Let's talk about GAY MARRIAGE!

[Trig]

Okay, first of all, can we not call them 'gays'. I'm sorry but it bugs me, yes they have a different sexual orientation than you, but calling them 'gays' just...doesn't sound right in my opinion, it seems like you're separating them as a group of people who should have absolutely no association with you. Why can't a PERSON just marry another PERSON?

 

I believe you have the right to your opinion and I have the right to mine, the difference is that most people who are against gay marriage are INTERRUPTING someone's life by not allowing them to get married. If you don't like gay marriage- then don't have one. That's my stance. I think we should ACCEPT other people, you don't have to embrace them, but you should accept them. Furthermore, your entitled to your opinion so long as you aren't interfering with another person's rights, which, by preventing gay marriage, you are interfering with their rights as a human being.

 

I don't have to deal with this in Canada because gay marriage is legal. Sure I know a bunch of people that probably aren't happy about it- but doesn't it really affect them? Nope. So therefore, it's left alone.

[neoskulltula]

I can nearly guarantee he didn't mean anything by it, just how he speaks. And I know you know that lol. :P

 

If it's a matter of interruption, more people are interrupted by things such as famine and disease. So, logically, we should begin there first.

 

*trollface*

[lilshadowdweller]

Okay, first of all, can we not call them 'gays'. I'm sorry but it bugs me, yes they have a different sexual orientation than you, but calling them 'gays' just...doesn't sound right in my opinion, it seems like you're separating them as a group of people who should have absolutely no association with you. Why can't a PERSON just marry another PERSON?

 

Well put RayRay! but I'm sort of guilty of this too. I should technically be calling them "people of homosexual orientation", or something less labelling. I may not be using the word "gays", but still.

 

I believe you have the right to your opinion and I have the right to mine, the difference is that most people who are against gay marriage are INTERRUPTING someone's life by not allowing them to get married.

 

That's much how I feel, too. xD

 

I don't have to deal with this in Canada because gay marriage is legal. Sure I know a bunch of people that probably aren't happy about it- but doesn't it really affect them? Nope. So therefore, it's left alone.

 

Awe. Lovely Canada. And yes, I think most people believe many Canadians are OK with same-sex marriage. They aren't. But nothing has happened to marriage! There's still plenty of normal, happy marriages and people can now marry. Life is pretty much the same as is marriage. :)

 

Not gonna lie I am way too out of it to read super long posts so I will do the honorable thing and cherry pick your responses and defend amazingly.

 

Awe, that's cool. :P

 

Things can be equal and not the same exact thing. That's how you can tell them apart to say they are equal in the first place.

 

I've made my points about why they are not equal to begin with, and depending on which country you are in, you could have no rights at all in a Civil Union. Where I live, it's much harder to separate property in the event of a "divorce" if you are in a Civil Union -- where it would clear cut if it were marriage. If they were entirely equal, that shouldn't be an issue, should it?

 

There are (and this is true) two kinds of discrimination: Excluding a group because of who they are, and INCLUDING a group.

Make of that what you will.

 

Including would be letting them marry, wouldn't it? Not making some new Title and saying it's the same when in reality, it isn't.

 

Btw, listing examples such as multiple wives does not change what I said about marriage evolving from a man sticking around and protecting his interests. In the case of polygamy, he DID move around but still protected the group he mated with. :P I told you the root of marriage. Waving around different branches does not detract from this.

 

But it states the fact that marraige has drastically altered and means different things to different people. In legal terms, with the continuing altering of marriage, why would the roots matter? o_0

 

You just called them unions, you changed the wording to marriage :P Everyone knows Greeks fooled around with little boys. Doesn't mean they wed. We call that pedophilia now. Talk about changing values throughout history.....

 

Lol. I actually quoted Wikipedia, so whoever altered them made them unions. *shrugs* My bad.

 

See that's still like picking at denominations and denying they are of the same religion.

There is a tradition of men and women being together and producing children. Polygamy, monogamy, whatever you want. You're looking again at the branches not the roots.

 

So, if that is your reasoning of how marriage works -- shouldn't couples who don't intend to reproduce or have a money be denied their right to marry -- since their not fulling their original role?

