DCsportsfan53 Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 There is a real simple solution to this. Get the government out of the business of marriage. In other words, privatization. This would be a good thing. I can think about 10 other things that government should get out of as well. I agree, why isn't this one of them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 I don't care what word you use, don't call it marriage if it's gays. It's a matter of two people having the RIGHT to choose to ally themselves under the law, for protection of both partners in the relationship. This is a legal thing, not a religious thing. That is a cop out. Poor form DC. Be honest with yourself. The term marriage must mean something, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mooka Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 No, people are wired straight, just as sure as a person is an omnivore, yet some people choose to be vegetarians. Hence procreation comes of being straight. Its the natural order. Whether you believe in God or not.Let's go down a similar path quickly. Is porn ok? Is child porn ok? At what point does it become ok? When a girl is 15? 16? 17? Surely she can consent at 15? Where do you draw the line? ANd don't give me no bogus apples and oranges crud either. I know you. :doh: :munchout: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 That is a cop out. Poor form DC.Be honest with yourself. The term marriage must mean something, right? It's a legal union between two people. In my mind, the sex of the two people is inconsequential. If you want a sacred marriage, go get married in a church. If you want a legal marriage, go to the courthouse. There's a real simple resolution, if your church or religious establishment believes homosexuality is wrong, that institution can choose not to marry gays. That should have no effect whatsoever on two gay people's ability to go the courthouse and tie the knot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 It's a legal union between two people. . Wrong, try again. I didn't ask for your opinion or how you "feel". What is it with people like you and Rince. You skeered to answer the question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Wrong, try again. I didn't ask for your opinion or how you "feel". What is it with people like you and Rince. You skeered to answer the question? That's what it is to me. Two people who make a vow to be with each other for the rest of their lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_Edwards_Fan Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 I would be very interested in seeing how peoples opinions on this matter based on age. I imagin it would be very similar to how things broke down in the 1970's regarding segregation. When people are raised with a given opinion, I think once you reach a certain age that opinion isnt going to change, ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 That's what it is to me. Two people who make a vow to be with each other for the rest of their lives. Lets try this again.....and it might require you to go get a dictionary or go online. Take a breath.........ready??? What is the definition of marriage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Lets try this again.....and it might require you to go get a dictionary or go online.Take a breath.........ready??? What is the definition of marriage? I understand that the current defintion of marriage is between a man and woman only. That doesn't mean ****, though. A couple hundred years ago, the definition of a human didn't include anyone with dark skin. Somehow that changed. Now that you got your quote for the out of context thread , let me ask, what is your objection to gays being legally entitled to cast the same vows and have it legally recognized? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 I understand that the current defintion of marriage is between a man and woman only. Thank you sir. Have a nice day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Weirdo Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 I think you're all secretly gay. There is no way you could spend this much time on one topic without enjoying the thoughts and visualizations of two men (or women) together. Honestly.. it's crossed your mind, right? Two men. Frenching. Pool side. Speedos. Oh yeah. You love it. Hooray gays! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Now that you got your quote for the out of context thread , let me ask, what is your objection to gays being legally entitled to cast the same vows and have it legally recognized? Now to answer your question. I have no problem with two consenting adults creating a union for the purposes of legal matters. I do have a problem with that union being equated with what my wife and I did almost ten years ago with the end result being three children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Thank you sir. Have a nice day. And what was the point of this stupid game? Everyone already knows that's how it's currently viewed. Care to debate why, or did you just want to play games and get the little quote? Edit: saw your second reply, waiting for the repost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 :doh: :munchout: This post shouldn't even be legitimized with reply, but oh well, here goes.Gee, that was an intelligent contribution to the debate. :doh: indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Thanks Predicto and Larry for at least giving your answer to the question. I find it interesting when people make a claim along the lines of "government should not decide what 2 people marriage can be between" not realizing that they have just placed their own restriction on it. I can't believe we wasted more than a couple of posts discussing the whole dog issue. Larry's discussion of family law is interesting. Supposing two homosexuals are "married" and are raising a child. Clearly both of them can not be a biological parent(which is not the fault of the