TailsLover:
registered on 2009-04-21 03:57:02 pm.
Gender: male
Location: Ohio
Merry Christmas
Thread title:
Metroid 2002 Forum
Poll:
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
Are you for or against gay marriage?
| For | (27) | ||
| Against | (15) |
Poision Envy:
registered on 2008-10-25 08:56:26 pm.
Gender: female
Location: I'm outta place, I'm in outer space
Death to skinfags, sieg heil.
Quote from tomatobob:
Wait, why are the options yes or no? How does that answer a question starting with "Are you for or against"?
Thats what I was wondering >_<
I'm against it fully.
Poision Envy:
registered on 2008-10-25 08:56:26 pm.
Gender: female
Location: I'm outta place, I'm in outer space
Death to skinfags, sieg heil.
Quote from Baby Sheegoth:
The reason being?
Many. I really don't feel like having this kind of stupid time wasting debate on the internet though. Its like the argument about abortion.
Quote from tomatobob:
That's the same thing just presented differently, how does, or should, that have any effect on your opinion?
It's just arguing semantics.
The 2 options represent a variation from each other for you to express your (said) opinion on the topic/question being presented. A simple "yes" or "no" may not be broad enough 'options' to fully express one's opinion on the matter. Arguing over mere "semantics" is just looking for something to argue over.
The only way it would have any effect on your opinion is moot. It's the individual that decides to voice the opinion they should/might already have on the matter. Asking what one's opinion is -is inviting a free willed response. There is nothing here that compels anyone to click reply, type out their opinion, and click Post.
I did find your reply somewhat humorous though.
Quote from tomatobob:
I was talking about the civil union argument. It confuses me, please explain.
I see. Good question. Since couples of opposite genders can also be in "civil unions"... It
Anything else is considered "fornication", (even outside of marriage between a man and woman).
tomatobob:
registered on 2004-03-27 12:44:30 am.
Gender: male
Location: O'er yon hill
Never stressed
The problem, in my mind, is that you are applying a single religious significance to something that involves a wide range of people of various religious views. Two atheists can get married, and use that term, and that's a-ok, but a gay couple wants to declare themselves "Married" and OH NO YOU DON'T THIS IS OURS YOU GODLESS HEATHENS!
I don't see how a couple that view the Christian or any other form of God in the same significance as the tiniest speck of dust thousands of miles away, or even claim outright hatred of that entity, can partake in what many view as a religious ceremony without the slightest hint of rage from those people who are not affected by it in anyway. Unless they are gay. A gay wedding is somehow worse in the eyes of a great number of Christians than a wedding between people who piss all over the concept of a god. I find this both amusing and frustrating. It's alright make a mockery of what is a most holy Christian ceremony as long as it is a man and a woman doing the mocking.
If you're going to call out gays for defiling this sacred ceremony, you should at least have the decency to call out the millions of others who do the same. It won't matter as marriage has been a secular thing for a long ass time, but at least the complaint might make more sense. But nope, just dose homos.
It just feels really arbitrary to me.
I don't see how a couple that view the Christian or any other form of God in the same significance as the tiniest speck of dust thousands of miles away, or even claim outright hatred of that entity, can partake in what many view as a religious ceremony without the slightest hint of rage from those people who are not affected by it in anyway. Unless they are gay. A gay wedding is somehow worse in the eyes of a great number of Christians than a wedding between people who piss all over the concept of a god. I find this both amusing and frustrating. It's alright make a mockery of what is a most holy Christian ceremony as long as it is a man and a woman doing the mocking.
If you're going to call out gays for defiling this sacred ceremony, you should at least have the decency to call out the millions of others who do the same. It won't matter as marriage has been a secular thing for a long ass time, but at least the complaint might make more sense. But nope, just dose homos.
It just feels really arbitrary to me.
arkarian:
is in the group Administrator.
registered on 2004-09-01 04:15:32 pm.
Gender: male
Location: ellicott city, md, usa
mindfulness
fully erect
has nothing to do with beliefs.
it's because christians are taught that as long as a union is between a man and a woman (regardless of their beliefs) it's ok to call it marriage. if it's not between a man and a woman, it's still perfectly fine to unite as long as it's not called marriage (since marriage is defined in the christian bible as being between a man and a woman regardless of their beliefs). so yeah there is a difference.
it's because christians are taught that as long as a union is between a man and a woman (regardless of their beliefs) it's ok to call it marriage. if it's not between a man and a woman, it's still perfectly fine to unite as long as it's not called marriage (since marriage is defined in the christian bible as being between a man and a woman regardless of their beliefs). so yeah there is a difference.
Poision Envy:
registered on 2008-10-25 08:56:26 pm.
Gender: female
Location: I'm outta place, I'm in outer space
Death to skinfags, sieg heil.
Homosexuals already have a special word for being together as a couple (I forget what it is), and non-homosexuals have a special word for being together as a couple (marriage).
EDIT:
has nothing to do with beliefs.
it's because christians are taught that as long as a union is between a man and a woman (regardless of their beliefs) it's ok to call it marriage. if it's not between a man and a woman, it's still perfectly fine to unite as long as it's not called marriage (since marriage is defined in the christian bible as being between a man and a woman regardless of their beliefs). so yeah there is a difference.
OH! yeah, I didn't know that, but yeah.
EDIT:
Quote from arkarian:
has nothing to do with beliefs.
it's because christians are taught that as long as a union is between a man and a woman (regardless of their beliefs) it's ok to call it marriage. if it's not between a man and a woman, it's still perfectly fine to unite as long as it's not called marriage (since marriage is defined in the christian bible as being between a man and a woman regardless of their beliefs). so yeah there is a difference.
OH! yeah, I didn't know that, but yeah.
arkarian:
is in the group Administrator.
registered on 2004-09-01 04:15:32 pm.
Gender: male
Location: ellicott city, md, usa
mindfulness
fully erect
Quote from Poision Envy:
Homosexuals already have a special word for being together as a couple
never heard of anything like that before besides "life partner" or something. seems like many homosexuals either really are very passionate about wanting to be able to "marry" or are fine with terms like "life partner". if what tbob said about the various terms just being different ways of conveying the same idea, it theoretically wouldn't matter if homosexuals can't get "married" (since they can do the exact same thing but just call it something else).
but of course it does matter to many people precisely because they have to call it something else (even though it's the same thing), so i feel it will always be a point of contention until one side gives in.
if you want my opinion: i suppose don't care either way, since i'm of the belief that it doesn't matter what it's called as long as the rights are the same. who cares what other people call it as long as you get what you want ?
that being said, the rights must be the same, i.e. gay couples should be able to adopt children, etc. think we've still got a ways to go before that happens.
@ tbob. :-) I realized later the (what about atheists being married? argument) might come up. IMO It's not about their belief but the concept that same genders (being together in a sexual way) is considered an abomination.
Also, Marriage shouldn't be for sex, but sex is for marriage. Above all Marriage should be about Love and (if the ability is there -not that it's 'required') the bringing up of the couples off-spring. Just speaking on 2 beings being merged... It wouldn't be a pretty site for 2 people to be fused together in a monstrous mess of limbs and body parts (i.e. One being -Literally!), so that's why the mixing of genes is a product of that Love between 2 people.
Eh, never mind that odd tangent I went off on there at the end. It's just how I've felt at times in the past about the person I Love.
And if the parts were designed to fit together - it must mean they had a specific purpose.
Also, Marriage shouldn't be for sex, but sex is for marriage. Above all Marriage should be about Love and (if the ability is there -not that it's 'required') the bringing up of the couples off-spring. Just speaking on 2 beings being merged... It wouldn't be a pretty site for 2 people to be fused together in a monstrous mess of limbs and body parts (i.e. One being -Literally!), so that's why the mixing of genes is a product of that Love between 2 people.
Eh, never mind that odd tangent I went off on there at the end. It's just how I've felt at times in the past about the person I Love.
And if the parts were designed to fit together - it must mean they had a specific purpose.
Servin' you realness!!
MARRIAGE as described under the law has nothing to do with religion. Gays are not asking that the law require any church to condone gay marriage, they just want the government to recognize their marriage as a lawful union with all the rights and responsibilities that come with it. Religious people are always quick to scream that their religious freedoms are being compromised when the truth is that the gay marriage proponents have NEVER asked that the law require any church to do anything, they just want the LAW changed to recognize their marriage. It wouldn't make much sense to infringe upon people's freedom of religion to achieve civil equality now would it? The government isn't about to tell the church what to do, now the church has to figure out how to stop trying to tell the government what to do. All gay marriage would do is allow your fellow citizens who happen to be gay to get married, and would have no negative impact on anyone whatsoever. It has been this way for years in many countries now and they have not experienced ANY of the problems that the religious right in america has been warning everyone about.
If you lived in a condo complex and the couple down the hall happened to be a gay couple, how the hell would it affect your life if they got married? Would it just be too uncomfortable for you to call them a married couple? If that's all that is standing in the way of people having equality then I'm sorry - the gays will win. Throughout history any time a group has fought for equal rights they have come out victorious. Throughout history religion has done everything they can to stop the evolution of our culture and our race. They persecuted those who said the world was round, they persecuted those who said that the earth revolved around the sun, they persecuted those who said women should have equal rights, etc etc. All they have really managed to do is slow things down and cause alot of conflict. Gays aren't simply going to let the issue rest, the human spirit will keep on fighting no matter how long it takes, it's that simple.
If you don't believe that gays should be married because that's what your religion teaches, then all you have to do to support that belief is not marry someone of the same sex. To expect any government to impose that religious belief upon others will not work and frankly is unamerican. The USA was founded on separation of church and state because the founding fathers KNEW that religion and government simply do not mix and always cause discord. The polls show that older americans are overwhelmingly against gay marriage while younger americans are overwhelmingly in support of it, so its really just a matter of time. If it takes a couple generations dying off so we can progress as a species then so be it. In the mean time the human spirit will endure and fight for equality just like it has for any past issues, and eventually it will win.
FURTHERMORE the arguments made by opponents of gay marriage have been ludicrous. Two men can't be in love. Love has nothing to do with marriage. It is a legal agreement. Did anyone question anna nicole smiths right to marry an 89 year old man? did anyone believe she was in love with him? Why are all these principles of marriage being raised over gays when they aren't pressed at all for hetero-marriage? Civil unions are not the same as marriage. Different is never equal, that's just the way it is. One state even requires gays to show proof that they have lived together for X number of years. This is ludicrous. Straight people are allowed to marry people that they have never even met.
If you lived in a condo complex and the couple down the hall happened to be a gay couple, how the hell would it affect your life if they got married? Would it just be too uncomfortable for you to call them a married couple? If that's all that is standing in the way of people having equality then I'm sorry - the gays will win. Throughout history any time a group has fought for equal rights they have come out victorious. Throughout history religion has done everything they can to stop the evolution of our culture and our race. They persecuted those who said the world was round, they persecuted those who said that the earth revolved around the sun, they persecuted those who said women should have equal rights, etc etc. All they have really managed to do is slow things down and cause alot of conflict. Gays aren't simply going to let the issue rest, the human spirit will keep on fighting no matter how long it takes, it's that simple.
If you don't believe that gays should be married because that's what your religion teaches, then all you have to do to support that belief is not marry someone of the same sex. To expect any government to impose that religious belief upon others will not work and frankly is unamerican. The USA was founded on separation of church and state because the founding fathers KNEW that religion and government simply do not mix and always cause discord. The polls show that older americans are overwhelmingly against gay marriage while younger americans are overwhelmingly in support of it, so its really just a matter of time. If it takes a couple generations dying off so we can progress as a species then so be it. In the mean time the human spirit will endure and fight for equality just like it has for any past issues, and eventually it will win.
FURTHERMORE the arguments made by opponents of gay marriage have been ludicrous. Two men can't be in love. Love has nothing to do with marriage. It is a legal agreement. Did anyone question anna nicole smiths right to marry an 89 year old man? did anyone believe she was in love with him? Why are all these principles of marriage being raised over gays when they aren't pressed at all for hetero-marriage? Civil unions are not the same as marriage. Different is never equal, that's just the way it is. One state even requires gays to show proof that they have lived together for X number of years. This is ludicrous. Straight people are allowed to marry people that they have never even met.
Poision Envy:
registered on 2008-10-25 08:56:26 pm.
Gender: female
Location: I'm outta place, I'm in outer space
Death to skinfags, sieg heil.
Quote from Opium:
Gays are not asking that the law require any church to condone gay marriage, they just want the government to recognize their marriage as a lawful union with all the rights and responsibilities that come with it.
I have no problem with that, in fact I think they SHOULD have that, but I don't think it should be called marriage. Like before, I say the definition of marriage should be kept to between a man and women, and homosexual marriage should be kept to whatever else its called, but it should also have all the same rights as a normal marriage.
Servin' you realness!!
Quote from Poision Envy:
Quote from Opium:
Gays are not asking that the law require any church to condone gay marriage, they just want the government to recognize their marriage as a lawful union with all the rights and responsibilities that come with it.
I have no problem with that, in fact I think they SHOULD have that, but I don't think it should be called marriage. Like before, I say the definition of marriage should be kept to between a man and women, and homosexual marriage should be kept to whatever else its called, but it should also have all the same rights as a normal marriage.
Different is never equal, and thats just the way it is. You have presented no sound argument for exactly why it shouldn't be called marriage other than 'just because'. The church can define marriage however they want. We're talking about the law now.
arkarian:
is in the group Administrator.
registered on 2004-09-01 04:15:32 pm.
Gender: male
Location: ellicott city, md, usa
mindfulness
fully erect
Quote:
the founding fathers KNEW that religion and government simply do not mix and always cause discord.
wonder where people got that idea. the "founding fathers" were all or mostly all christian and wrote many christian ideas into the constitution (separation of church and state was not in the original constitution. seems like jackson pushed for it due to pressure from others). yes, they made the christian religion and bible an integral part of law. that's part of why the us is having such trouble with separation of church and state now— because of how the country was originally set up. america was not originally intended to be a "land for everyone" and anyone who thinks that is a fool. it was founded by christians for christian people. only later did its citizens start to come to their senses; it's a shame the law hasn't yet followed suit.
Poision Envy:
registered on 2008-10-25 08:56:26 pm.
Gender: female
Location: I'm outta place, I'm in outer space
Death to skinfags, sieg heil.
Quote from Opium:
Quote from Poision Envy:
Quote from Opium:
Gays are not asking that the law require any church to condone gay marriage, they just want the government to recognize their marriage as a lawful union with all the rights and responsibilities that come with it.
I have no problem with that, in fact I think they SHOULD have that, but I don't think it should be called marriage. Like before, I say the definition of marriage should be kept to between a man and women, and homosexual marriage should be kept to whatever else its called, but it should also have all the same rights as a normal marriage.
Different is never equal, and thats just the way it is. You have presented no sound argument for exactly why it shouldn't be called marriage other than 'just because'. The church can define marriage however they want. We're talking about the law now.
It shouldn't be called marriage because marriage is between a man and women, that is just the term of it. Now if there was a different term for homosexual marriages then that would be the term for it. Two separate words for two separate things.
We don't call lemons and oranges the same thing just because they kinda look and seem the same, we call them two different things because they are two different things.