Same Sex marriges Legilized!

[Zmid]

Hmm.. I think, someone put this thought: "If we let two people of the same sex to get married, let's let children marry as well." This thought was countered saying that children are not responsible for their actions and can't make important decidions.

 

Now how about this: incest. I think, we all agree, it is perversion. Even if two people are adults. So now tell me: why incest is perversion, and homosexuality is not?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Perversion? In my opinion, yes. The question is, what right do I have to enforce my opinion as law? Answer: None. When questioning if something should be illegal or not, you should be asking the question 'is anyone harmed by this?' If the answer's 'no', then it should not be illegal. In the case of homosexual marriages, no-one is harmed. In the case of incest, provided both parties are consenting adults, again, no-one is harmed. There is an increased risk of genetic problems with any resulting children, but even this is a slight risk unless inbreeding occurs over several generations.

[draighox]

Now that Peregrine has nicely pointed out a several flaws in my idea, I must admit, it is flawed indeed.

 

So let's take another example. Marriage between a man and a dog. I'm not talking about law, I just want to ask everybody who supports homosexual marriages: Would you support this kind of marriage as well? And why?

 

White Wolf, let's say, the term "marriage" cannot define union of two same sex humans. Only of man and woman. (Some of us disagree, but let's asume it cannot). Then there would be harm done - term broken.

We had argued about this and didn't come to any conclusion.

[Peregrine]

So let's take another example. Marriage between a man and a dog. I'm not talking about law, I just want to ask everybody who supports homosexual marriages: Would you support this kind of marriage as well? And why?

 

Are you honestly this thick-headed? This is exactly the same as the children argument, both of which have already been answered in this thread.

 

 

No, marriage between a man and a dog should not be allowed, for two reasons:

 

1) A dog is not capable of giving consent. And even if you could communicated with one flawlessly, they have even less intelligence and understanding than a young child.

 

 

2) Marriage is a legal contract. Last time I checked, a dog can not sign legal contracts, as it is not a person. Not only would you have to allow human/dog marriage, but you'd have to give dogs full status as humans. Hopefully you can see how absurd an idea this is.

 

 

Notice that neither of these reasons apply to homosexual marriage.

 

White Wolf, let's say, the term "marriage" cannot define union of two same sex humans. Only of man and woman. (Some of us disagree, but let's asume it cannot). Then there would be harm done - term broken.

 

 

So you're saying that the "harm" you would suffer by having to accept that you can't force everyone to live by your definition of marriage is comparable to the harm of telling someone "sorry, you aren't really a person, you don't get full rights"?

 

Re-defining a word is not harm.

[Zmid]

White Wolf, let's say, the term "marriage" cannot define union of two same sex humans.  Only of man and woman.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Unless I've missed something, this is the very question we are supposed to be debating.

 

Then there would be harm done - term broken.

 

Sorry, no. The closest thing to actual harm that occurs is that a few people are offended because one relatively minor detail in the traditional image of a 'marriage' is changed. Harm is undeniably done to every single homosexual person this law applies to by turning around to them and saying 'you are not entitled to the same rights as a 'normal' person'.

[draighox]

1) A dog is not capable of giving consent. And even if you could communicated with one flawlessly, they have even less intelligence and understanding than a young child.

...

Marriage is a legal contract. Last time I checked, a dog can not sign legal contracts, as it is not a person.

The human owns the dog, so he can decide for it.

 

Not only would you have to allow human/dog marriage, but you'd have to give dogs full status as humans.

I'm sorry, where is it written that marriage can only be for humans? Why can't dogs marry too, while not being humans?

 

So you're saying that the "harm" you would suffer by having to accept that you can't force everyone to live by your definition of marriage is comparable to the harm of telling someone "sorry, you aren't really a person, you don't get full rights"?

Which part of "the term "marriage" cannot define union of two same sex humans" you don't understand? :P

 

 

 

Sorry, no. The closest thing to actual harm that occurs is that a few people are offended because one relatively minor detail in the traditional image of a 'marriage' is changed. Harm is undeniably done to every single homosexual person this law applies to by turning around to them and saying 'you are not entitled to the same rights as a 'normal' person'.

But building a house and calling it an anthill would break the law? You have to get a license to build a house, but you don't have to get it to put an anthill in your garden.

[Peregrine]

The human owns the dog, so he can decide for it.

 

If the human owns the dog, it is not legally considered a person, and can not sign contracts.

 

I'm sorry, where is it written that marriage can only be for humans? Why can't dogs marry too, while not being humans?

 

Are you really this thick-headed? Marriage is a legal contract. A dog can not sign a legal contract of any kind. There is no specific law banning dogs from marriage. Marriage is just one of countless things dogs are not capable of doing, because they are not considered people.