[hrtbrk]

Why participate in a debate when you don't even give the opposition the courtesy of reading their entire response before replyng? LOL Just trolling for a rise? /confused

 

People get married just to reproduce... I've been married for many years now and we have no desire to have children. Is my marriage now invalid because of that? Am I not worthy of marriage because we CHOOSE not to have any children? If I'm in an accident, does my husband no longer have any rights to be able to make the call as to what to do with my life simply because we don't have children? If he knocks his teeth out and can he no longer use my benefits because we don't have children? What about men and women who biologically cannot have children? Are their rights to be stripped away too, just because they can't reproduce?

 

Of course the answer to that is all no because people get married for several different reasons from emotional, financial, spiritual, religious, sexual ... the list goes on and on. Even the biggest gold digger has their rights and they're in it for money, yet two same sex people who have been together for decades and are in it because they are committed to each other to be a family- don't have any rights at all.

 

And thankfully, you don't actually have to have sex with a man or a woman to have a biological child. There is a married lesbian couple, who are clients of ours and they both have biological children but have never been intimate with a man in their life. Oh science, you awesome thing, you!

 

What may have been the norm 20-30 years ago, certainly isn't the case now. It's time to become updated with what millions of American's are facing, to give them the rights they deserve and stop living in the past where the status quo was a complete 180 as to where it is now. The inferior attitude has been very damaging historically and it's a shame that such bigotry and blatant disregard for not only a fellow American, but people in general, still exists in this day in age. Thankfully the Constitution/Bill of Rights isn't a religious document, and finally the U.S Government sent many Americans a resounding reminder of that by deeming Prop 8 unconstitutional.

 

BTW, this could be wrong but I recall many Chinese dynasty's married same sex couples, too.

[neoskulltula]

So, if that is your reasoning of how marriage works -- shouldn't couples who don't intend to reproduce or have a money be denied their right to marry -- since their not fulling their original role?

 

 

I have already shown how the concept of marriage, though it has varied over time, has grown from the social conventions of heterosexual interactions (protection, providing food etc). Tailoring it to homosexual interaction is by far the greatest possible shift you can make away from what it is and has been for ever since it began. Say you have two homosexual cavemen. Both are mighty warriors as survival of the fittest used to dictate. They could each fend for themselves. On top of this no family would be created. There was no reason for them to interact in a way that would give rise to marriage. Even if a heterosexual couple is barren, they are hard wired for a family type set-up where the male would provide and protect. I'm not being sexist, this is how it was. And sure homosexual people want families, but a lot of that is simple observation of social conventions around them.

 

As a matter of fact, asking the question of a couple with no children....that is biologically equivalent to a couple losing all of their children before THEY could reproduce. If one isn't fair to ask then why is the other? Or a couple that dies 12 days after their wedding. Just because something doesn't end up serving its purpose doesn't mean there wasn't a purpose to serve. The purpose was simply never realized.

 

 

 

Why participate in a debate when you don't even give the opposition the courtesy of reading their entire response before replyng? LOL Just trolling for a rise? /confused

 

Finally found the quote option. I actually did end up reading the entire thing, I hadn't planned to when I wrote that one-liner. And yet, the one-liner was too good to not go ahead and publish. :P

 

 

The inferior attitude has been very damaging historically and it's a shame that such bigotry and blatant disregard for not only a fellow American, but people in general, still exists in this day in age.

 

Well I already said I support civil unions, provided they offer the same legal rights. But I don't believe we should change what marriage is on such a fundamental level. It doesn't seem right to. Two people can love one another...they can embrace. And they should even have the same rights! But I don't think it should be called marriage as it is not what marriage has been known to be.

 

What I really dislike is the position of "Oh you don't like gay marriage then you are prejudiced and an awful person." Such a pathetic sentiment.

 

I answered a lot of your points in my post but there is one thing I wanted to say...

 

 

BTW, this could be wrong but I recall many Chinese dynasty's married same sex couples, too.

 

China is for anything that cuts down on the population amirite? *drums* *silence*

[lilshadowdweller]

So, if that is your reasoning of how marriage works -- shouldn't couples who don't intend to reproduce or have a money be denied their right to marry -- since their not fulling their original role?

 

 

I have already shown how the concept of marriage, though it has varied over time, has grown from the social conventions of heterosexual interactions (protection, providing food etc). Tailoring it to homosexual interaction is by far the greatest possible shift you can make away from what it is and has been for ever since it began. Say you have two homosexual cavemen. Both are mighty warriors as survival of the fittest used to dictate. They could each fend for themselves. On top of this no family would be created. There was no reason for them to interact in a way that would give rise to marriage. Even if a heterosexual couple is barren, they are hard wired for a family type set-up where the male would provide and protect. I'm not being sexist, this is how it was. And sure homosexual people want families, but a lot of that is simple observation of social conventions around them.

