Your stance on gay marriage

[Make up your own mind]

Are we really still talking about this?

I still haven't gotten an argument against gay marriage that isn't based off religion. This isn't a religious issue. It's a governmental issue that religion should not be brought into. You don't want gays to get married or you think it's a sin? Fine. But don't take the American given rights away from other people because you feel like imposing your religious beliefs upon everyone else.

So I still don't see why this is a problem, and why the LGBT community should not be allowed to get married.

There is one non-religious argument you see occasionally - the one that says homosexual marriage is wrong because it will let homosexuals have their homosex, which is icky.

I'm sure you can spot the immediate flaw in the logic.

There are also the people who claim it's "unnatural", those arguments are fun to destroy.

[Samuraikoku]

You are, however, talking about law, which has more than one particular Sprachspiel, in that it is related to other Sprachspiele, including those which analyze language, and are concerned with accurate and precise terminology, as is Law itself.

"Religious" and "Not-Religious" are not terms which need to be used at all in a legal discussion of a legal status of union/bond between consenting adults, which is accurately and precisely named "Legal Marriage," and not "Marriage."

Law cannot define "Marriage" for all Sprachspiele. Law can arrive at a definition of "Legal Marriage" which is appropriate for Law concerned with the legal status of bond/union between consenting adults, in terms of legal, political, civil, and economic Sprachspiele. Law is not permitted, by the Constitution, to even so much as attempt, and Law is indeed prohibited, by the Constitution, from so much as even attempting, to produce a definition for "Marriage" in the terminology of religious Sprachspiele. That would crossing the line into the territory of Religion, and would therefore violate the First Amendment.

Law must also make plain that the term "Legal Marriage" refers specifically to the legal status of union/bond, and not any ceremony which might be connected with that status, apart from the satisfaction of the legal requirements. (Otherwise, the vagueness of the term "marriage" itself could lead to unfortunate consequences in which "wedding" as ceremony is assumed to be included under the term "Legal Marriage.")

The introduction of "Legal" as a modifier to the noun "Marriage" is intended, not to contrast "Legal Marriage" from "illegal marriage" (whatever that might be), but rather, to distinguish "Legal Marriage" from "Religious Marriage" and from "Marriage" as a general term.

The legal considerations only apply to legal, political, civil, and economic Sprachspiele, and need not even address the various assertions by some that "Marriage" is "Religious" or "Secular" or "Non-Religious." The Law must, in fact, avoid such pontification.

Listen Dusk_Kittens, you've done a fine job at explaining all of this even if we still don't agree. But you are still missing one thing: How do YOU define "marriage"? Because seems that definition won't apply with the law.

By the way, I'm not sure you read my last post to you in the previous page.

[Sanguinthium]

What do you think about gay marriage? Personally gays (the stereotypical flamer) annoy the living crap out of me, but I also think that it's plain wrong For the government to decide who you can and cannot marry.

Queers dont deserve to live, much less get married. unless ofc they are getting married in somewhere other than a church. but even then, they molest children.

[Make up your own mind]

What do you think about gay marriage? Personally gays (the stereotypical flamer) annoy the living crap out of me, but I also think that it's plain wrong For the government to decide who you can and cannot marry.

Queers dont deserve to live, much less get married. unless ofc they are getting married in somewhere other than a church. but even then, they molest children.

Your thinking of catholic priests. :nods:

Also, prove to me that you deserve to live.

[Katganistan]

What do you think about gay marriage? Personally gays (the stereotypical flamer) annoy the living crap out of me, but I also think that it's plain wrong For the government to decide who you can and cannot marry.

Queers dont deserve to live, much less get married. unless ofc they are getting married in somewhere other than a church. but even then, they molest children.

*** Warned for trolling ***

[Katganistan]

Your thinking of catholic priests. :nods:

*** warned for trolling ***

[Grave_n_idle]

What do you think about gay marriage? Personally gays (the stereotypical flamer) annoy the living crap out of me, but I also think that it's plain wrong For the government to decide who you can and cannot marry.

Queers dont deserve to live, much less get married.

Much to the apparent frustration of some, Constitutionally, 'queers' do indeed 'deserve to live'. Legal precedent rather suggests that we'll soon see it recognised that the Constitution also accords them the right to marry.

So, unless you've got an argument that trumps the Constitution, you're rather wasting breath.

[Furious Grandmothers]

Queers dont deserve to live, much less get married. unless ofc they are getting married in somewhere other than a church. but even then, they molest children.

Your thinking of catholic priests. :nods:

Also, prove to me that you deserve to live.

No one inherently deserves to live. Justice is a mere human construct, and by extension, the attribution of entities as being deserving or not deserving of some attribute(s) is also a mere human construct.

A point that conveniently applies to the abortion debate too.

[The Alma Mater]

What do you think about gay marriage? Personally gays (the stereotypical flamer) annoy the living crap out of me, but I also think that it's plain wrong For the government to decide who you can and cannot marry.

Queers dont deserve to live, much less get married. unless ofc they are getting married in somewhere other than a church. but even then, they molest children.

A gay man fancies adult men.
A straight man fancies adult women.
A bisexual man fancies adult men AND women.

A gay woman fancies adult women.
A straight woman fancies adult men.
A bisexual woman fancies adult men AND women.

I hope that clears things up

[Beldonia]

I give up. You know, it truly doesn't affect me. If two people love each other and are of age, then why the hell not? Yes, I am finally for gay marriage.

[Furious Grandmothers]

Queers dont deserve to live, much less get married. unless ofc they are getting married in somewhere other than a church. but even then, they molest children.

A gay man fancies adult men.
A straight man fancies adult women.
A bisexual man fancies adult men AND women.

A gay woman fancies adult women.
A straight woman fancies adult men.
A bisexual woman fancies adult men AND women.

I hope that clears things up

TL;DR: There's nothing wrong for people to like people. Unless one of the parties involved has his/her rights violated.

[The Alma Mater]

I give up. You know, it truly doesn't affect me. If two people love each other and are of age, then why the hell not? Yes, I am finally for gay marriage.

*gives a cookie*.

Now, as soon as someone tries to force you to have a gay marriage, or force your priest to perform it, call us. That someone will then be hit by an anvil falling from the sky

[Anarchic-X]

I don't know if it has been said or not (as I don't feel like reading 134 pages of posts), but I have nothing wrong with gay marriage, as long as it is not called "marriage", because really, that would be twisting the DEFINITION of the word "marriage" (Meaning 'one man and one woman'). I have no problem with gay marriage, so long as it is referred to as a "civil union" or some such thing. Maybe even a new word could be created to include all "marriages", regardless of gender, that would encompass man-woman, man-man, and woman-woman unions? Just a thought.

[DaWoad]

I give up. You know, it truly doesn't affect me. If two people love each other and are of age, then why the hell not? Yes, I am finally for gay marriage.

*gives a cookie*.

Now, as soon as someone tries to force you to have a gay marriage, or force your priest to perform it, call us. That someone will then be hit by an anvil falling from the sky

Irl ban-hammer *nods* verrrry permanent

[Grave_n_idle]

I don't know if it has been said or not (as I don't feel like reading 134 pages of posts), but I have nothing wrong with gay marriage, as long as it is not called "marriage", because really, that would be twisting the DEFINITION of the word "marriage" (Meaning 'one man and one woman'). I have no problem with gay marriage, so long as it is referred to as a "civil union" or some such thing. Maybe even a new word could be created to include all "marriages", regardless of gender, that would encompass man-woman, man-man, and woman-woman unions? Just a thought.

"Marriage" doesn't mean 'one man and one women'. Uniting two pieces of wood is a 'marriage' of materials. Polygamous marriage is marriage, but has the wrong number of partners to fit your criteria. You can attempt to redefine marriage to mean 'one man and one woman' if you like, but you have to throw out historical evidence, and most of the accepted meanings of the word to do it.

[Furious Grandmothers]

I don't know if it has been said or not (as I don't feel like reading 134 pages of posts), but I have nothing wrong with gay marriage, as long as it is not called "marriage", because really, that would be twisting the DEFINITION of the word "marriage" (Meaning 'one man and one woman'). I have no problem with gay marriage, so long as it is referred to as a "civil union" or some such thing. Maybe even a new word could be created to include all "marriages", regardless of gender, that would encompass man-woman, man-man, and woman-woman unions? Just a thought.

I see, but what do you think of broadening the definition of marriage? So many English words are redefined every year as becomes appropriate. Also, where did you get that definition of marriage from? Just interested to know.

[DaWoad]

but I have nothing wrong with gay marriage,

good!

as long as it is not called "marriage", because really, that would be twisting the DEFINITION of the word "marriage" (Meaning 'one man and one woman').

[citation needed]

I have no problem with gay marriage,

still good

so long as it is referred to as a "civil union" or some such thing. Maybe even a new word could be created to include all "marriages", regardless of gender, that would encompass man-woman, man-man, and woman-woman unions? Just a thought.

that word already exists it's called "marriage". if you wanna specify you can say something like
"heterosexual marriage"
or
Polygamous marriage
or
homosexual marriage
w/e you want.

[Beldonia]

I don't know if it has been said or not (as I don't feel like reading 134 pages of posts), but I have nothing wrong with gay marriage, as long as it is not called "marriage", because really, that would be twisting the DEFINITION of the word "marriage" (Meaning 'one man and one woman'). I have no problem with gay marriage, so long as it is referred to as a "civil union" or some such thing. Maybe even a new word could be created to include all "marriages", regardless of gender, that would encompass man-woman, man-man, and woman-woman unions? Just a thought.

Hi there. Marriage does not mean "one man and one woman". That's just false.

[The Alma Mater]

I don't know if it has been said or not (as I don't feel like reading 134 pages of posts), but I have nothing wrong with gay marriage, as long as it is not called "marriage", because really, that would be twisting the DEFINITION of the word "marriage" (Meaning 'one man and one woman'). I have no problem with gay marriage, so long as it is referred to as a "civil union" or some such thing. Maybe even a new word could be created to include all "marriages", regardless of gender, that would encompass man-woman, man-man, and woman-woman unions? Just a thought.

Hi there. Marriage does not mean "one man and one woman". That's just false.

And people who do not believe that are kindly requested to read the Bible. Say the section on Solomon and his marriage.

[Snot Sniper]

Hi there. Marriage does not mean "one man and one woman". That's just false.

And people who do not believe that are kindly requested to read the Bible. Say the section on Solomon and his marriage.

Wait, you're an atheist aren't you? Telling people to go read the bible is a bit like telling them to go shove their head in a bucket of shit.

[Dyakovo]

Which is irrelevant. Because I'm not discussing my opinion.

I'm talking about the objective reality, that marriage is not religious. That's not my opinion - that's the inherent nature of marriage.

You keep talking about how some people's SUBJECTIVE opinion alter that - but it's nonsense. Subjective opinions do not alter objective reality.

I'm talking about worldview. Weltanschauung. Sitz-im-Leben. Perspective.

And I'll stop you right here... The bolded indicates you are talking about subjective opinions.

[Ifreann]

And people who do not believe that are kindly requested to read the Bible. Say the section on Solomon and his marriage.

Wait, you're an atheist aren't you? Telling people to go read the bible is a bit like telling them to go shove their head in a bucket of shit.

No it isn't.

[Salandriagado]

And people who do not believe that are kindly requested to read the Bible. Say the section on Solomon and his marriage.

Wait, you're an atheist aren't you? Telling people to go read the bible is a bit like telling them to go shove their head in a bucket of shit.

Not at all, it's a decent book. Not as good a story line as the Quran, of course, but it's OK.

[Alyakia]

Wait, you're an atheist aren't you? Telling people to go read the bible is a bit like telling them to go shove their head in a bucket of shit.

Not at all, it's a decent book. Not as good a story line as the Quran, of course, but it's OK.

I hear it's got some amazing action scenes.

[Ifreann]

Not at all, it's a decent book. Not as good a story line as the Quran, of course, but it's OK.

I hear it's got some amazing action scenes.

God has been known to fuck shit up in his time.