Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst ... 23456789101112 LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 166

Thread: Bush Bans Gay Marriage

  1. #106

    Default

    That post was very disturbing, DocFrance.

    No legal basis? How about discrimination due to gender? That's the only reason they're not being allowed, because they're not the "right" gender. Biological basis has no place in the courtroom.

    And actually, I can think of TONS of cultures that approve, and practice homosexuality. More than those who shun it. And biologically? That can already be disproved by saying that we don't follow our base instincts. We're beyond that.

    A same sex couple is just like a heterosexual couple who won't/can't have children. The legalities between the couple and their adopted child would be the same as if it were any other married couple. The only difference would be the sex of one partner. Denying them any of these rights based on their sex is discrimination.

    Marriage is a right, not a privilege only given to those who meet your own personal moral standard. No, you're definitely not a racist, but your attitudes are the same. Why does it matter about the gender of one partner? Do you think they can't truly love each other? Is that even a requirement of marriage? You can't possibly measure that, so that's out. Is it because they can't procreate? What about people who are impotent or infertile? Because they have the hardware that could've worked is irrelevant. So what if taxes change? Money is why you're limiting these people's rights? This is a tired, tired arguement, always made by closed minded people. It's the same thing they argued about when interracial couples started happening, which I should hope seems like a ridiculous one now. Yet, the same attitudes prevail. It's sad.

    Marriage doesn't presume anything about children. I suppose maybe that's a tradition, and sure, if you want to continue that, that's fine. I don't see why it gives you the right to say who is fit to be a parent based on only gender. If the man were with a woman, he'd be a fit parent, but because he's with another man, he's not? What kind of logic is that? I don't understand it.

    History is also not a very good point. That's so completely self centered. Your culture, one that shuns homosexuality, is better than those that embrace it? That's one of the ways that the union was formed. One. Just because it's the one in this country doesn't make it universally right, it doesn't make it legally valid at all, and it certainly doesn't make you any better than other cultures who developed differently, especially in such a slight difference, like gender.

    I consider this a social evolution. The recognition that we shouldn't define people's lives for them. Women are no longer bound to be house wives, minorities aren't discriminated against, and homosexual marriage is being legalized. Already is in many places.

    And the bible contains truth? It also contains some really awful, awful stuff. Yay, slavery. But let's not argue about that. Yes, it does have some words of wisdom. Again though, this is legally irrelevant.

    Maybe marriage has always been between a man and a women in western society, but again, that's not universal.

    "THAT RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN AND ALWAYS WILL BE UNIQUE!!!!!!! And no OTHER set of human relationships, genetic or voluntary – man or woman and neighbor, aunt, uncle, teen nephew, niece, acquaintance, grandparents, greatgrandparasts, 3d cousins – is, or can be included by ‘marriage.’"

    Why? Please answer why without using any of the reasons I've discounted above. How is it not gender discrimination? I see why it's against your morals, but your morals aren't the issue here. Your morals don't have to apply to every other person's relationships. And they shouldn't. It's not your relationship, it's not your partner, it's not your family, it's not your life. Why is the gender of someone's partner ANY business of yours? You want to preserve the santity of marriage? Fine, marry a girl, raise a family. That doesn't mean that everyone in the world should follow in your footsteps, even if you think it would be better for them, or the world. You don't have any valid legal, or social reason for thinking that. And I mean actual negative implications.

  2. #107
    Scatter, Senbonzakura... DocFrance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    The high, untrespassed sanctity of space
    Posts
    2,805

    Default

    I'd suggest that everybody actually read my post, instead of just skimming over it and deciding it was "conservative hogwash." Nowhere in there does it mention that the Bible is my basis for my argument (in fact, I'm an atheist), which is what you people keep saying about my arguments. From your responses, I get the impression that you didn't even read my post. Of course, no one is forcing you to read it, because, after all, my opinions are "filled with hate" and "closed-minded."

    And you know what else? For the most part, all I see is people attacking me, when they should be attacking my argument, saying things like I belong in the KKK, or that I'm pretty much a racist.

    EDIT: Actually, there are some people who actually attack my argument, but they're few and far between. Thank you, Emerald Aeris, I can actually respect your opinion now.
    Last edited by DocFrance; 02-29-2004 at 06:38 PM.
    ARGUMENT FROM GUITAR MASTERY
    (1) Eric Clapton is God.
    (2) Therefore, God exists.

  3. #108

    Default

    Originally posted by DocFrance
    I'd suggest that everybody actually read my post, instead of just skimming over it and deciding it was "conservative hogwash." Nowhere in there does it mention that the Bible is my basis for my argument (in fact, I'm an atheist), which is what you people keep saying about my arguments. From your responses, I get the impression that you didn't even read my post. Of course, no one is forcing you to read it, because, after all, my opinions are "filled with hate" and "closed-minded."

