Am I a bigot?

What happens if a Gay man wants to marry a Lesbian woman?


Paradox eh!





These threads really show who is for seperation of Church & State.

I know, it's about "nature" not "religion"...

& to that argument I blow a raspberry in your general direction.

a reply to: aorAki

No I do want same sex couples to have the same rights.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: EternalSolace

Ah, yes... the old "separate but equal" trick. We tried that with black people and it was found to be unconstitutional.

Except a black person is a human being.

Marriage is a title.

If it were about the benefits, your argument would hold water. But it isn't about the benefits.

a reply to: Eunuchorn

Couldn't have said it better myself...

& a star!

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: EternalSolace

Ah, yes... the old "separate but equal" trick. We tried that with black people and it was found to be unconstitutional.

Except a black person is a human being.

Marriage is a title.

Marriage is a contract between 2 (or more) human beings.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So you would have been down with slavery after the Dred Scott decision then=?

For one, I can't say what I would have been "down with" if I lived in those times because I would have been raised in a different environment with different attitudes and ideals. Second, if using today's standards, of course I wouldn't be ok with slavery. Slavery takes rights away from another human regardless if the government legitimizes it. This goes back to what I was saying earlier about the government only working within its checks and balances. If an unjust law slips through the checks then it stays until someone can successfully challenge it.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: EternalSolace

Ah, yes... the old "separate but equal" trick. We tried that with black people and it was found to be unconstitutional.

Except a black person is a human being.

Marriage is a title.

Marriage is a contract between 2 (or more) human beings.

So is a civil union.

originally posted by: American-philosopher
a reply to: aorAki

No I do want same sex couples to have the same rights.

Just not marriage though, huh?

originally posted by: EternalSolace
Except a black person is a human being.

So is a gay person...

I think what it comes down to is that people against gay marriage are afraid it will "take away" or diminish the meaning of their own marriages. If, as they claim marriage is just a title, who cares?

What does two gay people getting married do to anyone else? Are people's faith and beliefs so shaky that they can't just turn away and ignore two gay people getting married?

I think this is really what it come down to -- it calls people's faith into question and makes them uncomfortable. If their faith was as strong as they claim, nothing should be able to threaten it or shake it.

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: EternalSolace

Ah, yes... the old "separate but equal" trick. We tried that with black people and it was found to be unconstitutional.

Except a black person is a human being.

Marriage is a title.

Marriage is a contract between 2 (or more) human beings.

So is a civil union.

If heterosexual couples were only allowed Civil Unions then there would not be an issue of inequality.

In America the legal government contract is Marriage. Not Civil Union.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: EternalSolace
Except a black person is a human being.

So is a gay person...

Pretty sure marriage is not a person.

Your argument is still about a title and not the benefits.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: EternalSolace

Ah, yes... the old "separate but equal" trick. We tried that with black people and it was found to be unconstitutional.

Except a black person is a human being.

Marriage is a title.

Marriage is a contract between 2 (or more) human beings.

So is a civil union.

If heterosexual couples were only allowed Civil Unions then there would not be an issue of inequality.

In America the legal government contract is Marriage. Not Civil Union.

Check my first post of the last page. That's exactly what I said. *edit* Well, not exactly. But it has the same gist.

a reply to: EternalSolace

Can you answer my question since the OP won't. Forget about the benefits for a second. What is wrong with saying a man and a man are married or a woman and a woman is married? Why does that matter anyways?

originally posted by: ketsuko
And you brought in nature.

No, YOU did. On page 2. HERE

originally posted by: ketsuko
This is pretty evident throughout nature when it comes to creatures that reproduce sexually.

But I see that neither you or the OP are willing to answer my questions...

Would you want me to define your marriage?
Would you deny me marriage because I can't have children?

a reply to: Annee

2 or more human beings? just how many human beings can actually get married?

a reply to: aorAki

just something that cannot be or just that working title yeah

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: EternalSolace

Ah, yes... the old "separate but equal" trick. We tried that with black people and it was found to be unconstitutional.

Except a black person is a human being.

Marriage is a title.

Marriage is a contract between 2 (or more) human beings.

So is a civil union.

If heterosexual couples were only allowed Civil Unions then there would not be an issue of inequality.

In America the legal government contract is Marriage. Not Civil Union.

Check my first post of the last page. That's exactly what I said. *edit* Well, not exactly. But it has the same gist.

What I saw/read is you trying to create a separation.

Sorry, only have phone at this time. Not easy to follow.

originally posted by: American-philosopher
a reply to: Annee

2 or more human beings? just how many human beings can actually get married?

As many as want to marry. As long as no one has any objections to it and all are willing participants, why should there be limit to the size of a marriage?

a reply to: MystikMushroom

except the fact that it is a precursor to re working the titles and set classifications of everything