Gay Marriage Unconstitutional?

[jamuko]

Laharl, you're saying that the concept of love being integral to marriage is new, and therefore should be ignored? Oh, god forbid our race evolve to new and better ideals! Are you saying that hypothetically, you would prefer a society with arranged marriages just to further bloodlines rather than one where you marry whomever you choose?

Using old values like you are, you might as well say it's unconstitutional for women to have jobs, or the lower-class to be educated. See how many people would agree with those.

I'm not usually the argumentative type, but this debate sparks my interest because I still have yet to see an argument from your side that makes any sense at all to me, so it's baffling that it somehow manages to hold its own in this country. I'd really like to hear one.

[FoJaR]

Originally Posted by Grandiagod

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

that boils down to same sex mentorships in china, same sex relations in greece, temporary same sex "pay the father to bang the son" unions in africa, formal marriages to shamans, and the roman emporor Nero, possibly the WORST representitive a cause can have.

[Shashakiro]

Originally Posted by Laharl

damn, i just realized you're right but i don't want to admit it so i'll just give up instead

GG indeed.

[FoJaR]

Originally Posted by Kilgamayan

I question the idea that requiring a male-female relationship for marriage is universal, objective and not fundamentally flawed.

I also question the idea that a rewrite of the apparent definition of marriage to exclude relationships with specific gender requirements is bad or even inconvenient enough to warrant not doing it.

BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT MARRIAGE IS!

you cant say "well it's easy to change the definition of marriage so lets do it."

i want to change the definition of dog to include cats. it would be really easy.

i want to change the definition of freedom of religion to mean that i can stone someone to death if they're a sinner.

i want to change the definition of the N-word to something less offensive.

things arent going to change just because it's convenient. this is the way it is, and this is the way it's going to stay. marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

[Grandiagod]

Originally Posted by FoJaR

BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT MARRIAGE IS!

you cant say "well it's easy to change the definition of marriage so lets do it."

i want to change the definition of dog to include cats. it would be really easy.

i want to change the definition of freedom of religion to mean that i can stone someone to death if they're a sinner.

i want to change the definition of the N-word to something less offensive.

things arent going to change just because it's convenient. this is the way it is, and this is the way it's going to stay. marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

Show me where, in the constitution, marriage is defined.

[FoJaR]

Ammendment XXVIII

Section 1. Marriage is hereby defined as the union of one man and one woman.

Section 2. ******s can burn in hell PRAISE TEXAS





Nah, marriage isnt in the constitution. but that doesnt make the definition any less clear.

[Grandiagod]

Originally Posted by FoJaR

Nah, marriage isnt in the constitution. but that doesnt make the definition any less clear.

Anyone can have their own definition. This is proof by the fact that there is disagreement on the issue.

What is clear is that the constitution grants EQUAL rights to everyone. Including gays.

Therefore;

Gay marriage = Constitutional.

[FoJaR]

no, equal rights = gay people are allowed to marry members of the opposite sex.

[jewpinthethird]

Gay Marriage = Unconstitutional = 2 Week Ban

[FoJaR]

[Dragula219]

Originally Posted by jewpinthethird

Gay Marriage = Unconstitutional = 2 Week Ban

I guess we should get divorced FoJaR.

[Grandiagod]

Originally Posted by FoJaR

no, equal rights = gay people are allowed to marry members of the opposite sex.

Explain how this logic of yours works. I do not follow it.

[FoJaR]

we never got married, but i still love you.

[FoJaR]

Originally Posted by Grandiagod

Explain how this logic of yours works. I do not follow it.

straight people have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

gay people have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

[Grandiagod]

Originally Posted by FoJaR

straight people have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

gay people have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

Very true. But why wouldn't they have a right to marry someone of the same sex? How come hetro relationships are suddenly the only ones covered by rights?

[Kilgamayan]

Originally Posted by FoJaR

BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT MARRIAGE IS!

Then what is marriage? Maybe it would help all your curt, condescending statements a bit if you actually presented a stance of your own.

Originally Posted by FoJaR

you cant say "well it's easy to change the definition of marriage so lets do it."

i want to change the definition of dog to include cats. it would be really easy.

i want to change the definition of freedom of religion to mean that i can stone someone to death if they're a sinner.

i want to change the definition of the N-word to something less offensive.

If you get a large enough mass of people who agree with you, then go ahead and do those things. Look at suffrage and the civil rights movement. Those folks didn't roll over and go "oh man we're never going to change anything let's just give up". They got off their asses and did something.

Originally Posted by FoJaR

things arent going to change just because it's convenient. this is the way it is, and this is the way it's going to stay.

1) Says who?
2) Why?

[FishFishRevolution]

I think this is a viable post considering this used to be a chit-chat topic and I should've posted it then.

[Afrobean]

So, for you people against gay marriages, do you have a problem with them getting all of the legal rights a married couple would, but simply calling it something else?

If so, why? Two gay people wouldn't be able to live in union doesn't damage "your" definition of marriage. It doesn't hurt anyone. All it does is give these people the same advantages that any married couple gets.

Additionally, is all this really worth arguing over the semantics of the word? Who gives a ****? It's not like your religion is the owner of the word, and it's not even like your religion ISSUES OUT MARRIAGE LICENSES. It's the government's job to regulate marriage, and thus, religious factors, such as the fact that homosexuality is a sin, should be 100% irrelevent.

[Squeek]

Anti-gay marriagers: Who are you to come between the love of two individuals you don't even know?

It's quite natural for people who love each other to want to have benefits and status as a married couple. That's pretty much what a marriage is all about. A Civil Union does not cut it. When people ask you for your status, there's single, married, or divorced. There's no "civil-unioned".

If two people love each other, let them get married. The only thing I'm hesitant to allow is person -> animal marriages. That's just weird.

[FoJaR]

Originally Posted by Kilgamayan

Then what is marriage? Maybe it would help all your curt, condescending statements a bit if you actually presented a stance of your own.

marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

1) Says who?
2) Why?

1. America.

2. Because that's what marriage is.

Afro: fine with homosexual couples having the advantages that heterosexual people get. but it's not marriage. it's friends, with benefits LOL

AND: if the government suddenly refused to give out marriage licenses to heterosexual people, i would still "get married," even if it were only a religious ceremony (by far more important to me than any marriage certificate) and it wouldnt matter that much to me, because in the big picture, i'd be with the person i love.