    And you know what else? For the most part, all I see is people attacking me, when they should be attacking my argument, saying things like I belong in the KKK, or that I'm pretty much a racist.

    EDIT: Actually, there are some people who actually attack my argument, but they're few and far between. Thank you, Emerald Aeris, I can actually respect your opinion now.


    "So some of you on EoFF can get so open minded your brains fall out on these issues. But not me. I’ve at least gone beyond mantra chanting of “Equal Rights’ or of saying that Marriage is ONLY a Religious state, or a Civil Legal State, but a state entered into by one man and one woman for a thousand biological, practical, legal, religious, public morals, reasons going back into the beginning of human society. "
    Then quit referring to "religious" reaons then...if you are actually an atheist. And I wish you would just answer Aeris' questions, since you tend to respect her opinion(even though it's almost the same opinion many of us have had throughout this post).

    We actually read your posts...maybe it's just that you don't really understand or remember what you said and in the context you say it in. Because you keep referring to "religious states" and "religious reasons." If you really are an atheist, religion should have no valid part in your argument because it's something you don't believe in.

  4. #109
    Mr. Encyclopedia Kirobaito's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    6,359

    Default

    I'm not gonna say anything, but I'm with you DocFrance. Just know that my support is with you. I'd rather not get myself in an argument.

  5. #110
    Dark Knights are Horny Garland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    I'm in your temple, defiling it.
    Posts
    1,041

    Default

    Marraige is just a title and a tax break now-a-days. A country with a 50% divorce rate shouldn't cry out on the sanctity of marraige. Let those who aren't divorced one or more times claim the high moral ground to make such statements. With 5 minute marraiges in Las Vegas casinos, and divorces equally fast, and marraiges that last hardly a year in many cases, where past presidents have honored the "sanctity of marraige" with mistresses and intern sex-play, what sanctity is there? Let'em marry. Noone cares that much anyway.
    Knock yourselves down.

  6. #111
    an unusually clever whore
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    806

    Default

    Originally posted by Dingo_Jellybean
    DocFrance, quit trying to sound "smart" by using "big" words...it makes you look not-smart, especially if you don't know the full meaning of the "big" words you use in the context you are using them in.
    Wow, that was kind of mean. I didn't see any misuse of big words in his post. Just because he doesn't agree with what you and the majority (of people at this forum) agree with doesn't make him "hateful." I don't agree with you either, am I hateful too?

  7. #112

    Default

    A couple sections of his post were a little verbose, but for the most part it was fine.

    Calling people hateful in this arguement isn't solely based on that you disagree. It's because you're denying gays rights simply because they're gay. Not that I agree that you're hateful. That's an awfully strong word. I would really like you nay-sayers to tell your arguement to a real gay couple, telling them they can't get married and see how they react. I've known people to be reduced to tears. How would you feel if people kept trying to make it so that you couldn't marry? Maybe you're not hateful, but I think that's pretty awful. I don't understand how you can want to do that to people, and how you don't see it as being exactly the same as when interracial couples were taboo.

    Clarity on these points and my other big post would be nice. I understand why you would think it's wrong. What I don't understand is why you're forcing your beliefs on others, especially on something like who they're going to marry. As long as they're consenting adults, it shouldn't be an issue.

  8. #113
    Scatter, Senbonzakura... DocFrance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    The high, untrespassed sanctity of space
    Posts
    2,805

    Default

    Well, seeing as I have no real governmental authority at all, you can't really say that I'm forcing my beliefs on others. I would never say to someone that they CAN'T get married, because I have no authority to make it that way. However, I would say that I don't WANT them to be, and I would do everything that is legal and within my power to make it that way, even in an uphill battle. If I lose, then so be it - I will accept the winning side. If I'm forcing my beliefs on others, than so is everyone else on this board.

    Also, I'm not saying that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to be married just because they're gay. If two heterosexual men wanted to be married, I'd be against that as well.

    I do not believe that marriage is right that is inalienable to every American citizen. Rather, I believe it is a privilege, and that certain requirements must be met in order to enjoy said privilege. It is my beleif (I repeat, BELIEF) that marriage should remain as a union between only a man and a woman.
    ARGUMENT FROM GUITAR MASTERY
    (1) Eric Clapton is God.
    (2) Therefore, God exists.

  9. #114

    Default

    I suppose you're right about the forcing beliefs thing, but the difference is that you're denying people rights by keeping the law the way it is, and that's not the case if the law was changed. I still stand by what I said.

    And please, the hetero man/man thing is the same thing. It's the same idea. It's still discriminatory.

    Ok, I see why you believe gays shouldn't marry, but what's the legal basis? I mean reasons that are legally valid. Reasons why illegalizd same sex marriages aren't gender discrimination.

    Heterosexual unions don't lose anything if gay couples are allowed to marry.

