Same sex marriage

[SMOGZINN]

I wouldn't go so far as to say that.

Marriage serves a lot of purposes in society.

None that couldn't be accomplished with a general contract. The problem is that sort of contract would be complex and probably require a lawyer to draw up even for a standard couple. This is probably out of reach for a large portion of our population who are not wealthy enough or smart enough to accomplish this. To serve society's purposes it needs to be simple.

Marriage is the solution. It greatly simplifies the process by creating a standard contract that everyone must agree on. The real question we are talking about is if, and how, we want to modify that standard contract. Unfortunately a bunch of people are getting all caught up with the name of the contract and making it hard to argue the specific clauses it contains.

 

[nageov3t]

I wouldn't go so far as to say that.

Marriage serves a lot of purposes in society.

my ideal would be "civil unions" for everyone, and leave marriage as a religious ceremony that the government has no control over/recognition of out signed of a civil union certificate... not going to happen, though, so may as well have marriage equality.

 

[nehalem256]

Except, said woman shows up with A VALID DRIVERS LICENSE FROM THE STATE which gives her the right to drive, not some "choice" she made.

What is your point?

Are you really trying to argue that forcing people to sell cars to women isn't forcing people to sell cars to women?

Nope, they allow for both equally. In their eyes a homosexual is similar to transgenderism. It is a cultural effect driven by religious belief, so does not have to make sense. But it answers you question nicely.

Well if you are transphobic maybe you have a point.

A nation that allows homosexual marriage that is not Christian.

Except it doesn't. It allows transgender people to marry based on their gender identity instead of biological sex.

 

[nehalem256]

I wouldn't go so far as to say that.

Marriage serves a lot of purposes in society.

Besides tradition why should your live in sex buddy inherit your things or make medical decisions for you?

 

[JulesMaximus]

my ideal would be "civil unions" for everyone, and leave marriage as a religious ceremony that the government has no control over/recognition of out signed of a civil union certificate... not going to happen, though, so may as well have marriage equality.

I have no problem allowing gay couples to marry.

FTR-I'm a straight guy who is married. Gay marriage has no effect whatsoever on my marriage.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Except it doesn't. It allows transgender people to marry based on their gender identity instead of biological sex.

No, as I have already said, twice now, they do not require the people to be of different genders to marry.

 

[z1ggy]

What is your point?

Are you really trying to argue that forcing people to sell cars to women isn't forcing people to sell cars to women?



Well if you are transphobic maybe you have a point.



Except it doesn't. It allows transgender people to marry based on their gender identity instead of biological sex.

.... Uh... no? My point is that if somebody has the legal right to purchase something, you as a business owner can't refuse service to them because they are a woman. The woman isn't "forcing her beliefs" on anybody because she doesn't have to believe she has the right to drive. The state has told her she has one. There is no guessing.

But this is a stupid analogy anyway, as you can't refute whether or not being a woman is natural. Your whole argument if I'm not mistaken is that you can & should be allowed to refuse services,-including marriage- to gays simply because you do not think it is natural ( and it's gross to boot).

And I'll guess you got this idea from a 2,000 year old book that Father Ron preached about every Sunday to you? Or did you just grow up with hate, fear and intolerance in the home?

 

[MrPickins]

Besides tradition why should your live in sex buddy inherit your things or make medical decisions for you?

The same reason my wife should be able to do those things? :hmm:

Why shouldn't a same-sex partner be able to do either of those?

 

[soulcougher73]

Except it isn't a civil rights issue. There is no right to same-sex marriage. It is an invented concept. You can't pull something out of your ass and call it a right.

And even same-sex marriage supporters basically admit this. By claiming that gays are being discriminated against by traditional marriage they are flat out admitting that sex is central to the idea of marriage. Anyone with a modicum of sense can see why heterosexual relationships are, and always have been, regarded differently by society than homosexual ones.

OMG the fail is so strong. My head hurts now.

 

[soulcougher73]

To see how stupid this argument is. Name one country of a non-traditionally christian religion that has legal same-sex marriage :hmm:

So lets stick to the stupid is as stupid does model?

 

[MrPickins]

None that couldn't be accomplished with a general contract. The problem is that sort of contract would be complex and probably require a lawyer to draw up even for a standard couple. This is probably out of reach for a large portion of our population who are not wealthy enough or smart enough to accomplish this. To serve society's purposes it needs to be simple.

Marriage is the solution. It greatly simplifies the process by creating a standard contract that everyone must agree on. The real question we are talking about is if, and how, we want to modify that standard contract. Unfortunately a bunch of people are getting all caught up with the name of the contract and making it hard to argue the specific clauses it contains.

Exactly. Marriage is the pre-formed contract that simplifies a lot of really complex legal issues.

my ideal would be "civil unions" for everyone, and leave marriage as a religious ceremony that the government has no control over/recognition of out signed of a civil union certificate... not going to happen, though, so may as well have marriage equality.

This is where we get into semantics.

IMO, there is no difference between a civil union and a marriage, so there's no point in distinguishing them with separate labels.

 

[nehalem256]

.... Uh... no? My point is that if somebody has the legal right to purchase something, you as a business owner can't refuse service to them because they are a woman. The woman isn't "forcing her beliefs" on anybody because she doesn't have to believe she has the right to drive. The state has told her she has one. There is no guessing.

