mcant Posted November 15, 2005 Share Posted November 15, 2005 It truley is grossly unfair to confine gay union's to a sterile shadow of heterosexual marriage. But isn't that exactly what it is? a sterile shadow? Marriage is family. children etc its not just mortgage rebates and a tax break As for longevity of relationships you'll get no arguement from me I'm divorced like most of my cousins. my uncle on the other hand has been with the same guy for over 40 years! though they aren't married they own their home in common and have mutually beneficial wills and have sorted everything out through legal channels already There are ways around most tax regulations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuages Posted November 15, 2005 Share Posted November 15, 2005 one question i have for those opposed is how would a pro same/sex marriage effect you in anyway??? I've never heard a reason ever from anyone, and would like to know. The only way i can see it affecting anyone is slight loss of tax dollars. Otherwise i can really only view it as selfishness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antipodean Posted November 15, 2005 Share Posted November 15, 2005 Yes marriage can be about family - and even children - but here's a hint for you... gay men make sperm too! And dykes have ovaries! Crazy huh? In any case... plenty of hetero marriages are childless, or involved adopted kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philly Posted November 15, 2005 Share Posted November 15, 2005 Marrige shouldnt be an issue that needs to be decided state by state etc.. Everyone makes choices and if they choose to get married who should stop them. THe whole thing im getting at is everything you do in life is about choices, and no one should have to make the choices for you regardless. If you choose to smoke a j, hell thats your choice, if you choose to have an abortion thats your choice, etc etc. I'm kinda glad i live in Canada....well cept they havnt full decriminalized ganga... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philly Posted November 15, 2005 Share Posted November 15, 2005 Oh and same sex marrige wont affect you in any way, unless your a homophobe on zanex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcant Posted November 15, 2005 Share Posted November 15, 2005 Oh and same sex marrige wont affect you in any way' date=' unless your a homophobe on zanex[/quote'] neither will marriage to sheep so why not allow that as welll? BTW You're is the correct contraction for you are Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuages Posted November 15, 2005 Share Posted November 15, 2005 Oh and same sex marrige wont affect you in any way' date=' unless your a homophobe on zanex[/quote'] neither will marriage to sheep so why not allow that as welll? Sure why not, why care if someone wants to marry a sheep, waste of time and money to dance around who can marry what. If someone wants to marry a sheep what ever. The big difference between same-sex marriage and sheep marriage though is that people of the same-sex will marry where as one or two idiots would marry a sheep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcant Posted November 15, 2005 Share Posted November 15, 2005 you've obviously never been to Northumberland you are now discriminating against a hell of a lot of hill farmers with big wellies! seriously though you see my point I hope. where do you stop? and actually marrying a sheep really wouldn't hurt anyone so why ban it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuages Posted November 15, 2005 Share Posted November 15, 2005 your just saying what i'm saying, it won't hurt anyone to marry a sheep, well it could tax wise, i mean people might start marrting sheep for tax reasons. Thats very different from what would occur in same sex marriages, which would mostly occur because of love. So do you think homosexuals and sheep should be grouped together? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcant Posted November 15, 2005 Share Posted November 15, 2005 dont be disgusting a human male and a female sheep is perfectly natural a shepherd and a ram is just totally unnatural! What kind of pervert do you think shepherds are??? (BTW if you are starting to suspect Im not taking this too seriously you might be right) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruk Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 So you are anti democracy then or is it only if you think the majority will disagree with you Anti-democracy? What a naive thing to say. You do realize that there is no pure democracy anywhere in the world do you? Always there are limits placed upon the tyranny of the majority. Look at the 1st amendment. Protections against the majority outlawing speech that might cause them uncomfort. Protections against the majority pushing a religion upon others. Protections allowing groups to assemble even though they may hold unpopular opinions. The second amendment certainly is doing its job currently, as there is a large sentiment of people who would want to outlaw guns. Likewise other amendments also protect people from the will of the majority. And gay marriage is no different, and should rightfully be protected under the 14th. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. So if the question is am I anti-democratic, the answer is a resounding YES. I believe in freedom, not tyranny, even if that tyranny is imposed by vote. Oh, and for all those so concerned that bestiality might result from gay marriage, I'm fully in favor of passing an amendment banning THAT. We can revisit the matter once animals voice their opinion on the matter and start protesting that their rights are being violated. :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostShadow Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 I think it's ridiculous that some people can marry while others are forbidden, simply because of their sexual orientation. (1) It is discriminatory & unequal treatment. (2) The U.S. is supposed to be a place of "to pursue happiness". If you're happy in a same-sex relationship, who is anyone else to tell say, "You can't do that." It's none of their business to tell other people how to seek happiness. (3) And to quote my favorite politician, "Whether my neighbor worships one god or many gods, matters not to me. It does not harm my my person, my property, nor my rights." Of course Thomas Jefferson was discussing religion, but the same applies to marriage: Whether my neighbor is heterosexual or homosexual, matters not to me. What they do in their home has NO affect on my person, my property, or my rights. Let them live their lives however they want. troy the United States consitution is some thing to be constured. With your line of logic about this you are saying that its wronge for ppl to be put in jail b/c they do not have the right to freedom, pursuit of happines, these are supposed to be un-alienable right, they are not to be takes away under ANY curcumstances. But i do agree, ppl should be able to get govenmet aproved bondages that have same benifits as marige, but dont call it a marige. Marige is a word of the Church. they decide who to marry. It was wronge of the Govenrmnt to start giving out mariages. "sepreation between church and state".... They can call it a "bondage" or "union of two" but not marige. and they should recive similar legal benifits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruk Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 Marige is a word of the Church. they decide who to marry. It was wronge of the Govenrmnt to start giving out mariages. Um, you've go that totally wrong. Marriage has always been a state function, for which various religions occassionally participate. In fact, it was far more often the case in the past that marriages (usually arranged) were practical matters done entirely for financial or legal benefit and had nothing to do with religion at all. Christianity for a long while only blessed a union, and didn't actually have a part in creating it. The Council of Trent changed the catholic practice, requiring a priest and two witness for the ceremony. Other religions of course treat marriage differently, but to say marriage is "just" a church word is ridiculous and totally wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philly Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 Other religions of course treat marriage differently, but to say marriage is "just" a church word is ridiculous and totally wrong. Yes but it seems that the church has adopted the word "marriage" and is their basis of fighting the term to be used on same sex couples.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philly Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 I wanted a menage a trois.....oh well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
howiepoohs Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 you've obviously never been to Northumberland you are now discriminating against a hell of a lot of hill farmers with big wellies! seriously though you see my point I hope. where do you stop? and actually marrying a sheep really wouldn't hurt anyone so why ban it? What if the sheep doesnt love you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruk Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 Yes but it seems that the church has adopted the word "marriage" and is their basis of fighting the term to be used on same sex couples.... A pretty poor basis then, if thats all it is. And I don't recall my gay friends giving up custody of the term either. ;) I have little patience with people who say "give them civil unions, but don't call it marriage". Thats political correctness and posturing at the highest levels. As ol' Shakespeare might say, if it looks like a rose... After all, even if it is only a "civil union", everyone involved will still say they are married, and not just "unionized". I'll just add it to my list of silly word games people play for political reasons, #1 on my list still being "One China". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philly Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 Honestly i dont see what the problem is it's a freakin WORD. As for political correctness, let me light a fire under whoever decided that this would benefit society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruk Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 Honestly i dont see what the problem is it's a freakin WORD. Not quite. It is an issue legally for gays (if ever its legalized). If its called "marriage", nothing needs to be changed in most laws. If its called a "civil union" and treated as something other than marriage, laws will need to be rewritten defining exactly what that is and what rights are associated with it. Much easier to deny equality by defining it as something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StitchInTime Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 What if the sheep doesnt love you? I'd probably get really depressed, and have to go on prozac. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now