"Gay Marriage" apparently not all it was cracked up to be

reply to post by L00kingGlass


That's all very well and good, and sounds quite liberal on the surface, but again, are you really arguing that "tradition" or "christianity" has some sort of monopoly on the word "marriage"??!! ?Cause I'd like to see the precedent for that one....!

reply to post by markuz93


Sorry, I edited the other post after realising it may have seemed a bit confrontational after checking yours and realising you weren't being so. Still stand by what I said though otherwise.

ETA

I only brought up the church as one of a few examples of people or groups that frequently teach us things that turn out to be not 100% accurate.

Originally posted by internationalcriminal
reply to post by L00kingGlass

 

That's all very well and good, and sounds quite liberal on the surface, but again, are you really arguing that "tradition" or "christianity" has some sort of monopoly on the word "marriage"??!! ?Cause I'd like to see the precedent for that one....!

The word marriage, and the Holy book used in it? Yes! No disrespect intended good sir.

reply to post by internationalcriminal


Its all good man! I realize it is a heated topic too. And hey, if noone ever disagreed with our thoughts then we would never come to a conclusion.

Originally posted by L00kingGlass

Originally posted by internationalcriminal
reply to post by L00kingGlass

 

That's all very well and good, and sounds quite liberal on the surface, but again, are you really arguing that "tradition" or "christianity" has some sort of monopoly on the word "marriage"??!! ?Cause I'd like to see the precedent for that one....!

The word marriage, and the Holy book used in it? Yes! No disrespect intended good sir.

It used it...that doesn't give it some sort of legal right over it.

Originally posted by internationalcriminal

Originally posted by L00kingGlass

Originally posted by internationalcriminal
reply to post by L00kingGlass

 

That's all very well and good, and sounds quite liberal on the surface, but again, are you really arguing that "tradition" or "christianity" has some sort of monopoly on the word "marriage"??!! ?Cause I'd like to see the precedent for that one....!

The word marriage, and the Holy book used in it? Yes! No disrespect intended good sir.

It used it...that doesn't give it some sort of legal right over it.

Anyway, that's not the point. We just want our marriage left alone, you have a Civil Union, that's good enough. Please respect religion and the institutions of others, even if you don't agree with it. No harm no foul.

reply to post by L00kingGlass

Oh, maybe I misunderstood...are you referring to the use of the bible during a church marriage? If so, what does that have to do with getting married elsewhere? Or is the true problem about getting married, with the term marriage, in a church? Can you do that even in the states yet? If that's not what you meant, please ignore.

Originally posted by markuz93
OK people, as i understand it, there are two purposes to marriage: love, and to produce children. As i understand it, no same sex couple has ever produced children. Im not anti gay or anything, but i believe this is...well the second part, is the main argument against gay marriage.
Oh, and another thing. while infedility/divorce rates between married couples makes for interesting debate, it is not really relevant to the issue of same sex marriage.

edit on 9-2-2012 by markuz93 because: (no reason given)

There are many heterosexual couples who marry who have no intention of having children. There are many heterosexual couples who adopt children instead of having them biologically. So, do we deny those heterosexual people the right to marry as well?

reply to post by internationalcriminal

But that's just it, and I'm sorry, but what's this about "YOUR" marriage? Why is it yours? Is it not a human inheritance? Why does marriage seem to belong to this select group of people who I really don't think even make up the majority of any country in the so called democratic free world these days? Let's have a referendum, I dare you all!

ETA this was supposed to be a reply to looking glass's post above.

Originally posted by markuz93

...while infedility/divorce rates between married couples makes for interesting debate, it is not really relevant to the issue of same sex marriage.

It is if people bring up gay divorce which is the subject of this thread.

Where there's marriage, there's divorce.

reply to post by kaylaluv


I agree whole heartedly with that! I am most definitely not gay, but I am adopted. My father was sterile, so my parents could not naturally have children. Should their marriage be abolished due to that?

reply to post by kaylaluv


I agree with the arguement you are presenting, but the definition that the founders were using was based on the Bible like it or not, and that constitutes a man and a women. But whenever religion gets brought into anything, all hell breaks loose lol

Originally posted by internationalcriminal
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

I agree whole heartedly with that! I am most definitely not gay, but I am adopted. My father was sterile, so my parents could not naturally have children. Should their marriage be abolished due to that?

According to some of the jizz wad arguments, yes.

Shameful, isn't it?

reply to post by Garfee


Haha yeah your right. But what i meant was that it did not regard the issue if a same sex marriage should be allowed or not, based on the definition of marriage.

Originally posted by Garfee

Originally posted by internationalcriminal
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

I agree whole heartedly with that! I am most definitely not gay, but I am adopted. My father was sterile, so my parents could not naturally have children. Should their marriage be abolished due to that?

According to some of the jizz wad arguments, yes.

Shameful, isn't it?

More pitiful I'd say. Time will show all as usual.

reply to post by Annee

Ever read the history of marriage? It is NOT a pretty picture. Women were property - - bought/sold/bartered for various reasons.

Well you are right about that. In Shakespeare's "Taming Of The Shrew", women were called a man's Chattel. That was the thinking in those days.
In a gay marriage, which one is the chattel?

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
The issues usually arise when one of the gay partners is either sick or dying and also if they have children. Before gay marriage was legal only spouses or family could make decisions regarding certain legal matters.

A gay partner could be denied visitation in the hospital or be denied the right to take over parental rights of a dying partners children. If no Will exists assets would go to immediate family members and not the gay partner.

I am not "pro gay rights" nor am I "anti gay rights".

I really don't care what you do behind closed doors as long as you keep it there. But when you want to try to shove it in my face is when I say , no that's not OK.

do you say "thats not ok" to straight couples "throwing" their relationship in your face?

Originally posted by markuz93
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

I agree with the arguement you are presenting, but the definition that the founders were using was based on the Bible like it or not, and that constitutes a man and a women. But whenever religion gets brought into anything, all hell breaks loose lol

I don't see in the constitution where it says that marriage may only be between a man and a woman.

And the founders never said that slavery was wrong, but we changed that, didn't we?

Originally posted by internationalcriminal
reply to post by L00kingGlass

 

Oh, maybe I misunderstood...are you referring to the use of the bible during a church marriage? If so, what does that have to do with getting married elsewhere? Or is the true problem about getting married, with the term marriage, in a church? Can you do that even in the states yet? If that's not what you meant, please ignore.

What I'm saying is, gay people need to use their creative imaginations and come up with a partnership ceremony of their own. I can think of all kinds of things they can do to create something more "fabulous".

No hidden meanings or ill intentions!

reply to post by kaylaluv


It doesnt say because it was accepted that marriage was between a man and a woman in that day. And hey, maybe they will change the constitution on that too. Who knows. Basically i dont think the creators of the constitution thought that the definition of marriage would become dated. Maybe we just need to have a national vote.