Lascivious
Banned
Why or why not?
Are you for or against gay marriage?
- Thread starter Lascivious
- Start date
Lion o ness
Well-known member
It doesn't bother me either way... To each their own..
I don't think the government should say who can/cannot get married...
Who u marry is a personal choice.....
It's just as bad, if there was a law saying you couldn't marry outside your nationality...
Either way its between the two people... Why should strangers even care?
I don't think the government should say who can/cannot get married...
Who u marry is a personal choice.....
It's just as bad, if there was a law saying you couldn't marry outside your nationality...
Either way its between the two people... Why should strangers even care?
SweetTruthSeeker
Well-known member
People should be allowed to marry who they want.
Just wish there. Was a law against lying about it!
Each to their own!!
Just wish there. Was a law against lying about it!
Each to their own!!
wan
Well-known member
So if someone wants to marry a cow, it should be allowed too?
david starling
Well-known member
wan
Well-known member
Only if it can say "I do!" That would leave parrots and other talking birds as marriage partners. Parrots especially, are known for long life and faithfulness to one person.
You are arbitrarily drawing a line between humans and non-human animals as marriage partners. This is no different from the traditionalists who say that marriage is only between a man and a woman. If gays and gay-sympathizers want to extend the right to marry to same-sex couples, then they must also accept non-human animals as marriage partners, too. That is, if they want to be logically consistent. Which I doubt they do. They have a political agenda to push.
AppLeo
Well-known member
I support gay marriage.
Marriage is no longer a part of religion; it's something regarding the state and government. A marriage between two people will be seen as a union and considered family members according to the law and government. This is very important for many reasons.
- if these people want to break up for any reason, the law will be able to step in and split the resources and financials accordingly with the divorce
- If the law sees them as a couple then other people will too
- They will have the same last name, which is important
- If one of them has suffered a terrible accident and only family members are allowed to see them when they're on their death bed and the person they love most can't see them because they aren't family - that's really sad.
- There's other reasons I'm sure.
To deny two people's unity on a governmental scale is absolutely ridiculous. The rules are cold and unemotional. If two people live together, share resources, and have sex with each other, it's only logical and practical they should be seen a unified couple by the law if the couple wants to be seen as a unity by the government.
Who cares if people start marrying cows; it's their life. Besides, it's completely ridiculous and I doubt a large number of people in America would actually do something so stupid.
If we won't let gay people get married because we're worried about people marrying cows then that's messed up.
A marriage between a human and a human is very very different from a marriage between a human and an animal. If a marriage between an animal and a human becomes a problem, I think the United States will be able to handle it, but we need to deal with gay people not being able to get married first.
Marriage is no longer a part of religion; it's something regarding the state and government. A marriage between two people will be seen as a union and considered family members according to the law and government. This is very important for many reasons.
- if these people want to break up for any reason, the law will be able to step in and split the resources and financials accordingly with the divorce
- If the law sees them as a couple then other people will too
- They will have the same last name, which is important
- If one of them has suffered a terrible accident and only family members are allowed to see them when they're on their death bed and the person they love most can't see them because they aren't family - that's really sad.
- There's other reasons I'm sure.
To deny two people's unity on a governmental scale is absolutely ridiculous. The rules are cold and unemotional. If two people live together, share resources, and have sex with each other, it's only logical and practical they should be seen a unified couple by the law if the couple wants to be seen as a unity by the government.
Who cares if people start marrying cows; it's their life. Besides, it's completely ridiculous and I doubt a large number of people in America would actually do something so stupid.
If we won't let gay people get married because we're worried about people marrying cows then that's messed up.
A marriage between a human and a human is very very different from a marriage between a human and an animal. If a marriage between an animal and a human becomes a problem, I think the United States will be able to handle it, but we need to deal with gay people not being able to get married first.
Last edited:
wan
Well-known member
I didn't say I was "worried" about people marrying animals. I am just saying that if we start allowing same-sex marriages, then we should also start allowing man-animal marriages. Logical consistency demands so.
In the same vein, I can also say that a marriage between a man and a woman is very different from a marriage between two people of the same sex.
AppLeo
Well-known member
Right!!
Because animals have the mental capacity to consent to a marriage.
How?? A gay couple has the same genitals and a straight has different genitals. I mean I guess that's different, but I don't see how that interferes with marriage itself; and a reason for people not to get married.
That's the same as saying, "Blue-eyed people can't marry other blue-eyed people." Why, because the magical unicorn said so?? How lame.
And a marriage between a male and female is pretty much the same as a male and male. Both couples are humans!!
david starling
Well-known member
Look, it's really not that complicated. Two PEOPLE fall in love, in the traditional, romantic sense, and they want to get married, in the traditional, legal way. No big deal, nothing radical about it. Just accept the FACT that some people prefer sex with a member of their own gender, and that sex is an important part of marriage. It's a GENDER issue--nothing to do with other species. Nothing "inconsistent" about it.
