Should same sex marriages be legal?

[CptStern]

Well, nobody has said anything yet. And it is a common practice to associate the Swastika with hate, which is apparently what Portugal is spewing towards America.

sprafa does not speak for all portuguese. Look i'm not from portugal yet I'm offended by your avatar ...if I was jewish I'd be even more offended.

 

[Pogrom]

Can we kill all the Yankees fans too? Nobody likes them anyways.

Not being a baseball fan OR an American, your jest is lost on me.

But hey, while we're at it, go nuts :rolling:

 

[seinfeldrules]

sprafa does not speak for all portuguese. Look i'm not from portugal yet I'm offended by your avatar ...if I was jewish I'd be even more offended.

seinfeldrules
Well I am sticking with it until he puts down his. Thats final, if you guys want to change it then call for him to put down his as well, I dont see that happening anywhere.

Now move on.

PS as you are quick to point out in gay marriage, the Nazis dont own the swastika.

 

[CptStern]

Now move on.

fine we'll let a moderator decide

PS as you are quick to point out in gay marriage, the Nazis dont own the swastika.

ya I'm sure when most people see a swastika they think of the Hopi Indian tribe :upstare:


separate but equal is still discrimination

 

[seinfeldrules]

Agreed, the name, in no way, infringes on their ability to get equal rights.

666666

ya I'm sure when most people see a swastika they think of the Hopi Indian tribe

And I'm sure most people think of man and man when they think of marriage :upstare:

 

[Apos]

Because marriage has always meant the union between a man and a woman in this country. You will never get anything done by using the word marriage in this argument. While yes, religion is seperate from state, it is too deeply ingrained in society to change.

But that doesn't seem to be the case. It's already changed in several countries, some of them even without our Separation of Church and State.

And the reality is that gay unions are marriages in every sense of the word that makes any substantive difference: they can perform all the things that people have to say at civil marriage ceremonies, they can even do all the things that they say at most RELIGIOUS ceremonies. For all intents and purposes, there is no actual reason why the word doesn't fit other than tradition and habit of applying it to women and men.

And the reality is, even if gay couples are only granted the legal status of civil unions, everyone is going to call them marriages anyway aside from a few anti-gay bigots, so in the end it won't make much difference. The argument will be won by sheer force of history.

 

[CptStern]

666666


And I'm sure most people think of man and man when they think of marriage :upstare:

are you married? no? so then SHADDUP!! ...I am married ...if a man and a man have no right to get married then so dont I ...I dont believe in god yet I am married ...I dont call it a "civil union" ..It's a marriage

so stop sidestepping and answer this:

separate but equal is still discrimination ...isnt that what segragation was all about? didnt segragation end when it was deemed unconstitutional?

 

[seinfeldrules]

And the reality is, even if gay couples are only granted the legal status of civil unions, everyone is going to call them marriages anyway aside from a few anti-gay bigots

So now me and a majority of Americans are 'anti-gay bigots' for using the term civil union? Maybe you are the bigot for using gay instead of homosexual. Way to go, bigot. You just moved the homosexual mov't back 10 years.

For all intents and purposes, there is no actual reason why the word doesn't fit other than tradition and habit of applying it to women and men.

There ya go.

 

[seinfeldrules]

separate but equal is still discrimination ...isnt that what segragation was all about? didnt segragation end when it was deemed unconstitutional?

They arent seperate. Blacks were forced to use different bathrooms and sit on different areas of buses. Go to different schools. Gays will get all the same rights and privledges. And yes it will be discrimination, but not in any negative fashion.

are you married? no? so then SHADDUP!!

There you go, way to promote your 'mature' argument!

 

[Pogrom]

There ya go.

Sorry to bring this old argument up again.

But racial segregation and discrimination was done because of tradition and habit of believing white people were better.

Traditions Change.

Habits Change.

 

[seinfeldrules]

But racial segregation and discrimination was done because of tradition and habit of believing white people were better.

So will be the case with gays. They will be given equal rights. Remind me, did blacks end up being called white, or gray? I cant seem to recall.

 

[CptStern]

They arent seperate. Blacks were forced to use different bathrooms and sit on different areas of buses. Go to different schools. Gays will get all the same rights and privledges.

no they wont ...they cant get married can they? It's exactly the same thing.

Blacks couldnt go to all white schools
Gays cant be married in an all-hetro ceremony

And yes it will be discrimination, but not in any negative fashion.

hahahah that's laughable ..when can discrimation be in a positive fashion?

There you go, way to promote your 'mature' argument!

the point is, you have no say in something you havent taken part in, you have absolutely no right in somebodies elses affairs, you have absolutely no right to impose your bigotry on someone else

 

[HunterSeeker]

Sorry to bring this old argument up again.

