[W:3596] Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage

[HumblePi]

That's not what I said.

You like to put a negative spin on what I say.

How else could I interpret "I don't let laws dictate thing to me". Isn't that precisely what laws are for, to dictate (tell us) what we can or cannot do?

 

[HumblePi]

I don't worry about it. It keeps them occupied.

I suppose it does, just like a marriage keeps any couple occupied.

 

[Wan]

How else could I interpret "I don't let laws dictate thing to me". Isn't that precisely what laws are for, to dictate (tell us) what we can or cannot do?

I should have been more clear. I meant that I do not let laws decide for me whether gays can marry or not/whether "gay marriage" is a valid concept or not.

Not that what I think will have any sort of impact on the lives of gays, I realize that.

 

[HumblePi]

I should have been more clear. I meant that I do not let laws decide for me whether gays can marry or not/whether "gay marriage" is a valid concept or not.

Not that what I think will have any sort of impact on the lives of gays, I realize that.

I'm always okay with laws that give every American equal rights.

 

[Wan]

I'm always okay with laws that give every American equal rights.

Do you think people can marry farm animals? And would we be "depriving them of their rights to marry" by saying no?

 

[AGENT J]

Do you think people can marry farm animals? And would we be "depriving them of their rights to marry" by saying no?

marriage is a legal contract . . animals cant consent and enter into a legal contract

once again you prove how severely and factually uneducated you are on this topic . . . wow

 

[Wan]

marriage is a legal contract . . animals cant consent and enter into a legal contract

once again you prove how severely and factually uneducated you are on this topic . . . wow

Good bye.

 

[HumblePi]

Do you think people can marry farm animals? And would we be "depriving them of their rights to marry" by saying no?

Now you're getting silly. You're reaching for situations in which aren't even in the realm of possibilities.

 

[Wan]

Now you're getting silly. You're reaching for situations in which aren't even in the realm of possibilities.

How about you simply answer my question?

 

[AGENT J]

Good bye.

LMAO im not going anywhere ill be right here pointing out all your failed claims, lies and when you factually have no clue about a topic like now

 

[AGENT J]

How about you simply answer my question?

You didnt ask any legit question LMAO animals can consent and enter into a legal contract. You question is massively retarded just like it always is when people bring up bestiality in regards to equal rights.

 

[HumblePi]

How about you simply answer my question?

I'll plagarize the comment from AGENT J instead of typing it all out, such silliness.

"marriage is a legal contract . . animals cant consent and enter into a legal contract

once again you prove how severely and factually uneducated you are on this topic . . . wow"

 

[Wan]

I'll plagarize the comment from AGENT J instead of typing it all out, such silliness.

"marriage is a legal contract . . animals cant consent and enter into a legal contract

once again you prove how severely and factually uneducated you are on this topic . . . wow"

This sounds to me like you are discriminating against beings that cannot enter legal contracts. The laws need to be changed.

 

[HumblePi]

This sounds to me like you are discriminating against beings that cannot enter legal contracts. The laws need to be changed.

Wow, if you're so desperate to find something to debate, why don't you try another topic, one that's actually debatable?

 

[Wan]

Wow, if you're so desperate to find something to debate, why don't you try another topic, one that's actually debatable?

I see that I have painted you into a corner. Yet again.

 

[AGENT J]

I see that I have painted you into a corner. Yet again.

You didnt paint HP into a corner your posts and lies are getting the **** kicked out of them for all to see and its hilarious! LMAO

 

[RAMOSS]

I see that I have painted you into a corner. Yet again.

How have you done that?

 

[Wan]

How have you done that?

You haven't been paying attention.

 

[AGENT J]

You haven't been paying attention.

all of us have and your posts have failed and lost at ever turn LMAO

 

[distraff]

So, for gays to favor "marriage" over "civil union", and in fact a lot of them insist on it, are they also "being pedantic"?

You aren't being pedantic for what words you use. You are being pedantic over opposing things simply over words and definitions rather than what impacts these policies have.

Why should there be "good reason" to divide people? What's so good about not dividing people?

