Gay Marriage.

Post Reply New Topic

But they still tried to make the distinction, that's the important thing.


Because race has nothing to do with the ability to produce children.

I don't care if they tried to make the distinction or not, it should have NOTHING to do with them.
And sex doesn't always have to have anything to do with having children. Like I've said before, plenty of straight couples are unable to have kids. Why not have another name for the marriage of an infertile couple?

Well, if they were in a position where they may have had to interact with you then it would be wise to know your sex. Women can be easily offended, for example, and accuse you of "harassment" for saying the wrong thing. Men are less easily offended, but more likely to knock your teeth down your throat if they are. So, it pays to know who you're talking to. But, checking-out what sex someone is is fairly automatic, anyway, like I said.


Jeeezus. I tackled that earlier this evening. Not again, tonight!

That's gender. Not sex. I am nothing like a stereotypical woman - I'm transgendered. Therefore what sex I am says absolutely nothing about me. No one else should have the right to know anything about that.


You didn't tackle it very well. I still don't see why.

If that was truly the case, divorce would never have been legalized. Divorce became legal because people demanded that it be made legal. Birth control became legal because people demanded it became legal.



The popularity of church weddings is irrelevant. Many people get married without a church being involved. Thus, any argument based on religious values is irrelevant.



Well, for one thing, I'm a conservative. I am definitely not a "Leftist" -- Socialism is an economic disease that needs to be eradicated from the face of the planet. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. Equal rights are equal rights in any economic system. And equal rights is not an idea exclusive to the Left.



But here is a clear-cut case of a couple who had absolutely no plans to conceive and raise children because they were unable to do so. Yet you still claim their marriage was valid even though the terms you deem most important to a marriage most definitely did not apply in this case. So, which is it? The only difference between an elderly straight couple who are incapable of having children and a gay couple is that one is an opposite-sex marriage, one is a same-sex marriage. And you have totally, completely, utterly failed to justify that distinction in any meaningful way, other than to stammer that one has a man and a woman and the other does not, as if that in and of itself still made a difference once all the other baggage you've attached to it has been stripped away. If you claim that gay marriage is wrong because they can't produce children, but my dad's last marriage was okay even though they could not produce children, you're being a hypocrite.



Why would these societal reasons not apply to gay marriages?



And you have failed to establish how any of this is relevant. It may be relevant to your own personal definition of "marriage", but as I keep telling you, your definition is not necessarily the one used by other people. "Marriage" to a devout Christian and "Marriage" to a devout athiest have radically different connotations. If you ever get married, you can apply your outdated traditional marriage-is-for-making-babies values all you want to your own marriage. No one will stop you. But leave the rest of us out of it.



We've already established that marriage and reproduction no longer have any real connection to each other -- lots of married people (even in straight marriages) don't have kids, and lots of unmarried people have children. Basing your argument on "marriage = children" is basing it on a standard that has long ago become obsolete. Wishing it were otherwise will not change that.



I am saying the type of relationship is irrelevant. Different people get married for different reasons, not just the reason you keep harping on. To believe that people get married just to have kids is being naive.



Let's see... you made a disparaging remark about gays based on a bigoted stereotype:



If I was to make a similar remark about black people or Jews, I'd be eviscerated. The fact that you can still get away with it only indicates we still have a long way to go.

I am accusing you of homophobia because you made a homophobic remark. Tap dance all you want, Ascan, it's right there in black and white for all the world to see. And given that you were capable of making such a remark with a straight face to start with means that I have progressively more difficulty taking anything you say on the issue at all seriously, since I know where you're coming from. It's starting to become a little like arguing race relations with a member of the KKK.

it's pretty simple. ascan is just wrong. it's not even that he's presenting any kind of argument...just saying the same thing over and over again. rhetoric with no basis other a view that gay people are sub-human.


and he's probably a member of the BNP.

*coughcoughLASVEGAScoughcough*

BNP???

Bisexual Netball Players? Backstreet N'Sync Pretenders? Byzantine Nude Polkas?

British National Party.
Racist homophobic idiots.

Last edited by Sopho on 26 May 2007, 6:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

brittish national party. he's from the UK, he knows what i mean.

Forget Vegas. The last wedding I went to was conducted by a Marriage Commissioner, a person authorized by the province of Alberta to legally conduct civil weddings. Most MC's are also Notary Publics. Some are also Justices of the Peace.

(Actually, I think being a Justice of the Peace automatically gives you the powers of a Marriage Commissioner.)

Does "National" in BNP have any connection with the "National" portion of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei?

(looks up BNP on Wikipedia)

Hmm... Officially, doesn't look that way. But the similarities are astounding. Even though my own politics are centre-right, next to them I'm a rabid Commie.

the national in bnp is like national in a lot of parties...and yes...center-right looks like a rabid socialist next to those people.

They are extremely racist. I can't remember exactly why, but I think their leader met Le Pen a few years ago. They were associated with him anyway.

the last big thing i saw them taking a stance on was immigration...which is an easy one to grab support under since most immigrants are poor, can't speak the language, and are generally annoying.

Don't lie, Ascan. It makes you look like a bigger fool than you already are. I was telling you why that part of your argument was not valid. You were quite aware of this, but you misused the quotation anyway. You don't have any sense of honor. That's why I hate conservatives. You're all corrupt.