for those wanting gay marriage...

[nick1985]

this is a serious question, where do you draw the line? if an activist group wanted to marry their dogs, would you let them? what if a bunch of people wanted to wed their cars, would you let them? your argument, that we should not discriminate, applies here, does it not?

 

[yllus]

This is a really dumb question. First, refresh in your own mind the definition of what's required to complete a contract.

Heterosexual adult marrying a heterosexual adult = Two sentient beings coming to a meeting of the minds to marry. Both parties are considered persons in the eyes of the law. No problem.

Homosexual adult marrying a homosexual adult = Two sentient beings coming to a meeting of the minds to marry. Both parties are considered persons in the eyes of the law. No problem.

Heterosexual adult marrying a dog = One sentient being, one dog. Meetings of the minds? No. Both parties are NOT considered persons in the eyes of the law. Problem.

Heterosexual adult marrying a car = One sentient being, one car. Meetings of the minds? No. Both parties are NOT considered persons in the eyes of the law. Problem.

I and many others are for allowing a person in the eyes of the law - who is otherwise allowed to drink, smoke or join the military and die for their country - to choose to be with anyone they wish. Simple.

 

[Kadarin]

yllus has it right; it's about informed consent.

 

[rickn]

most of us are already married to our computers.

But no, it's a silly notion that someone would marry something non-human such as a dog. No marriage to anything that cannot consent, or sign their own name

I'm not for the term "marriage" being used for anything but hetero church weddings. The word marriage creates to much contention.

 

[nick1985]

good post yllus


:thumbsup:

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
yllus has it right; it's about informed consent.

wow that pretty much sums it up. yllus nailed it on the first try.

next!

 

[yllus]

*nods at Astaroth* So you venture into this cesspool occasionally too, huh?

Of all the anti-gay marriage arguments, this is by far the weakest. It makes absolutely no logical sense whatsoever. In Canada we're preparing to introduce a federal bill to allow gay marriage. The same bill will allow any church to opt out of having to perform a gay marriage by its own discretion. While marriage may be a hallmark of modern religions, it is not today a religious-only tradition. Isn't the idea that you may have a "real" marriage approved by your church enough?

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: yllus
*nods at Astaroth* So you venture into this cesspool occasionally too, huh?

Of all the anti-gay marriage arguments, this is by far the weakest. It makes absolutely no logical sense whatsoever. In Canada we're preparing to introduce a federal bill to allow gay marriage. The same bill will allow any church to opt out of having to perform a gay marriage by its own discretion. While marriage may be a hallmark of modern religions, it is not today a religious-only tradition. Isn't the idea that you may have a "real" marriage approved by your church enough?

So what is the strongest anti-gay marriage argument, in your mind?

 

[rickn]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: yllus
*nods at Astaroth* So you venture into this cesspool occasionally too, huh?

Of all the anti-gay marriage arguments, this is by far the weakest. It makes absolutely no logical sense whatsoever. In Canada we're preparing to introduce a federal bill to allow gay marriage. The same bill will allow any church to opt out of having to perform a gay marriage by its own discretion. While marriage may be a hallmark of modern religions, it is not today a religious-only tradition. Isn't the idea that you may have a "real" marriage approved by your church enough?

So what is the strongest anti-gay marriage argument, in your mind?

probably issues such as siblings marrying each other, incestuous relationships and marriage. Homosexuality is considered abnormal -- not the love, just the behaviour. It's impossible to seperate the two though. In the end for most humans, love triumphs.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: alchemize
So what is the strongest anti-gay marriage argument, in your mind?

Logically, nothing. There is no reason two consenting adults may not do whatever they want to each other (ideally).

In America? It's an issue of minority vs. majority and which you think should triumph in this case.

Abraham Lincoln: "Government by the people, of the people, and for the people." The Founding Fathers created a government where the majority rules.

Thomas Jefferson to James Madison: "It is my principle that the will of the majority should always prevail. If they approve the proposed convention in all parts, I shall concur in it cheerfully, in hopes that they will amend it whenever they shall find it works wrong."

I think it's pretty clear that the majority of Americans - not just Republicans but a huge number of Democrats as well - are against gay marriage. We define the laws of today by what society deems is appropriate. Should we not accept that gay marriage is currently not something society is willing to accept?

