Why not call gay marriage "garriage" and be done with it?

[dawp]

stop feeding the troll, I doubt nehalem256 actually believes half of what he posts. put it on ignore and maybe it will go away.

 

[Retro Rob]

Why not let people decide what they want to accept and be done with it?

It's funny how we are termed "homophobic" for not accepting homosexuality, when, for instance, the LBGT called and complained to the creators of Modern Family because the two male "partners" didn't kiss.

Lol, talking about forcing things on people and religious people coming to your homes, the gay community wants to do one better and put it on your television and call it "Modern Family". That's no everyone's idea of a modern family, but I guess we're being force to accept it.

They should stop forcing their stuff on people and they would get the same treatment.

 

[Retro Rob]

I guess they can do the same things religious people have been doing for years... putting it on TV and forcing it down your throats.

 

[nehalem256]

Furniture is not a person with the ability to make decisions, nor is it recognized by our constitution as having any specific rights, inalienable or otherwise.

When you run down the slippery slope so stupidly it colors your entire argument a very bright shade of Idiotic.

Of course 2 pieces of a furniture cannot marry. But if a person loves a piece of furniture and wants to marry it why shouldn't he be able to? How does it affect your marriage?

 

[dawp]

Of course 2 pieces of a furniture cannot marry. But if a person loves a piece of furniture and wants to marry it why shouldn't he be able to? How does it affect your marriage?

ok, troll, a piece of furniture can not give consent, it is not sentient being able to think for itself.(then again neither are you.)

same goes for all the other slipper slopes that have been used before such as animals, rocks, cars, or whatever.

 

[zsdersw]

Of course 2 pieces of a furniture cannot marry. But if a person loves a piece of furniture and wants to marry it why shouldn't he be able to? How does it affect your marriage?

It wouldn't, but since there's no way for the furniture to agree to being married it cannot be sanctioned by government.

 

[nehalem256]

ok, troll, a piece of furniture can not give consent, it is not sentient being able to think for itself.(then again neither are you.)

same goes for all the other slipper slopes that have been used before such as animals, rocks, cars, or whatever.

It wouldn't, but since there's no way for the furniture to agree to being married it cannot be sanctioned by government.

Why is consent relevant for marriage(at least for non-humans)? Other than that you bigotry requires it.

If a man wants to marry his couch you are in no way affected. Stop being furniturephobic.

 

[dawp]

fine, go marry your couch just remember there is no way in hell that I would sit on it afterwards.

 

[zsdersw]

Why is consent relevant for marriage(at least for non-humans)? Other than that you bigotry requires it.

If a man wants to marry his couch you are in no way affected. Stop being furniturephobic.

Consent is required for everything the government sanctions. Government's power (in a democracy) stems from the consent of the governed. Since furniture cannot give consent government laws, rights, and rules do not apply to it.

 

[nehalem256]

Consent is required for everything the government sanctions. Government's power (in a democracy) stems from the consent of the governed. Since furniture cannot give consent government laws, rights, and rules do not apply to it.

Corporations are non-human entities that sign contracts all the time. The owners (or their representatives) sign the contract on behalf of the corporation.

There is no reason that the owner of said piece of furniture could not sign a contract on behalf of the piece of furniture in the same way.

Why are you so deeply offended by the idea of man-sofa love? How does a man marrying his couch affect you?

 

[zsdersw]

Corporations are non-human entities that sign contracts all the time. The owners (or their representatives) sign the contract on behalf of the corporation.

There is no reason that the owner of said piece of furniture could not sign a contract on behalf of the piece of furniture in the same way.

Corporations are legal entities. Furniture is not. You'd first have to make furniture a legal entity recognized by government as having rights and responsibilities. That would be a significant hurdle, because while corporations are not a single person they are at least comprised of people; the only real reason they are legal entities with rights and responsibilities in the first place.

Why are you so deeply offended by the idea of man-sofa love? How does a man marrying his couch affect you?

I'm not. You're equating something with gay marriage that it cannot logically be equated to.

