| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
Raine Marzullo |
|||
|
I just want to point out how in Greek mythology several Gods and Goddesses were bisexual
|
|||
Sasuet Dnurs |
|||
|
who cares about the ancient greek, we need to convince the existing Americans |
|||
Raine Marzullo |
|||
|
Oh right... silly me
|
|||
Bane Nathos |
|||
|
I find it funny that Obama himself is against gay-marriage oh and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton yet all their followers argue it as just a Republican
point oh... and Harry Reid...
![]()
Last Edited By: Bane Nathos
05/12/09 12:30.
Edited 2 times.
|
|||
AvadreiaLacroix |
|||
Raine Marzullo wrote:Hoisted on your own petard: Greeks didn't allow men to marry men and women to marry women. Homosexuality and bisexuality were glorified (as they are now). Women were also thought too stupid to grasp the concept of romantic love, and so were treated like baby factories--does that mean we should follow their lead? |
|||
Jameris Malak |
|||
|
I don't think homosexuals and bisexuals should be glorified. Just equal. It's none of your business who wants to get married to whom, marriage is
just a word. To me personally, I'd like to see the word marriage disappear from the world completely considering it causes so many $$#+ problems.
|
|||
Gren Skylark |
|||
|
I think you just cannibalized your own point, Avadreia. It looks like you just said "Tradition deserves to be ignored when it becomes incorrect by modern
standards."
Bring on the gay weddings!
|
|||
Raine Marzullo |
|||
|
I'm going with Gren and Jameris here...
|
|||
AvadreiaLacroix |
|||
Gren Skylark wrote: We're not talking about traditions in this case, we're talking about laws of man and nature. Marriage is for the protection of assets between a man and a woman and their children. The only ways for gay couples to have children is through invitro and through adoption, both of which have legal frameworks already that do not require marriage. |
|||
Darth Terace |
|||
|
Gays don't need marriage.
Marriage is, and always should be, a sacred institution between heterosexual couples. I don't understand why they're so adamant about walking into a system that views their lifestyle as sick, moral depravity. What I am for is their rights. I think it would be fine if they were given the rights of straight couples but marriage? No. ![]() |
|||
Sophie Maurow |
|||
|
::winces at some of Terace's words, then makes him a balloon animal to lighten the mood::
It's a poodle |
|||
Jameris Malak |
|||
|
Okay so here's an interesting example.
Black people used to have to ride on the back of the bus and if there was no more seats they'd have to stand for a white person. They should have just been happy with the right to ride the bus....but having to go to the back or stand for someone else made them feel degraded. Nowadays if someone says, "We should have made black people stay in the back of the bus." They're considered a racist. So in the same notion: Gay people are allowed to have unions but can't be married because they are not heterosexual. They should be happy with the fact they get to have a union.....but not being able to say they're married makes them feel degraded. One day when someone says, "We should have never allowed gays to get married." They're going to be considered a sexist, or a something-ist. (not sure what the term will be) We all know in the case of the blacks they were eventually allowed the same rights on the bus as any other person. Eventually gays are going to be able to get married to, you can fight it all you want but it's already happening. Then your kids will probably grow up in a society where gays can get married and then their kids and then their kids. By the time fifty years passes the kids will have no problem with gays being married. Marriage will be for anybody who has the need to get married! Whether it be for love, property, kids, finances, whatever. That being said, I think the best thing that could have happened for marriage would be if it never existed in the first place. |
|||
Sophie Maurow |
|||
|
Love the poodle, dammit!
But, yes, very true... social norms are relative. I was actually talking to my friend's dad tonight, who is a family law lawyer, concerning gay marriage. In California, domestic partnerships aren't equal to marriages because domestic partners aren't entitled to the same inheritance rights that married couples 'enjoy'... estates in a domestic partnership aren't intermingled in the same way they are in a marriage. There are ways in which domestic partners can go about fusing their fortunes and their lives together, however... so there can be equality, in a sense, without marriage... but the semantics of the situation still just doesn't seem right. History tells us that the 'separate but equal' mentality is fundamentally flawed. |
|||
Jameris Malak |
|||
|
*luffs the poodle*
|
|||
Sophie Maurow |
|||
|
|
|||
Jameris Malak |
|||
|
I don't know if it was the poodle or the fact that you made it that makes it more special Soapee darling.
|
|||
Sophie Maurow |
|||
|
Aww! Shucks!
::grins bashfully:: ... I wont lie... it's both |
|||
Darth Makavelli |
|||
|
I won't lie....I was thinking the same thing.
edit: Posted with the wrong name |
|||
Taer Lyn Pall |
|||
|
Terace, we've already established many, many times that this has nothing to do with Christianity.
|
|||
AvadreiaLacroix |
|||
|
It doesn't matter who thinks what about the morality of gay marriage. As a practical, legal, and historical matter there is no need for gay marriage,
completely apart from what anyone thinks about the morality of it.
|
|||
EPIII: ROTS 10th Anniversary: