{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
8/14/2011 12:02:12 AM
271
Same-sex Marriage?
So do you think that same-sex marriage should be allowed?
I personally don't think so since I believe that it is wrong as per my beliefs.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Rayzor1995 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Philip J Fry [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Destiny 2011 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Philip J Fry [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Destiny 2011 You're right, they would then be exclusive to the respective groups -- but how is that such a bad thing? Who is it starving? Who is it killing? Who is it stopping from loving each other?[/quote] The point you're raising actually supports everyone getting married. If there's no difference and it's not hurting anyone, just call it marriage.[/quote] The point you're raising actually supports killing all exclusivity.[/quote] You're right. Why should one group of people get something, and another group of people get something else? Why can't everyone have the same thing?[/quote] [quote]Why can't everyone have the same thing[/quote] Facedesk Facedesk FaceDesk![/quote] Would you care to actually have a conversation, or just antagonize me?
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Philip J Fry [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Destiny 2011 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] NewRadical12 Answer the question: should we allow opposite-sex couples who either cannot, or have no intent to, biologically reproduce be allowed to marry? I've posed this at least twice.[/quote] No, and for for a solid reason: Marriage's inclusive definition specifically read that it was a sacred bond between a [u]man[/u] and a [u]woman[/u]. There's no point in changing the definition to allowing ghey's to marry and for infertile couples to not marry. [/quote] Your reading comprehension needs some work. He's talking about straight couples not having kids.[/quote] I thoroughly understood his post, and I'm still assuming responsibility for the post I sent. My point was that no one should be able to step and redefine marriage to allow same-sex couples to marry, and no one should step in to prevent infertile couples to marry.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Philip J Fry [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Destiny 2011 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Philip J Fry [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Destiny 2011 You're right, they would then be exclusive to the respective groups -- but how is that such a bad thing? Who is it starving? Who is it killing? Who is it stopping from loving each other?[/quote] The point you're raising actually supports everyone getting married. If there's no difference and it's not hurting anyone, just call it marriage.[/quote] The point you're raising actually supports killing all exclusivity.[/quote] You're right. Why should one group of people get something, and another group of people get something else? Why can't everyone have the same thing?[/quote] [quote]Why can't everyone have the same thing[/quote] Facedesk Facedesk FaceDesk! Do you really think this can be possible! This will never happen and if it does to the fullest extent life would be the most boring -blam!- ever. Why people are so critical about this is beyond me. And why do the HAVE to get married anyway? it's not like Not doing it hurts anybody either. [Edited on 08.13.2011 6:16 PM PDT]
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Destiny 2011 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] NewRadical12 Answer the question: should we allow opposite-sex couples who either cannot, or have no intent to, biologically reproduce be allowed to marry? I've posed this at least twice.[/quote] No, and for for a solid reason: Marriage's inclusive definition specifically read that it was a sacred bond between a [u]man[/u] and a [u]woman[/u]. There's no point in changing the definition to allowing ghey's to marry and for infertile couples to not marry. [/quote]"Specifically read"? Where? In the Constitution, or Bill of Rights? Somewhere in US law, perhaps? No, and since marriage is a legal issue, not an historic one, you sure as hell better reference legal precedent to back up your arguments (see: [i]argumentum ad antiquitatem[/i]). And like I've said many times, I do not care about its original intent (which was definitely not voluntary or monogamous - a point which you consistently overlook), since this is an issue of marriage as it is today - a government-issued legal contract - not as it was - a property transaction.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Destiny 2011 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] THUNDA CAT12 who cares?[/quote] The Conservatives care to protect their definition, and the liberals assume responsibility for changing it.[/quote] With that logic, you could have justified keeping interracial marriage illegal since it considered by some as only between the same race back then. Regardless, do you not understand that there isn't some intrinsic definition in regards to marriage. Same-sex marriage is not a new concept and has been around before your religion (assuming you're are religious) even existed. [Edited on 08.13.2011 6:08 PM PDT]
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] THUNDA CAT12 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Destiny 2011 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] THUNDA CAT12 who cares?[/quote] The Conservatives care to protect their definition, and the liberals assume responsibility for changing it.[/quote] jes,im aware im a socialist but why are we discussing it here? why do christians deny people the ability to be different?[/quote] It's not denying them to be different! There is no law that prevents same-sex couples to love each other. [Edited on 08.13.2011 6:07 PM PDT]
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Destiny 2011 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] NewRadical12 Answer the question: should we allow opposite-sex couples who either cannot, or have no intent to, biologically reproduce be allowed to marry? I've posed this at least twice.[/quote] No, and for for a solid reason: Marriage's inclusive definition specifically read that it was a sacred bond between a [u]man[/u] and a [u]woman[/u]. There's no point in changing the definition to allowing ghey's to marry and for infertile couples to not marry. [/quote] Your reading comprehension needs some work. He's talking about straight couples not having kids.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] NewRadical12 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Philip J Fry [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Destiny 2011 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] THUNDA CAT12 who cares?[/quote] The Conservatives care to protect their definition, and the liberals assume responsibility for changing it.[/quote] God forbid we change something to make the world a better place...[/quote]On this issue, technically, he did. ;-)[/quote] Haha. Well played. I need to find a colloquialism to replace that...