 

As a matter of fact, asking the question of a couple with no children....that is biologically equivalent to a couple losing all of their children before THEY could reproduce. If one isn't fair to ask then why is the other? Or a couple that dies 12 days after their wedding. Just because something doesn't end up serving its purpose doesn't mean there wasn't a purpose to serve. The purpose was simply never realized.

 

I understanding the concept which you are trying to state, but I still fail to see how changing what you perceive to be the "social conventions of heterosexual interactions" harms the concept of marriage. You're basically stating that because we, as humans, survived by reproducing, therefore marriage is essentially the symbol of this - that it cannot change? That if two people fail to carry the potential to reproduce, it can't be marriage?

 

People have an inner desire to bond, what we deem "love". This instinctually carries into the homosexual relationship.

 

They are technically, like the caveman, forming an instinctual bond. How is this less validated? Merely because they cannot reproduce and contribute to the population?

 

We have many base roots in our traditions and culture; many of which have altered over time. A married homosexual couple are still performing their roles - which can be formed entirely with our ensured survival.

 

Finally found the quote option. I actually did end up reading the entire thing, I hadn't planned to when I wrote that one-liner. And yet, the one-liner was too good to not go ahead and publish. :P

 

Oh thank goodness, you not quoting made things so confusing. xD

 

Well I already said I support civil unions, provided they offer the same legal rights. But I don't believe we should change what marriage is on such a fundamental level. It doesn't seem right to. Two people can love one another...they can embrace. And they should even have the same rights! But I don't think it should be called marriage as it is not what marriage has been known to be.

 

Again, the definition of marriage has altered over time -- but because it started as a bases for reproduction; you don't believe it can be called marriage. I disagree. Many people disagree - we all know marriage was a symbol of partnership, no one believes that marriage represents being able/having children.

 

What I really dislike is the position of "Oh you don't like gay marriage then you are prejudiced and an awful person." Such a pathetic sentiment.

 

We don't imagine you being an "awful" person. You merely have an opinion which we feel is discriminative. As I stated before, you are not the only person to carry such an opinion! My parents would happily agree with you. The reason your perspectives need to be addressed: it's the many people like yourself, together, denying the right of marriage to people, voting on it, or stating it here. Do not take it as a personal attack, it's an attack on your opinion, which you are trying to protect. I don't envision you beating them up or anything.

 

I answered a lot of your points in my post but there is one thing I wanted to say...

 

China is for anything that cuts down on the population amirite? *drums* *silence*

 

It's funny but NOW can I call you an awful person? :P

[superboybot]

I'm new to this debate for please excuse me for being ignorant of previous points or statements. I was wondering, if gay marriage was allowed and recognized, in a national or worldwide way, wouldn't that lead to a slippery slope of people being married to anything they're inclined to, such as animals, or people taking it to a semi-logical extreme and marrying a cereal box?

[lilshadowdweller]

I'm new to this debate for please excuse me for being ignorant of previous points or statements. I was wondering, if gay marriage was allowed and recognized, in a national or worldwide way, wouldn't that lead to a slippery slope of people being married to anything they're inclined to, such as animals, or people taking it to a semi-logical extreme and marrying a cereal box?

 

Why on Earth would it lead to a slippery slope?

 

The "argument" of marrying someone or something that cannot consent to marriage is preposterous.

 

Two human beings marrying: BOTH can firmly SIGN marriage papers and offer consent.

Neither a Cereal box nor an animal can consent or comprehend either of those things.

 

So, no. It would not lead to anything.

 

I find it rather odd how people bring up these points, comparing two humans to cereal boxes or animals. -__-'' The fact you would even try to compare the marriage of two humans beings and bring it down to being equal to that of marrying a cereal box ... aye. -.-

[hrtbrk]

I'm new to this debate for please excuse me for being ignorant of previous points or statements. I was wondering, if gay marriage was allowed and recognized, in a national or worldwide way, wouldn't that lead to a slippery slope of people being married to anything they're inclined to, such as animals, or people taking it to a semi-logical extreme and marrying a cereal box?

 

People already marry extreme things like cereal boxes, roller coasters, trucks, various animals (goats, snakes, parrots, dolphin) and dolls. A man even married himself to himself. I recall in 2010 or 2011 a man married himself to his anime pillow. Wasn't the first time because a few years before someone married a character from a DS game.

