Bush Bans Gay Marriage

[Peegee]

Legal reasons that support anti-same-sex marriages? How about the laws that state that marriage is a union between a man and woman? They exist in various states, do they not? I'm not stating my belief again. That's sort of irrelevant in this cause. We're not talking about the merits of hetero/homosexual marriages. Heterosexual marriages potentially can house abusive spouses, poor living conditions, abusive parents, other nonsense. So let's outlaw heterosexual marriages. Homosexual marriages is wrong because for whatever reason (I can't think of even one that isn't specific to homosexual marriages). So let's outlaw marriages altogether. Like a parent taking away the toy from squabbling children. I support that wholeheartedly. I really do.

Back to the matter. Since this is a legal matter, let's figure this out the legal way. If the anti-homosexual marriage advocates lose this time, they still have the right to fight it some more. I suppose this is a good thing, having the freedom to always counter what 'seems' to be unpopular. This is why I don't really support democracy -- it doesn't allow the minority to have an equal chance in making changes. Good for USA.

[Dingo Jellybean]

Originally posted by Emerald Aeris
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.

You keep saying people should refer to a dictionary, maybe you should do the same.

Hate: "b. To detest. 2. To feel dislike or distaste for."

They are detesting that homosexuals should have equal rights. And also, the dictionary isn't the end all, be all form of how a word should be used(I'm not accusing you of that, but how you've said people should refer to dictionaries is a bit clumsy, since words have connotative meanings).

Because what other reason can you give for denying homosexuals the same rights everyone else has?

Originally posted by Guu
Unfortunately, hate being irrational does not imply anything irrational is hateful.

That's not the context I meant it in. As you saw after "much like", that doesn't imply that everything irrational is hateful.

[Azure Chrysanthemum]

Legally yes, there is a ban, but it is unconstitutional, plain and simple, for it denies a group their rights to marriage for, in essence, religious regions.

[Tokki Wartooth]

My god. You don't have anything new to say, do you.

I don't detest homosexuals, but I think homosexuality it wrong. It ahs nothing to do with the individuals, though. The saying is "hate the sin, not the sinner." So please. For the love of god. Get a new argument.

[Raistlin]

Originally posted by Emerald Aeris
http://www.theonion.com/news.php?i=1&n=1

Finally.

xD

Anyway, I'm truly divided on the issue of same-sex marriages. Part of me is in favor of allowing it immediately. I mean, two men are free to have a relationship together. How will a mere marriage effect things that dramatically?

On the other hand, however, you have to consider the consequences of this. Ramifications for this type of thing are almost inevitable. In other words, I can see where those writers for the Onion are coming from.

And yes(to whoever said it), I do believe many states have defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. However, that wouldn't effect an amendement, if one were made.

Also, to all of you who are spouting, "it's unconstitutional" over and over again: yeah, we get the point. Do I think it's unconstitutional? I'm really not sure. I do know that's for the Supreme Court to decide...however, IF an amendment is made, then it's out of the Court's hands. Heh. The amendement procedure, however, is a difficult process. And if it passes, then it would definitely be the will of the people. That's what the US is all about isn't it? A government run for the people, by the people?

[Big D]

This thread has degenerated to the stage of endless repetitions and personal swipes, so I'm closing it. It might get re-opened later, it might not.

Have a nice day.

[Agent Proto]

Actually Big D, I don't really see the personal swipes. Well, if you consider Dingo telling DocFrance that his views make him "like the kkk" then that would make some sense, but in all, the whole thread is just getting more interesting. I shall reopen this thread in hopes that this discussion of the topic will continue in a mature manner.

I hope you don't mind.

[Dingo Jellybean]

Originally posted by Agent Proto
Actually Big D, I don't really see the personal swipes. Well, if you consider Dingo telling DocFrance that his views make him "like the kkk" then that would make some sense, but in all, the whole thread is just getting more interesting. I shall reopen this thread in hopes that this discussion of the topic will continue in a mature manner.

I hope you don't mind.

It's better you leave it closed. Closing the thread killed most of the debate anyways.

[Nait]

Dingo_Jellybean is a personal swipe!!! >:O



Ok, that came out wrong. <_<


EDIT:

I can't decide which one is more ambiguous, "swipe" or "swiper".

[Doomgaze]

You're not "hating the sin," you're demanding that certain rights be denied the group because you feel they are sinners. It's no different than saying that, say, Catholics can't be married, because you have some problem with the Pope.


And Doc France is not like the KKK at all. Perhaps he is like Strom Thurmond, but not the KKK - I don't see the good doctor killing and terrorizing to prove his point.

[Tokki Wartooth]

No, we're not demanding anything. You asked our opinion and we told you it. You didn't like it. I really don't care. Deal with it.

[Kasumi]

This is in response to DocFrance's post a couple pages back (sorry to bring up an old post), but gays want to marry for other reasons than "just paying less taxes."

Here are some scenarios about rights they won't have if they don't get married.

1) A man's homosexual partner has been diagnosed with cancer and gets weaker every day. This man goes to visit his partner in the hospital in his dying days, but the nurse tells him, "Sorry, only spouse and direct family members."

2) Two women have been unable to get married (because of the law), but have been together 3 years. One of the women has an 5 year old from a previous marriage that ended in divorce. Six years pass and the child is now 11 and has learned to love both women as his/her parents. One day, his biological mother dies. But because they weren't married, the other woman the child has been nurtured by does not get custody.

Also, I'm going to post the same thing that I post everywhere else: A black can marry a white, a pedophile can marry an axe murderer, an 18 year old can marry a 90 year old, and to further prove how retarded these anti-gay marriage laws are, a GAY can marry a LESBIAN.

[Kirobaito]

I had to be a mod-whore, in some form, but don't double post. We tend to kill people for doin' that.

No need to mod-whore. Just report the post. :P ~Proto

[Thunday Man]

Im not religious, im an Atheist. I still believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. Its just the way its been, and I think its the way it should stay. Its not my fight to get it revoked, so Im going to stay out of it.

[Doomgaze]

Tokkiquil - if you had taken the position "I think gay marriage is wrong, but it does not affect me if it is legalized so I would have no real objection to it being illegal," your last statement would have been correct - that's merely an opinion, and by all means you should be able to voice it. But by arguing for the banning of gay marriages, you(this is a general you, not you specifically) are attempting to forcefully impose your opinion on others, in a matter that does not affect you.* I mean, would you argue all sins should be outlawed?

English needs more pronouns >=[

EDIT:

*Not that this is, in itself, wrong. It's human nature, but you should be aware you are doing it. Even as I say this, I am trying to impose MY opinion on you.