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] NewRadical12 Answer the question: should we allow opposite-sex couples who either cannot, or have no intent to, biologically reproduce be allowed to marry? I've posed this at least twice.[/quote] No, and for for a solid reason: Marriage's inclusive definition specifically read that it was a sacred bond between a [u]man[/u] and a [u]woman[/u]. There's no point in changing the definition to allowing ghey's to marry and for infertile couples to not marry.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Destiny 2011 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] THUNDA CAT12 who cares?[/quote] The Conservatives care to protect their definition, and the liberals assume responsibility for changing it.[/quote] jes,im aware im a socialist but why are we discussing it here? why do christians deny people the ability to be different?
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Destiny 2011 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Philip J Fry [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Destiny 2011 You're right, they would then be exclusive to the respective groups -- but how is that such a bad thing? Who is it starving? Who is it killing? Who is it stopping from loving each other?[/quote] The point you're raising actually supports everyone getting married. If there's no difference and it's not hurting anyone, just call it marriage.[/quote] The point you're raising actually supports killing all exclusivity.[/quote]Free the slaves? Are you crazy? That would kill all exclusivity!
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Philip J Fry [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Destiny 2011 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] THUNDA CAT12 who cares?[/quote] The Conservatives care to protect their definition, and the liberals assume responsibility for changing it.[/quote] God forbid we change something to make the world a better place...[/quote]On this issue, technically, he did. ;-)
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Destiny 2011 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] THUNDA CAT12 who cares?[/quote] The Conservatives care to protect their definition, and the liberals assume responsibility for changing it.[/quote] God forbid we change something to make the world a better place...
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Destiny 2011 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Philip J Fry [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Destiny 2011 You're right, they would then be exclusive to the respective groups -- but how is that such a bad thing? Who is it starving? Who is it killing? Who is it stopping from loving each other?[/quote] The point you're raising actually supports everyone getting married. If there's no difference and it's not hurting anyone, just call it marriage.[/quote] The point you're raising actually supports killing all exclusivity.[/quote] You're right. Why should one group of people get something, and another group of people get something else? Why can't everyone have the same thing?