 

[nehalem256]

Corporations are legal entities. Furniture is not. You'd first have to make furniture a legal entity recognized by government as having rights and responsibilities. That would be a significant hurdle, because while corporations are not a single person they are at least comprised of people; the only real reason they are legal entities with rights and responsibilities in the first place.

So it should be possible to marry a corporation then?

I'm not. You're equating something with gay marriage that it cannot logically be equated to.

Funny, 30 years ago people would have laughed at the thought of gay marriage. The only difference is you have not been told for 10+ years that gay marriage is normal.

 

[zsdersw]

So it should be possible to marry a corporation then?

In some ways, it already is.

Funny, 30 years ago people would have laughed at the thought of gay marriage. The only difference is you have not been told for 10+ years that gay marriage is normal.

Lots of things have changed from 30 years ago. That's the way it works.

 

[thraashman]

There's no point in arguing with nehalem about gay marriage. He clearly believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman that is subservient to that man with limited rights who can be raped at her husband's convenience with no legal repercussions.

 

[dawp]

There's no point in arguing with nehalem about gay marriage. He clearly believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman that is subservient to that man with limited rights who can be raped at her husband's convenience with no legal repercussions.

I doubt that very much. I believe that it's just trolling to get a reaction, nothing more.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

In places were civil unions exist, there's tons of organizations/employers that won't recognize them. That's why separate but equal hasn't worked, and will never work. Creating separate systems inherently makes them unequal. That people come in and think Jim Crow for gays will surely work this time is laughable.

You keep calling it Jim Crow for gays, thus relying on the negative connotations of racial discrimination to further support your cause. However, you have failed to provide good arguments of why it wouldn't work in this specific case if laws were made such that any civil benefits/restrictions given marriage be also given to garriage.

A sticky issue I can think of is places where the homosexuals go to get garried. As a one off event, I believe it is sufficient to allow the free market to solve this issue. The government should not be involved.

This solution seems a lot more fair to everyone.

 

[zinfamous]

same thing with incest and homo bestiality. Who cares if two married homo brothers also wana marry their goats.

WTF is "homo bestiality?

did you renew your dose of retard pills, again?

 

[zinfamous]

I guess they can do the same things religious people have been doing for years... putting it on TV and forcing it down your throats.

No one is forcing anything on you when you have an independent choice to ignore that content.

Here's a hint--studios aren't going to produce content if they don't think it is going to sell. THings that make you uncomfortable or all "icky" inside are more vogue now because a majority of people like this content. And, of course, this can be for many reasons. I assume you and your ilk attribute it to some "gay agenda" nonsense, but here are the real reasons, all of them equally valid:

--We have become more engaged in this conversation, so people, in general, have become curious about these issues.
--The content appeals directly to gay audiences, and to audiences (young people), who understand these issues to be normal in today's world, and not some evil nefarious secret society out to eat babies
--The content is, well, probably good (there is bad out there, of course: anything and everything on Bravo). These issues are complex, and people absorb interesting drama. It won't sell if it isn't fresh, so writers and producers are constantly looking for fresh material to sell, invariably similar ideas over and over.

bottom line--if people didn't like this content and didn't vote with their viewing habits, it wouldn't be made. There is no gay cartel out there forcing their culture down your god-fearing throat. Your life and lifestyle are in no danger, saving for the steady march of social progress which, stubbornly, seems to always accompany humans throughout history. Shame for that, I guess.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pray To Jesus
Because marriage is already defined as between a man and woman.

Your argument is akin to redefining the word heterosexual to include gays and then calling gays heterosexual.

Just make a new word with a different definition, give it the same civil rights, and be done with it. I really don't see the problem with this route.

My dictionary has one definition: Religious ceremony; period. Go read your own bible, marriage is defined from start to finish as a property exchange but with rights to screw your wife's hand maiden (LOL) almost the same as (women no longer have to submit to rape by their husbands) in today's divorce court where it is ground down to its essentials.

If you can prove that the definition of marriage historically did not include marriage as being between a man and a women, then I will agree with using the word marriage for garriage.

