Frenchy68 0 #101 November 3, 2004 Quotebe married to children, trust me on that one. Is that your desire as an heterosexual? Why would they want to do that? And if they would, why wouldn't you? Perversion is not the exclusivity of a certain cast of the population, you'll find it everywhere. "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #102 November 3, 2004 Quoteps - I can't believe I agree with JPF on something. See, why can't we all just get along... Scarry huh? Like you feel the urge to wash out your mind with Clorox or something---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #103 November 3, 2004 Quoteno monkeys yet. Did you miss the thread about Katie and Chuck? ---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #104 November 3, 2004 QuoteThis is always misused. "Homophobia" means "Fear of Mankind", anyway. What dictionary are you looking at? Any dictionary I look in gives me a definition similar to this: "Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Treejumps 0 #105 November 3, 2004 *** This country still has a lot of evolving to do. That seems to be part of the argument; "if you were just evolved enough (smart as me) you would think like me, and then you would see that the way I think is right". I'm sorry, but I would consider a society that allows anyone to do anything they want to, with anyone or anything they want to, devolution, not evolution. By your definition, the animal world is more evolved than humans. I disagree and beleive that there does need to be limits and rules for a society to function. Just because this particualr behavior has been flaunted to the world in recent years does not change what it is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #106 November 3, 2004 QuoteI disagree and beleive that there does need to be limits and rules for a society to function. Just because this particualr behavior has been flaunted to the world in recent years does not change what it is. This sounds like an NPS Ranger talking about BASE jumpers... those little criminals, endangering society with their wreckless behavior and their "I'll do anything I want to" attitude. What kind of example does that set for the children in America? How will that kind of behavior affect the American family? I shudder to think... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #107 November 3, 2004 The interesting thing here is that most relatively liberal societies in Europe that the left tends to aspire to (w.r.t. cultural evolution) still recognize that Marriage by definition is a traditional institution between a Man and a Woman, even where they have equivalent rights. They don't have the kneejerk accusations of homophobia against anyone who happens to hold this point of view, heck some gays hold this point of view. In the USA the debate has been compeltely skewed to be either full blown marriage activists supporters vs bible thumping homophobes and that's just not where the lines of division are drawn up. There's only one state AFAIK that has banned any equivalent legal rights the rest have banned gay "marriage". That paints a very different picture. I don't think the country needs to evolve, the people who are advocating change need to practice the art of persuasion instead of using activists to bushwack everyone else. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frenchy68 0 #108 November 3, 2004 QuoteThe interesting thing here is that most relatively liberal societies in Europe that the left tends to aspire to (w.r.t. cultural evolution) still recognize that Marriage by definition is a traditional institution between a Man and a Woman, even where they have equivalent rights Very true. And it is currently being debated in some of these countries. However, some of them already have civil unions status recognized, and more than likely most countries will follow suit very soon. QuoteI don't think the country needs to evolve, the people who are advocating change need to practice the art of persuasion instead of using activists to bushwack everyone else. Words of wisdom... "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelel01 1 #109 November 3, 2004 QuoteThere's only one state AFAIK that has banned any equivalent legal rights the rest have banned gay "marriage". That paints a very different picture. Look again . . . most of the amendments will end up banning all survivorship benefits, insurance rights, etc. Just because it wasn't spelled out on the ballot doesn't mean it's not there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
windcatcher 0 #110 November 3, 2004 QuoteQuotebe married to children, trust me on that one. Is that your desire as an heterosexual? Why would they want to do that? And if they would, why wouldn't you? Perversion is not the exclusivity of a certain cast of the population, you'll find it everywhere. All I'm sayin, is that where do we draw the line? Break the def. of marriage between a man and a woman, and pretty soon you'll have all types of people wanting to say, "well, if Adam can marry Bob, then why I can't I marry my 12 yr.old lover? Why can't I marry my dog? Why can't I have a dozen wives?" And guys, don't worry, gay marriage will become recognized as "normal" and they'll all have their so-called "rights" as you call them. Just wait and see... BTW, I don't wanna argue, I'm just stating my opinion. I know the majority of you will disagree with me, most of you will disagree with me about most things. Mother to the cutest little thing in the world... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frenchy68 0 #111 November 3, 2004 Quote most of you will disagree with me about most things. Stop pouting! Once again. Women got to vote many years ago. So did blacks. I actually hear that nowadays, a woman is allowed to have her own bank account. Dogs are still waiting to vote and bank. I'm sure they'd be happy to wait on the marriage thang as well. "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