 

Heck, in several states in the US, it's perfectly legal to marry your own cousin. A man in England married his own daughter.

 

Not sure why anyone would think that legalizing gay marriage would be a gateway to marrying random things - when it already exists. Even equating gay marriage to being married to a cereal box. o _ O

[superboybot]

But its all about what's socially acceptable. I would highly doubt anyone could have a marriage licence, tax benefits, etc. when married to a cereal box today. Besides, the event where a man married a character from a DS game was from Japan, the land of socially acceptability of weird things, like used underwear vending machines (which would probably be illegal in the US, but I'm no lawyer.)

[lilshadowdweller]

But its all about what's socially acceptable. I would highly doubt anyone could have a marriage licence, tax benefits, etc. when married to a cereal box today. Besides, the event where a man married a character from a DS game was from Japan, the land of socially acceptability of weird things, like used underwear vending machines (which would probably be illegal in the US, but I'm no lawyer.)

 

So, I gather, that IF same-sex marriage would be entirely acceptable by most of society-- you'd be all for it? That's what I'm understanding in this post.

 

I already answered your question on whether or not it would cause people to marry cereal boxes.

 

Anything else?

 

I live in Canada, and guess what? Same sex marriage is permitted and.....

 

People of homosexual orientation got married.

 

Guess what else?

 

No one here is marrying cereal boxes or animals! In fact, beastility is consider animal abuse, go figure?

 

Nothing happened. Nada. Zip. Life is the same. I gather it would be the same story in America, too. You know, just judging from the fact our country is still thriving and has a pretty good reputation. :/

 

Is that not enough evidence?

 

And yes, Japan's culture is unique. I certainly don't understand why someone would want to love an object which couldn't clearly love him back.

 

But the issue never related to the homosexual marriaged you mentioned.

[superboybot]

Really the point I'm trying to make is that each person has a kind of limit on certain issues. When something becomes socially acceptable that you approve of that wasn't before, there's always the possibility that it could lead to other things that you don't approve of (like bestiality...). We don't know what the future hold, and I think its important that people not rush into things, especially because I'm not sure everyone (such as myself) knows all the implications/future events that can result from this. To me, its all about unforeseen consequences. I'm worried people might make the wrong decision without realizing it.

[lilshadowdweller]

Really the point I'm trying to make is that each person has a kind of limit on certain issues. When something becomes socially acceptable that you approve of that wasn't before, there's always the possibility that it could lead to other things that you don't approve of (like bestiality...). We don't know what the future hold, and I think its important that people not rush into things, especially because I'm not sure everyone (such as myself) knows all the implications/future events that can result from this. To me, its all about unforeseen consequences. I'm worried people might make the wrong decision without realizing it.

 

Well, I've already provided evidence on why you're "unforseen" consequences will not be occurring. -_-;; Your fear is part of why people are being treated like none-human, because by stating homosexual marriage can potential head into cereal box marriage, you're comparing to human beings to a cereal box. You feel that their marriage is so absurd, that it can lead to cereal box marriage. (Or, as you said, beastility.)

 

Again, when cereal boxes can be able to consent to their marriage, or animals, then we'll see where your concern comes from.

 

All you have is fear of the unknown. Everytime society makes a huge alteration (women's rights, equal rights for ethnic groups) there are ALWAYS people fearful of the change. Many men thought that if women acheived equal status they would take all of the men's jobs. That was an "unforseen" consquences they envisioned. Your fear is entirely unfounded.

 

No one is "rushing" into anything. The change has become gradual. This isn't just some fad that is going to fade away.

 

All I can see are the pros.

 

Furthermore, if people DID go and marry cereal boxes, why on Earth would that concern you? o__0 Are you worried that the entire world will become cereal box lovers? That our population would become nothing as we each fall in love with cereal boxes?

 

You're disguising your discriminative point by pretending you care about the "future". In reality, you only thing homosexuality is 'wrong', and the only choice for you is to act like the world will end. You've basically said;

 

"Everyone is rushing into it. (Untrue, this has been going on for many years now), homosexual marriage is different and weird, there could be CONSEQUENCES which I just fabricated out of thin air. I wouldn't want anyone to make the wrong choice (ie; letting people of homosexual orientation get married).

