vandorssen Posted June 5, 2004 Share Posted June 5, 2004 Eventually it will be legal to mary farm animals and inatimate objects. But seriously, i really don't give a flying blargh who people want to mary :P. As long as they don't tell me im out of line, politically incorrect, or an idiot for wanting to remain straight. Or try and make passes at me ><, been done before and its like the nastiest feeling in the world. It was all i could do to keep from smacking the guy in the nose.Whilst it made you uncomfortable (understandably) it was also a form of flattery. I have had to turn down approaches not only from men but also women in whom I had no interest in developing a relationship. (I'm wedded to the CD player.) Learning how to give, as well as to take, rejection ain't easy! There was a thread somewhere else where several forum members said they weren't going to get involved with the murky relationships of love. Maybe we should start a thread on rejection and how to cope? Anyway, on topic, I think it is amusing, as I hinted in my earlier post, that at a time when heterosexual marriage is in decline - the way alimony is getting so far tipped against the male these days only a fool is going to face the risk - that gay people feel the need for it! But it is right that it should be their choice. Have you ever listened to "Joe's Garage" by Frank Zappa? Perhaps you should meet Elron Hoover of the First Church of Apliantology. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valdir Posted June 5, 2004 Share Posted June 5, 2004 Good thing. I'm so happy to see the boundries of marriage are being opened. Since this whole debate has started I have married my dog, Coffeemate and Clock/Radio. Monogamy sucks!! I really don't care if some dude marries another dude, nor do I care if a girl marries another girl. My personal preference is clear (canines and elextronics). -val Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UberBender Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 *please exuse my spelling* I think that if gettin' hitched is a "holy, and biblicle ceramony" and the the bible says that being gay is wrong than why would gay people use a ceramony of the "enemy?" im fine with gay people and them livin together but dont use a term from the same religion that says you're wrong! Its just diggin you a deeper hole! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 And of course you ignore the fact that marriage is a concept found in countless cultures/religions, not all of which insist on the "one man, one woman" definition. And the fact that you can be married without religion. I am an atheist, but all I would have to do to get the same recognition as any religious marriage is fill out the same paperwork. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papasmurf Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 But if you go to any dictionay and type in marriage they say the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. a legally accepted relationship between a woman and a man in which they live as husband and wife, or the official ceremony which results in this: the site i got the definintion other one the other one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 Do you have a point here? The whole point of the debate is that the definition is flawed and must be changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papasmurf Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 Do you have a point here? The whole point of the debate is that the definition is flawed and must be changed. The point of a debate is that it is an argument in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition. But not always that the definition is flawed and must be changed. as someone may be debating to keep something or stop something.and there are two sides but you are saying that the defition is flawed and must be changed so you are ownly takling about one side ,which defies the whole point of a debate in the first place Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 Take whichever side you want, but simply quoting the definition of marriage means nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UberBender Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 i think it proves how it is thought of in a mainstream opion and maybe it will change as gay marriage becomes more common. Just because a definition changes dosent mean the old one was wrong. The word just takes new meaning for a new set of people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zmid Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 Do you have a point here? The whole point of the debate is that the definition is flawed and must be changed.The point of a debate is that it is an argument in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition. But not always that the definition is flawed and must be changed.I think you're misunderstanding Peregrine here - he is not saying this is always the point of any debate, he is saying that is the point of this debate. It is posing the question 'is the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman flawed and does it need to be changed?' My own opinion is that, certainly from a legal standpoint, it is flawed and does need to be changed to being 'between two consenting people', gender and sexuality not being an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.