Then there's:

United States Constitution 1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ... and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Under the logic that two adults can do whatever they want, forcing marriage to follow the lines of what a few religion idealize the concept to be is pretty close to having the government endorse one religion over the populace. So really, no easy answers.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: alchemize
So what is the strongest anti-gay marriage argument, in your mind?

Logically, nothing. There is no reason two consenting adults may not do whatever they want to each other (ideally).

Why only two? By your logic, wouldn't three or more consenting adults be allowed to enter into a multi-party marriage (forgot the sociological name for that sort of marriage)?

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: alchemize
So what is the strongest anti-gay marriage argument, in your mind?

Logically, nothing. There is no reason two consenting adults may not do whatever they want to each other (ideally).

Why only two? By your logic, wouldn't three or more consenting adults be allowed to enter into a multi-party marriage (forgot the sociological name for that sort of marriage)?

so what?

 

[OrByte]

its called poligamy (sp?)

dumb idea. But some people out in Utah still practice it I think.

 

[shrumpage]

deleted text: see below

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: yllus
This is a really dumb question. First, refresh in your own mind the definition of what's required to complete a contract.

Heterosexual adult marrying a heterosexual adult = Two sentient beings coming to a meeting of the minds to marry. Both parties are considered persons in the eyes of the law. No problem.

Homosexual adult marrying a homosexual adult = Two sentient beings coming to a meeting of the minds to marry. Both parties are considered persons in the eyes of the law. No problem.

Heterosexual adult marrying a dog = One sentient being, one dog. Meetings of the minds? No. Both parties are NOT considered persons in the eyes of the law. Problem.

Heterosexual adult marrying a car = One sentient being, one car. Meetings of the minds? No. Both parties are NOT considered persons in the eyes of the law. Problem.

I and many others are for allowing a person in the eyes of the law - who is otherwise allowed to drink, smoke or join the military and die for their country - to choose to be with anyone they wish. Simple.

According to PETA - Turkeys are "sentient" beings. 😉

CsG

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: yllus
This is a really dumb question. First, refresh in your own mind the definition of what's required to complete a contract.

Heterosexual adult marrying a heterosexual adult = Two sentient beings coming to a meeting of the minds to marry. Both parties are considered persons in the eyes of the law. No problem.

Homosexual adult marrying a homosexual adult = Two sentient beings coming to a meeting of the minds to marry. Both parties are considered persons in the eyes of the law. No problem.

Heterosexual adult marrying a dog = One sentient being, one dog. Meetings of the minds? No. Both parties are NOT considered persons in the eyes of the law. Problem.

Heterosexual adult marrying a car = One sentient being, one car. Meetings of the minds? No. Both parties are NOT considered persons in the eyes of the law. Problem.

I and many others are for allowing a person in the eyes of the law - who is otherwise allowed to drink, smoke or join the military and die for their country - to choose to be with anyone they wish. Simple.

According to PETA - Turkeys are "sentient" beings. 😉

CsG

yeah I hear turkeys consenting to marriage everyday!

*CLUCK!*



😛

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: yllus
This is a really dumb question. First, refresh in your own mind the definition of what's required to complete a contract.

Heterosexual adult marrying a heterosexual adult = Two sentient beings coming to a meeting of the minds to marry. Both parties are considered persons in the eyes of the law. No problem.

Homosexual adult marrying a homosexual adult = Two sentient beings coming to a meeting of the minds to marry. Both parties are considered persons in the eyes of the law. No problem.

Heterosexual adult marrying a dog = One sentient being, one dog. Meetings of the minds? No. Both parties are NOT considered persons in the eyes of the law. Problem.

Heterosexual adult marrying a car = One sentient being, one car. Meetings of the minds? No. Both parties are NOT considered persons in the eyes of the law. Problem.

I and many others are for allowing a person in the eyes of the law - who is otherwise allowed to drink, smoke or join the military and die for their country - to choose to be with anyone they wish. Simple.

Sexual orentation isn't a factor when it comes to marriage, its gender.

 

[Cobalt]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: yllus
This is a really dumb question. First, refresh in your own mind the definition of what's required to complete a contract.

Heterosexual adult marrying a heterosexual adult = Two sentient beings coming to a meeting of the minds to marry. Both parties are considered persons in the eyes of the law. No problem.

Homosexual adult marrying a homosexual adult = Two sentient beings coming to a meeting of the minds to marry. Both parties are considered persons in the eyes of the law. No problem.

Heterosexual adult marrying a dog = One sentient being, one dog. Meetings of the minds? No. Both parties are NOT considered persons in the eyes of the law. Problem.

Heterosexual adult marrying a car = One sentient being, one car. Meetings of the minds? No. Both parties are NOT considered persons in the eyes of the law. Problem.

I and many others are for allowing a person in the eyes of the law - who is otherwise allowed to drink, smoke or join the military and die for their country - to choose to be with anyone they wish. Simple.

According to PETA - Turkeys are "sentient" beings. 😉

CsG

Well who listens to PETA? Their brains have been deprived of meat for so long, how could you believe anything they say? 😉

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: nick1985
this is a serious question, where do you draw the line? if an activist group wanted to marry their dogs, would you let them? what if a bunch of people wanted to wed their cars, would you let them? your argument, that we should not discriminate, applies here, does it not?

Who says we have a to draw a line? You can't marry your daughter because of genetics, we already have enough retards in this world.


Lets assume a Son wants to marry his dad. In honestly, why should I care? If no one is getting hurt, why should I care? If its not hurting me, why should I care how someone lives their own personal life?

This can be applied to just gay couples in general. The fact is it really doens't hurt me when to gay people get married, why should I care?

 

[nick1985]

so 10% of P&N believes people should be able to marry non-human objects. any of these people care to explain their arguments?

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: yllus
This is a really dumb question. First, refresh in your own mind the definition of what's required to complete a contract.

Heterosexual adult marrying a heterosexual adult = Two sentient beings coming to a meeting of the minds to marry. Both parties are considered persons in the eyes of the law. No problem.

Homosexual adult marrying a homosexual adult = Two sentient beings coming to a meeting of the minds to marry. Both parties are considered persons in the eyes of the law. No problem.

Heterosexual adult marrying a dog = One sentient being, one dog. Meetings of the minds? No. Both parties are NOT considered persons in the eyes of the law. Problem.

Heterosexual adult marrying a car = One sentient being, one car. Meetings of the minds? No. Both parties are NOT considered persons in the eyes of the law. Problem.

I and many others are for allowing a person in the eyes of the law - who is otherwise allowed to drink, smoke or join the military and die for their country - to choose to be with anyone they wish. Simple.

Cats can own property... And marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman right? If you can change the definition of marriage, well, you can change who can get married, or what can get married. You can even change it to not require a contract.

definition of marriage: sprinkle rice on objects you wish to be married and they shall be married.

You can do whatever you like once you start changing laws.

"I'm an amendment to be, yes an amendment to be
and I hope that they will ratify me
There are lots of flag burners
who've got too much freedom
so I wanna make it legal for policemen to beat them..."

😀

 

[judasmachine]

The Greeks, the Romans, and even the American Indian had no problem with homosexuals, why do we? It's apparently been around since the beginning of time, and will be around till the end of time.

 

[Yo Ma Ma]

Originally posted by: nick1985
this is a serious question, where do you draw the line?

Well, how about line = consenting adults?

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: nick1985
so 10% of P&N believes people should be able to marry non-human objects. any of these people care to explain their arguments?

I don't the goverment should be involved in your personal life at all.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: yllus
This is a really dumb question. First, refresh in your own mind the definition of what's required to complete a contract.

Heterosexual adult marrying a heterosexual adult = Two sentient beings coming to a meeting of the minds to marry. Both parties are considered persons in the eyes of the law. No problem.

Homosexual adult marrying a homosexual adult = Two sentient beings coming to a meeting of the minds to marry. Both parties are considered persons in the eyes of the law. No problem.

Heterosexual adult marrying a dog = One sentient being, one dog. Meetings of the minds? No. Both parties are NOT considered persons in the eyes of the law. Problem.

Heterosexual adult marrying a car = One sentient being, one car. Meetings of the minds? No. Both parties are NOT considered persons in the eyes of the law. Problem.

I and many others are for allowing a person in the eyes of the law - who is otherwise allowed to drink, smoke or join the military and die for their country - to choose to be with anyone they wish. Simple.

According to PETA - Turkeys are "sentient" beings. 😉

CsG

common now you can argue for any kind of oxymoron / idiocy using "well according to PETA... " 😉