<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Jan 22 2005, 07:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 22 2005, 07:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Jan 22 2005, 03:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Jan 22 2005, 03:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> stuff <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Someone give this man a cookie for the winningest ad hominem attack ever.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> ad hominem? how....what....just no.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->By the way - I suppose you're referring to polygamy when you mention other culture's views on marriage. They still follow the 1 man 1 woman formula, they just posit that a man can have multiple wives. In fact, in the Judaistic history, there have been many cases of polygamy that weren't frowned upon.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, not just polygamy, though polygamy is an example. I haven't researched this topic, but it's almost a guarantee that somewhere on this planet, at some time in humanity's history, there were cultures that allowed marriages that lasted two days by custom, marriages between distant family members only, marriages between daughters and fathers, maybe even (here's a good one that breaks the 1male-1female trend) entire villages getting married together, all devoted to each other through *insert some tribal religion here*. Note that I don't agree with any of these, but hey, different culture so who am I to judge.
Sure it's the definition most commonly used because it makes reproduction a lot easier, but it's not a universal concept built into the human mind. Heck, if all men acted out what their genes told them to do through their sex drives, their wouldn't be any marriages; everyone would be having sex with everyone else, with no definite partners of any kind. Even when we try to create definite partners through marriage, both people in the relationship feel the urge to cheat.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You confuse yourself by assuming and applying prejudged labels to me.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If you would note my first post directed at you, I believe I came in with the "label" that you were a very logical person, albeit on the other side of the argument. Throughout the course of this thread, that belief has been shattered, so "prejudged" doesn't apply here.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Secondly, the "it's always been that way" argument doesn't prove anything, true, but if you examine WHY it's always been that way, it does hold water. For example, I think you would agree that "stealing is not generous" is correct. If I then said, "stealing is not generous and it's always been that way," that wouldn't necessarily be an argument, but it would call into consideration WHY it's not generous - namely the fact that you're taking away from someone, instead of giving.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is a good argument, thank you. Love it when you back yourself up with reasons; it saves my hair a good deal of pulling. Now all I need is the reason WHY marriage has "always" been 1 man - 1 woman.
Also, even if you do provide a 'why', that doesn't make the argument rock-solid. For instance: Class systems have existed in every culture known to man. They divide people based on social rank, wealth, and importance to the community. Why has this happened? Because some people are simply born smarter, some are born into more privelidged homes, and some are given better opportunities than others. Thus, for a long time, class disctinctions were actually a good idea to a certain degree: in times of uncertainty, it's always good to have a clear chain of command, and human history has been rife with uncertainty for a long time. However, in this day and age, is it still right to promote class systems? I know we hate 'legacies' in America, where people get into top colleges just because their parents went there.
It appears our culture has turned away the class system so long accepted as necessary, even beneficial, to humans. So turning away from a marital system that, while beneficial in the past because it promoted child-bearing, denies a certain group of people certain rights that we hold dear today, and in turn it is acceptable to turn away from this tradition.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Thirdly, my argument is that you can't legislate love, therefore there must be some other basis for defining marriage. You've failed to provide a satisfactory alternative.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Who says a definition has to be a single entity; I can make a piece-wise definition if I wish: 1)A man can marry a woman 2)A man can marry a man 3)A woman can marry a woman 4)*Insert all other age requirements and such that we have today*
OR condense it to: 1)A person can marry a person 2)*Insert all other age requirements and such that we have today*
Voila. Simple enough. Obviously not legal-worthy (yay for bureaucratic language), but still a good enough definition. And if you say it's arbitrary, well so is yours. Mine is based on who loves whom in real life, and the legal stuff can be based on whatever the hell lawyers and judges decide on. They obviously can decide on such things; they're currently working with a definition based on tradition, so they're no strangers to turning things created by humans (history or love) into legislation.
The law doesn't have to "legislate love", it just can't get in the way.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Fourth, "it just isn't" - saying a square is a circle doesn't really make a square a circle, does it? It's up to you to prove that homosexual marriage is the same as heterosexual marriage, and I posit that it can't be done.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Depends on what you mean by "the same", doesn't it:
Biologically - no, of course not Emotionally - yes, it is. Unless you hold that homosexuals can't love each other. In which case, I call upon you to prove that. And if you can't prove it ISN'T the same, and I can't prove it IS the same, then I guess we'll have to rely on a homosexual's testimony. How do you think they'll argue? (rhetorical question <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> )
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Fifth: the cop argument, let's have it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Did I say something about cops? I'm confused at this one; typo?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And backtracking? I started arguing the slippery slope from the beginning; the slippery slope only fails when there's insufficient evidence to back it up, or if I claim that A->B without any supporting proof. I gave both.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, you just started out the thread by arguing that "homosexual marriage" was an oxymoron or somesuch, just as you did in your fourth point above; the "slippery slope" thing came along after you made that horrible analogy comparing homosexual marriage to marrying your dog.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sixth: Why should you apply an arbitrary limit to species? That's as arbitrary as the "1man-1woman" limit is that you so loudly and vehemently decry.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes it is. I know it is rather arbitrary, and I knew you would pick up on it. But at least I can use something else as my basis for marriage - love. You, on the other hand, have <u>no</u> reason for limiting marriage to heterosexual couples; I just have a weak reason.
Also, I could be wrong on this, but there should be a far weaker cry in the future to overturn <i>that</i> particular rule, because decidedly fewer people who aren't related to the issue (like myself) would argue that pets should have the same rights as homosexuals, or something like that. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> Basically, the support for such a campaign would be lacking, so the "arbitrary" ruling would surely stand much firmer and more easily than these anti-****-marriage laws.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So, when it comes to the happiness of others you're just fine being prejudiced, as long as you're happy screw everyone else so you can feel secure in your self-worth?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> ? You do realize I have no personal claim in this argument, as in, I'm not ****. The only reason I got into this conversation in the first place was because I'm tired of people thinking all Christians hate homosexuals and think they should be denied marital status. Frankly, I've never spent this much time actually thinking about the issue before. We should have an abortion argument as well, come to think of it
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Lastly, I am not a fundamentalist. That is all.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually..... <!--QuoteBegin-Wheee's faith test results+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheee's faith test results)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 1. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (100%) 2. Orthodox Quaker (97%) 3. Seventh Day Adventist (90%) Woo, like people didn't see this one coming. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Just had to throw that in there. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Mainline to conservative - that's a broad range. Plus i don't measure my faith by an online quiz.
If you would kindly provide evidence that there are cultures in which so-called "non-western" marriages are acceptable, then you win. However, saying that there are certainly cultures, without any proof, it doesn't really do much.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, even if you do provide a 'why', that doesn't make the argument rock-solid. For instance: Class systems have existed in every culture known to man. They divide people based on social rank, wealth, and importance to the community. Why has this happened? Because some people are simply born smarter, some are born into more privelidged homes, and some are given better opportunities than others. Thus, for a long time, class disctinctions were actually a good idea to a certain degree: in times of uncertainty, it's always good to have a clear chain of command, and human history has been rife with uncertainty for a long time. However, in this day and age, is it still right to promote class systems? I know we hate 'legacies' in America, where people get into top colleges just because their parents went there.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't claim that the "never has been **** marriage" argument was rock-solid. I only said that it gives a good amount of insight into what the nature of marriage is.
The class systems argument - since I'm not really into socialism, I don't agree. Capitalism sort of implies a social stratification, and I don't think that can be done away with without taking away the incentive for any sort of progress. However, history will be the judge of which is more effective.
The cop argument was referring to my slippery slope being equivalent to the police brutality/kill murderers argument, which is one I haven't heard before. I'm listening.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> No, you just started out the thread by arguing that "homosexual marriage" was an oxymoron or somesuch, just as you did in your fourth point above; the "slippery slope" thing came along after you made that horrible analogy comparing homosexual marriage to marrying your dog. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry. Transitions have never been my forte. The "homosexual marriage = oxymoron" argument segued into what I thought would be the consequence of legalizing it - a loss of meaning for the institution. I could have said it more clearly.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You do realize I have no personal claim in this argument, as in, I'm not ****. The only reason I got into this conversation in the first place was because I'm tired of people thinking all Christians hate homosexuals and think they should be denied marital status. Frankly, I've never spent this much time actually thinking about the issue before. We should have an abortion argument as well, come to think of it<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hating homosexuals and thinking that they shouldn't be allowed to marry are two separate things just like thinking abortion is wrong and hating teenagers who get pregnant are two different things. It's easy to see where people get the idea that Christians hate them comes from, but that is mistaken. Although there are people who do truly hate them; I can only give you my word that I'm not one of them.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Words in your mouth....I wouldn't want to come anywhere near your mouth.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Very nice. That qualifies as ad hominem I believe.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Basically, the support for such a campaign would be lacking, so the "arbitrary" ruling would surely stand much firmer and more easily than these anti-****-marriage laws.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Somebody else pointed out in this thread that it's the duty of the state to protect the minority.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->he law doesn't have to "legislate love", it just can't get in the way.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Personally I don't think the government should legislate marriage at all.
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Jan 22 2005, 10:14 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 22 2005, 10:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Mainline to conservative - that's a broad range. Plus i don't measure my faith by an online quiz.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That was said in jest, just to let you know. Hence the <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you would kindly provide evidence that there are cultures in which so-called "non-western" marriages are acceptable, then you win. However, saying that there are certainly cultures, without any proof, it doesn't really do much.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> God...actually doing research for a point....lemme post the rest of this, and I'll get back to you on this one.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I didn't claim that the "never has been **** marriage" argument was rock-solid. I only said that it gives a good amount of insight into what the nature of marriage is.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is true, there never has been **** marriage. I don't trust our ancestors whole-heartedly, however, and well....if no one has ever tried it before, how would we know its effects?
Actually, it'd kinda silly to argue the "never has been **** marriage" thing; it was pointed out very early on in this thread by Deus Ex Machina: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Canada, France, Greenland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Denmark, and Argentina all have legislation which allow homosexual couples exactly the same marriage rights as their heterosexual counterparts.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The class systems argument - since I'm not really into socialism, I don't agree. Capitalism sort of implies a social stratification, and I don't think that can be done away with without taking away the incentive for any sort of progress. However, history will be the judge of which is more effective.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Our society isn't a pure capitalism anymore; it hasn't been since the Great Depression. Welfare systems are a socialist characteristic, so are income tax brackets and such. If <u>those</u> things were removed, there would certainly be an uproar, and I doubt you'd be happy to see them go either. Everyone's a socialist to one degree or another.
(Note: I'm not a socialist, I feel it's an impossible system that only leads to communism, which inevitably leads to totalitarian dictatorship. But then again there aren't too many examples of successful socialist governments, and the grandest experiment - the USSR - failed miserably, so my view is probably skewed)
Oh, and the point of that comparison wasn't to debate the relative merits of capitalism and socialism, it was to point out that society has started to reject traditions that previously were deeply ingrained in our lives. It basically sets a precedent for revolutions such as the extension of marriage to **** couples.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The cop argument was referring to my slippery slope being equivalent to the police brutality/kill murderers argument, which is one I haven't heard before. I'm listening.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh right, that one. What I was trying to say, if the Slippery Slope theory is accurate and everything will always proceed to its most extreme conclusion in our society, than police would eventually be licensed to kill unarmed murderers on the spot. My reasoning is thus: We have the death penalty, which is state-sanctioned murder. If someone commits a crime worthy of it, they can be put to death by the government. Police forces are extensions of the government. Eventually, people would become so accustomed to the government being able to kill you if you kill someone else (we haven't reached that point yet, people still don't like the death penalty) that they won't care about police beating up an unarmed murder suspect, because they know the government can kill people. This granting of morality in the public's eyes of police brutality would, according to slippery slope theory, lead eventually to cops just outright killing criminals when they catch them if they feel like it, and no one caring much. There are already people like this out there, people who look at a report of a murder suspect killed accidentally because police thought he had a gun, and saying, "What's the big deal, he was gonna die anyway."
MY thought is that society is smart enough to know the line, and would never let policemen get away with abusing a suspect without cause. This invalidates Slippery Slope theory by suggesting that society actually has a brain.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> No, you just started out the thread by arguing that "homosexual marriage" was an oxymoron or somesuch, just as you did in your fourth point above; the "slippery slope" thing came along after you made that horrible analogy comparing homosexual marriage to marrying your dog. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry. Transitions have never been my forte. The "homosexual marriage = oxymoron" argument segued into what I thought would be the consequence of legalizing it - a loss of meaning for the institution. I could have said it more clearly.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Understandable. I definitely would have had trouble seguing from one concept to the other. Actually, I wouldn't have tried to do it, but that's a different story.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You do realize I have no personal claim in this argument, as in, I'm not ****. The only reason I got into this conversation in the first place was because I'm tired of people thinking all Christians hate homosexuals and think they should be denied marital status. Frankly, I've never spent this much time actually thinking about the issue before. We should have an abortion argument as well, come to think of it<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hating homosexuals and thinking that they shouldn't be allowed to marry are two separate things just like thinking abortion is wrong and hating teenagers who get pregnant are two different things. It's easy to see where people get the idea that Christians hate them comes from, but that is mistaken. Although there are people who do truly hate them; I can only give you my word that I'm not one of them. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When I said that, I truly didn't mean to infer that <u>you</u> hate homosexuals. I think your views are in error concerning homosexuality, but I don't think you hate the people themselves. I never actually thought I'd be arguing with you for this long over this topic; when I entered the conversation I just wanted to pose as the "Christian who says to Hell with it all," not the "Liberal Christian".....for the record I'm neither Democrat nor Republican. I like making fun of both, thank you.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Words in your mouth....I wouldn't want to come anywhere near your mouth.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Very nice. That qualifies as ad hominem I believe.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh c'mon. Classifying my entire post as ad hominem because of one comment? Fine, if it means so much to your sense of professionality, my apologies.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Basically, the support for such a campaign would be lacking, so the "arbitrary" ruling would surely stand much firmer and more easily than these anti-****-marriage laws.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Somebody else pointed out in this thread that it's the duty of the state to protect the minority.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> There's a difference between "minority with outside support" and "minority that no one else cares about enough to support." Homosexuals are the former. People who want to marry their dogs fall into the second camp, I should think.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->he law doesn't have to "legislate love", it just can't get in the way.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Personally I don't think the government should legislate marriage at all.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Now you sound like Skulkbait: <!--QuoteBegin-Skulkbait+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Skulkbait)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't think that our government should be defining marriage at all.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
If the government doesn't legislate marriage at all, then what exactly is preventing **** people from getting married? I mean....aren't they the ones who say what marriages are legal and what aren't? They're surely the ones who say people under 18 can't get married (without parental consent(?), I think that's the law). So obviously they have to retain <i>some</i> power to legislate marriage....
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Jan 22 2005, 10:14 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 22 2005, 10:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->he law doesn't have to "legislate love", it just can't get in the way.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Personally I don't think the government should legislate marriage at all. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Then why is this an issue for you? By that comment I would assume you would mean that "marraige" would bring with it no tax/legal breaks of any kind and would be an entirely religious construct. This (besides making marraige absolutely meaningless to athiests) would mean that all a homosexual couple would have to do to get married is find a church that would do it, which nowadays would not be extremely hard to do, and would also make the argument of whether or not governments should sanction homosexual marraige a moot point that would would really have no reason to argue about. Unless you mean something very different than what I think you mean.
<!--QuoteBegin-"Wheeee"+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ("Wheeee")</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Secondly, the "it's always been that way" argument doesn't prove anything, true, but if you examine WHY it's always been that way, it does hold water. For example, I think you would agree that "stealing is not generous" is correct. If I then said, "stealing is not generous and it's always been that way," that wouldn't necessarily be an argument, but it would call into consideration WHY it's not generous - namely the fact that you're taking away from someone, instead of giving.
. . .
Fourth, "it just isn't" - saying a square is a circle doesn't really make a square a circle, does it? It's up to you to prove that homosexual marriage is the same as heterosexual marriage, and I posit that it can't be done.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I tried to address this point before, and both of these are really the same point. You are correct that saying a square is a circle is nonsense. You are correct that that stealing is not generous. Those are cases where the concepts that you have juxtaposed are inconsistent. You haven't shown that in the case of "homosexual marriage."
You appear to believe that "marriage" means "a union between one man and one woman." Fine. But where does that definition come from? Religion? History? The definition of "circle" comes from logic; it could not be otherwise. The definition of stealing is a <i>bit</i> more malliable but it is still pretty constrained. The definition of "citizen of the United States" is, on the other hand, pretty much left to what people have used it to mean under a constitution. <i>We, as a nation</i> defined it one way for a long time; eventually the pressure of rightiousness caused a change. "Marriage" is equally -- divorced from religion -- a socially defined institution.
In the context of the laws of the United States' government "marriage" amounts to a set of legal rights. Being a "citizen" is the same; if you are one you have certain rights, if you aren't, you don't. The meanings of these terms aren't etched into the universe by logic, and they aren't constrained by history. We <i>do not</i> restrict ourselves as Americans to the prejudice and ignorance of the past. We <i>do</i> update our legal institutions to more accurately reflect our understanding of what is just under the law.
Your claim is essentially that "homosexial marriage" is a logical impossibility. That only works if "marriage" and "homosexual" are logically incompatible. Given that "marriage" is an institution designed to confer certain government benefits on monogamous couples, I fail to see how it has any inherent logical difficulty if wedded (forgive the pun) with same-sex couples.
I think Wheee just enjoys the thrill of being ganged up on by 3 other guys <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Anyways, this conversation has run its course as far as I'm concerned. gj everyone, we have successfully concluded nothing at all, except that bestiality is a topic that should never be brought up in the middle of anything else. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Jan 23 2005, 02:17 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 23 2005, 02:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> @AllUrHive: Don't you ever argue for the sake of argument? I think it's rather entertaining. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well when you do that, you're not supposed to ADMIT that you're wrong. That just kinda lets everyone else know that your arguments are useless.
Wheeee just seems to argue against people who.. aren't agreeing with him. He wants to convert our sacrilige homosexual-loving ways <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->.
@allurhive - what do you mean "admit i was wrong"? playing devil's advocate is a fun thing to do; you should try it some time. My opinion is that you don't have a good grasp of a debate until you can find a strong point for the other side and argue for it well.
The basic point of marriage in our society today is just not the same as it "always has been." Sorry, but it isn't. I mean, for most of Western history, marriages were essentially business transactions among the wealthy, and non-existent among the poor (not kidding: no ceremony, no priest, no nothing. That's what a common law marriage is all about: from that time.
Marriage TODAY is about mutual support: the idea that in our society, most of the important tasks like raising kids and building a life and nevigating through the healthcare system and managing assets and inheritance: can't be done alone. People need partners to support and care for them. That's what marriage is for: creating families. The fact is, **** people ALREADY have created families, many with children in them already. Is it right to make some families second class compared to others? Give rights only to some families, while making it really tough on other families?
Anti-****-marriage people are, in my opinion, really the worst thing to happen to marriage. They define marriage PURELY by exclusion: marriage is simply the institution that only straight people can join in... and that's all it is: an exclusive club. What could be worse for marriage than THAT opinion!
And if they win and prevent *** from being able to marriage, the result will be the creation of all sorts of "marriage-lite" options to accomodate **** couples, and since hetero couples can't be barred from them, they will choose these "responsibility-free" options instead of marriage. To survive, marriage needs to be a universal based on universal principles. EVERYONE, **** or straight, needs to be able to grow up with the expectation that they are leading towards eventual marriage, regardless of what their sexuality turns out to be. Everyone should be able to marry someone they love: not the exact person they love, but someone. And for ***, that can only mean someone of the same sex.
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Jan 23 2005, 11:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 23 2005, 11:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> @allurhive - what do you mean "admit i was wrong"? playing devil's advocate is a fun thing to do; you should try it some time. My opinion is that you don't have a good grasp of a debate until you can find a strong point for the other side and argue for it well. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> If you take a position you don't beleive in, don't start stating positions you do beleive in, or you basically admit to being wrong. That's not how we win on the internet!
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited January 2005
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Jan 22 2005, 07:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 22 2005, 07:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Fourth, "it just isn't" - saying a square is a circle doesn't really make a square a circle, does it? It's up to you to prove that homosexual marriage is the same as heterosexual marriage, and I posit that it can't be done. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> In order to prove their equivalency, you must first define the terms, which includes a definition of what is a "man" and what is a "woman." Be aware that any definition you give is likely going to deny transexuals, and transgendered individuals the ability to get married at all.
That's actually sort of an amusing aside. Right now, Texas is screwed. In order to lock a transgendered woman (man who had a sex change into a woman) out from inheriting her husbands estate, they declared that only genetic sex matters, and hence the marriage was illegitimate. But that means that a transgendered woman can now legally marry an actual woman, giving us what is for all intents and purposes and appearances a lesbian marriage. Oops!
<!--QuoteBegin-Apos+Jan 24 2005, 04:44 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Apos @ Jan 24 2005, 04:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> That's actually sort of an amusing aside. Right now, Texas is screwed. In order to lock a transgendered woman (man who had a sex change into a woman) out from inheriting her husbands estate, they declared that only genetic sex matters, and hence the marriage was illegitimate. But that means that a transgendered woman can now legally marry an actual woman, giving us what is for all intents and purposes and appearances a lesbian marriage. Oops! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> ouch, sucks for texans <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-AllUrHiveRblong2us+Jan 24 2005, 05:17 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRblong2us @ Jan 24 2005, 05:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Jan 23 2005, 11:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 23 2005, 11:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> @allurhive - what do you mean "admit i was wrong"? playing devil's advocate is a fun thing to do; you should try it some time. My opinion is that you don't have a good grasp of a debate until you can find a strong point for the other side and argue for it well. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If you take a position you don't beleive in, don't start stating positions you do beleive in, or you basically admit to being wrong. That's not how we win on the internet! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> eh, you know what they say about arguing on the internet. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-AvengerX+Jan 23 2005, 11:30 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AvengerX @ Jan 23 2005, 11:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> homosexuality is a sociological deises that is spreading like a epidemic, and should be looked into and stopped.
and I don't want to see any wierd homo's in NS getting any hot Gorge on Gorge action ya hear! keep it clean <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Its not a disease. And we don't like to be called "weird homos".
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Jan 24 2005, 07:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 24 2005, 07:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-AllUrHiveRblong2us+Jan 24 2005, 05:17 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRblong2us @ Jan 24 2005, 05:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Jan 23 2005, 11:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 23 2005, 11:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> @allurhive - what do you mean "admit i was wrong"? playing devil's advocate is a fun thing to do; you should try it some time. My opinion is that you don't have a good grasp of a debate until you can find a strong point for the other side and argue for it well. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If you take a position you don't beleive in, don't start stating positions you do beleive in, or you basically admit to being wrong. That's not how we win on the internet! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> eh, you know what they say about arguing on the internet. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That if you win they make you king of cyberspace?
Oh yeah, that it's a direct representation of th amount of flesh between your thighs.
Ignoring the political attack BS at the end this comic is good <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-AvengerX+Jan 24 2005, 02:30 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AvengerX @ Jan 24 2005, 02:30 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> homosexuality is a sociological deises that is spreading like a epidemic, and should be looked into and stopped. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Are you a child?
Ignoring the political attack BS at the end this comic is good <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> ah, but that's a flawed analogy. marriage hasn't always been between people of the same race, nor were women always treated as "property". However, as far as i know, it has always been between men and women <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
no because it was obviously not intended by whatever process made us to be what we are now. and was most definitely not supported by the founding fathers.
if the majority of people wanted to change laws to allow it then so be it but until then don't do it.
Ignoring the political attack BS at the end this comic is good <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> ah, but that's a flawed analogy. marriage hasn't always been between people of the same race, nor were women always treated as "property". However, as far as i know, it has always been between men and women <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> whatever, we both know 'keeping the sanctity of marriage' is bs. It's no longer a religious institution... atheists get married, as do jews, and muslims, and anyone else who wants to. shrug I don't really care if homosexuals can 'marry' as long as they can do something to get the same benefits... I'm not up in arms about the name of it, but to give such a lame excuse is really insulting to me and everyone else
EpidemicDark Force GorgeJoin Date: 2003-06-29Member: 17781Members
<!--QuoteBegin-Deus Ex Machina+Jan 25 2005, 03:42 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Deus Ex Machina @ Jan 25 2005, 03:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-AvengerX+Jan 24 2005, 02:30 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AvengerX @ Jan 24 2005, 02:30 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> homosexuality is a sociological deises that is spreading like a epidemic, and should be looked into and stopped. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> We should ban homosexuality then, banning marriage wont do anything to stop homosexuality. Not that I advocate banning it.
UZiEight inches of C4 between the legs.Join Date: 2003-02-20Member: 13767Members
edited January 2005
I personally think that government control over marriage should be eneded anyway. Why do they care if im married or not? That will solve the constitutional problems regarding this issue. If it becomes a problem just snap it in two, christianss can still get married. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Ignoring the political attack BS at the end this comic is good <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> ah, but that's a flawed analogy. marriage hasn't always been between people of the same race, nor were women always treated as "property". However, as far as i know, it has always been between men and women <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> whatever, we both know 'keeping the sanctity of marriage' is bs. It's no longer a religious institution... atheists get married, as do jews, and muslims, and anyone else who wants to. shrug I don't really care if homosexuals can 'marry' as long as they can do something to get the same benefits... I'm not up in arms about the name of it, but to give such a lame excuse is really insulting to me and everyone else <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> it never was a religious institution, duh. You can bet there were marriages long before there were any priests to do the marrying. Like I said before, ever heard of common-law marriages? They've been around forever.
Comments
You can't be wrong if you don't confront the superior argument!
Someone give this man a cookie for the winningest ad hominem attack ever.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
ad hominem? how....what....just no.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->By the way - I suppose you're referring to polygamy when you mention other culture's views on marriage. They still follow the 1 man 1 woman formula, they just posit that a man can have multiple wives. In fact, in the Judaistic history, there have been many cases of polygamy that weren't frowned upon.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, not just polygamy, though polygamy is an example. I haven't researched this topic, but it's almost a guarantee that somewhere on this planet, at some time in humanity's history, there were cultures that allowed marriages that lasted two days by custom, marriages between distant family members only, marriages between daughters and fathers, maybe even (here's a good one that breaks the 1male-1female trend) entire villages getting married together, all devoted to each other through *insert some tribal religion here*. Note that I don't agree with any of these, but hey, different culture so who am I to judge.
Sure it's the definition most commonly used because it makes reproduction a lot easier, but it's not a universal concept built into the human mind. Heck, if all men acted out what their genes told them to do through their sex drives, their wouldn't be any marriages; everyone would be having sex with everyone else, with no definite partners of any kind. Even when we try to create definite partners through marriage, both people in the relationship feel the urge to cheat.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You confuse yourself by assuming and applying prejudged labels to me.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you would note my first post directed at you, I believe I came in with the "label" that you were a very logical person, albeit on the other side of the argument. Throughout the course of this thread, that belief has been shattered, so "prejudged" doesn't apply here.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Secondly, the "it's always been that way" argument doesn't prove anything, true, but if you examine WHY it's always been that way, it does hold water. For example, I think you would agree that "stealing is not generous" is correct. If I then said, "stealing is not generous and it's always been that way," that wouldn't necessarily be an argument, but it would call into consideration WHY it's not generous - namely the fact that you're taking away from someone, instead of giving.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is a good argument, thank you. Love it when you back yourself up with reasons; it saves my hair a good deal of pulling. Now all I need is the reason WHY marriage has "always" been 1 man - 1 woman.
Also, even if you do provide a 'why', that doesn't make the argument rock-solid. For instance: Class systems have existed in every culture known to man. They divide people based on social rank, wealth, and importance to the community. Why has this happened? Because some people are simply born smarter, some are born into more privelidged homes, and some are given better opportunities than others. Thus, for a long time, class disctinctions were actually a good idea to a certain degree: in times of uncertainty, it's always good to have a clear chain of command, and human history has been rife with uncertainty for a long time. However, in this day and age, is it still right to promote class systems? I know we hate 'legacies' in America, where people get into top colleges just because their parents went there.
It appears our culture has turned away the class system so long accepted as necessary, even beneficial, to humans. So turning away from a marital system that, while beneficial in the past because it promoted child-bearing, denies a certain group of people certain rights that we hold dear today, and in turn it is acceptable to turn away from this tradition.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Thirdly, my argument is that you can't legislate love, therefore there must be some other basis for defining marriage. You've failed to provide a satisfactory alternative.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Who says a definition has to be a single entity; I can make a piece-wise definition if I wish:
1)A man can marry a woman
2)A man can marry a man
3)A woman can marry a woman
4)*Insert all other age requirements and such that we have today*
OR condense it to:
1)A person can marry a person
2)*Insert all other age requirements and such that we have today*
Voila. Simple enough. Obviously not legal-worthy (yay for bureaucratic language), but still a good enough definition. And if you say it's arbitrary, well so is yours. Mine is based on who loves whom in real life, and the legal stuff can be based on whatever the hell lawyers and judges decide on. They obviously can decide on such things; they're currently working with a definition based on tradition, so they're no strangers to turning things created by humans (history or love) into legislation.
The law doesn't have to "legislate love", it just can't get in the way.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Fourth, "it just isn't" - saying a square is a circle doesn't really make a square a circle, does it? It's up to you to prove that homosexual marriage is the same as heterosexual marriage, and I posit that it can't be done.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Depends on what you mean by "the same", doesn't it:
Biologically - no, of course not
Emotionally - yes, it is. Unless you hold that homosexuals can't love each other. In which case, I call upon you to prove that. And if you can't prove it ISN'T the same, and I can't prove it IS the same, then I guess we'll have to rely on a homosexual's testimony. How do you think they'll argue? (rhetorical question <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> )
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Fifth: the cop argument, let's have it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Did I say something about cops? I'm confused at this one; typo?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And backtracking? I started arguing the slippery slope from the beginning; the slippery slope only fails when there's insufficient evidence to back it up, or if I claim that A->B without any supporting proof. I gave both.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, you just started out the thread by arguing that "homosexual marriage" was an oxymoron or somesuch, just as you did in your fourth point above; the "slippery slope" thing came along after you made that horrible analogy comparing homosexual marriage to marrying your dog.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sixth: Why should you apply an arbitrary limit to species? That's as arbitrary as the "1man-1woman" limit is that you so loudly and vehemently decry.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes it is. I know it is rather arbitrary, and I knew you would pick up on it. But at least I can use something else as my basis for marriage - love. You, on the other hand, have <u>no</u> reason for limiting marriage to heterosexual couples; I just have a weak reason.
Also, I could be wrong on this, but there should be a far weaker cry in the future to overturn <i>that</i> particular rule, because decidedly fewer people who aren't related to the issue (like myself) would argue that pets should have the same rights as homosexuals, or something like that. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> Basically, the support for such a campaign would be lacking, so the "arbitrary" ruling would surely stand much firmer and more easily than these anti-****-marriage laws.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So, when it comes to the happiness of others you're just fine being prejudiced, as long as you're happy screw everyone else so you can feel secure in your self-worth?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
?
You do realize I have no personal claim in this argument, as in, I'm not ****. The only reason I got into this conversation in the first place was because I'm tired of people thinking all Christians hate homosexuals and think they should be denied marital status. Frankly, I've never spent this much time actually thinking about the issue before. We should have an abortion argument as well, come to think of it
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Lastly, I am not a fundamentalist. That is all.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually.....
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheee's faith test results+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheee's faith test results)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
1. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (100%)
2. Orthodox Quaker (97%)
3. Seventh Day Adventist (90%)
Woo, like people didn't see this one coming.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just had to throw that in there. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
If you would kindly provide evidence that there are cultures in which so-called "non-western" marriages are acceptable, then you win. However, saying that there are certainly cultures, without any proof, it doesn't really do much.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, even if you do provide a 'why', that doesn't make the argument rock-solid. For instance: Class systems have existed in every culture known to man. They divide people based on social rank, wealth, and importance to the community. Why has this happened? Because some people are simply born smarter, some are born into more privelidged homes, and some are given better opportunities than others. Thus, for a long time, class disctinctions were actually a good idea to a certain degree: in times of uncertainty, it's always good to have a clear chain of command, and human history has been rife with uncertainty for a long time. However, in this day and age, is it still right to promote class systems? I know we hate 'legacies' in America, where people get into top colleges just because their parents went there.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't claim that the "never has been **** marriage" argument was rock-solid. I only said that it gives a good amount of insight into what the nature of marriage is.
The class systems argument - since I'm not really into socialism, I don't agree. Capitalism sort of implies a social stratification, and I don't think that can be done away with without taking away the incentive for any sort of progress. However, history will be the judge of which is more effective.
The cop argument was referring to my slippery slope being equivalent to the police brutality/kill murderers argument, which is one I haven't heard before. I'm listening.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
No, you just started out the thread by arguing that "homosexual marriage" was an oxymoron or somesuch, just as you did in your fourth point above; the "slippery slope" thing came along after you made that horrible analogy comparing homosexual marriage to marrying your dog. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry. Transitions have never been my forte. The "homosexual marriage = oxymoron" argument segued into what I thought would be the consequence of legalizing it - a loss of meaning for the institution. I could have said it more clearly.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You do realize I have no personal claim in this argument, as in, I'm not ****. The only reason I got into this conversation in the first place was because I'm tired of people thinking all Christians hate homosexuals and think they should be denied marital status. Frankly, I've never spent this much time actually thinking about the issue before. We should have an abortion argument as well, come to think of it<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hating homosexuals and thinking that they shouldn't be allowed to marry are two separate things just like thinking abortion is wrong and hating teenagers who get pregnant are two different things. It's easy to see where people get the idea that Christians hate them comes from, but that is mistaken. Although there are people who do truly hate them; I can only give you my word that I'm not one of them.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Words in your mouth....I wouldn't want to come anywhere near your mouth.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Very nice. That qualifies as ad hominem I believe.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Basically, the support for such a campaign would be lacking, so the "arbitrary" ruling would surely stand much firmer and more easily than these anti-****-marriage laws.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Somebody else pointed out in this thread that it's the duty of the state to protect the minority.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->he law doesn't have to "legislate love", it just can't get in the way.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Personally I don't think the government should legislate marriage at all.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That was said in jest, just to let you know. Hence the <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you would kindly provide evidence that there are cultures in which so-called "non-western" marriages are acceptable, then you win. However, saying that there are certainly cultures, without any proof, it doesn't really do much.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
God...actually doing research for a point....lemme post the rest of this, and I'll get back to you on this one.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I didn't claim that the "never has been **** marriage" argument was rock-solid. I only said that it gives a good amount of insight into what the nature of marriage is.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is true, there never has been **** marriage. I don't trust our ancestors whole-heartedly, however, and well....if no one has ever tried it before, how would we know its effects?
Actually, it'd kinda silly to argue the "never has been **** marriage" thing; it was pointed out very early on in this thread by Deus Ex Machina:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Canada, France, Greenland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Denmark, and Argentina all have legislation which allow homosexual couples exactly the same marriage rights as their heterosexual counterparts.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The class systems argument - since I'm not really into socialism, I don't agree. Capitalism sort of implies a social stratification, and I don't think that can be done away with without taking away the incentive for any sort of progress. However, history will be the judge of which is more effective.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Our society isn't a pure capitalism anymore; it hasn't been since the Great Depression. Welfare systems are a socialist characteristic, so are income tax brackets and such. If <u>those</u> things were removed, there would certainly be an uproar, and I doubt you'd be happy to see them go either. Everyone's a socialist to one degree or another.
(Note: I'm not a socialist, I feel it's an impossible system that only leads to communism, which inevitably leads to totalitarian dictatorship. But then again there aren't too many examples of successful socialist governments, and the grandest experiment - the USSR - failed miserably, so my view is probably skewed)
Oh, and the point of that comparison wasn't to debate the relative merits of capitalism and socialism, it was to point out that society has started to reject traditions that previously were deeply ingrained in our lives. It basically sets a precedent for revolutions such as the extension of marriage to **** couples.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The cop argument was referring to my slippery slope being equivalent to the police brutality/kill murderers argument, which is one I haven't heard before. I'm listening.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh right, that one. What I was trying to say, if the Slippery Slope theory is accurate and everything will always proceed to its most extreme conclusion in our society, than police would eventually be licensed to kill unarmed murderers on the spot. My reasoning is thus:
We have the death penalty, which is state-sanctioned murder. If someone commits a crime worthy of it, they can be put to death by the government. Police forces are extensions of the government. Eventually, people would become so accustomed to the government being able to kill you if you kill someone else (we haven't reached that point yet, people still don't like the death penalty) that they won't care about police beating up an unarmed murder suspect, because they know the government can kill people. This granting of morality in the public's eyes of police brutality would, according to slippery slope theory, lead eventually to cops just outright killing criminals when they catch them if they feel like it, and no one caring much. There are already people like this out there, people who look at a report of a murder suspect killed accidentally because police thought he had a gun, and saying, "What's the big deal, he was gonna die anyway."
MY thought is that society is smart enough to know the line, and would never let policemen get away with abusing a suspect without cause. This invalidates Slippery Slope theory by suggesting that society actually has a brain.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
No, you just started out the thread by arguing that "homosexual marriage" was an oxymoron or somesuch, just as you did in your fourth point above; the "slippery slope" thing came along after you made that horrible analogy comparing homosexual marriage to marrying your dog. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry. Transitions have never been my forte. The "homosexual marriage = oxymoron" argument segued into what I thought would be the consequence of legalizing it - a loss of meaning for the institution. I could have said it more clearly.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Understandable. I definitely would have had trouble seguing from one concept to the other. Actually, I wouldn't have tried to do it, but that's a different story.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You do realize I have no personal claim in this argument, as in, I'm not ****. The only reason I got into this conversation in the first place was because I'm tired of people thinking all Christians hate homosexuals and think they should be denied marital status. Frankly, I've never spent this much time actually thinking about the issue before. We should have an abortion argument as well, come to think of it<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hating homosexuals and thinking that they shouldn't be allowed to marry are two separate things just like thinking abortion is wrong and hating teenagers who get pregnant are two different things. It's easy to see where people get the idea that Christians hate them comes from, but that is mistaken. Although there are people who do truly hate them; I can only give you my word that I'm not one of them. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When I said that, I truly didn't mean to infer that <u>you</u> hate homosexuals. I think your views are in error concerning homosexuality, but I don't think you hate the people themselves. I never actually thought I'd be arguing with you for this long over this topic; when I entered the conversation I just wanted to pose as the "Christian who says to Hell with it all," not the "Liberal Christian".....for the record I'm neither Democrat nor Republican. I like making fun of both, thank you.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Words in your mouth....I wouldn't want to come anywhere near your mouth.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Very nice. That qualifies as ad hominem I believe.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh c'mon. Classifying my entire post as ad hominem because of one comment?
Fine, if it means so much to your sense of professionality, my apologies.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Basically, the support for such a campaign would be lacking, so the "arbitrary" ruling would surely stand much firmer and more easily than these anti-****-marriage laws.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Somebody else pointed out in this thread that it's the duty of the state to protect the minority.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's a difference between "minority with outside support" and "minority that no one else cares about enough to support." Homosexuals are the former. People who want to marry their dogs fall into the second camp, I should think.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->he law doesn't have to "legislate love", it just can't get in the way.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Personally I don't think the government should legislate marriage at all.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now you sound like Skulkbait:
<!--QuoteBegin-Skulkbait+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Skulkbait)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't think that our government should be defining marriage at all.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
If the government doesn't legislate marriage at all, then what exactly is preventing **** people from getting married? I mean....aren't they the ones who say what marriages are legal and what aren't? They're surely the ones who say people under 18 can't get married (without parental consent(?), I think that's the law). So obviously they have to retain <i>some</i> power to legislate marriage....
Personally I don't think the government should legislate marriage at all. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then why is this an issue for you? By that comment I would assume you would mean that "marraige" would bring with it no tax/legal breaks of any kind and would be an entirely religious construct. This (besides making marraige absolutely meaningless to athiests) would mean that all a homosexual couple would have to do to get married is find a church that would do it, which nowadays would not be extremely hard to do, and would also make the argument of whether or not governments should sanction homosexual marraige a moot point that would would really have no reason to argue about. Unless you mean something very different than what I think you mean.
. . .
Fourth, "it just isn't" - saying a square is a circle doesn't really make a square a circle, does it? It's up to you to prove that homosexual marriage is the same as heterosexual marriage, and I posit that it can't be done.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I tried to address this point before, and both of these are really the same point. You are correct that saying a square is a circle is nonsense. You are correct that that stealing is not generous. Those are cases where the concepts that you have juxtaposed are inconsistent. You haven't shown that in the case of "homosexual marriage."
You appear to believe that "marriage" means "a union between one man and one woman." Fine. But where does that definition come from? Religion? History? The definition of "circle" comes from logic; it could not be otherwise. The definition of stealing is a <i>bit</i> more malliable but it is still pretty constrained. The definition of "citizen of the United States" is, on the other hand, pretty much left to what people have used it to mean under a constitution. <i>We, as a nation</i> defined it one way for a long time; eventually the pressure of rightiousness caused a change. "Marriage" is equally -- divorced from religion -- a socially defined institution.
In the context of the laws of the United States' government "marriage" amounts to a set of legal rights. Being a "citizen" is the same; if you are one you have certain rights, if you aren't, you don't. The meanings of these terms aren't etched into the universe by logic, and they aren't constrained by history. We <i>do not</i> restrict ourselves as Americans to the prejudice and ignorance of the past. We <i>do</i> update our legal institutions to more accurately reflect our understanding of what is just under the law.
Your claim is essentially that "homosexial marriage" is a logical impossibility. That only works if "marriage" and "homosexual" are logically incompatible. Given that "marriage" is an institution designed to confer certain government benefits on monogamous couples, I fail to see how it has any inherent logical difficulty if wedded (forgive the pun) with same-sex couples.
@AllUrHive: Don't you ever argue for the sake of argument? I think it's rather entertaining.
ooooh....bad mental image there. <!--emo&::marine::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/marine.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='marine.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Anyways, this conversation has run its course as far as I'm concerned. gj everyone, we have successfully concluded nothing at all, except that bestiality is a topic that should never be brought up in the middle of anything else. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Well when you do that, you're not supposed to ADMIT that you're wrong. That just kinda lets everyone else know that your arguments are useless.
@allurhive - what do you mean "admit i was wrong"? playing devil's advocate is a fun thing to do; you should try it some time. My opinion is that you don't have a good grasp of a debate until you can find a strong point for the other side and argue for it well.
and I don't want to see any wierd homo's in NS getting any hot Gorge on Gorge action ya hear! keep it clean
Marriage TODAY is about mutual support: the idea that in our society, most of the important tasks like raising kids and building a life and nevigating through the healthcare system and managing assets and inheritance: can't be done alone. People need partners to support and care for them. That's what marriage is for: creating families. The fact is, **** people ALREADY have created families, many with children in them already. Is it right to make some families second class compared to others? Give rights only to some families, while making it really tough on other families?
Anti-****-marriage people are, in my opinion, really the worst thing to happen to marriage. They define marriage PURELY by exclusion: marriage is simply the institution that only straight people can join in... and that's all it is: an exclusive club. What could be worse for marriage than THAT opinion!
And if they win and prevent *** from being able to marriage, the result will be the creation of all sorts of "marriage-lite" options to accomodate **** couples, and since hetero couples can't be barred from them, they will choose these "responsibility-free" options instead of marriage. To survive, marriage needs to be a universal based on universal principles. EVERYONE, **** or straight, needs to be able to grow up with the expectation that they are leading towards eventual marriage, regardless of what their sexuality turns out to be. Everyone should be able to marry someone they love: not the exact person they love, but someone. And for ***, that can only mean someone of the same sex.
If you take a position you don't beleive in, don't start stating positions you do beleive in, or you basically admit to being wrong. That's not how we win on the internet!
In order to prove their equivalency, you must first define the terms, which includes a definition of what is a "man" and what is a "woman." Be aware that any definition you give is likely going to deny transexuals, and transgendered individuals the ability to get married at all.
ouch, sucks for texans <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
If you take a position you don't beleive in, don't start stating positions you do beleive in, or you basically admit to being wrong. That's not how we win on the internet! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
eh, you know what they say about arguing on the internet. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
and I don't want to see any wierd homo's in NS getting any hot Gorge on Gorge action ya hear! keep it clean <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Its not a disease. And we don't like to be called "weird homos".
If you take a position you don't beleive in, don't start stating positions you do beleive in, or you basically admit to being wrong. That's not how we win on the internet! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
eh, you know what they say about arguing on the internet. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That if you win they make you king of cyberspace?
Oh yeah, that it's a direct representation of th amount of flesh between your thighs.
Ignoring the political attack BS at the end this comic is good <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Are you a child?
Ignoring the political attack BS at the end this comic is good <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ah, but that's a flawed analogy. marriage hasn't always been between people of the same race, nor were women always treated as "property". However, as far as i know, it has always been between men and women <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
if the majority of people wanted to change laws to allow it then so be it but until then don't do it.
Ignoring the political attack BS at the end this comic is good <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ah, but that's a flawed analogy. marriage hasn't always been between people of the same race, nor were women always treated as "property". However, as far as i know, it has always been between men and women <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
whatever, we both know 'keeping the sanctity of marriage' is bs. It's no longer a religious institution... atheists get married, as do jews, and muslims, and anyone else who wants to. shrug I don't really care if homosexuals can 'marry' as long as they can do something to get the same benefits... I'm not up in arms about the name of it, but to give such a lame excuse is really insulting to me and everyone else
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
We should ban homosexuality then, banning marriage wont do anything to stop homosexuality. Not that I advocate banning it.
Ignoring the political attack BS at the end this comic is good <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ah, but that's a flawed analogy. marriage hasn't always been between people of the same race, nor were women always treated as "property". However, as far as i know, it has always been between men and women <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
whatever, we both know 'keeping the sanctity of marriage' is bs. It's no longer a religious institution... atheists get married, as do jews, and muslims, and anyone else who wants to. shrug I don't really care if homosexuals can 'marry' as long as they can do something to get the same benefits... I'm not up in arms about the name of it, but to give such a lame excuse is really insulting to me and everyone else <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
it never was a religious institution, duh. You can bet there were marriages long before there were any priests to do the marrying. Like I said before, ever heard of common-law marriages? They've been around forever.