If you cannot prove such a thing, then I see no reason to change the current definition of marriage. Instead, another word, such as garriage, should be used for that separate concept.

 

[jackstar7]

You keep calling it Jim Crow for gays, thus relying on the negative connotations of racial discrimination to further support your cause. However, you have failed to provide good arguments of why it wouldn't work in this specific case if laws were made such that any civil benefits/restrictions given marriage be also given to garriage.

A sticky issue I can think of is places where the homosexuals go to get garried. As a one off event, I believe it is sufficient to allow the free market to solve this issue. The government should not be involved.

This solution seems a lot more fair to everyone.

Why don't the folks with the mythological traditions just come up with a new word and leave marriage for the secular world that has adopted it?

 

[nehalem256]

Why don't the folks with the mythological traditions just come up with a new word and leave marriage for the secular world that has adopted it?

Why don't you quit claiming marriage is based on Christianity when it obviously isn't?

Or are you unable to make a case for gay marriage without resorting to calling anyone who opposes it a christian bigot?

 

[alzan]

I guess they can do the same things religious people have been doing for years... putting it on TV and forcing it down your throats.

There's this wonderful device called the channel changer; a knob on older televisions that allowed you to select the channel, and on modern TVs a hand held transmitter that allows the user to select different channels.

 

[Retro Rob]

There's this wonderful device called the channel changer; a knob on older televisions that allowed you to select the channel, and on modern TVs a hand held transmitter that allows the user to select different channels.

Oh... ok. So if it's a Church, it's forcing, but LBGT stuff, I can change it.

Gotcha....

 

[zinfamous]

Oh... ok. So if it's a Church, it's forcing, but LBGT stuff, I can change it.

Gotcha....

Honestly, the only problem I have with the Church in this regard is when they insinuate themselves on public schoolboards and vote in creationist mumbo-jumbo spiritual malarky into the science classroom--that is them directly forcing themselves into the public good, and consequently dooming our children to a life of irrelevance from an employment standpoint.

That, and their continued criticism and fear of a "secular" government (learn about this country, you fuckwits)--I take offense with.


Other than that, I see your point and agree with it. One can generally choose not to go to a church or ignore AM radio if these things offend them.

 

[Retro Rob]

No one is forcing anything on you when you have an independent choice to ignore that content.

Here's a hint--studios aren't going to produce content if they don't think it is going to sell. THings that make you uncomfortable or all "icky" inside are more vogue now because a majority of people like this content. And, of course, this can be for many reasons. I assume you and your ilk attribute it to some "gay agenda" nonsense, but here are the real reasons, all of them equally valid:

--We have become more engaged in this conversation, so people, in general, have become curious about these issues.
--The content appeals directly to gay audiences, and to audiences (young people), who understand these issues to be normal in today's world, and not some evil nefarious secret society out to eat babies
--The content is, well, probably good (there is bad out there, of course: anything and everything on Bravo). These issues are complex, and people absorb interesting drama. It won't sell if it isn't fresh, so writers and producers are constantly looking for fresh material to sell, invariably similar ideas over and over.

bottom line--if people didn't like this content and didn't vote with their viewing habits, it wouldn't be made. There is no gay cartel out there forcing their culture down your god-fearing throat. Your life and lifestyle are in no danger, saving for the steady march of social progress which, stubbornly, seems to always accompany humans throughout history. Shame for that, I guess.

Im simply sick to the backteeth of hearing time and again people like you saying religion is being forced and children are being indoctrinated through the same means of media that homosexuals/lesbians etc use to put their crap into people's homes...

And what's with this BS that I think that my lifestyle is in some sort of danger, or that I think gay is flippin' contageous? I am not the least bit worried.

Can I have an opinion on the matter as you do?

I don't fight against same-sex laws or whatever, I don't fight for them, either.

Nor do I lobby and protest to force the government to recognize my "rights" to marry someone of the same sex.

What's hindering social progress is everyone wanting their share of rights, while at the same time vilifying those who disagree, while then branching off to their own little community of {insert group name here} for the right to {insert "right" here}.