 

Which part of "the term "marriage" cannot define union of two same sex humans" you don't understand? tongue.gif

 

According to narrow-minded bigots like you, it can't. The whole point is this definition is from an earlier and more ignorant time, and needs to be changed.

 

But building a house and calling it an anthill would break the law? You have to get a license to build a house, but you don't have to get it to put an anthill in your garden.

 

What the hell? Is this supposed to make sense somehow?

[Zmid]

1) A dog is not capable of giving consent. And even if you could communicated with one flawlessly, they have even less intelligence and understanding than a young child.

...

Marriage is a legal contract. Last time I checked, a dog can not sign legal contracts, as it is not a person.

The human owns the dog, so he can decide for it.

 

If a dog has the same rights as a human, this means the dog would be a slave. Slavery is illegal.

 

Not only would you have to allow human/dog marriage, but you'd have to give dogs full status as humans.

I'm sorry, where is it written that marriage can only be for humans? Why can't dogs marry too, while not being humans?

 

Marriage is a legal contract. For a dog to enter into a legal contract, they would need to fully understand and agree to this contract, and also indicate this in a clear manner.

 

So you're saying that the "harm" you would suffer by having to accept that you can't force everyone to live by your definition of marriage is comparable to the harm of telling someone "sorry, you aren't really a person, you don't get full rights"?

Which part of "the term "marriage" cannot define union of two same sex humans" you don't understand? :P

 

Which part of 'this is the very question we're debating' do you not understand?

 

 

 

Sorry, no. The closest thing to actual harm that occurs is that a few people are offended because one relatively minor detail in the traditional image of a 'marriage' is changed. Harm is undeniably done to every single homosexual person this law applies to by turning around to them and saying 'you are not entitled to the same rights as a 'normal' person'.

But building a house and calling it an anthill would break the law? You have to get a license to build a house, but you don't have to get it to put an anthill in your garden.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

1) Anthills are called anthills because they're made by...erm...ants.

2) If you're talking about artificial antfarms, they are used for keeping ants in. As soon as you cease to use it for this, it is no longer technically an antfarm.

3) If you were to buy an empty plot of land, build a giant antfarm, then go and live in it, this antfarm would become a de facto house. You would have the right to refer to it by any label you care to name, but, as far as the law is concerned, it's a house.

4) What the hell has the details of the legalities of building a house got to do with homosexual marriages?

[Akrid]

Not only would you have to allow human/dog marriage, but you'd have to give dogs full status as humans.

 

I'm sorry, where is it written that marriage can only be for humans? Why can't dogs marry too, while not being humans?

 

If you kill a police K9, its a crime charged as killing a police officer... OMG its begining!!!!!!

 

We must stay on the topic of human issues, as marriage is a human issue. Its as simple as this, GAY people are not going away, its not a temporary thing. Thier has always been homosexuals, and as long as the human race is around thier will be, long after you and I are dead, thier will be dudes having sex with each other. So we can pretend that all homosexuals dont exist and this is a straight world, but that wont make it true. It seems to me that this portion of our population that is gay (not even counting those who are "in the closet") should be reconized, they are not sub-human, they are not lesser of importance. There is gay people in nearly every part of our society, some are lawyers, doctors, police officers, soilders, programmers, and ofcourse hair stylist and many more occupations.

 

What do you expect of gay people? Most non-homosexuals do not understand gay people. Would you expect that they should be content living as a sub-class of people? Its obvious why so many biggots do not want same sex marriage, because it would lead to the common acceptance of gay couples, and as it is the aspect of thier relationship that seems to define them (defined by their sexual orentation/choice sex) It would thus lead to acceptance of gay people in general, and biggots would be forced to live in a world that dose not hate homosexuals.

[draighox]

4) What the hell has the details of the legalities of building a house got to do with homosexual marriages?

We were talking about correct term usage. Just like an anthill cannot be called house, union between two same sex people cannot be called marriage (atleast "marriage", how I understand it).

[Malchik]

draighox anything can be called anything

 

I can call you a garden gnome if I choose!

 

Shakespeare said it years back 'What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.' (Romeo and Juliet)

 

So 'marriage' has whatever meaning people want it to have. What is more, the meaning can change (as did the word 'gay' itself for example).

 

The dictionary in my office (Chambers) - which is already 12 years old defines marriage, among other ways, as 'a ceremony, act or contract between homosexuals', 'any close union'.

 

But a 'legal' definition is something written into laws and they often take several years to catch up with popular usage. There can be no debate that homosexuals can and do marry. The question is whether the popular definition should be carried over into the legal one. Most enlightened people in Europe certinly think yes and the laws have been changed in many European countries to reflect this.