  10. #115

    Default

    Originally posted by Tokkiquil
    Wow, that was kind of mean. I didn't see any misuse of big words in his post. Just because he doesn't agree with what you and the majority (of people at this forum) agree with doesn't make him "hateful." I don't agree with you either, am I hateful too?
    Quit putting words into my mouth. If he doesn't agree with me, fine, doesn't mean I can't criticize him without legitimate reasoning.

    Besides...why not stay on topic for a change? Quit trying to point out what YOU think is "hateful" and actually reply to the topic.

  11. #116
    Scatter, Senbonzakura... DocFrance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    The high, untrespassed sanctity of space
    Posts
    2,805

    Default

    Originally posted by Emerald Aeris
    Ok, I see why you believe gays shouldn't marry, but what's the legal basis? I mean reasons that are legally valid. Reasons why illegalizd same sex marriages aren't gender discrimination.
    Henostly, I don't really have any legal basis for my beliefs. They're just my beliefs, and that's that. I don't have to back up my beliefs. Of course, if I don't back up my beliefs, I'm not going to convince you of them. But really, what is? No amount of arguing is going to suddenly going to convince you that gays should not be allowed to marry, nor is it going to convince me that they should be allowed to marry.

    Rather than have this argument remain in stalemate, with the two of us launching the same views at eachother over and over, I concede. My beliefs still hold strong, but I concede nonetheless. Congratulations, you have the better argument.

    Besides, this whole thing was making me more pissed off than normal.
    ARGUMENT FROM GUITAR MASTERY
    (1) Eric Clapton is God.
    (2) Therefore, God exists.

  12. #117
    an unusually clever whore
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    806

    Default

    Originally posted by Dingo_Jellybean
    Besides...why not stay on topic for a change? Quit trying to point out what YOU think is "hateful" and actually reply to the topic.
    I did and no one replied to it, I assume because my points were all too valid to be argued. I think YOU should stop being hateful now.

  13. #118

    Default

    Originally posted by Tokkiquil
    I did and no one replied to it, I assume because my points were all too valid to be argued. I think YOU should stop being hateful now.
    It's not my fault no one took your seriously. And please...just stay on topic and quit nitpicking. That's probably why people won't respond to what you have to say.

    If you want to stop hate, then why do you disagree about my argument for equal rights for homosexuals? Why do you disagree with my views that people who have no control of their will be denied rights? Why should you care why homosexuals should get married? They won't bother you unless you let them bother you.

    I've always said rights are a privledge that are given until stripped away. Whether someone chooses to be a homosexual or not is not my concern because I don't let it. It's hate that causes discrimination against homosexuals and you should have some decency to reply to what people have to say in this topic instead of nitpicking what YOU THINK I said.

  14. #119
    Scatter, Senbonzakura... DocFrance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    The high, untrespassed sanctity of space
    Posts
    2,805

    Default

    Originally posted by Dingo_Jellybean
    If you want to stop hate, then why do you disagree about my argument for equal rights for homosexuals?
    Probably because *gasp* he has his own opinion! Believe it or not, your opinion isn't the only one that matters! Even though you keep chanting the "equal rights" mantra, nobody actually has to agree with you. Your logic really shows how close-minded you are. Ironic, hmm?

    Originally posted by Tokkiquil
    Also, I don't think it's a good defense to say that incestual marriages should be banned (and gay marriages not) because they produce defective children. Homosexual marriages produce no children at all, except through artifical insemination. And if an incestual couple really wanted healthy children, they could undergo the same procedure. So in the same light, if homosexual marriages are allowed, incestual marriages should be too. Love is love as you all say, right?
    I took him seriously. I thought that this was a very good argument. Thanks, Tokki.
    ARGUMENT FROM GUITAR MASTERY
    (1) Eric Clapton is God.
    (2) Therefore, God exists.

  15. #120

    Default

    Originally posted by DocFrance
    Probably because *gasp* he has his own opinion! Believe it or not, your opinion isn't the only one that matters! Even though you keep chanting the "equal rights" mantra, nobody actually has to agree with you. Your logic really shows how close-minded you are. Ironic, hmm?

    I took him seriously. I thought that this was a very good argument. Thanks, Tokki.
    I never said people had to agree, but no one has a logical reason to ban equal rights from gays. Being biased against homosexuals makes you no better than a KKK member biased against color individuals because hate is all the same, no matter who it is against. I never said I was against incestral marriage either. What I said was that it should be taken into consideration because genetic defects increase 10 fold or so for babies that come from the same family line. That's a legitimate reason why people can ban incestral marriage(though I won't agree with it completely) because the life of a baby who could be potentially scarred for life isn't worth a few minutes of pleasure.

    So like I said...you don't have to agree with me, much like I don't have to agree with you. I just think your idea of denying homosexual rights is flawed. If you were a homosexual, you'd probably kick yourself in the head for the comments you posted.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •