What will be the next Great Progressive Cause™ now that same-sex marriage is common?

[lotus503]

all components are part of the deal on a marco level.

reproduction is fundamental to marriage in general.

You have to deny that to justify your beliefs'.

I don't have to deny it I just reject it as irrelevant, like any other outdated belief.

 

[chucky2]

Seems like a lot of details are left out of that, and it's not how I would define it, but I'm glad we've established what you're talking about finally.

You keep staying confused. Everyone prior to the gay 'marriage' debate understood (and to a large extent still understands) marriage to be between two parties of the opposite sex. This is a given. It is like saying lets define water...I don't need to say what the understanding of water is, Everyone knows its wet. It is only until you have a group that wants to include sand as part of waters understanding start whining and screaming as loud as possible that sheeple actually start considering maybe the understanding of water needs to be changed. I know you grasp this, why you remain obtuse on the subject is merely entertaining.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/marriage


http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage


Dictionary.com


UrbanDictionary


http://www.randomhistory.com/history-of-gay-marriage.html


I'll absolutely grant that several resources plainly state man and woman or people of opposite sex, but they are not universal or timeless.

Congrats. You found a bunch of current links compromised by current social politics that reference marriage. Now go back to 1940 before the gay 'marriage' issue ever came up and find sources that suggest marriage is not just between a man and woman but between also between men and men and women and women.

Chuck

 

[michal1980]

You keep staying confused. Everyone prior to the gay 'marriage' debate understood (and to a large extent still understands) marriage to be between two parties of the opposite sex. This is a given. It is like saying lets define water...I don't need to say what the understanding of water is, Everyone knows its wet. It is only until you have a group that wants to include sand as part of waters understanding start whining and screaming as loud as possible that sheeple actually start considering maybe the understanding of water needs to be changed. I know you grasp this, why you remain obtuse on the subject is merely entertaining.



Congrats. You found a bunch of current links compromised by current social politics that reference marriage. Now go back to 1940 before the gay 'marriage' issue ever came up and find sources that suggest marriage is not just between a man and woman but between also between men and men and women and women.

Chuck

They can't because the only sources they can use to support their stance are revisionist.

 

[jackstar7]

You keep staying confused. Everyone prior to the gay 'marriage' debate understood (and to a large extent still understands) marriage to be between two parties of the opposite sex. This is a given. It is like saying lets define water...I don't need to say what the understanding of water is, Everyone knows its wet. It is only until you have a group that wants to include sand as part of waters understanding start whining and screaming as loud as possible that sheeple actually start considering maybe the understanding of water needs to be changed. I know you grasp this, why you remain obtuse on the subject is merely entertaining.

Congrats. You found a bunch of current links compromised by current social politics that reference marriage. Now go back to 1940 before the gay 'marriage' issue ever came up and find sources that suggest marriage is not just between a man and woman but between also between men and men and women and women.

Chuck

Okay, for the sake of moving forward 'everyone' thinks marriage means heterosexual couple joined for the remainder of their lives.

Can you stop using your terrible analogies now? We don't define water as wet. And who gives a shit what people used to define it as when we now know it's H2O and we still call it water AND no one is confused by that better understanding.

I approach marriage the same way. It was always thought to be this one thing, and then we learned it could be better defined. The consensus was that marriage is between a man and woman, and now we know that it can be between two men or two women and it's still marriage. The only reason to use another word is to appease whiny traditionalists who are having their feelings hurt by life becoming just slightly more complex. Oh, and just out and out bigots.

 

[jackstar7]

They can't because the only sources they can use to support their stance are revisionist.

Also, the internet before 1940 was pretty bad. I think they only had 4bit modems back then.

 

[michal1980]

Okay, for the sake of moving forward 'everyone' thinks marriage means heterosexual couple joined for the remainder of their lives.

Can you stop using your terrible analogies now? We don't define water as wet. And who gives a shit what people used to define it as when we now know it's H2O and we still call it water AND no one is confused by that better understanding.

I approach marriage the same way. It was always thought to be this one thing, and then we learned it could be better defined. The consensus was that marriage is between a man and woman, and now we know that it can be between two men or two women and it's still marriage. The only reason to use another word is to appease whiny traditionalists who are having their feelings hurt by life becoming just slightly more complex. Oh, and just out and out bigots.

Ah gay marriage is now better?

There is no better definition. There is only the current one. And the twisted one that gays want it to mean.

Might as well start calling shit -roses, one day it might stick.

 

[nehalem256]

Ah gay marriage is now better?

There is no better definition. There is only the current one. And the twisted one that gays want it to mean.

Might as well start calling shit -roses, one day it might stick.

I would prefer calling shit chocolate. I mean then everyone could make there own chocolate!

That sounds awesome doesn't it?:hmm:

 

[michal1980]

I would prefer calling shit chocolate. I mean then everyone could make there own chocolate!

That sounds awesome doesn't it?:hmm:

It just different chocolate. But I don't choice to treat unequal chocolate differently.

 

[lotus503]

Ah gay marriage is now better?

There is no better definition. There is only the current one. And the twisted one that gays want it to mean.

Might as well start calling shit -roses, one day it might stick.

maybe, why don't you try it out and see? something tells me it wont go anywhere unlike gay marriage.

 

[mikeymikec]

I would prefer calling shit chocolate. I mean then everyone could make there own chocolate!

That sounds awesome doesn't it?:hmm:

So if gay people were allowed to get married, how would that affect you?

 

[nextJin]

I think what scares the hell out of most conservatives about this issue is that if gay marriage was universally allowed that somehow everyone would just up and be gay. Something tells me if the averages are 4% now? Maybe 5% that after it was legalized 2 decades later it would still be at......... 5%.

This is not something that is just ok to do because its cool or acceptable. Your born with it, spidey is not just going to up and be gay because its now socially acceptable and allowed by government.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I think what scares the hell out of most conservatives about this issue is that if gay marriage was universally allowed that somehow everyone would just up and be gay. Something tells me if the averages are 4% now? Maybe 5% that after it was legalized 2 decades later it would still be at......... 5%.

I wonder, could that really be what they are afraid of? It seems like something that's too silly to be afraid of. I suspect that what they are really afraid of is that society is rejecting their religious insanity. They are Christian Taliban sans long beards and turbans.

 

[nehalem256]

So if gay people were allowed to get married, how would that affect you?

Opposition to gay marriage is not about affecting me personally. It is about impact on society.

This is so blindingly obvious to anyone with a brain I don't know why I need to explain this to you.

But lets make it clear for some of our lefty friends:

If siblings were allowed to get married, how would that affect you?
If object-sexual people were allowed to get married, how would that affect you?
If polygamists were allowed to get married, how would that affect you?

Would you run out and get a polygamist marriage with your sister and toaster?

 

[jackstar7]

Opposition to gay marriage is not about affecting me personally. It is about impact on society.

This is so blindingly obvious to anyone with a brain I don't know why I need to explain this to you.

But lets make it clear for some of our lefty friends:

If siblings were allowed to get married, how would that affect you?
If object-sexual people were allowed to get married, how would that affect you?
If polygamists were allowed to get married, how would that affect you?

Would you run out and get a polygamist marriage with your sister and toaster?

Now explain how it affects society, since that was supposed to be your point...

 

[chucky2]

Okay, for the sake of moving forward 'everyone' thinks marriage means heterosexual couple joined for the remainder of their lives.

Well, everyone did understand this until gays started making it an issue. At that point you get sympathizers, gays, people with agendas, and sheeple jumping on the bandwagon that we need to change the definition of marriage. The push of course is to keep harping and whining until they get their way. Just like every other whining group now a days.

Can you stop using your terrible analogies now? We don't define water as wet. And who gives a shit what people used to define it as when we now know it's H2O and we still call it water AND no one is confused by that better understanding.

Why? It's a completely accurate and inclusive analogy when it comes to comparing straight marriage and gay 'marriage'. I realize why you want me to stop using it, and want to dismiss it, because it exposes just how F'd up the "logic" being used to include gay unions in the term marriage is.

I approach marriage the same way. It was always thought to be this one thing, and then we learned it could be better defined. The consensus was that marriage is between a man and woman, and now we know that it can be between two men or two women and it's still marriage. The only reason to use another word is to appease whiny traditionalists who are having their feelings hurt by life becoming just slightly more complex. Oh, and just out and out bigots.

But it's not "better" defined, it's simply wrongly defined. We don't change the context and meaning of the word tree to now include bushes. We have a word for bushes, it's, bushes, so that's what we use to refer to bushes. We don't call bushes trees because the bushes are mad they can't be included in the majestic tree category, and are instead regulated to being mere bushes.

The only reason to use the same word is appease whiny gays and their backers who are having their feelings hurt by life making them gay and this not straight. Oh, and just out and out whiners/politicalactivists/sympathizers.

Chuck

 

[thraashman]

You keep staying confused. Everyone prior to the gay 'marriage' debate understood (and to a large extent still understands) marriage to be between two parties of the opposite sex. This is a given. It is like saying lets define water...I don't need to say what the understanding of water is, Everyone knows its wet. It is only until you have a group that wants to include sand as part of waters understanding start whining and screaming as loud as possible that sheeple actually start considering maybe the understanding of water needs to be changed. I know you grasp this, why you remain obtuse on the subject is merely entertaining.



Congrats. You found a bunch of current links compromised by current social politics that reference marriage. Now go back to 1940 before the gay 'marriage' issue ever came up and find sources that suggest marriage is not just between a man and woman but between also between men and men and women and women.

Chuck

First, using the term everyone when clearly not everyone thinks with your narrow-minded view is insulting. I personally, post the age of about 14 which is when I grew up and stopped thinking of gay people as icky, have always thought of marriage as a permanent coupling of two loving adults for the purposes of making a life-long commitment.