But this is a stupid analogy anyway, as you can't refute whether or not being a woman is natural. Your whole argument if I'm not mistaken is that you can & should be allowed to refuse services,-including marriage- to gays simply because you do not think it is natural ( and it's gross to boot).

And I'll guess you got this idea from a 2,000 year old book that Father Ron preached about every Sunday to you? Or did you just grow up with hate, fear and intolerance in the home?

Are you really saying that having a law passed requiring a business to sell cars to women is not forcing your belief on the car dealership?

The same reason my wife should be able to do those things? :hmm:

Why shouldn't a same-sex partner be able to do either of those?

Pretty sure my wording was gender neutral buddy.

Again, why, beyond tradition, why is there any connection between your live in sex buddy and inheritance, making medical decisions, etc.

 

[nehalem256]

No, as I have already said, twice now, they do not require the people to be of different genders to marry.

source? The only source I ever saw on this issue was purely about transgendered individuals.

 

[nehalem256]

OMG the fail is so strong. My head hurts now.

So you don't see why heterosexual and homosexual relationships are different with regards to sex?D:

 

[z1ggy]

Are you really saying that having a law passed requiring a business to sell cars to women is not forcing your belief on the car dealership?



Pretty sure my wording was gender neutral buddy.

Again, why, beyond tradition, why is there any connection between your live in sex buddy and inheritance, making medical decisions, etc.

Yes, I am. Because the court is the one mandating it. And I don't know where you are getting this whole "belief" thing from. Being a woman (or gay) is not a belief.

The "belief" in your mind is the belief that a woman thinks she can drive. But if she shows up, with a license to operate a car, then she can drive. There is no belief, there is just fact.

In your weird little world of straws where women aren't given drivers licenses and she shows up demanding to be sold a car, then sure, I can agree with you.

Except unfortunately for you, courts have already legalized women to drive. I think you'll be whining and bitching about this to your grave.

 

[MrPickins]

Pretty sure my wording was gender neutral buddy.

As was my response. Sorry if it confused you when I referred to my spouse as my wife, it's just due to the fact that she's a woman...

Again, why, beyond tradition, why is there any connection between your live in sex buddy and inheritance, making medical decisions, etc.

So you're against heterosexual marriage as well, then?

So you don't see why heterosexual and homosexual relationships are different with regards to sex?D:

They're not nearly as different as you make them out to be. It's just people who are attracted to each other having sex. Who cares if it's penis-in-vagina sex or not?

 

[soulcougher73]

Besides tradition why should your live in sex buddy inherit your things or make medical decisions for you?

You talking hetro or homo? Opps my bad what you said applies to both. Sorry.

 

[soulcougher73]

So you don't see why heterosexual and homosexual relationships are different with regards to sex?D:

Nothing that is important. How is baby formed is not a reason to care about.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Besides tradition why should your live in sex buddy inherit your things or make medical decisions for you?

Because you want them to and it is an option available to other couples involved in relationships that are analogous in all respects except gender.

 

[Retro Rob]

They're not nearly as different as you make them out to be. It's just people who attracted to each other having sex. Who cares if it's penis-in-vagina sex or not?

It matters given the fact that gay men are not known at all to be monogamous.

When you do the equivalent of sticking your penis in black water and then wanting to put that inside another person, you'd bet it matters.

And, I am surprised that idiots like you cannot discern the difference between function (a vagina used to birth kids, discard urine, and for sexual intercourse) and purpose (an anus' sole purpose is to HOLD and DISCARD fecal waste).

You may as well stick your penis in a sewage pipe.

 

[nehalem256]

Yes, I am. Because the court is the one mandating it. And I don't know where you are getting this whole "belief" thing from. Being a woman (or gay) is not a belief.

The "belief" in your mind is the belief that a woman thinks she can drive. But if she shows up, with a license to operate a car, then she can drive. There is no belief, there is just fact.

In your weird little world of straws where women aren't given drivers licenses and she shows up demanding to be sold a car, then sure, I can agree with you.

Except unfortunately for you, courts have already legalized women to drive. I think you'll be whining and bitching about this to your grave.

The government allowing you to drive. And purchasing a car are 2 entirely separate things.

As was my response. Sorry if it confused you when I referred to my spouse as my wife, it's just due to the fact that she's a woman...

So you're against heterosexual marriage as well, then?

You are the one claiming that marriage solves all sorts of important problems. I am asking you to defend that.

Apparently you can't.

And I am not opposed to heterosexual marriage because I don't believe that marriage exists to determine who makes medical decisions for you. That was your claim.

They're not nearly as different as you make them out to be. It's just people who are attracted to each other having sex. Who cares if it's penis-in-vagina sex or not?

You mean besides societies across the world for 1000s of years?

 

[nehalem256]

Nothing that is important. How is baby formed is not a reason to care about.

Sorry. But children are awfully important to a society.

Because you want them to and it is an option available to other couples involved in relationships that are analogous in all respects except gender.

So you can't answer the question either.

Sounds like marriage isn't actually solving any problems then according to your beliefs.

 

[soulcougher73]

It matters given the fact that gay men are not known at all to be monogamous.

Im so glad hetros never have that problem.

 

[soulcougher73]

You mean besides societies across the world for 1000s of years?

Were still sticking to the stupid is as stupid does argument?

"Well if everyone else jumped off a bridge would you?" Is what this boils down to.

 

[Retro Rob]

Im so glad hetros never have that problem.

You totally missed my point.