Same-Sex Marriage: Yea or Nay? And Explain!

[Albaron]

If you think this is a "strong argument," I think you badly need to be exposed to people who aren't in the "cognitively-challenged underclass," as he puts it. I mean, seriously? "Marriage has to be limited to heterosexual people because stupid people need something to aspire to"? The fuck?

Let's not even mention the leap from redefining to encompass a class of consenting persons to somehow slope into allowing the marriage to farm-animals and children.... Just the FACT that someone posits that automatically nullifies their entire argument.... Course, I'm not totally certain that the class of individuals actually realize how absurd they are...

Think a minute: If we legalize gay-marriage, and it ebcoems acceptable, people who want to marry their dogs will use the same arguments we use now: "You let interracial marriages happen, why not gay marriages."
"You let gays marry, why not me and Mr. Wuffles"

[Strangerthan]

Of course it doesn't matter. However...this.

Counter-arguments like “so was slavery” are unconvincing, as the occasional slights suffered by homosexual couples are microscopic by comparison with the injustice of human beings buying and selling other human beings

There really is a slippery slope here. Once marriage has been redefined to include homosexual pairings, what grounds will there be to oppose futher redefinition — to encompass people who want to marry their ponies, their sisters, or their soccer team?

In a society in which nobody had an IQ below 120, homosexual marriage might be plausible. In the actual societies we have, other considerations kick in.

There has never, anywhere, at any level of civilization, been a society that approved egalitarian (i.e. same age, same status) homosexual bonding

Think about it, I think the author makes a strong argument.

Just becuase it's never been done means we shouldn't do it? Becuase history has shown us so much about how to treat our fellow man, what with the slavery, oppression of just about everyone and so on. Surely we should be aspiring to be better than we were or have been?

Besides, changing now doesn't mean we can't change back.

And I kind of fail to see how two consenting adults who wish to spend their lives together can lead to me marrying my dog. Obviously I'm missing something.

[Farnhamia]

If you think this is a "strong argument," I think you badly need to be exposed to people who aren't in the "cognitively-challenged underclass," as he puts it. I mean, seriously? "Marriage has to be limited to heterosexual people because stupid people need something to aspire to"? The fuck?

Let's not even mention the leap from redefining to encompass a class of consenting persons to somehow slope into allowing the marriage to farm-animals and children.... Just the FACT that someone posits that automatically nullifies their entire argument.... Course, I'm not totally certain that the class of individuals actually realize how absurd they are...

Think a minute: If we legalize gay-marriage, and it ebcoems acceptable, people who want to marry their dogs will use the same arguments we use now: "You let interracial marriages happen, why not gay marriages."
"You let gays marry, why not me and Mr. Wuffles"

Mr. Wuffles, who is not a sentient being, cannot make an informed decision, so no. Nice try but seriously, that argument has been debunked over and over.

[Hulk Kitty]

I SAY THANK YOU MAINE! FOR VOTING NO FOR SAME SEX MARRIAGE, I WOULD JUST EVER PERSON WHO VOTED NO, CALI WELL THATS WHY THERE ECONOMY IS UP THE HOLE! ALLOWING SAME SEX JUST PROVES TO MAKE THINGS WORSE, HAS ANYONE HEARD OF AIDS! THANK YOU GLBT FOR BRINGING AIDS TO THIS WORLD!!!

Actually it was a guy who "messed with" a monkey

Do we actually know how it originally started? Mutated strand, I think.

And it so, so, SO doesn't matter to the discussion of same-sex marriage. It's like making points about syphilis when talking about straight marriage.

Of course it doesn't matter. However...this.

Counter-arguments like “so was slavery” are unconvincing, as the occasional slights suffered by homosexual couples are microscopic by comparison with the injustice of human beings buying and selling other human beings

There really is a slippery slope here. Once marriage has been redefined to include homosexual pairings, what grounds will there be to oppose futher redefinition — to encompass people who want to marry their ponies, their sisters, or their soccer team?

