TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Why banning of homosexual marriage shouldn't be allowed
Pages (5): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »

quote:

Originally posted by Bronze parce que c'est des crooken tapss you know comme un gros coyo

Seriously, try and find an online translator or something, because I have absolutely no idea what you just said.

Oh come on now arctic, we've been over this before, and that's how we came to the compromise of civil unions!

To summarize in bullet point:

• There is simply no way to have an appropriate "screening" process for infertile couples, or heterosexual couples who just don't want children (besides, they might change their minds). If a gay man wants to marry a lesbian woman, they'll still get all the benefits - they're no "screening" process for gays here either. It's just silly to grant marriage to situations which are totally guaranteed not to produce offspring.
  
• Homosexuals aren't being denied anything because of genetics. They can still get married already - to a woman! In fact, as above, a gay man could easily get married to a lesbian woman. A same-sex marriage is the same element of "choice" as polygamy. Surely these people can't *help* their attractions to 5 separate women any more than the man can *help* his attraction to the other man he wants to marry?
  
• Reason for civil union is to give them the "rights" they seek without having to redefine marriage itself (because the logical conclusion of such an event would be for it to also include incest and polygamy).
  
• If marriage, to you is solely about commitment to one you love, then civil unions as a compromise should be a no-brainer; insisting on the marriage "title" is solely to make a public statement.
  
• Stop replying to the fundies, we already know they have nothing useful to say.

Okay guys, how about we keep the hormones to a level and continue on topic? I DO believe that's why the political forum was made, so there could be serious discussions without the influx of idiocy (aka PICS OR STFU etc etc). You're not making any considerable contributions to the thread by harassing WoahNellie for her pictures. That is what PMs are for.


Btw, a considerable difference between CU's and marraiges (as I've pointed out in other threads) are that CU's give the citizen about 15 rights, and they cannot even make the decision as to what to do with their property after their significant other dies, if their significant other is in a coma that she will never come out of, the other woman cannot make a decision whether to take her off the respirator, even if they had a prior discussion and she knew exactly what the other woman wanted, because they are only together through a CU.

Marraiges provide the people with 1500 new rights.

That is all.

quote:

Originally posted by Epicurus Really, how sure are you but seriously, your looks are your looks, and I wouldn't comment about that BUT, regarding other matters:

Don't know,I really can't tell what you'd do.

quote:

I know the truth hurts ...but, worry not, I'm sure God will punish me by banishing me to hell where I shall fry for a lifetime

The truth can hurt sometimes,is that why you aren't accepting it? ()
God doesn't punish people.You choose whether you go to hell or not. So,It's up to you. I hope you don't though, But you know.

quote:

Right. So non-Christians shouldn't be allowed to marry then. The US is a theocracy after all! Read your own constitution and/or bill of rights before putting your foot in it like that.

No,That's not what that means. I'm not putting my foot in my mouth.
I know what my constitution says..Studied it in history last year, and some this year.

quote:

Interestingly, I looked up "marriage" in several different dictionaries and all of them define it as being specifically between a man and a woman or a husband and wife. It would seem to me that this entire issue is one much like the terrorism issue, with certain people redefining the word to suit their own ends. So it would appear to me that the law does not discriminate at all. Rather, "marriage" is one of those words like "coitus", an act which must be performed by opposite sexes ipso facto. It would seem that the legal definition of marriage does not restrict anything (since homosexuals, as stated earlier, are still fully entitled to marry, they just can't marry people of the same sex) - it simply makes explicit what is already intrinsic in the definition of the word itself. Equivocation, relativism, subjectivism, and in general the redefinition of words that once had objective meanings, all seem to be the way of politics in the 21st century. It's happened with words such as racism, sexism, harassment, terrorism, human rights, and now it's happening with marriage. Personally I think we need to stop this trend before it gets out of control. But hey... that's just my "personal" opinion.

It seems to me you're slightly missing the point. Allow me to explain.