Last edited:
wan
Well-known member
Right!!
Because animals have the mental capacity to consent to a marriage.
I don't think that merely having the ability to consent to a marriage is the ONLY criterion required for entering into a marriage. Marriage has always been defined as the union of a man and a woman.
What you are proposing is akin to a biological male clamoring to be able to use the woman's washroom. People tell him he can't, then he whines and says, "why can't I? I am a human. This is discrimination based on my sex". Except that it isn't. A woman's washroom is, BY DEFINITION, the washroom reserved for women. Men cannot enter it. And in the same vein, same-sex couples cannot get married, and it's because BY DEFINITION, marriage is between a man and a woman.
They can still have civil unions, though, which carry pretty much all the benefits, legal and financial, as marriage. Why can't they be happy about this? Why do they clamor and demand that society bend over backwards to accommodate them?
Like I stated above, just by virtue of being human is not sufficient for marriage. The parties involved have to be a man and a woman.
Gays can still have civil unions. I don't know why they are so keen on being married. There is practically no difference/s between a marriage and a civil union.
Last edited:
wan
Well-known member
Nobody is denying them civil union. They just can't get "married" in the traditional sense. Marriage has always been defined as the union between a man and a woman. By denying gays the ability to get married we are not "depriving" them of anything, as you seem to imply.
AppLeo
Well-known member
LOL are you kidding me??
A marriage between a human and a human is completely different compared to an animal and a human.
You can get out with that.
You won't let two consenting adults get married because a human could potentially marry an animal. OR, you think that a marriage between an animal and a human should be allowed because people with the same private parts are getting married. That's like saying that because we allow people with the same eye color, or the same race to get married we have to let anyone marry anything now. I don't get it.
It makes no sense for the government to see an animal and a human as a union. An animal can't consent. An animal doesn't have the rights as humans according to the law. A union to an animal doesn't really mean anything.
And even if a human did marry an animal, who freaking cares. You don't have to go to the wedding. You don't have to be their friend. You don't have to pay for the wedding. You don't have to be a part of their life.
david starling
Well-known member
What if a human wanted to marry a robot? 
wan
Well-known member
I am against "gay marriage" on the grounds that marriage is, by definition, a union between a man and a woman. With a gay couple, there is not a man and a woman. Therefore, the two people involved cannot be "properly" married. They can still have a civil union, though. Nobody is denying them that.
AppLeo
Well-known member
Well marriage needs to change its definition as far as I'm concerned. And also, if you can't consent to a marriage, then your marriage probably ***** and shouldn't be allowed. If people could marry anything without the other parties consent then a marriage becomes practically useless.
"I'm unified to something that doesn't even acknowledge our unity yay!!!"
We aren't talking about transgenders and bathrooms.
A civil union sounds pretty bland. And you said is "pretty much" gives all the benefits, so obviously not all the complete benefits. I don't understand what's so bad about same-sex marriages. Why are religious people so UNHAPPY about this?? Society is not bending over backwards; it's just being stubborn.
It's funny to me because religion has started marriage all that and now marriage is more a governmental thing. Why do religious people have to be so anti-gay?? They pick and choose everything else in the bible, but when it comes to gay people they want them to suffer because the bible said so. Pathetic.
LOL if there is no difference then why does it matter so much that a marriage has to be between a man and women???
Do you just like hearing that marriage is this perfect thing for a man and women??
Do straight couples wanna sound cool by saying, "Oh yeah we're married!! HAHA look at us we're so cool; we actually have a real bond. All you gay couples can cry with your civil unions even though you have the same benefits as us. Marriage sounds so much cooler than a civil union."
Blaze
Account Closed
What if a human wanted to marry a robot?
Ladies and Gentlemen have I got a deal for you!
Tired of coming home to your lazy spouse? No dishes washed? No dinner being made? More fighting about which in-laws you'll visit this year?
Well, fight no longer! Brought to you in part by future tech comes... SPOUSE 3000! This robot partner does everything an organic partner won't do! Clean dishes, cook, clean, any other...private things.
Order your own SPOUSE 3000! today and live in The future!.
Yep, I can.
david starling
Well-known member
Ladies and Gentlemen have I got a deal for you!
Tired of coming home to your lazy spouse? No dishes washed? No dinner being made? More fighting about which in-laws you'll visit this year?
Well, fight no longer! Brought to you in part by future tech comes... SPOUSE 3000! This robot partner does everything an organic partner won't do! Clean dishes, cook, clean, any other...private things.
Order your own SPOUSE 3000! today and live in The future!.
Yep, I can.
Could I upgrade to an iSpouse 3001?
It has better cooking ability.
wan
Well-known member
I am not prejudiced against gays. I just don't think we as a society need to re-define pre-existing concepts like marriage in order to accommodate gays.
If you want to think I am bigoted towards gays, so be it. They are a tiny minority in our societies and their desires should not dictate policies to the rest of us. Talk about the tail wagging the dog.