In a society in which nobody had an IQ below 120, homosexual marriage might be plausible. In the actual societies we have, other considerations kick in.

There has never, anywhere, at any level of civilization, been a society that approved egalitarian (i.e. same age, same status) homosexual bonding

Think about it, I think the author makes a strong argument.

Actually, I think the author just looks like a douche bag and needs to do some research before throwing about questionable facts.

While I wouldn't compare it to slavery, the same loss of rights applies. A person's sexual preference for either gender should not make them any less of a citizen of their country. Many of the arguments used in America use things like blahblahmarriageissacred and blahblahunionunderGod arguments, but in America people should be free to view marriage in anyway they wish. I know several people married ONLY for the benefits, as I'm from a military town. They get almost an extra thousand dollars a month just because they married a stranger. How sacred is that? It isn't, it's practical. If a person's religion says same-sex marriage is wrong, then that is up to each individual to make that choice FOR THEMSELVES, but their religious preference should not control another person's ability to marry. Freedom of and freedom FROM religion.

The comment regarding the history of homosexuality condemned is absolutely 100% incorrect. Pre-Columbian societies in the Americas were given a choice early on in their life on which path they would take (gender preference), and they were admired for their decision. They were called "Two-Spirit" individuals. Look at early Buddhism in Japan, at Ancient Greece.

[Bunyippie]

I SAY THANK YOU MAINE! FOR VOTING NO FOR SAME SEX MARRIAGE, I WOULD JUST EVER PERSON WHO VOTED NO, CALI WELL THATS WHY THERE ECONOMY IS UP THE HOLE! ALLOWING SAME SEX JUST PROVES TO MAKE THINGS WORSE, HAS ANYONE HEARD OF AIDS! THANK YOU GLBT FOR BRINGING AIDS TO THIS WORLD!!!

Actually it was a guy who "messed with" a monkey

Do we actually know how it originally started? Mutated strand, I think.

And it so, so, SO doesn't matter to the discussion of same-sex marriage. It's like making points about syphilis when talking about straight marriage.

Of course it doesn't matter. However...this.

Counter-arguments like “so was slavery” are unconvincing, as the occasional slights suffered by homosexual couples are microscopic by comparison with the injustice of human beings buying and selling other human beings

There really is a slippery slope here. Once marriage has been redefined to include homosexual pairings, what grounds will there be to oppose futher redefinition — to encompass people who want to marry their ponies, their sisters, or their soccer team?

In a society in which nobody had an IQ below 120, homosexual marriage might be plausible. In the actual societies we have, other considerations kick in.

There has never, anywhere, at any level of civilization, been a society that approved egalitarian (i.e. same age, same status) homosexual bonding

Think about it, I think the author makes a strong argument.

If you think this is a "strong argument," I think you badly need to be exposed to people who aren't in the "cognitively-challenged underclass," as he puts it. I mean, seriously? "Marriage has to be limited to heterosexual people because stupid people need something to aspire to"? The fuck?

Did you even read the rest of the argument?
And even if you don;t agree with the "stupid" people, you can't deny their existence or their opinions.

lets inject some fact okay?
Gay marriage has taken place in Rome between people of equal footing
120 IQ argument= Only retards are against gay marraige
Slavery= countering arguments that everything the bible says is correct
slippery slope= actually, what two consenting people do is legal, animals are not humans, therefore, its irrelevant and this is just a scare tactic.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

If you think this is a "strong argument," I think you badly need to be exposed to people who aren't in the "cognitively-challenged underclass," as he puts it. I mean, seriously? "Marriage has to be limited to heterosexual people because stupid people need something to aspire to"? The fuck?

Let's not even mention the leap from redefining to encompass a class of consenting persons to somehow slope into allowing the marriage to farm-animals and children.... Just the FACT that someone posits that automatically nullifies their entire argument.... Course, I'm not totally certain that the class of individuals actually realize how absurd they are...

