if it's the legal benefits that make you support gay marriage, why not simply give homosexuals civil unions? Why the 'marriage' bit? They can have a normal wedding, with the rings and vows and whatnot, and have the same legal benefits as married heterosexual couples. Imagine 10 people with joint insurance. The laws and benefits, which are more than 1000, are designed for two people. The word marriage has meaning to people. Gay marriage is marriage in every meaningful sense of the word.
	Long live Carolus


DragonLegend	Jul 19 2011, 10:41 AM Post #119
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	gs Jul 18 2011, 12:47 PM DragonLegend Jul 18 2011, 02:53 AM gs Jul 16 2011, 08:48 PM DragonLegend Jul 16 2011, 07:20 PM And that is where we disagree. Why should the government recognize their marriage? i personally don't think the government should be 'recognizing' anyone's marriage, but if they insist on doing so why not gay marriage too? it's a sexual/love bond between 2 people that isn't illegal, why should their official bonding be illegal? I agree the government shouldn't recognize any marriage. But marriage recognition isn't a right, or a necessary function of the government, so it should be almost entirely left to the people to decide whether to do it or not. If people want their government to recognize gay marriage, fine by me. New York just did it, for example, and most New Yorkers approve of it. then where do we disagree The recognition of incestuous marriage bit.



DragonLegend	Jul 19 2011, 10:52 AM Post #120
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	_Saladin_ Jul 18 2011, 01:07 PM Quote: By the way, if it's the legal benefits that make you support gay marriage, why not simply give homosexuals civil unions? Why the 'marriage' bit? They can have a normal wedding, with the rings and vows and whatnot, and have the same legal benefits as married heterosexual couples. So in other words, you want to give them marriage but call it something else. Why? I don't want to give anybody anything. I don't think the government should be in the marriage business. What I'm trying to do here is broker a compromise between the two sides. Why do homosexuals want to get married? I assume it's to affirm their relationship and commitment to each other, and for the legal benefits. They could achieve the first one on their own without any help from the government or society (wedding, rings, cake, whatever). They would be 'privately married', in other words, by which I mean that officially they wouldn't be married, but since they're only doing it for love, etc., they shouldn't care what others think, should they? This part of the marriage is personal, after all. As for the legal benefits, they would get the same ones that heterosexual married couples get, so no problem there. Edited by DragonLegend, Jul 19 2011, 11:28 AM.



1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)

Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General chat · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
…
11