Your analogy of water is not just poor, it's ignorant. A better analogy would be using the geocentric universe idea. For hundreds of years everyone knew[/] that the Earth was the center of the universe. As human understanding grew people began to think of the heliocentric model (we'll call that allowing interracial marriage), and understanding grew. Now as we become a more advanced society even the heliocentric model becomes outdated because it is also not correct (this is society understanding marriage can be between two people of the same sex). Just because in the past people believed something, doesn't mean they believed a right something. History is full of examples of humans believing something that was proven wrong. And the people that throughout history cling to those outdated and wrong ideas are always conservatives and the ones proving the truth are always liberals.

Now if you're going to make reference to how gay people were treated before 1940 perhaps you should remember that they also got tied behind cars and dragged to their deaths if they dared come out as gay. So that's not a point of reference that we should be happy as a society to hold up as a goal line.

 

[Incorruptible]

I wonder, could that really be what they are afraid of? It seems like something that's too silly to be afraid of. I suspect that what they are really afraid of is that society is rejecting their religious insanity. They are Christian Taliban sans long beards and turbans.

So again the internet tough guy goes after Christians but is too much of a coward to target other religions.

 

[WelshBloke]

 

[mikeymikec]

So again the internet tough guy goes after Christians but is too much of a coward to target other religions.

Unlike you, tough guy

 

[cliftonite]

This has already been discussed in this thread, and has already existed for thousands of years across multiple societies. It would really be easier for you to explain why we now need to pervert the context and meaning of marriage by excluding this already accepted requirement for a purely emo reason. So far you have completely failed to do that.



Chuck

I am sure millions of people have gotten married over thousands of years across multiple societies. So your definition of marriage has already been perverted.

 

[cliftonite]

You are asking me to provide links to what amounts to Billions of peoples collective understanding of what marriage is? It's marriage...it's what it always has been.

Please provide links running down how 2 males being 'married' is equal to 1 male 1 female being married. The burden is on you to prove the context and meaning of marriage must be changed to include gays, not on me to back up what thousands of years of multiple societies has long understood.

Basically I'm asking you to provide a link that shows pure water is the same as mud. Better get going on that, I think your search will be a long one...

Chuck

Marriage to me is a life long commitment between people who love each other. I see no reason why people of the same gender should be denied it.

 

[cliftonite]

You keep staying confused. Everyone prior to the gay 'marriage' debate understood (and to a large extent still understands) marriage to be between two parties of the opposite sex. This is a given. It is like saying lets define water...I don't need to say what the understanding of water is, Everyone knows its wet. It is only until you have a group that wants to include sand as part of waters understanding start whining and screaming as loud as possible that sheeple actually start considering maybe the understanding of water needs to be changed. I know you grasp this, why you remain obtuse on the subject is merely entertaining.



Congrats. You found a bunch of current links compromised by current social politics that reference marriage. Now go back to 1940 before the gay 'marriage' issue ever came up and find sources that suggest marriage is not just between a man and woman but between also between men and men and women and women.

Chuck

I am sure some states before 1940 had laws that prohibited interracial marriage and people of your ilk defended that definition.

 

[lotus503]

This whole idea that we need to justify equality is stupid, opponents need to justify not providing it, and have done a shitty job that's why it's moving forward.

The proof your biological arguments are weak is demonstrated by popular opinion in the face of the absurd arguments put forth by opponents.

Social constructs are not defined by biology, and the paranoid slippery slope references highlight another fact.

If you want to marry your sister or a pet rock you need only convince the majority of society to allow it.

Since they haven't, yet will allow gay marriage it demonstrates the slippery slope fallacy for what it is.

The last bastion of arguments from a segment of society the rest of us are leaving behind.

I'm sure it's a bitter pill, as demonstrated here.

 

[nehalem256]

Marriage to me is a life long commitment between people who love each other. I see no reason why people of the same gender should be denied it.

So I assume you oppose no-fault divorce.

And you support incestuous marriage and polygamy.

 

[nehalem256]

This whole idea that we need to justify equality is stupid, opponents need to justify not providing it, and have done a shitty job that's why it's moving forward.

The proof your biological arguments are weak is demonstrated by popular opinion in the face of the absurd arguments put forth by opponents.

Social constructs are not defined by biology, and the paranoid slippery slope references highlight another fact.

If you want to marry your sister or a pet rock you need only convince the majority of society to allow it.

Since they haven't, yet will allow gay marriage it demonstrates the slippery slope fallacy for what it is.

The last bastion of arguments from a segment of society the rest of us are leaving behind.

I'm sure it's a bitter pill, as demonstrated here.

You just contradicted yourself there.

You are all for people having to justify marriage equality when it comes to types of marriage you don't approve of.

This makes you both a bigot and a hypocrite.