Think a minute: If we legalize gay-marriage, and it ebcoems acceptable, people who want to marry their dogs will use the same arguments we use now: "You let interracial marriages happen, why not gay marriages."
"You let gays marry, why not me and Mr. Wuffles"

When dogs learn to give legal consent, I'll even support it.

[Goath]

Of course it doesn't matter. However...this.

Counter-arguments like “so was slavery” are unconvincing, as the occasional slights suffered by homosexual couples are microscopic by comparison with the injustice of human beings buying and selling other human beings

I'd never say the fact gays can't get married is the same as slavery- though society did think slavery was OK once, and evolved to accept a better definition of what as OK. The same will happen with gay marriage.

There really is a slippery slope here. Once marriage has been redefined to include homosexual pairings, what grounds will there be to oppose futher redefinition — to encompass people who want to marry their ponies, their sisters, or their soccer team?

That, in the end, the argument that disgusts gay people the most. How in the world will legal recognition of my wholly consensual relationship with my adult partner ever lead to legalized bestiality? Or incest? Slippery slope arguments are always flawed.

In a society in which nobody had an IQ below 120, homosexual marriage might be plausible. In the actual societies we have, other considerations kick in.

That's foolish.

There has never, anywhere, at any level of civilization, been a society that approved egalitarian (i.e. same age, same status) homosexual bonding

That isn't true- early Christians preformed same-sex marriages.

Think about it, I think the author makes a strong argument.

No, none of them were strong arguments.

[Mimic]

And I kind of fail to see how two consenting adults who wish to spend their lives together can lead to me marrying my dog. Obviously I'm missing something.

There is no practical difference between a union between two consenting adults who are fully capable of entering into legal contracts due to having reached the age of majority, and a union between an adult and an nonsentient animal incapable of consent who cannot enter into legal contracts. Hence, a homosexual marriage is essentially the same as a marriage between a person and a dog.

[Hulk Kitty]

Evolution is a lie, the earth was created in six days exactly, seven hundred years ago, and all of the evidence to the contrary was just planted by Satan to fool the unintelligent.

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU----

[Tekania]

Think a minute: If we legalize gay-marriage, and it ebcoems acceptable, people who want to marry their dogs will use the same arguments we use now: "You let interracial marriages happen, why not gay marriages."
"You let gays marry, why not me and Mr. Wuffles"

A dog is not capable of providing consent... Though you're probably right... Conservatives are so fucking stupid they probably do need things like anti-gay-marriage and the like so they don't go wandering into town with their goat saying "I'm in love..."

[Sumamba Buwhan]

I SAY THANK YOU MAINE! FOR VOTING NO FOR SAME SEX MARRIAGE, I WOULD JUST EVER PERSON WHO VOTED NO, CALI WELL THATS WHY THERE ECONOMY IS UP THE HOLE! ALLOWING SAME SEX JUST PROVES TO MAKE THINGS WORSE, HAS ANYONE HEARD OF AIDS! THANK YOU GLBT FOR BRINGING AIDS TO THIS WORLD!!!

Actually it was a guy who "messed with" a monkey

Do we actually know how it originally started? Mutated strand, I think.

And it so, so, SO doesn't matter to the discussion of same-sex marriage. It's like making points about syphilis when talking about straight marriage.

Of course it doesn't matter. However...this.

Counter-arguments like “so was slavery” are unconvincing, as the occasional slights suffered by homosexual couples are microscopic by comparison with the injustice of human beings buying and selling other human beings

There really is a slippery slope here. Once marriage has been redefined to include homosexual pairings, what grounds will there be to oppose futher redefinition — to encompass people who want to marry their ponies, their sisters, or their soccer team?

In a society in which nobody had an IQ below 120, homosexual marriage might be plausible. In the actual societies we have, other considerations kick in.

