Abramul Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 After all, in Nevada you can get married to someone you've just met and divorced as quickly. Yet this flagrantly irreligious behaviour does not bring howls of condemnation for the use of the term 'marriage'. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Perhaps marriage shouldn't necessarily be allowed to every staight couple that wants it? It certainly seems that this might be a good idea! Malchik, ''permissions' are not granted by society, they are given by 'root'. :bleh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malchik Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 Malchik, ''permissions' are not granted by society, they are given by 'root'. :bleh: Erm ?????? Were you using the word root in it's Australian sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyjet3 Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 Ok to start things off, I'm not christian so have no reason to use it as a reference... ;) Look, I'm tired of people acting like taking away marriage is taking away the gay communities right to love. NO ONE said it was wrong for two gay people to love each other. I see no problem with that AT ALL. Here is the problem. Gay people are not doing it for love... They shouldn't need a piece of paper about that. SO DROP THE "WHY CAN'T THEY LOVE EACH OTHER" ARGUEMENT. Here is what I think should be done. Just give Civil Unions and Marriage the same goverment statement/standing. Therefore, Civil Unions and Marrige will be exactly the same. Marriage will be for males and females and the Civil Unions for everyone else. That way, EVERYONE gets what they want. Hetrosexuals still have marriage (of those that wanted to keep it "sacred") and homosexuals get to have Civil Unions that have the same benifits as a marriage. Why can't everyone just be happy... :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suzerain Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 Here is the problem. Gay people are not doing it for love... They shouldn't need a piece of paper about that. SO DROP THE "WHY CAN'T THEY LOVE EACH OTHER" ARGUEMENT.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> just to stick my oar in the already turbulent waters, this is about rights in the aftermath of love, as much as anything else. I marry Chriss. I die. she inherits my house, my bank savings, my belongings. We were partners, together, in life. I marry Chris.I die. he gets none of the rights to those things, even though we were partners, together, in life. that is what the ignorance of the right of a gay, lesbian couple to marriage is. If you're going to have a legal right to give benefits to a couple, then the fact that you're attracted to anothe man, or another woman is as absolutely irrelevant to the situation as if it were a black man marrying a white woman, or vice versa. That discrimination means only one thing: everyone should have the right, or none. If the romans were in charge (and let's face it, the vast majority of judeo-christian hangups on homosexuality stem from the fact that the roman occupiers of Palestine at the time of writing of that book considered homosexuality to be the mark of a man of strenght and decency, and they opposed their occupier's social ideals) then we'd probably have no such issue plaguing the world's society. Bring back Nero, I say. Suzerain.I SCREW GOATS FOR A LIVING..MY OPINIONS ARE LIKE DUST..USELESS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Laguna Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 I marry Chriss. I die. she inherits my house, my bank savings, my belongings. We were partners, together, in life. I marry Chris.I die. he gets none of the rights to those things, even though we were partners, together, in life. AHA!!! Suz is guy! I knew it! A while back (months ago) there was some confusion about whether suz was a guy or a girl, he posted something along the lines of "I'm not telling" but in a riddle-like joking manner. I never found out if the matter was resolved, or if everyoned knew he is a guy and were just playing around, and somehow I didn't notice it. Suzerain.I SCREW GOATS FOR A LIVING..MY OPINIONS ARE LIKE DUST..USELESS! Huh!? I thought you blowed them? *Adrian notices his post is completely useless and doesn't pertain to the conversation ....I, er... I AGREE WITH WHATEVER PEREGRINE SAID... yeah, that's right... Seriously though, Peregrine's opinion really matches my own in this matter. Exept for the fact that I don't care much either way, while he does seem care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suzerain Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 Suzerain.I SCREW GOATS FOR A LIVING..MY OPINIONS ARE LIKE DUST..USELESS! Huh!? I thought you blowed them? *Adrian notices his post is completely useless and doesn't pertain to the conversation Nope, that;ll be Dark0ne proving his inability to appreciate subtlety in a "unlike llama-lovers" quote. had he changed the -2 size HTML joke I'd included at his expense to that quote, he might have had subtle humour and had the joke stand. instead, he thought that a huge font was a far more clever way to respond. No class, no style, no imagination. but whatever gender I'd be, the point of the original post remains. marry one gender, a whole set of rights, marry the other, and the rights are ignored, although every other details would be identical. that's the injustice of the issue. Suz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark0ne Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 Nope, that;ll be Dark0ne proving his inability to appreciate subtlety in a "unlike llama-lovers" quote. had he changed the -2 size HTML joke I'd included at his expense to that quote, he might have had subtle humour and had the joke stand. instead, he thought that a huge font was a far more clever way to respond. No class, no style, no imagination. Awww...the goat blowers throwing a tantrum because his subtle joke backfired big style (pun intended)? Come on Suz...wake up and smell the ram! :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThetaOrionis01 Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 ..wake up and smell the RAM! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Would that be the lavender-scented PC2700 or the 'bouquet of roses' PC3300? :D Argh... I'm turning into a geek! :blink: However, to give this post even some slight topic relevance .... to all those who are opposed to gay marriage.... in what way does the granting of equal rights to homosexual couples affect you? Is it any of your business what gender or species another person's life partner is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyjet3 Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 Just in my defense, I never said that gay couples couldn't have the same benifits. I simple said they shouldn't get it through marriage... they should get it through civil unions. THEY SHOULD BE THE SAME THING. That way marriage gets to keep it's whole "sacred" definition and gay couples get the benefits they want. This way no one loses anything and everyone gets what they want. Problem solved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark0ne Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 However, to give this post even some slight topic relevance .... to all those who are opposed to gay marriage.... in what way does the granting of equal rights to homosexual couples affect you? Is it any of your business what gender or species another person's life partner is? The personal belief that the way I do it is the correct way, as nature indended, adding to society through the ability to procreate - or the natural POSSIBILITY of procreating (don't get into the whole "so infertile people can't get married - they have the physical organs to do so, they just do not operate correctly). I don't want to have to tell people I recently got married and have them ask me "Oh, thats nice - Man or woman?". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.