government or "homophobes"). And assuming that their "marriages" go the way of a "normal" marriage and approximately half end up in divorce. Who gets the kid? The introduction of the possibility of multiple males and females is also something that I have not considered. Usually think of it in the way of 1 member of one sex, x members of the opposite sex. I really would be interested in others thoughts on the polygamy issue. I think that legitimately addresses whether or not the government should dictate who we can and can't marry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 I do have a problem with that union being equated with what my wife and I did almost ten years ago with the end result being three children. See, here's the thing, there are churches willing to marry gays... Who decides which churches are churchy enough? Also, I don't think your marriage is as good as mine, I don't like you calling what you have a marriage, compared to what I have with my wife and child... (just food for thought) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 There is no way you could spend this much time on one topic without enjoying the thoughts and visualizations of two men (or women) together. I have never denied enjoying the visualization of two women together. In fact I could spend this much time, and a whole lot more, visualizing that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Also, to add more fuel to the fire.... What if a hermaphrodite considers themself a male, ie: dresses that way etc... and they consider themself gay, yet they are able to reproduce. They have both sexual organs, thus buy some of your rules, they can procreate... so what then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Also, to add more fuel to the fire....What if a hermaphrodite considers themself a male, ie: dresses that way etc... and they consider themself gay, yet they are able to reproduce. They have both sexual organs, thus buy some of your rules, they can procreate... so what then? Can hermaphrodites reproduce?I really don't know... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 I can't believe we wasted more than a couple of posts discussing the whole dog issue. . You can ignor what my point was if you would like. But the bottom line is unless you are willing to commit yourself to a definition of marriage it really does not matter. The "definition" of marriage is not up for debate. In our society it is clear that this means a union between a man and woman. If you are going to insist on using a term such as marriage to define a union between a man and a man then I will insist that you definition of marriage has as much bearing as if a man married a dog. ZERO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Thanks Predicto and Larry for at least giving your answer to the question. I find it interesting when people make a claim along the lines of "government should not decide what 2 people marriage can be between" not realizing that they have just placed their own restriction on it. I can't believe we wasted more than a couple of posts discussing the whole dog issue. Larry's discussion of family law is interesting. Supposing two homosexuals are "married" and are raising a child. Clearly both of them can not be a biological parent(which is not the fault of the government or "homophobes"). And assuming that their "marriages" go the way of a "normal" marriage and approximately half end up in divorce. Who gets the kid? The introduction of the possibility of multiple males and females is also something that I have not considered. Usually think of it in the way of 1 member of one sex, x members of the opposite sex. I really would be interested in others thoughts on the polygamy issue. I think that legitimately addresses whether or not the government should dictate who we can and can't marry. To be honest, the whole polygamy thing, along with family issues like Larry mentioned, resulting in welfare issues for children when things go bad, is why a lot of people are agianst gay marriage. They are afraid the line will continue to be pushed back, and back, and back, and our kids will reap the consequences. To many it is like opening Pandora's box or a can of worms. If you allow it, then polygamists or any form of marriage has legal precedent to challenge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhead36 Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 I'm fine with gay marriage. Just leaves more women for the rest of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 You can ignor what my point was if you would like. portis, no one ever ignores your points. They simply refuse to give your points the same significance that you yourself want them to have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 See, here's the thing, there are churches willing to marry gays... Who decides which churches are churchy enough?Also, I don't think your marriage is as good as mine, I don't like you calling what you have a marriage, compared to what I have with my wife and child... (just food for thought) Do those same churches elect presidents? Tell you what, I will start a chuch tomorrow whos job is to elect a president of the country. We will call it binding and legitimate. We will get 10 or 10,000 members who are willing to join and elect you "president". Does this mean you are actually the President? Same thing here. You can say a church exists where a man can marry a dog. This would be the equivalent to your example. The term has no real meaning in our society. And more and more, people of this country are MAKING SURE that the term marriage means what it is supposed to mean via amendments. Man and woman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 portis, no one ever ignores your points.They simply refuse to give your points the same significance that you yourself want them to have. thanks? What was that? and how does that comment hold bearing here? You don't like my dog example do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.