UberBender Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 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. This would be a good definition for us. Maybe we should tell the gay people to petion Merrium-Webster for a reform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 What does a privately owned dictionary have to do with the legal definition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UberBender Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 papasmurff got his definition from http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book...ary&va=marriage This is the Merriam-Webster website Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 Enough with the definition! We all know what the dictionary definition is. Now post something relevant to the debate or don't post at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighid Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 For those who say"I don't care who marries whom" in some form or another.... I am a strong supporter of gay marriage in the US. I am a straight woman, happily married to the greatest man in the world, but, As far as I am concerned, whenever any group is being denied their civil rights, then my country is not as good as it should be. June is pride month in Chicago, and I am proud, as a straight woman to take the hands of my gay friends and family members and march for civil rights yet again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m_gobes Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 If gay is right and should be alowed then why cant gay ppl not reproduceDoes this mean heterosexual couples in which one or the other or both of them are infertile also shouldn't be allowed? well first off people being infertile is not normal among humans. gays being infertile among the same gender is across the board. I have yet to see one baby come from 2 guys. (or 2 chicks) Humans along with every other animal can only produce offspring with egg and sperm. Female and male required. now to legality of gay marraiges. America is mainly here for freedom. we have the right and responsibility to live and to give life. I don't see how homosexuals can do this. OT for examples. take nature. Opposites attract. Magnets north and south go together. same poles repel. electricity: electrons flow from negative to positive, not negative to negative or positive to positive. Homosexuality is like taking 2 extension cords and trying to attatch them together by same ends. it's not realistic and you wouldn't be able to plug anything in and have power to what you need it to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cactoblasta Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 I have yet to see one baby come from 2 guys. (or 2 chicks) Actually two women became parents sometime this year I think. It's just a matter of gene-splicing. And if you oppose that because it's unnatural, it's probably about time you return to your tree and start eating raw meat you catch with your own hands. OT for examples. take nature. Opposites attract. Magnets north and south go together. same poles repel. electricity: electrons flow from negative to positive, not negative to negative or positive to positive. Homosexuality is like taking 2 extension cords and trying to attatch them together by same ends. it's not realistic and you wouldn't be able to plug anything in and have power to what you need it to. Without resorting to anything dirty, chances are there are some gay people who think that men and women having sex is more like your powercord example. And it's a simple reality that in human relationships it is rarely the opposites that attract. Couples who've been together for any length of time often take on a certain "sameness", rather than being complete opposites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighid Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Humans along with every other animal can only produce offspring with egg and sperm. Female and male required.Not quite true. There are many members of kingdom animalia which reproduce through budding, polyembyrony, and parthenogenesis. hermaphroditic animals often undergo self-fertilization. All of which do not require male and female. Also, there is a great study of homosexuality occuring in the animal kingdom in Biological Exhuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, by Bruce Bagemihl, Ph.D Also the book Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape by F. B. M. De Waal, Frans Lanting, and Frans De Waal has portions discussing homosexual behavior among primates closely related to humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 well first off people being infertile is not normal among humans. gays being infertile among the same gender is across the board. I have yet to see one baby come from 2 guys. (or 2 chicks) Humans along with every other animal can only produce offspring with egg and sperm. Female and male required. Which is of course entirely relevant because a marriage (between one man and one woman) is ended if they do not produce children. Infertile couples are not allowed to marry because they can not produce children. Oh wait, you're just wrong. now to legality of gay marraiges. America is mainly here for freedom. we have the right and responsibility to live and to give life. I don't see how homosexuals can do this. Somehow I missed the mandatory children section of the constitution... perhaps you could help me find it? No law in our country says we have a responsibility to produce life. We have the right to produce life, not the obligation. I hope you're capable of seeing the difference. And how is it freedom to discriminate based on an obsolete religious belief, in direct contradiction to the principle of separation of church and state that is one of the fundamental concepts of American law? OT for examples. take nature. Opposites attract. Magnets north and south go together. same poles repel. electricity: electrons flow from negative to positive, not negative to negative or positive to positive. And how is this relevant? Homosexuality is like taking 2 extension cords and trying to attatch them together by same ends. it's not realistic and you wouldn't be able to plug anything in and have power to what you need it to. So it's not your preference. And your point is? To the people who do prefer their own sex, it is realistic and often the only way. Now please tell me why your preferences should have any effect on anyone else's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UberBender Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 And how is it freedom to discriminate based on an obsolete religious belief, in direct contradiction to the principle of separation of church and state that is one of the fundamental concepts of American law.sorry if this gets a little Off-Topic I think Peregrine is right. If the church (by which I mean religion(s)) says marriage is between a man and a woman than let them say that. But the government should not be bound by laws of a religion. Therefore the government should be able to make up it's own mind regardless of what the church says and its beliefs. The concept of seperation of state and church was based on the fact that there are many religions that may have conflicting views. If we seperate them all from the government than the government wont have to decide which part of a religion or religion to ignore and which to take part in. It also makes it so that the government won't favor a religion and give it special privialiges. whew, that was my longest post yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.