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Destiny 2011 Due to keeping track of citizens, the American government DECIDED to intervene and keep track of marriages.[/quote]Really, they did? Because the US doesn't keep track of marriages - it issues them. Secularly, and without inquiry as to reproductive intent. Strange for an institution that you claim to be almost exclusively about reproduction, is it not? [quote]Along with that, they gave benefits to these married couples so that way they could have a small break when they wanted to start a family. Now, I understand that not all married couples are going to start a family, but the fact of the matter is that most do. The minority ghey population does not need to invade an institution just to reap the benefits.[/quote]Answer the question: should we allow opposite-sex couples who either cannot, or have no intent to, biologically reproduce be allowed to marry? I've posed this at least twice.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Philip J Fry [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Destiny 2011 You're right, they would then be exclusive to the respective groups -- but how is that such a bad thing? Who is it starving? Who is it killing? Who is it stopping from loving each other?[/quote] The point you're raising actually supports everyone getting married. If there's no difference and it's not hurting anyone, just call it marriage.[/quote] The point you're raising actually supports killing all exclusivity.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] pwnageincarnat [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Infini7y [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Gman5434[/quote]Same-sex couples (along with groups and incestual couples) can love one another just as well without being married. This is just a case of them wanting what they cant have.[/quote] Well the thing is you get tax benefits from the government for being married, so by not granting -blam!--blam!-s marriage or a equal alternative(even though I think they should be allowed to marry), they are in fact discriminating against those who are -blam!--blam!-s.[/quote]Not only that, but you aren't able to see your loved ones if they are sent to the hospital, that privilege is held only by hetero marriages.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Infini7y Destiny 2011 seemed to have destroyed both your arguments, so I cant add much there. [/quote] He has yet to respond to all of our responses so I would hardly say that he defeated either of us. [quote] It's outweighed by a whole bunch of negative effects, though.[/quote] Such as? [quote] You want to be able to marry like a normal couple? Then be a normal couple. [/quote] By normal, you want me to marry someone that I am not attracted to? [quote] The meaning of marriage shouldnt be lowered just so you can have a piece of paper to prove you love someone.[/quote] You understand that we aren't lowering the definition or anything, same-sex marriage has been around for a while. Also your argument that it "lowers" the definition is completely subjective and irrelevant since some could consider that it is raising the definition to encompass all consensual love. [quote] It's retarded how you can honestly support crap like incestual and group marriages though. You both have complete disregard for ethics, morals and the meaning of marriage.[/quote] Damn, I am some sort of fascist for supporting equality. [quote] Like I said, just people wanting what they cant have. You only want it because you cant have it. If you were given it, you'd just find something new to demand.[/quote] Blacks just wanted what they can't have (in reference to the civil rights movement). /brilliant argument
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Destiny 2011 You're right, they would then be exclusive to the respective groups -- but how is that such a bad thing? Who is it starving? Who is it killing? Who is it stopping from loving each other?[/quote] The point you're raising actually supports everyone getting married. If there's no difference and it's not hurting anyone, just call it marriage.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Infini7y Destiny 2011 seemed to have destroyed both your arguments, so I cant add much there.[/quote] Good one. [quote]The revenue is one benefit, i'll give you that. It's outweighed by a whole bunch of negative effects, though.[/quote]Such as? [quote]You want to be able to marry like a normal couple? Then be a normal couple. The meaning of marriage shouldnt be lowered just so you can have a piece of paper to prove you love someone.[/quote]So allowing more rights for more people "lowers the meaning" of something? If you think there are no practical benefits of marriage then you are deluded. [quote]Like I said, just people wanting what they cant have. You only want it because you cant have it. If you were given it, you'd just find something new to demand.[/quote]Yes, I, a straight male, want them to have the right to marry because I can't. OH WAIT! I -blam!- can!
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] azliand [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Destiny 2011 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] azliand [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Destiny 2011 No, and unlike many of my fellow opponents, I actually have valid reasons: 1) Marriage wasn't set up by governments -- it's an ancient institution created by religions who created a sacred bond between a man and a woman. 2) Corollary, this marriage was created for the man and a woman to express their unity before starting a family. 3) Corollary to #2, 90% of all marriages result in the creation of a family, which can only happen between a man and a woman (except adoption) So my question is simple: Why can't ghey people accept domestic partnerships instead of invading an institution that was never made for them?[/quote] Separate but equal is inherently unequal. There is marriage in the legal sense (what they want), and marriage in a ceremonial/religious sense. No one wants to force any faith to do something. That is simply unethical. However, a government made for the people to protect their rights should do so and recognize same sex couple who wish to married under the law.[/quote] Let's create a hypothetical situation where same-sex domestic partnerships hold the same benefits as an opposite-sex marriage. That's equal.[/quote] One is a domestic partnership and one is a marriage. If there has to be a separation, one group must be more equal than the other. Either same sex isn't good enough for marriage or the hetero couple is not good enough for a domestic partnership.[/quote] You're right, they would then be exclusive to the respective groups -- but how is that such a bad thing? Who is it starving? Who is it killing? Who is it stopping from loving each other?