But racial segregation and discrimination was done because of tradition and habit of believing white people were better.

Traditions Change.

Habits Change.

Too bad some people dont change

 

[Pogrom]

So will be the case with gays. They will be given equal rights. Remind me, did blacks end up being called white, or gray? I cant seem to recall.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you saying that racial discrimination hasn't changed since the 60s?

Or that gays will eventually end up being accepted, just like black people?

 

[Ecthe|ioN]

Yes they should be legal

 

[seinfeldrules]

hahahah that's laughable ..when can discrimation be in a positive fashion?

Reread the last few pages of this thread. Already discussed

 

[CptStern]

Reread the last few pages of this thread. Already discussed

you've made no decisive statement. You cant possibly justify it because it is contradictory: discrimination is always negative

 

[Pogrom]

you've made no decisive statement. You cant possibly justify it because it is contradictory: discrimination is always negative

No, actually it was addressed by seinfeldrules, mechagodzilla and myself.

Observe:

Dont Ivy Leage universities discriminate against people with low SAT scores and GPAs? Dont hiring practices discriminate against people who are ex-convicts?



Now those two are good examples, as those sorts of discrimination are based on facts.

 

[bgesley426]

oh, all you guys are so opinionated. You are all mature and viable assets to the American society. BTW, gay marrage should be outlawed with the punishment of death if broken. It is a disgusting, unnatural practice that would be a burden on society and raise the AIDS rate in this country by who knows how much. It would cost us millions of dollars in health care for same sex couples on the job. It would not be worth the burden on the economy to legalize it. also it is a f*ing disgusting practice that has no place in civilized society.

What an ignorant post. How the hell does it raise the AIDS rate if they are married? And being Gay doesn't mean they will get AIDS. I don't see how it will raise health care costs. The mixing of races and sexes increases the immunity system. Doing altruistic acts even increases it. For it being "disgusting"....there are more disgusting acts a man and woman can do. You sound like a heretic. Someone just giving a different opinion just to be different. I couldn't tell if these were your beliefs or you were just trying to rile things up.

 

[CptStern]

No, actually it was addressed by seinfeldrules, mechagodzilla and myself.

Observe:

to be fair, I didnt read that far back ...still, these are private organizations it doesnt change the fact that governments shouldnt pass laws that are discriminatory

 

[seinfeldrules]

Are you saying that racial discrimination hasn't changed since the 60s?

No, I am saying that blacks now have equal rights to whites in society, but with marked differences. Examples- blacks arent called white. Blacks keep many of their own traditions and hobbies as do whites.

 

[seinfeldrules]

the point is, you have no say in something you havent taken part in, you have absolutely no right in somebodies elses affairs, you have absolutely no right to impose your bigotry on someone else

Allright you arent American. Keep your anti-American crap to yourself. You seem to be too caught up in this to be calling me a bigot. I am in no way hateful towards gays.

no they wont ...they cant get married can they? It's exactly the same thing.

They can be unioned with equal rights. Blacks still arent white, although they are equal.

 

[seinfeldrules]

still, these are private organizations

The gov't wont hire convicts either. Military universities are just as, if not more, selective then many top rate colleges.

 

[Pogrom]

No, I am saying that blacks now have equal rights to whites in society, but with marked differences. Examples- blacks arent called white. Blacks keep many of their own traditions and hobbies as do whites.

I fail to see the connection here. When the facts are just plain different (e.g. the colour of the skin) nobody fought for change. They sought for an end to segregation and discrimination, not to be called white.

Here we are comparing two identical unions, the facts are no different, yet the segregation (of naming) still exists.

 

[seinfeldrules]

When the facts are just plain different (e.g. the colour of the skin) nobody fought for change. They sought for an end to segregation and discrimination

Well 1st off, I am not the one who began this analogy, I was attempting to further it. And there is a factual difference between people married man to man and man to woman.

yet the segregation (of naming) still exists.

Well arent we all humans?

 

[CptStern]

The gov't wont hire convicts either. Military universities are just as, if not more, selective then many top rate colleges.

The bill of rights says no organization can discriminate based upon:

creed, color, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, age, disability or political belief

Some organizations expand on this to include (such as the University of Wisconsin):

age, race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, marital status, pregnancy, parental status, sexual orientation, disability, political affiliation, arrest or conviction record, membership in the National Guard, state defense force or any other reserve component of the military forces of the United States or this state, or other protected class status.

 

[Pogrom]

Well 1st off, I am not the one who began this analogy, I was attempting to further it. And there is a factual difference between people married man to man and man to woman.

Well arent we all humans?

But when nothing in the nature of the relationship is different (e.g. committed, loving, caring) why should there be two different names for it?

And yes, we are all humans. But look at it like this:

1) There goes a white man. There goes a black man.

2) That is a straight marriage. That is a gay marriage.

Not my best segue, I'll admit. But it doess illustrate my point, nevertheless.

 

[seinfeldrules]

They still discriminate based on grades.

 

[seinfeldrules]

But when nothing in the nature of the relationship is different (e.g. committed, loving, caring) why should there be two different names for it?

Because the sexes involved are different (a pretty major fact).

2) That is a straight marriage. That is a gay marriage.

That is a marriage, that is a civil union.

 

[CptStern]

They still discriminate based on grades.

how is that discrimination? you might as well say, "I didnt win the lottery because they didnt pick my numers therefore they are discriminating against my numbers"

 

[Pogrom]

Because the sexes involved are different (a pretty major fact).


That is a marriage, that is a civil union.

But we are all human.

That's two people married. One is a man and one is a woman.

That's two other people married. They are both women.

The relationship is no different legally, socially or otherwise. The only thing different is what happens in the bedroom behind closed doors.


*EDIT - I'm off for a snack break. Be back later as I'm pulling an all-nighter for a bloody assignment.

 

[seinfeldrules]

how is that discrimination? you might as well say, "I didnt win the lottery because they didnt pick my numers therefore they are discriminating against my numbers"

Discrimination- The ability to differentiate.

Colleges differentiate between people with good grades and those with bad.

But we are all human.

That's two people married. One is a man and one is a woman.

That's two other people married. They are both women

Yes we are both human, but the step below that is male and female. So if you base your argument on that then it becomes male marrying male and male marrying female. A clear difference.

And thats it for this afternoon, got work to do for now. Be back tonight.

 

[CptStern]

Discrimination- The ability to differentiate.

Colleges differentiate between people with good grades and those with bad.

again that's a private institution ...it's not protected by law.

 

[seinfeldrules]

again that's a private institution ...it's not protected by law.

Military colleges.

 

[CptStern]

Military colleges.

dont get me started on the military ...again isnt it unconstitutional to deny enrollment in the military based on sexual preference?

 

[f|uke]

Three points on Seinfeld..

1) He still has not addressed how Christians hold any ties to non Christian marriages
2) His Avatar is evidence of his character
3) He's a kid

Arguing with him is not only futile, but entirely pointelss. He clearly has very little awareness of outside perspective, no respect for other ways of life, and is too young to be worth the bother.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Three points on Seinfeld..

1) He still has not addressed how Christians hold any ties to non Christian marriages
2) His Avatar is evidence of his character
3) He's a kid

Arguing with him is not only futile, but entirely pointelss. He clearly has very little awareness of outside perspective, no respect for other ways of life, and is too young to be worth the bother.

Who is the child coming out with personal attacks? Who is the hypocrit who doesnt say anything about sprafa? Ah yes, I see your point. If you dont want to talk to me then thats fine. You guys have some great debates amongst yourselves.

 

[CptStern]

sprafa's avatar is stock photography ...obviously it's accepted by many people ...americans included


your's is just hate mongering

 

[NeLi]

The bible should be banned

 

[Yakuza]

I've had this conversation before. There's no arguing with a zealot. Anyone who argues that the Bible is free from contradiction can never be swayed by reason.



Sorry, but saying it is perfectly clear does not make it so, and it is particularly laughable. In fact, "fulfilling the law" isn't even a particularly coherent utterance. And this doesn't even begin to answer the question of why some OT sins are magically no longer sinful and others are. Jesus doesn't say squat about most of the OT laws, and what he does say is fairly ambiguous.

LOL, because you fail to offer any reasonable proof that there are contradictions I am a Zealot. You basicaly said I was fooling myself if I thought that there were no contradictions in the bible, fine, now back up your claim. I can have a reasonable disscussion about the bible, I dont claim to know everything but from what i do know I have yet to find a claim that was not rather easy to dissolve.

Whethere you believe in the bible or not isn't the issue, and your doctrinal education doesn't make you very eligable to make such comments about what Jesus was unclear about. Had you actualy read the bible you would understand that the perfect standard of God is something unabtainable for us because of the corruption of sin. Every single law must be kept in order to stand justified in Gods eyes. However it was the blood of Jesus that attones for the unrightous and now justifies us before God. The final sacrafice.

Does this mean we are free to do whatver we want? No.

Jesus said if you love me, you will keep my commands.
There are no laws that magicaly disappear.