Gay Marriage.

Page 22 of 26 [ 415 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Mitch8817
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Apr 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,881
Location: Victoria, Australia

22 May 2007, 3:03 pm

ascan wrote:

Mitch8817 wrote:

Marriage goes beyond the Church in modern society. There are marriage bonuses, assistance, recognition, allowances etc. etc. The government has all that book-keeping to do...

I've not said it doesn't. But, the church do have a vested interest, still.

According to who? Marriage is also a government institution these days instead of just religious.

_________________
"Pray...NOW!" -Auron, before Bushido attack

ascan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Feb 2005
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,194
Location: Taunton/Aberdeen

22 May 2007, 3:10 pm

Mitch8817 wrote:

According to who? Marriage is also a government institution these days instead of just religious.

Well, look at the number of people who have church weddings. Also, you may not like it, but the church still has influence in most N American and European countries.

ascan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Feb 2005
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,194
Location: Taunton/Aberdeen

22 May 2007, 4:13 pm

Sopho wrote:

It's not a case of me wanting something therefore I should have it. It's about equality. Two people of the same sex CAN have children together, they can adopt, or one could be bisexual and have a child from a previous relationships. Accept it; there are NO decent reasons to prevent me from having the same rights as anyone else here.

I missed your reply, earlier, Sopho. Like I said, you and your same-sex partner cannot have children that are yours in as far as you both have a genetic investment in them. Most married heterosexual couples have children that are genetically related to both parents. That is a fundamental difference between the two types of relationships. It is especially significant with regard to the importance society has attached to raising kids within a stable family unit with both a male and female parent providing a balanced upbringing. I find it hard to see how you can claim you deserve to be treated equally to people who are in a fundamentally different situation.

Sopho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Apr 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 10,859

22 May 2007, 4:44 pm

Ypou find it hard to understand how I deserve to be treated equally? How about because I am a person like anyone else and therefore I should be entitled to the same level or treatment?

Anubis
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Sep 2006
Age: 136
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,911
Location: Mount Herculaneum/England

22 May 2007, 4:57 pm

ascan wrote:

Sopho wrote:

I missed your reply, earlier, Sopho. Like I said, you and your same-sex partner cannot have children that are yours in as far as you both have a genetic investment in them. Most married heterosexual couples have children that are genetically related to both parents. That is a fundamental difference between the two types of relationships. It is especially significant with regard to the importance society has attached to raising kids within a stable family unit with both a male and female parent providing a balanced upbringing. I find it hard to see how you can claim you deserve to be treated equally to people who are in a fundamentally different situation.

Actually, Lesbians can, thanks to newly developed technology. And I believe you mean most married heterosexual couples that actually have children...

What's wrong with allowing a person the right to marry whomever they love? Marriage should be universally symbolic. No atheist reason, in my opinion, that gay marriage should not be allowed, and plenty of reasons for it. The scientific fact that homosexuality is natural within populations only proves this further. Let it be, it does no harm to society.

_________________
Lalalalai.... I'll cut you up!

Xenon
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,476
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

22 May 2007, 5:57 pm

ascan wrote:

Xenon wrote:

...Except that if the only difference between John & Mary's partnership and Fred & David's partnership is that the former is between a man and a woman and the latter is between two men, the different terminology is purely arbitrary. And pointless.

No. Because men and women have children together, Xenon! Maybe they skip that inconvenient truth in Canadian schools these days? Most people marry with the intention of having children.

Whether or not this is true is open to debate -- some people get married for nothing more than companionship, or for the tax breaks, or simply because they are in love.

However, the reasons people get married are also completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. The fact that Fred & David (in my example above) would be unable to produce their own children together is of absolutely no relevance whatsoever.

_________________
"Some mornings it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps." -- Emo Philips

Last edited by Xenon on 22 May 2007, 6:46 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Xenon
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,476
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

22 May 2007, 6:28 pm

ascan wrote:

Mitch8817 wrote:

According to who? Marriage is also a government institution these days instead of just religious.

Well, look at the number of people who have church weddings. Also, you may not like it, but the church still has influence in most N American and European countries.

And as time goes on, that influence becomes less and less... well, influential. Or does the concept of "separation of church and state" not mean anything to you?

Marriage ceased to be a purely religious institution when people could have civil weddings recognized by the authorities but involving no church whatsoever. And since marriage is no longer a purely religious institution, the church's input and viewpoint is irrelevant except for those marriages that they may do themselves -- and a church is under no obligation to perform a gay marriage if its tenets would object to it. (The logic behind that is the same logic that would allow Catholic church to refuse to perform a marriage for me because I am not Catholic.)

