Am I a bigot?

originally posted by: EternalSolace
Your argument is still about a title and not the benefits.

Marriage is not a "title". It's a word that has several meanings. One of them is a secular contract offered by the government.

a reply to: EternalSolace

You should do a little Q&A with every straight married couple you ever come into contact with and see if they agree that their bondage of Love, ratified and accepted by the World, as a show of connection between soul mates... is "just a title"...



& I'm sure you will be laughed at heartily for such nonsense!

a reply to: Krazysh0t

it matters because your changing working titles and set descriptions of things.

originally posted by: American-philosopher
a reply to: Krazysh0t

it matters because your changing working titles and set descriptions of things.

Set by who? Why are they necessarily set in stone? Last I checked, language is always evolving, which means our definitions are always evolving. So I see nothing wrong with changing a word with the times.

originally posted by: American-philosopher
it matters because your changing working titles and set descriptions of things.

Things change. Many times, for the better. It's nothing to fear. If there IS something to fear, what is it? What are you afraid of?

As I've said, my definition of marriage is different from yours. Would you deny me my marriage because of YOUR definition?

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I could have sworn I answered you. I would not deny you marriage because you can't have children or choose not to have children.

and what would you mean define my marriage as if saying my marriage was a success or the meaning of my marriage>??

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I really don't think it matters. I'm personally against gay marriage. But at the same time, I really don't care. If a gay or lesbian couple want to get married, go for it. It's not my business. Let them have the same benefits and such. Does not matter.

My proposal, one would think, should satisfy everyone. Marriage is still intact for those whom believe it's between a man and woman. A civil union is intact for those whom believe it should be open for all.

Why is that title of marriage so important if the same benefits are extended to a civil union?

The only thing to fear is clown-zombies.

If you feared gay clown zombies, then you'd just be a hater.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: American-philosopher

As long as you get government benefits (ex: tax breaks) from being married, it isn't a privilege. It's a right. Decouple marriage from the government and then maybe we can talk, but for now all need to be included.

Though restricting privileges is just as bigoted as restricting rights. Why should something as simple as who you love restrict you from a privilege?

I'm confused, is it a right or a privilege? I would say it's a privilege, simply based on common-law marriages still being recognized.

The logical fallacies and false equivalences being bandied around in this thread have given me much entertainment!!!

So far I've seen comparisons to rape, murder & slavery...



Carry on!

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: EternalSolace

You should do a little Q&A with every straight married couple you ever come into contact with and see if they agree that their bondage of Love, ratified and accepted by the World, as a show of connection between soul mates... is "just a title"...



& I'm sure you will be laughed at heartily for such nonsense!

Does that mean that a gay couple married by a civil union has any less of a bondage of love, that's ratified and accepted by the world, as a show of connection between soul mates?

Titles people...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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?

why should there be a limit to the size of a marriage? this is specifically why we need to have this conversation.

a reply to: EternalSolace

Because by making two titles that bestow the same benefits, you are making things unnecessarily complicated. Especially when you could accomplish the same thing with a singular title and just tell the people not ok with gay marriage to eff off since restricting rights or privileges from other humans is unconstitutional.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: EternalSolace
Your argument is still about a title and not the benefits.

Marriage is not a "title". It's a word that has several meanings. One of them is a secular contract offered by the government.

A civil union is a secular contract offered by the government. Only a civil union doesn't carry federal benefits. Why not extend the federal benefits to civil unions?

originally posted by: American-philosopher
and what would you mean define my marriage as if saying my marriage was a success or the meaning of my marriage>??

Yeah, the meaning of your marriage. What if I tried to say that my definition of marriage should apply to everyone? The details don't matter. My point is, WHO defines your marriage?

a reply to: IntroduceALittleIrony

I don't really care what you call it. It shouldn't be restricted from a group of people for an arbitrary reason.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

in your idea of marriage would it be okay if you had the combination of two men and 3 women in one marriage together??

originally posted by: American-philosopher

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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?

why should there be a limit to the size of a marriage? this is specifically why we need to have this conversation.

Is there something wrong with 3 or more people getting married if they all want to get married?

originally posted by: American-philosopher
a reply to: Krazysh0t

in your idea of marriage would it be okay if you had the combination of two men and 3 women in one marriage together??

If they are all consenting adults and are happy, I don't give a damn what they do or call their relationship. It's not my business, nor do I want it to be.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't think complication is an issue. Civil Unions and Marriage are already in place. If the government can extend healthcare benefits. The government can extend marriage benefits.