Now, as you well know, definitions are labels that refer to certain things/acts/events etc that we can observe in this world/universe. They are simply shorthand notations to refer to "something". Now the definition of marriage might refer to a union between a man and a woman because we humans/linguists DECIDED that it should be such, probably based, in my opinion, on a heavy dose of religious influence from the past. It is in no way ipso facto. In fact it cannot be ipso facto unless the definition of marriage is somehow OBJECTIVELY written in the fabric of the universe. For that, you'd have to believe what Nellie (who is hot) believes

Having said that, anything taken from the dictionary is "objective" until we/linguists DECIDE that there are grounds for ammending it. Gay couples feel that these grouds exist. In fact, they have two demands:

1) That their unions net the same rights as heterosexual unions.
2) That their unions are not discriminated (in any way, whether that be linguistically or otherwise) against on the SOLE basis of sexual preference.

Obviously, calling homosexual unions civil unions and giving them all their rights would take care of 1) but would not take care of 2). Gays point out the the SOLE criteria distinguishing their unions from heterosexual ones is based on sexual preference, and they are right. If you are against discrimination of any kind (i.e. based on religion, race, gender, sexual preferece etc), then you have to concede their point. But that includes, amongst other things, the name or label you attribute to their union. Why should we have a DIFFERENT name to distinguish between hetero and homo unions? I see none whatsoever.

To further make my point, let's take a hypothetical example. Assume that in a certain land far away populated by people of white skin ONLY, the white linguists decide to label marriage as a union between two white people. Like all definitions, they must be inspired by the actual environment/historical process that exists in this land. Now let's assume that suddenly, people of black skin come to this land and want to get married. The whites decide that since marriage is the union between two whites, they need to invent a new name for black unions. The sole basis for inventing a new word would be based on the colour of their skin. If you were against discrimination of all forms, you would be agaist that particular distinction and would therefore want to ammend the existing definition to include black unions.

Finally, to summarize, I present you with the logic:

- The act of marriage is not ipso facto between a man and a woman since it is not OBJECTIVELY written in the fabric of the universe. We simply decided that we were going to define it that way (Note that IF indeed it was ipso facto, then you'd have a point).
- Definitions (of such things that are not ipso facto) are subject to change if there are grounds for ammending them.
- Assumption: You believe that all forms of discrimination should not be tolerated.
- Creating a new word that distinguishes between different unions SOLELY on the basis of sexual orientation is discrimination.
- Conclusion: You are FOR the ammendement of the existing definition.

Note that as a conclusion, you can also wish to create a new word that would englobe BOTH hetero and homo unions (thus not violating the above assumption), but personally, I think that's useless since ammending an existing definition is easier and makes more sense.

quote:

Okay guys, how about we keep the hormones to a level and continue on topic? I DO believe that's why the political forum was made, so there could be serious discussions without the influx of idiocy (aka PICS OR STFU etc etc). You're not making any considerable contributions to the thread by harassing WoahNellie for her pictures. That is what PMs are for.

I didn't know there was an official fun police...just because you're not involved in the fun shouldn't make you bitter But seriously, we are most certainly not harrasing her, simply being facetious. It's all for fun and games and ONLY if Nellie feels that we should stop being facetious (since our facetiousness is being directed at her) because it is in fact harassment will we heed that particular brand of advice you so magnanimously offered

quote:

Btw, a considerable difference between CU's and marraiges (as I've pointed out in other threads) are that CU's give the citizen about 15 rights, and they cannot even make the decision as to what to do with their property after their significant other dies, if their significant other is in a coma that she will never come out of, the other woman cannot make a decision whether to take her off the respirator, even if they had a prior discussion and she knew exactly what the other woman wanted, because they are only together through a CU.

Good point, although I'm pretty sure they get more rights than that (15). Civil unions are accorded the rights of "marriage" of the state without being accorded the federal rights of "marriage".

http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm

les osti de crooken taps...moi jen ai ma claque du gai a SOF OSTI DE TABARNAK

Legal marriage is a failed institution.

We ought to simply scrap it, and institute a new system which exclusively recognizes civil unions instead. Then we can bestow rights upon people who enter civil unions which serve some pragmatic purpose, while leaving the many rights (e.g. tax breaks) which have no logical relation to the instiution in the garbage bin where they belong.

The definition of marriage is pretty irrelevant as it is because most homosexuals aren't so much interested in their unions being known as marriages as they are receiving the legal rights associated with marriage. Leave the definition of marriage alone. Just take away the legal rights associated with it. Problem solved. The religious kooks can maintain the "sanctity of marriage" and the homosexuals can get equal rights as couples through civil unions.

It's simple and logical. That's precisely why the government will never do it.

Dude,they already have equal rights. The have the same rights we do,no more..No less.

quote:

Don't know,I really can't tell what you'd do.

Actually, I just told you that I wouldn't do anything cause "your looks are your looks". So in conclusion, you do know what I'd do: nothing.

quote:

The truth can hurt sometimes,is that why you aren't accepting it? ()

I am oblivious to the truth Nellie. Please enlighten me

quote:

Dude,they already have equal rights. The have the same rights we do,no more..No less.

Nellie, no they don't. In fact, we've been discussing why they don't in this thread and others.

quote:

The definition of marriage is pretty irrelevant as it is because most homosexuals aren't so much interested in their unions being known as marriages as they are receiving the legal rights associated with marriage.

yes they want their rights but ALSO, most homosexual couples I know do INDEED feel that a word to distinguish their unions from heterosexual unions is "offensive". Now whether it's called marriage or not is immaterial. As long as both homo and hetero unions are called "the same thing", then there shouldn't be any problem.

quote:

Originally posted by Epicurus Nellie, no they don't. In fact, we've been discussing why they don't in this thread and others.

They are American citizens,and people. They have the exact same rights the rest of us do.

quote:

Actually, I just told you that I wouldn't do anything cause "your looks are your looks". So in conclusion, you do know what I'd do: nothing.

And,should I trust you? Not sure about that.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Interestingly, I looked up "marriage" in several different dictionaries and all of them define it as being specifically between a man and a woman or a husband and wife. It would seem to me that this entire issue is one much like the terrorism issue, with certain people redefining the word to suit their own ends.

marriage was started as a religious thing. all religions define it as between a man and a woman. of course, the dictionary definition follows... and so does the reality of the situation.

same-sex marriage has never been legal ANYWHERE until 1989, in europe.

I find it very suspicious they (the homosexuals) never wanted marriage until recently.. actually, they never became interested until the "marriage penalty" of the american tax system went away.

anyone else notice gay marriage didnt really flame up until the marriage penalty was removed?

It's ALL ABOUT A FU�KING TAX BREAK.

has nothing to do with love OR commitment.

marriage should simply be abolished. I'm tired of all the married yuppies and thier pathetic limited contributions to society anyways.

quote:

Originally posted by MERiDiAN5i2 I'm tired of all the married yuppies and thier pathetic limited contributions to society anyways.

Heh, I like the cut of your jib.

i wonder how long the average homosexual marriage lasts anyways? is there a survey somewhere? they are mostly all sexual deviates anyways.

quote:

Originally posted by Epicurus It seems to me you're slightly missing the point. Allow me to explain. Now, as you well know, definitions are labels that refer to certain things/acts/events etc that we can observe in this world/universe. They are simply shorthand notations to refer to "something". Now the definition of marriage might refer to a union between a man and a woman because we humans/linguists DECIDED that it should be such, probably based, in my opinion, on a heavy dose of religious influence from the past. It is in no way ipso facto. In fact it cannot be ipso facto unless the definition of marriage is somehow OBJECTIVELY written in the fabric of the universe. For that, you'd have to believe what Nellie (who is hot) believes Having said that, anything taken from the dictionary is "objective" until we/linguists DECIDE that there are grounds for ammending it. Gay couples feel that these grouds exist. In fact, they have two demands: 1) That their unions net the same rights as heterosexual unions. 2) That their unions are not discriminated (in any way, whether that be linguistically or otherwise) against on the SOLE basis of sexual preference. Obviously, calling homosexual unions civil unions and giving them all their rights would take care of 1) but would not take care of 2). Gays point out the the SOLE criteria distinguishing their unions from heterosexual ones is based on sexual preference, and they are right. If you are against discrimination of any kind (i.e. based on religion, race, gender, sexual preferece etc), then you have to concede their point. But that includes, amongst other things, the name or label you attribute to their union. Why should we have a DIFFERENT name to distinguish between hetero and homo unions? I see none whatsoever. To further make my point, let's take a hypothetical example. Assume that in a certain land far away populated by people of white skin ONLY, the white linguists decide to label marriage as a union between two white people. Like all definitions, they must be inspired by the actual environment/historical process that exists in this land. Now let's assume that suddenly, people of black skin come to this land and want to get married. The whites decide that since marriage is the union between two whites, they need to invent a new name for black unions. The sole basis for inventing a new word would be based on the colour of their skin. If you were against discrimination of all forms, you would be agaist that particular distinction and would therefore want to ammend the existing definition to include black unions. Finally, to summarize, I present you with the logic: - The act of marriage is not ipso facto between a man and a woman since it is not OBJECTIVELY written in the fabric of the universe. We simply decided that we were going to define it that way (Note that IF indeed it was ipso facto, then you'd have a point). - Definitions (of such things that are not ipso facto) are subject to change if there are grounds for ammending them. - Assumption: You believe that all forms of discrimination should not be tolerated. - Creating a new word that distinguishes between different unions SOLELY on the basis of sexual orientation is discrimination. - Conclusion: You are FOR the ammendement of the existing definition. Note that as a conclusion, you can also wish to create a new word that would englobe BOTH hetero and homo unions (thus not violating the above assumption), but personally, I think that's useless since ammending an existing definition is easier and makes more sense.

Wait a minute, Nellie is hot? DID SHE SEND YOU A PICTURE!!?? TELL ME!!! I NEED TO KNOW YOUR SOURCES!


LoL... but seriously, I'm with Arbiter and MERiDiAN, and I think what they say is really a lot better than any semantic argument I could drum up against you. I don't support gay marriages but under the current political situation I don't really support marriage at all, so it's silly to argue over technicalities.

quote:

but seriously, I'm with Arbiter and MERiDiAN, and I think what they say is really a lot better than any semantic argument I could drum up against you

You're no fun

quote:

Wait a minute, Nellie is hot? DID SHE SEND YOU A PICTURE!!?? TELL ME!!! I NEED TO KNOW YOUR SOURCES!

I am still merely believing this on faith remember YOU, on the other hand, because of your stubborn requirement of physical proof in the form of a pic shall never enjoy the peace of mind (amongst other things) that I possess because of my faith

BWAHHAAAA! Us rednecks in Georgia are going to outlaw Homo Marriages in our constitution!

What a hoot!


[[[smoke]]]

quote:

Originally posted by Epicurus I am still merely believing this on faith remember YOU, on the other hand, because of your stubborn requirement of physical proof in the form of a pic shall never enjoy the peace of mind (amongst other things) that I possess because of my faith

Check for a PM. Now, you can stop acting like this.

quote:

Check for a PM. Now, you can stop acting like this.

Acting like what...I'm simply being playful

quote:

Originally posted by Epicurus Acting like what...I'm simply being playful

I'm referring to the whole " faith " thing.

quote:

I'm referring to the whole " faith " thing.

Ahhhhh...regarding that, you'll have to allow me to jab you a little (and others) about it...sorry, no can do. Just like your faith is a source of meaning to your life, jabbing at faith is my source of meaning...So be nice and don't deprive me of my lifeline

quote:

Originally posted by Epicurus Ahhhhh...regarding that, you'll have to allow me to jab you a little (and others) about it...sorry, no can do. Just like your faith is a source of meaning to your life, jabbing at faith is my source of meaning...So be nice and don't deprive me of my lifeline

I have no problem with kidding around. (infact my sister and myself have our own comedy duo.) It's just, Kidding about things like God and such are on the border line.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.