Printable View
I against all marriages but only because im more nihilistic than ideological.
Anyways, for those whose who wish to participate, I like how some European countries do it. They dont give marriage licenses to anybody. Instead, they recognize civil unions for everybody regardless of gender or sexual orientation. The civil unions then entitle people to their legal benefits. Marriage is left to the churches but don't have any legal basis.
Huh? What type of consent are you referring to?Quote:
Originally posted by Behold the Void
Age of Consent=16
The only time I've ever heard the Age of Consent term used is in reference to whether you are old enough to decide whether you want to have sex, which is 16 in America.
*can't resist*
HOWEVER, you must be 18 in order to get a marriage license.
*goes to bed REALLY THIS TIME*
No, denying rights of other people is hate. Because hate is irrational, it has no justification...much like denying rights. When you deny someone the rights of marriage, that's a form of hate.Quote:
Originally posted by Tokkiquil
Dingo_Jellybean, you keep saying the same thing over without listening to what ANYONE else is saying. WE DO NOT HATE HOMOSEXUALS. In fact, we don't really have all that much against homosexuality. We just want to preserve the sanctity of marriage. Whether you like it or not, that's our opinion and we're not going to take yours no matter how many times you repeat it so please don't say anything else if you have nothing new to say. :love:
Sanctity of marriage, bull. The divorce rate is high enough as it is...you call that sanctity? People marry for the sake of being married these days. I'm also not forcing my opinions on you, regardless of what you think. I just think your views are flawed and biased.
But like I said, since none of you anti-gay-marriage bashers have answered...WHAT IF YOU WERE A HOMOSEXUAL? What you would truthfully do if you were denied the legal rights of marriage?
Dingo, you're not making very good points. People are denied rights for other reasons that hate. I'm denied the right to punch you. They just believe it's better off. Hate, like I said, is too strong a word.
As for them wanting to preserve marriage, I'm sure they'll argue that just because it's bad doesn't mean we should let it become worse.
And I'm sure they wouldn't care because they'd still have the same views. Obviously they believe preserving marriage is more important than hurting the couple's feelings/angering people.
Or maintaining the term "free" in "free country".
Well, I'm sorry, but that argument is instantly negated by the word sanctity. As I posted earlier, sanctity is defined as something that is holy or sacred. The first amendment says that government and any and all of its processes are separate from church and religion. So, by saying you are only trying to preserve the sanctity of marriage, is still trying to remove rights with a religious argument, and as I said before religion has NO place in our government. Also, don't give me that whole 'Ten Commandments' argument. The secular laws from them that we supposedly base our country around, were not original ideas. Remember the code of Hammurabi? that was before 3000 BCE. Whereas the exodus of the Jews from Egypt happened aroun 2500 BCE (believe) during the reign of Ramses II (I'm not sure of this, any corrections on who ruled during this period will be welcome). The only real difference between the laws from the code and the commandments are that there are far less. (I don't think the punishments were mentioned, I'll check my bible later.)Quote:
Originally posted by Tokkiquil
In fact, we don't really have all that much against homosexuality. We just want to preserve the sanctity of marriage.
Actually, no, sactity can also apply to something very revered. Sacred doesn't necessarily mean religion. Am I the only person here who uses dictionary.com? Check your facts before you post, people.
However, in the context being used, sanctity has religious connotations. Something being sacred implies holiness, a religious concept in and of itself.
Unfortunately, hate being irrational does not imply anything irrational is hateful.Quote:
Originally posted by Dingo_Jellybean
No, denying rights of other people is hate. Because hate is irrational, it has no justification...much like denying rights. When you deny someone the rights of marriage, that's a form of hate.
No. Obviously in the context it doesn't since they said they were atheists. C'mon now.
The word sanctity has religious connotations in and of itself, the word is a religious word. However, I'm not here to argue somantics, so I'll just leave this one alone.
Hahahah, good stuff.