windcatcher 0 #112 November 3, 2004 I'm running away...back to the Bonfire! Hey, I tried, I really am not good at debating, but I am bold enough to speak for/against what I believe is right/wrong. Maybe I'll come back next year after I take "Argumentation and Persuasion" as part of my OIComm. major! Mother to the cutest little thing in the world... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flyingferret 0 #113 November 3, 2004 What very few people seem to recognize is that this restricted definition of marriage it required for long term legal reasons. If I am reposting, I apologize, I have not ready all 5 pages. If marriage is not defined it goes much further than gay rights. The next wave of lawsuits in 5 years will involve polygamy, incest, etc. There have been numerous legal opinions on this that just don't get much press. If you want to share government benefits with same sex partners then push for that. It may or may not happen. But I dont think re-definition of marriage will happen, and for the legal precedent that would be set, I dont think it should.-- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flyingferret 0 #114 November 3, 2004 QuoteWill this decrease the number of divorces? Will it encourage young people to seek birth control before having sex? Will it cut down on teen pregnancies? Will it provide counseling for people whose marriages are in trouble? None of that has anything to do with the definition of marriage. Marriage is a legal union, the problems resulting during that union have very little to do with the legal bounds thereof. Nor did anyone ever say it should be this way because straight people behave better. These are emotional fringe issues always thrown in the mix.-- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,122 #115 November 3, 2004 That statement was in reply to the statement that banning gay marriage was a victory for the family, and would increase its strength. I don't understand how it does. I understand your arguments a lot better -- I might disagree with them, but they're much more to the point. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flyingferret 0 #116 November 3, 2004 This is a HUGE misconception, because people seem to lack legal deductive reasoning these days. THe pig comment was not homophobic, in fact it was QED proof. Right number 1. You can marry the opposite sex Right number 2. You can marry the same sex Everyone has right number 1, nobody has right number 2. Therefore, the straight people have no different rights, we just happen to want 1. and gays do not. Additionally...marriage is not a constiutional right, neither is common provider benefits based on that union. The word right is used much too loosely.-- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flyingferret 0 #117 November 3, 2004 QuoteAh, so it's ok for the majoriy to supress a minority. Yep...that is exactly what democracy does every day. Majority rule....-- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #118 November 3, 2004 QuoteAdditionally...marriage is not a constiutional right, neither is common provider benefits based on that union. The word right is used much too loosely. Fine, but when is someone going to address the discriminatory aspect? The laws about marriage are violating non geneder discrimination laws.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiveNFlorida 0 #119 November 3, 2004 QuoteThe reason a male cannot marry another male, is the same reason that a pig cannot fly. Because the gay men don't have wings, right? Seriously, reread what you wrote and try to make sense of it. If you are going with the idea that it is "against the laws of nature", then you are sadly mistaken because marriage is not natural and does not go hand in hand with humanity. In fact, isn't it nature that men are not monogamous? So, in that respect, marriage already goes against nature. -A Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flyingferret 0 #120 November 3, 2004 Marriage is a definition. I can run around say I am homosexual. But unless I am solely attracted to other males. I am not. Just plain and simple am not. The law (for now) says marriage does not include same sex. Marriage. By definition, you cannot be married to the same sex. You can call a chair a stool all you want. But the definition makes it a chair. What you are really arguing about is should a stool be treated differently than a chair. That would be a much more interested argument, and one that I would at least academically engage in. From a strategic standpoint, whether I agree or not, I think the gay rights movement shot themselves in the foot, when they decided to try and change a current definition, rather than push for their own.-- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiveNFlorida 0 #121 November 3, 2004 QuoteMarriage was defined many years ago (one man, one woman)....stop trying to alter the system. Man, we'd still be in the age of slavery if it were up to you, eh? Things change, slavery was accepted practice, blacks were the servents of white people, shit, why change anything at all. I guess I shouldn't be allowed to work or go to school, either, right? Change is not a bad thing, people. Don't believe the republicans and purists who say it is! Our constitution has been amended, nothing stays the same, growth and change go hand in hand. Angela. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkymonkeyONE 3 #122 November 3, 2004 Guess it's a good thing I am a heterosexual who just married a hot white woman. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flyingferret 0 #123 November 3, 2004 Your parallels are crooked. We outlawed slavery, we did not change what it meant. From a societal viewpoint, whether you agree or not, definitions are very very difficult to change simply due to ingrained usage. What is being requested is the change of a definition of not just a word, but an institution in practice. Whether you think it is relegious or not, most Americans still do, and voted accordingly. So, the whole argument will be lost in arguing about semantics without ever really touching the underlying issues of rights. Someone should have decided to fight over rights, not words. Whether you like it or not, words and definitions die hard. And in a democracy, the majority does rule. Even without a vote, they rule through social culture.-- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,255 #124 November 3, 2004 Quotewell, if Adam can marry Bob, then why I can't I marry my 12 yr.old lover? Why can't I marry my dog? Why can't I have a dozen wives?" Hmm, is a 12 yr old a consenting adult, no. Is a dog a consenting adult, no. The dozen wives one is much more complicated, but I think if you look at places like Utah it seems that a lot of those arrangements can be quite abusive. So there is much more to consider and it's at best incredibly simplistic to lump it together with gay marriage.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #125 November 3, 2004 QuoteGuess it's a good thing I am a heterosexual who just married a hot white woman. Did you hang from the ceiling fan on your wedding night and screech like a monkey? Liked the pictures! Caw!!! Caw!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