 

You believe, for whatever reason, that it would be the wrong choice. You're not worried that people are going to make the 'wrong' choice, you're worried they aren't going to make YOUR choice.

[hrtbrk]

I'd say it's safe to say what the future will hold after Prop 8 was just deemed unconstitutional lol

[neoskulltula]

This talk of cereal boxes is amusing...and it makes me more than a little hungry. But it does call to mind a serious component to this conversation.

 

Where do you stand on polygamy? And I'm not asking this as a farce, I'm really curious. If you accept gay marriage you must also be in favor of polygamy. I will explain to you why.

 

It's been your position, as far as I can see, that marrying someone you love and who loves you is a basic human right. The thing about basic human rights is that they are not subject to being conditional. It is truly possible to deeply love more than one person. And if more than one person loved you back, why can't you have multiple marriages?

If you're going to change what marriage is in our day and age, quality*=quantity. Change is change.

 

Keep in mind that if you reject polygamy, you are guilty of the same "discrimination" shared by people who are anti-gay marriage. It just happens to be discrimination toward a different group. And this is true no matter the strategy you implement to try to rationalize differences between the two.

 

 

*Quality here is defined as type (gender), not a judgement.

[Welcome Back Apathy]

I'm new to this debate for please excuse me for being ignorant of previous points or statements. I was wondering, if gay marriage was allowed and recognized, in a national or worldwide way, wouldn't that lead to a slippery slope of people being married to anything they're inclined to, such as animals, or people taking it to a semi-logical extreme and marrying a cereal box?

 

Here's the thing about a slippery slope.

 

If you are at the top of a mountain, every direction down is a slippery slope. BANNING gay marriage is actually quite a bit more of a slippery slope, because the reasons that people use for banning it could very easily lead to banning other marriages--banning non-religious couples from wedding, then non-Christians from wedding...all of these because a bunch of people say that marriage is a Christian thing. (Which is B.S.) Or else banning gay marriage could easily lead to banning birth control because the entire point of all of it is to have children, and every single woman needs to reproduce and have lots and lots more kids.

 

 

The reason why banning gay marriage DOES NOT lead to a slippery slope is because it's opening it up only to consensual forms of marriage. And yes, I would agree that it could lead to polygamy, but as long as all the spouses consent to the polygamous relationship and get a say in who future spouse will be...I honestly have no problem. The only problem I have with polygamy--and incest too--is that it's used nonconsensually with one person having power over others. That I don't find okay. For example, the FLDS ("Mormon" fundamentalists) raise their daughters specifically to marry a male relative who has brainwashed them from birth to marry that person. That's not consensual to me. They perform incest, polygamy, and statutory rape in that cult (they are not real Mormons, so let's not start this) and it ends up being completely nonconsensual.

 

But polygamy can be done right, I believe. It just has to be in a consensual manner, that's all. I wouldn't do it personally, but I have no moral qualms about it.

[lilshadowdweller]

This talk of cereal boxes is amusing...and it makes me more than a little hungry. But it does call to mind a serious component to this conversation.

 

Where do you stand on polygamy? And I'm not asking this as a farce, I'm really curious. If you accept gay marriage you must also be in favor of polygamy. I will explain to you why.

 

It's been your position, as far as I can see, that marrying someone you love and who loves you is a basic human right. The thing about basic human rights is that they are not subject to being conditional. It is truly possible to deeply love more than one person. And if more than one person loved you back, why can't you have multiple marriages?

If you're going to change what marriage is in our day and age, quality*=quantity. Change is change.

 

Keep in mind that if you reject polygamy, you are guilty of the same "discrimination" shared by people who are anti-gay marriage. It just happens to be discrimination toward a different group. And this is true no matter the strategy you implement to try to rationalize differences between the two.

 

 

*Quality here is defined as type (gender), not a judgement.

 

Thank goodness you didn't ask me about Cereal Boxes. xD I was very concerned you were heading there!

 

As always, this is a very common rebuttle to the discriminative marriage debate. And I'm ready to answer you.

 

Yes, polygamy, in consent, is entirely reasonable to me. If people want that sort of relationship, then fine. I couldn't do it personally.

 

Now, you'll probably bring up incest, which brings another point in mind:

 

Incest -- when not involving children (children family members), should actually be OK. Are you aware that if two cousins begin to date, the probability of them producing offspring with deformities is actually extremely low? I've seen a couple of television who were first cousins. They were distressed because they loved each other but their family didn't like their relationship. They promised that they would not have children because they knew of the complications (which actually, they were wrong about), regarding their marriage. These people were obviously in love - and all they wanted was to be left alone with their love. They weren't bad people.