Basically the idea is a variation of Occham's razor (simplest explanation is the best) and many call it KISS (keep it simple stupid). Whenever you make a system, don't introduce unnecessary complexity, and also don't introduce unnecessary complexity into laws and regulation to try to minimize complexity. Any type of extra categorization or complexity must be justified. So dividing gays and straights into "marriages" and "civil unions" types requires a practical justification. Also dividing white people and black people in bathrooms require a practical justification for why this is being done.

I am sorry to hear that you think being linguistically precise is being pedantic. Or maybe you simply enjoy putting a negative spin on what other people said.

Marriage isn't a precise word and it means different things to different people. We can't force a single definition on marriage on anyone, we can only provide a legal definition of marriage that flexibly encompasses the various personal, religious and cultural definitions of marriage that are worth legally recognizing.

Also, if it's just a matter of definition, why are so many gays still unsatisfied with "civil union"? That they clamor for "marriage"?

For the same reason you want your relationship with your spouse to be called a marriage rather than a "civil union." Legal marriages are all really civil unions but people want their love to be called what it is. Its just a word, let them call it want they like.

 

[RAMOSS]

You haven't been paying attention.

Oh, I have. There is a pattern of demanding answer, and then not listening to them.

 

[HumblePi]

I see that I have painted you into a corner. Yet again.

No little grasshopper, I am never cornered.

 

[marke]

The code of the schoolyard #2: Always make fun of those different from you.

Kids are bad to make fun of people who are different, like pederasts.

 

[SkyFox76]

Nobody mentioned "harmful". It shouldn't matter anyway. I am opposed to "gay marriage" because the gays are essentially forcing the rest of society to redefine a word that has existed for a long time (namely, "marriage"), just to suit them. I don't understand why they are so brazen, aggressive and in-your-face about it. What's wrong with civil union? There is also no harm in opting for this term either, so why don't they?




I am a woman. There are washrooms that are designated for men. I cannot enter these facilities. Is this "discriminatory"? Am I being made a "second class" citizen?

Were you in such an uproar over the word "mouse"? I'll take a healthy bet on no.

And if you're married, is your marriage less than it was before Jim and John down the street used "your word" marriage to celebrate their commitment to each other?

Now if you're not good "sharing" the term marriage you could redefine your own marriage a "civil union". If you're not open to that, then maybe you can understand why the gay community prefers the word marriage (with the person they love) as much as you do.

 

[Wan]

You aren't being pedantic for what words you use. You are being pedantic over opposing things simply over words and definitions rather than what impacts these policies have.

I don't merely oppose gay marriage just over the definition. I have other reasons, too.

Why should there be "impacts" behind policies before I can oppose an idea? Who came up with this rule? You?

Basically the idea is a variation of Occham's razor (simplest explanation is the best) and many call it KISS (keep it simple stupid). Whenever you make a system, don't introduce unnecessary complexity, and also don't introduce unnecessary complexity into laws and regulation to try to minimize complexity. Any type of extra categorization or complexity must be justified. So dividing gays and straights into "marriages" and "civil unions" types requires a practical justification. Also dividing white people and black people in bathrooms require a practical justification for why this is being done.

If reducing complexities is important to you, its fine. I personally don't think it's important at all. I also disagree that there needs to be a "practical justification" for dividing white and black people. The fact that (some) people want this should be reason enough. Do you believe in citizens' will?

Marriage isn't a precise word and it means different things to different people. We can't force a single definition on marriage on anyone, we can only provide a legal definition of marriage that flexibly encompasses the various personal, religious and cultural definitions of marriage that are worth legally recognizing.

And who is this "we"? And why should this definition "encompass the various personal religious and cultural definitions that are worth legally recognizing"? Who determines whether this new definition is "worth recognizing"?

For the same reason you want your relationship with your spouse to be called a marriage rather than a "civil union." Legal marriages are all really civil unions but people want their love to be called what it is. Its just a word, let them call it want they like.

So, if white people want to form an exclusive, all-white community, you will also let them? It's just a way of life, let them do what they like, right? You seem to have this really permissive attitude towards gays yet I bet you don't extend this to everybody.