-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
for those wanting gay marriage...
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
So much for the theory that there are no dumb questions. :roll:
yllus
Elite Member & Lifer
Word. According to NAMBLA, grown men should be able to fondle little boys. The majority thinks otherwise. 😛
My oversight - I didn't think people would be picking at my wording. 😛 Sure, if two-plus consenting adults want to get hitched together, let 'em. I know that Islam technically allows the marriage of one man to multiple women anyways (but not one woman to multiple men).
I believe they eat meat regularly, its just that they prefer others not to so their will be more meat for the meat lovers. 🙂
Peta is all about raising money to buy more meat rather then saving animals from being eaten. They are scam artist who bites more then they can chew.
Their is never enough meat for everyone that's why their is fish, crab, shrimp, oyster as well and even dog meat in Asia due to lack of chickens, pigs, and cows. Proof that if that less people eat meat, then their will be more available for others who crave it most.
Meat, its what for dinner tonight 😉
Did you know that only peasants were allowed to eat vegetable in ancient times? Only the nobles were worthy of eating meat.
This sounds like a slipperly slope argument, "where do we draw the line" and all that. From what I can see in this thread, some people at least seem to think that if gay marriage is legalized, then why not polygamy, or incest, or marrying your dog, or your car? This comes up every single time gay marriage is discussed and it's just as invalid an argument this time as it was the last 6 dozen times it was put forward.
Here's the problem, everyone has their own line, and the people who think gay marriage (and nothing else) should be changed to be legal draw the line EXACTLY THE SAME WAY the people who think only "regular" marriage should be allowed. All the situations are different, but I don't think very many people approve of gay marriage because they think all kinds of marriage should be legal. Asking why they don't think all kinds of marriage should be legal (after all, they think gay marriage should be legal) is silly. After all, YOU think one kind of marriage should be legal, while others remain illegal, so why can't they?
Here's the problem, everyone has their own line, and the people who think gay marriage (and nothing else) should be changed to be legal draw the line EXACTLY THE SAME WAY the people who think only "regular" marriage should be allowed. All the situations are different, but I don't think very many people approve of gay marriage because they think all kinds of marriage should be legal. Asking why they don't think all kinds of marriage should be legal (after all, they think gay marriage should be legal) is silly. After all, YOU think one kind of marriage should be legal, while others remain illegal, so why can't they?
Commodus
Diamond Member
I remember well what former Canadian prime minister Pierre Trudeau said: "the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation."
It's really as simple as that. If they're a consenting adult and no serious harm is done, it shouldn't be illegal. It may not be moral in the eyes of some, but personal religious conviction shouldn't be forced upon others on a state level. After all, even if you seriously believe in encouraging a moral lifestyle, how can someone act out of genuine belief against their will?
It's really as simple as that. If they're a consenting adult and no serious harm is done, it shouldn't be illegal. It may not be moral in the eyes of some, but personal religious conviction shouldn't be forced upon others on a state level. After all, even if you seriously believe in encouraging a moral lifestyle, how can someone act out of genuine belief against their will?
i'm interested in hearing why you think interracial marriage is ok, but homosexual marriage is not. or do you think interracial marriage should be illegal too?
the problem with marrying cars and dogs is that our laws are based on people, not animals or objects. if you kick the tires of your car, would you be guilty of domestic violence? what happens when you die, does all your money go to your car? just wouldn't work.
[/quote]
the problem with marrying cars and dogs is that our laws are based on people, not animals or objects. if you kick the tires of your car, would you be guilty of domestic violence? what happens when you die, does all your money go to your car? just wouldn't work.[/quote]
That's funny.
I think what's important to recognize in this argument is that I'm right and everybody else is wrong.
the problem with marrying cars and dogs is that our laws are based on people, not animals or objects. if you kick the tires of your car, would you be guilty of domestic violence? what happens when you die, does all your money go to your car? just wouldn't work.[/quote]
That's funny.
I think what's important to recognize in this argument is that I'm right and everybody else is wrong.
CycloWizard
Lifer
The Greeks and Romans accepted homosexuality without allowing homosexual marriages. Were they bigots? Was their reasoning faith-based as people here claim all arguments against homosexual marriages must be?
Yllus, if you want to allow any consenting adults to marry, then you must be willing to allow incest, correct? After all, both me and my sister are above the age of consent, so we should be able to do as we see fit.
Well, marriages served a very different societal sole in those ancient mediteranian cultures. I'm not sure it is even legitimate to compare the contemporary and ancient institutions of marriage in the way you are doing, I think you would be engaging in a fallacy of equivocation. Worlds apart.
NarcoticHobo
Senior member
Aye, that he would. Marriage back then was more of a financial arrangement, or an agreement between families. It's sort of like permanent roomates that make babies.
If there are indeed brother-sister couples (or brother-brother couples, sister-sister couples) chomping at the bit to marry, then that is something worth talking about. To date, tho, I have not encountered such a couple (IRL, or in media) seeking to marry. At any rate, legalisation of marriage for close genetic relatives is an entirely separate issue to that of legalization of same-sex marriage. A gay marriage thread isn't the place for such a discussion, imo. Check your 'slippery slop' at the door, m8. 🙂
NarcoticHobo
Senior member
There is a legitimate reason to ban incestual marriage, as it causes genetic problems. Whereas with Gay marriage the only negative aspect I have heard is that it damages our "moral structure"... honestly I doubt gay marriage is gonna make people more privy to stealing and murdering.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