 

Typically, Incest probably wouldn't be a common occurrence, merely because people generally don't tend to feel that sort of attraction towards family. I think the general danger of incest involves producing offspring with deformities - which is rare amongst cousins, but not rare against sisters/brothers. Would I have to disprove of a family member having a relationship with one not only enough to consent? Certainly. Would I have to disagree with cults who brainwash? Again, yes. Definitely. What about people who, say, fall in love with their father's or their mother's? Well, seeing as the genetic deformity would actually could actually be a very prominent result; I wouldn't advise for such a relationship. One should adopt in the same manner people of homosexual manners do.

 

Also, regarding animal relationships between people - again, an animal CANNOT consent to marriage. It cannot state how it feels in regards toward a certain person. It could display affectionate tendencies but this does not constitute as "love".

 

Does this mean I would engage in incest myself? No. Likewise with polygamy. It simply means that, like you said, I'd be a hypocrite if I failed to allow such marriages to arise.

 

Now, I'm guessing that for you -- that is a "slippery" slope, right?

 

But again, I fail to see how it influences you, who will not be marrying your cousin nor taking on multiple wives?

[neoskulltula]

Now, you'll probably bring up incest, which brings another point in mind:

 

Nah actually I wasn't. It wasn't part of some prolonged mental chess game. Just curious, like I said. :P

 

And also I wouldn't go the animal route either, that is nothing but a farce, which I told you I wasn't participating in. :rock:

 

 

I think really I just want a couple wives. You know, take a break from one if she gets too naggy.

 

 

 

 

 

But again, I fail to see how it influences you, who will not be marrying your cousin nor taking on multiple wives?

 

 

Saw this after I posted. There gets to a point where it doesn't matter if something influences or affects you personally, it just shouldn't be done. If someone kills someone that's not me, I'm not personally affected by it. Doesn't mean it should occur. :P An extreme example yes, but I got bored of seeing the "doesn't affect your daily life" argument. :P People are starving worldwide. Doesn't affect me personally but hell it'd be nice to stop it.

[Welcome Back Apathy]

Saw this after I posted. There gets to a point where it doesn't matter if something influences or affects you personally, it just shouldn't be done. If someone kills someone that's not me, I'm not personally affected by it. Doesn't mean it should occur. :P An extreme example yes, but I got bored of seeing the "doesn't affect your daily life" argument. :P People are starving worldwide. Doesn't affect me personally but hell it'd be nice to stop it.

 

That's the problem, though. People want to ban gay marriage because they claim it DOES affect their marriages. The claims that it doesn't affect others is because of these people. With starving people? The people involved are affected negatively. Murder? The victim is affected negatively. Gay marriage? Only positive.

 

But...if you say you're not personally affected by it, then why do you care what it's called? The only people who should care are the people whose rights get taken away--gay people.

[neoskulltula]

Do you plan on entering into a gay marriage? If not, then it doesn't affect you either so why do you care?

 

 

Marriage as we know it has long been between only a man and a woman. It is what it is. If you want something different, it should have a different name to reflect that.

 

 

There's a difference between wanting equality between two groups and forcing your way 100% on an issue, down the throats of the other side. Don't tread on me.

[hrtbrk]

Do you plan on entering into a gay marriage? If not, then it doesn't affect you either so why do you care?

Wow...Really? We're going down that road of ignorance now? :rolleyes_anim:

 

Fighting for basic human rights doesn't mean anything, I guess.

 

I can't take you seriously after that, and truly believe you're here just for the sake of debate and couldn't care less about the matter, so I'm going to bow out of this for now.

[neoskulltula]

If they're given the same legal RIGHTS as marriage, they are denied no human rights by calling it something else. No one is acknowledging this perhaps I should bow out as well.

 

And the whole point of that quote was just to point out that it doesn't affect anyone it doesn't affect. So people who are for or against it are equal in how much it doesn't affect them. If the pro-gay marriage side uses the "oh but it don't affect you" logic then it should get to be used against them. Fail I guess?

[hrtbrk]

If they're given the same legal RIGHTS as marriage, they are denied no human rights by calling it something else.

By this logic, Asian people can ride the bus, they just have to ride a bus specifically for Asian citizens and call it a shuttle because the term bus 'belongs' to Atheist people. Why have it be different, when it's the same thing?