_________________
"Some mornings it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps." -- Emo Philips

Xenon
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,476
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

22 May 2007, 6:32 pm

You know, what's really funny about all this is that Ascan keeps insisting that gay marriage is some kind of leftist plot... I support gay marriage, and I'm a CONSERVATIVE. :twisted:

_________________
"Some mornings it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps." -- Emo Philips

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

22 May 2007, 8:55 pm

Xenon wrote:

You know, what's really funny about all this is that Ascan keeps insisting that gay marriage is some kind of leftist plot... I support gay marriage, and I'm a CONSERVATIVE. :twisted:

i'd rather abolish marriage but while it's still a government institution, it should be equal for everyone and not biased against one's sexual identity. as far as long term consequences....if this was discussion about equal rights for any race, it wouldn't even be thought about twice. it's sexual bias and prejudice.

codarac
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Oct 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 780
Location: UK

24 May 2007, 4:28 pm

Xenon wrote:

Sopho wrote:

ascan wrote:

Strange you see it that way. Why would arguing that there's a qualitative difference between a same-sex partnership and a heterosexual partnership make one anti-gay? That really is spurious argument!

Preventing me from having the same rights, benefits and protection for my relationship is what makes you anti-gay.

What she said. The "qualitative difference" is based on nothing more than discrimination against homosexuals.

Xenon, to state that a belief in a qualitative difference between A and B is based on "discrimination" is simply to state a tautology. The trouble is that the word "discrimination" has acquired a wholly negative connotation thanks to its continued use in leftist liberal propaganda. Can anyone here actually explain what is wrong with discrimination in itself?

The medical professions "discriminates" between people who can pass their medical exams and people who can't.
A nation "discriminates" between people who are citizens of that nation and people who aren't.
Parents "discriminate" when they decide to spend more money on their own children than on their next door neighbour's children.

It's pretty much impossible to debate with someone who starts from the axiom that all "discrimination" (i.e., making distinctions) is wrong, since debating is all about making distinctions.

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

24 May 2007, 5:18 pm

codarac wrote:

Xenon wrote:

Sopho wrote:

ascan wrote:

Strange you see it that way. Why would arguing that there's a qualitative difference between a same-sex partnership and a heterosexual partnership make one anti-gay? That really is spurious argument!

Preventing me from having the same rights, benefits and protection for my relationship is what makes you anti-gay.

What she said. The "qualitative difference" is based on nothing more than discrimination against homosexuals.

it's not that you're discriminating. it's that you're discriminating purely based on a prejudice with no tangible evidence of any kind to support your discrimination. not to mention your discrimination affects others negatively and that's why it's a bad form of discrimination...not simply because you're discriminating...but because you're discriminating without any real facts other than citing fallacies in tradition that are only only as of late being proven to be fallacies. just because an idea has been around a few hundred years doesn't make it smart or right. take human sacrifice, for instance.

you've also claimed that for children, the marriage needs to be a man and a woman but the dichotomy of most homosexual relationships is normally that of one figuring being more masculine than the other....it normally just sorta happens on its own and to claim that one form of parenting is better than another is another prejudiced discrimination. discrimination is good, you are right...but prejudiced discrimination is just ignorance and won't be tolerated.

edit: and yes, that means i'm intolerant and discriminating against ignorance and ignorant people.

Xenon
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,476
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

24 May 2007, 7:54 pm

codarac wrote:

Xenon wrote:

What she said. The "qualitative difference" is based on nothing more than discrimination against homosexuals.

Oh, joy. We're reduced to playing word games now...

_________________
"Some mornings it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps." -- Emo Philips

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

24 May 2007, 8:42 pm

Xenon wrote:

codarac wrote:

Xenon wrote:

What she said. The "qualitative difference" is based on nothing more than discrimination against homosexuals.

Oh, joy. We're reduced to playing word games now...

well what he's saying is clear: discrimination against homosexuals is acceptable because they are a negative...a disease that should be wiped out...heil hitler.

okay, he didn't say the last part but it's implied in his moronic rhetoric.

edit: just so that the irony isn't lost in what i said:

Moron was originally a scientific term, coined by psychologist Henry H. Goddard from a Greek word meaning "foolish" and used to describe a person with a genetically determined A. mental age between 8 and 12 on the Binet scale. It was also once applied to people with an IQ of 51-70 and was a step up from "imbecile" (IQ of 26-50) and two steps up from "idiot" (IQ of 0-25). The word moron, along with "ret*d" and "feeble-minded" (among others), was once considered a valid descriptor in the psychological community, though these words have all now passed into common slang use, exclusively in a detrimental context.

In his later years, Goddard recanted his previous theories, but they had already been published and translated into German. B. His writings inspired the Nazis who sent people deemed "morons" to the gas chambers.

A. the argument on semantics is that of an 8 year old.

B. get it? i called him a nazi then used a term that doomed thousands to their deaths by nazis.

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

24 May 2007, 8:56 pm

codarac.....are you a member of the BNP?

Xenon
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,476
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

24 May 2007, 10:27 pm

_________________
"Some mornings it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps." -- Emo Philips

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

25 May 2007, 3:32 pm

ascan wrote:

skafather84 wrote:

....wow...i'm a rather well-spoken drunk, if i do say so myself. *stroking my own ego*

Pride comes before a fall, old chap. :wink:

reflection on one's own work is good once in a while. and i'm still waiting for people to counter what i've said in any reasonable fashion.

Page 22 of 26 [ 415 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 Next

Jump to:

Gay Marriage. Post Reply New Topic

Gay Marriage.