There has never, anywhere, at any level of civilization, been a society that approved egalitarian (i.e. same age, same status) homosexual bonding

Think about it, I think the author makes a strong argument.

If you think this is a "strong argument," I think you badly need to be exposed to people who aren't in the "cognitively-challenged underclass," as he puts it. I mean, seriously? "Marriage has to be limited to heterosexual people because stupid people need something to aspire to"? The fuck?

Did you even read the rest of the argument?
And even if you don;t agree with the "stupid" people, you can't deny their existence or their opinions.

Just because there are stupid people with bigoted opinions is no reason to deny someone basic rights. How is that a strong argument in any way shape or form?

Are you seriously agreeing that gays have not suffered economic, mental and bodily harm from anti-gay discrimination? Have you ever heard of Matthew Sheppard and if you have do you really believe that was an isolated case?

Does a minority have to suffer through years of slavery before we should consider them for equal rights?

[Strangerthan]

And I kind of fail to see how two consenting adults who wish to spend their lives together can lead to me marrying my dog. Obviously I'm missing something.

There is no practical difference between a union between two consenting adults who are fully capable of entering into legal contracts due to having reached the age of majority, and a union between an adult and an nonsentient animal incapable of consent who cannot enter into legal contracts. Hence, a homosexual marriage is essentially the same as a marriage between a person and a dog.

Ah, of course! It makes sense now!

Rover, c'mere...

[Bunyippie]

And I kind of fail to see how two consenting adults who wish to spend their lives together can lead to me marrying my dog. Obviously I'm missing something.

There is no practical difference between a union between two consenting adults who are fully capable of entering into legal contracts due to having reached the age of majority, and a union between an adult and an nonsentient animal incapable of consent who cannot enter into legal contracts. Hence, a homosexual marriage is essentially the same as a marriage between a person and a dog.

obvious troll is obvious, are you even trying anymore?

[Strangerthan]

Just because there are stupid people with bigoted opinions is no reason to deny someone basic rights. How is that a strong argument in any way shape or form?

Are you seriously agreeing that gays have not suffered economic, mental and bodily harm from anti-gay discrimination? Have you ever heard of Matthew Sheppard and if you have do you really believe that was an isolated case?

Does a minority have to suffer through years of slavery before we should consider them for equal rights?

Of course. No pain, no gain.

[Albaron]

That isn't true- early Christians preformed same-sex marriages.

Evidence?

[Farnhamia]

And I kind of fail to see how two consenting adults who wish to spend their lives together can lead to me marrying my dog. Obviously I'm missing something.

There is no practical difference between a union between two consenting adults who are fully capable of entering into legal contracts due to having reached the age of majority, and a union between an adult and an nonsentient animal incapable of consent who cannot enter into legal contracts. Hence, a homosexual marriage is essentially the same as a marriage between a person and a dog.

obvious troll is obvious, are you even trying anymore?

Trying anymore? Not trying at all, is more like it. The decline in the quality of trolling these days is so sad.

[Mimic]

And I kind of fail to see how two consenting adults who wish to spend their lives together can lead to me marrying my dog. Obviously I'm missing something.

There is no practical difference between a union between two consenting adults who are fully capable of entering into legal contracts due to having reached the age of majority, and a union between an adult and an nonsentient animal incapable of consent who cannot enter into legal contracts. Hence, a homosexual marriage is essentially the same as a marriage between a person and a dog.

obvious troll is obvious, are you even trying anymore?

Just because I live under a bridge doesn't make me a troll.

[Albaron]

Just because there are stupid people with bigoted opinions is no reason to deny someone basic rights. How is that a strong argument in any way shape or form?

Are you seriously agreeing that gays have not suffered economic, mental and bodily harm from anti-gay discrimination? Have you ever heard of Matthew Sheppard and if you have do you really believe that was an isolated case?

Does a minority have to suffer through years of slavery before we should consider them for equal rights?

Let's not argue emotionally. If the majority of the population disagrees, then there is no reason for it. Rights can go hang, if logic is the name of the game. When over 70% of people approve, then we can talk.

[Sumamba Buwhan]

And I kind of fail to see how two consenting adults who wish to spend their lives together can lead to me marrying my dog. Obviously I'm missing something.

There is no practical difference between a union between two consenting adults who are fully capable of entering into legal contracts due to having reached the age of majority, and a union between an adult and an nonsentient animal incapable of consent who cannot enter into legal contracts. Hence, a homosexual marriage is essentially the same as a marriage between a person and a dog.

obvious troll is obvious, are you even trying anymore?

I thought that it was pretty good satire...

[Poliwanacraca]

I SAY THANK YOU MAINE! FOR VOTING NO FOR SAME SEX MARRIAGE, I WOULD JUST EVER PERSON WHO VOTED NO, CALI WELL THATS WHY THERE ECONOMY IS UP THE HOLE! ALLOWING SAME SEX JUST PROVES TO MAKE THINGS WORSE, HAS ANYONE HEARD OF AIDS! THANK YOU GLBT FOR BRINGING AIDS TO THIS WORLD!!!

Actually it was a guy who "messed with" a monkey

Do we actually know how it originally started? Mutated strand, I think.

And it so, so, SO doesn't matter to the discussion of same-sex marriage. It's like making points about syphilis when talking about straight marriage.

Of course it doesn't matter. However...this.

Counter-arguments like “so was slavery” are unconvincing, as the occasional slights suffered by homosexual couples are microscopic by comparison with the injustice of human beings buying and selling other human beings

There really is a slippery slope here. Once marriage has been redefined to include homosexual pairings, what grounds will there be to oppose futher redefinition — to encompass people who want to marry their ponies, their sisters, or their soccer team?

In a society in which nobody had an IQ below 120, homosexual marriage might be plausible. In the actual societies we have, other considerations kick in.

There has never, anywhere, at any level of civilization, been a society that approved egalitarian (i.e. same age, same status) homosexual bonding

Think about it, I think the author makes a strong argument.

If you think this is a "strong argument," I think you badly need to be exposed to people who aren't in the "cognitively-challenged underclass," as he puts it. I mean, seriously? "Marriage has to be limited to heterosexual people because stupid people need something to aspire to"? The fuck?

Did you even read the rest of the argument?
And even if you don;t agree with the "stupid" people, you can't deny their existence or their opinions.

Yes, I read it. It consisted of a lot of the same unfounded assertions that every anti-gay marriage argument has, and some new completely baffling ones like "stupid people need to aspire to have straight marriages, because I said so." Again, the fact that you think there was a strong argument anywhere in there suggests that you badly need to learn how a good argument is made. But if you want me to tackle it point by point:

1 is nonsense. No one has argued that straight people should lose the right to marriage, so the fact that the "majority has rights too" can be answered, "Well....duh."

2 boils down to "As a straight person, my personal anecdotal experience has been that gay people don't have it that bad, therefore, what's the big deal?"

3 is the exact same moronic slippery-slope argument we hear all the damn time. You know what makes two consenting adult human beings of the same gender different than you and your pony? Hint: your pony is, in fact, a pony. It is not a consenting adult human being.

4 does not even make any discernible hint of sense. He simply asserts that there are stupid people in the world, stupid people need goals to aspire to, and therefore gay marriage can't be allowed. There is no actual logic present, just two completely unrelated and unfounded assertions.

5 is "homophobia has been around for a long time, so we shouldn't try to change it." Again, there's no actual logic behind the idea that "it's always been this way" means "it should be this way," and unless you truly believe, for example, that women and black people SHOULD be considered inferior to white men, you already know that "it's always been this way" very often means the opposite, if anything.

6 is both untrue and silly. Maybe the arguments he's heard haven't focused on the basic idea that gay people SHOULD have the same rights as straight people, but the one's I've heard sure as hell have. He also goes so far as to admit that maybe gay people DO face problems with discrimination - contrary to his oh-so-authoritative assertions in Point 1 - but decides these should be individually remedied rather than simply granting gay people marriage rights, because....? He then dishonestly claims that gay marriage would "overturn a millennial institution" - absolute nonsense, because NOTHING IS HAPPENING TO STRAIGHT MARRIAGE - and decides to be just that little bit more of an asshole by cheerfully declaring a gay person's desire to be able to see their hospitalized partner as "trivial." If the love of your life had just been in a car accident and you weren't allowed to see them, would you think that was a "trivial" problem?

[Bunyippie]

Just because there are stupid people with bigoted opinions is no reason to deny someone basic rights. How is that a strong argument in any way shape or form?

Are you seriously agreeing that gays have not suffered economic, mental and bodily harm from anti-gay discrimination? Have you ever heard of Matthew Sheppard and if you have do you really believe that was an isolated case?

Does a minority have to suffer through years of slavery before we should consider them for equal rights?

Let's not argue emotionally. If the majority of the population disagrees, then there is no reason for it. Rights can go hang, if logic is the name of the game. When over 70% of people approve, then we can talk.

okay, all black posters, please go back to the cotton picking fields, since in the 1800s, the majority of people thought blacks were on par with apes.
Women, please leave, in the victoria era, you are only born so you can take care of men
immagrants, please return your home country, during the spainish american war,the majority thought immgrants were bad
white people (myself included) GTFO, the majority of native americans agree we stole their land

[Albaron]

3 is the exact same moronic slippery-slope argument we hear all the damn time. You know what makes two consenting adult human beings of the same gender different than you and your pony? Hint: your pony is, in fact, a pony. It is not a consenting adult human being.

Hence his mention of incest and polygamy.

[The_pantless_hero]

/thread

[Albaron]

Just because there are stupid people with bigoted opinions is no reason to deny someone basic rights. How is that a strong argument in any way shape or form?

Are you seriously agreeing that gays have not suffered economic, mental and bodily harm from anti-gay discrimination? Have you ever heard of Matthew Sheppard and if you have do you really believe that was an isolated case?

Does a minority have to suffer through years of slavery before we should consider them for equal rights?

Let's not argue emotionally. If the majority of the population disagrees, then there is no reason for it. Rights can go hang, if logic is the name of the game. When over 70% of people approve, then we can talk.

okay, all black posters, please go back to the cotton picking fields, since in the 1800s, the majority of people thought blacks were on par with apes.
Women, please leave, in the victoria era, you are only born so you can take care of men
immagrants, please return your home country, during the spainish american war,the majority thought immgrants were bad
white people (myself included) GTFO, the majority of native americans agree we stole their land

If this is how you are going to argue (yet again emotionally), I might as well leave.
Of course it might be wrong. that is not the issue. The issue is that if people say no, then no. Not people say no, but it's sounds like the right thing, so es.

[Poliwanacraca]

If you think this is a "strong argument," I think you badly need to be exposed to people who aren't in the "cognitively-challenged underclass," as he puts it. I mean, seriously? "Marriage has to be limited to heterosexual people because stupid people need something to aspire to"? The fuck?

Let's not even mention the leap from redefining to encompass a class of consenting persons to somehow slope into allowing the marriage to farm-animals and children.... Just the FACT that someone posits that automatically nullifies their entire argument.... Course, I'm not totally certain that the class of individuals actually realize how absurd they are...

Think a minute: If we legalize gay-marriage, and it ebcoems acceptable, people who want to marry their dogs will use the same arguments we use now: "You let interracial marriages happen, why not gay marriages."
"You let gays marry, why not me and Mr. Wuffles"

And then we will say, "Because Mr. Wuffles is a dog, and cannot enter into a legally binding contract."

That sure was a tough point to answer! Hoo boy!