 

It creates segregation when everyone should be treated equally and should be held to the same standard as the next.

 

So people who are for or against it are equal in how much it doesn't affect them. If the pro-gay marriage side uses the "oh but it don't affect you" logic then it should get to be used against them. Fail I guess?

 

Okay, now I'm for sure done.

 

That is so obviously not true, as Karina already explained: "People want to ban gay marriage because they claim it DOES affect their marriages."

 

How you can even say they are equal... I just... can't lol Sorry. Good luck!

[Welcome Back Apathy]

If they're given the same legal RIGHTS as marriage, they are denied no human rights by calling it something else. No one is acknowledging this perhaps I should bow out as well.

 

You say that no rights are denied, no legal rights, no human rights, etc. I can guarantee to you that this is completely false. First of all, the right to call it marriage is a right that is denied. Secondly, calling it less than what it is gives people the impression that gay people ARE lesser citizens. Separate but equal, yadda yadda. But you probably don't care about these reasons, so I will give you an absolutely solid example of rights that are denied:

 

A while ago, New Jersey legalized civil UNIONS--not marriages, but the unions you are so proud of--and said that they were supposed to be...you guessed it, separate but equal.

 

Guess what? People still found loopholes in the word alone that allowed them to discriminate. Wait...whoa, is this an article that shows how certain companies denied same-sex couples benefits because it's a civil union and not called "marriage"?

 

There is absolutely no reason not to use the word "marriage". I appreciate that you like to compromise, but your reason of "traditional definition" has no basis in the law whatsoever. I know I'm using the cliches, but they are absolutely true--TRADITIONALLY, black people were defined as lesser people than white people. Remember that whole 3/5 law thing? It was based on the longtime evolution of racism and slavery, just as your definition of marriage was based on man and woman. (By the way, calling a black person 3/5 of a person was considered a compromise.)

 

 

And the whole point of that quote was just to point out that it doesn't affect anyone it doesn't affect. So people who are for or against it are equal in how much it doesn't affect them. If the pro-gay marriage side uses the "oh but it don't affect you" logic then it should get to be used against them. Fail I guess?

 

"That's the problem, though. People want to ban gay marriage because they claim it DOES affect their marriages. The claims that it doesn't affect others is because of these people. With starving people? The people involved are affected negatively. Murder? The victim is affected negatively. Gay marriage? Only positive."

 

Look riiiight above you. Up a few. There. See that? To repeat what I said, the people who are trying to ban gay marriage are claiming their marriages are victims of marriage. None of us are trying to claim it affects people who aren't gay.

 

Do you plan on entering into a gay marriage? If not, then it doesn't affect you either so why do you care?

No, I'm married to a man. However, I have dated women and never thought before I met him that I would get married to a man. My friends who are gay? They care. Because they are actually affected.

 

But if we're only going to talk to the people who plan on entering into a gay marriage...then I can guarantee that 100% of the people affected will vote in favor of same-sex marriage being legal, so...sure. Let's go with your logic, which only proves ours further.

 

Marriage as we know it has long been between only a man and a woman. It is what it is. If you want something different, it should have a different name to reflect that.

 

 

There's a difference between wanting equality between two groups and forcing your way 100% on an issue, down the throats of the other side. Don't tread on me.

 

Which is exactly what we do with black people. We never refer to them as "people", see? Notice how I keep calling them "black people" here, never just "people". If someone came up to me and said, "Hey, look at that person over there," I would say, "That's nice, but you shouldn't call him/her a person. See, it's offensive to some people with hateful attitudes, so we call them black people instead."

 

I trust I've made my point with that. Because really, it is an EXACT parallel to what you are saying--the definition of it is based on a long history.

 

There's a difference between wanting equality on an issue and wanting to compromise. Perhaps women should have the "3/4" law--yeees, women can work, but they're only allowed to make 75 cents for every dollar a man makes. That's a compromise between women not being allowed to work and total equality, see? It should make everyone happy!

[lilshadowdweller]

Whoa. *claps* Karina, that was incredible. Thank you!

 

Yes, exactly THAT. You want to call it something lesser and NOT be the same -- cannot be equal. If you dared to state such an opinion on people with tanned skin, you'd be back lashed. xD You're stating one group of person isn't the same as another.

 

But I'd just be repeating the argument over and over, since this has come full-circle. Yikes.