Could someone explain to me why g@y marriage is a beautiful thing?

[QUOTE="Burnt_Star"]

[QUOTE="x8VXU6"]they shouldnt be entitled to be married cuz marriage is suposed to be between a man and a woman not a man and a man thats sick

alexside1

Denying someone rights that to some people consider to be mortality wrong is prejudice? That makes no sense.

alexside1

[QUOTE="alexside1"][QUOTE="BumFluff122"]Is the love for your father the same love as the love for your girlfriend?

Teenaged

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="alexside1"] Your point?alexside1

"There are lots of guys who I love, but you don't see me walking up to them and say "will you marry me?"."

[QUOTE="alexside1"]Denying someone rights that to some people consider to be mortality wrong is prejudice? That makes no sense.

Burnt_Star

So denying the mother's right to kill her own child is prejudice? Your reasoning doesn't add up.

Why should your opinions dictate the liberties of a group of people?

So denying the mother's right to kill her own child is prejudice? Your reasoning doesn't add up.

Why yours be any different than mine?

alexside1

[QUOTE="alexside1"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]His point and my point is that your (possible) point (which you havent stated explicitely) is invalid.

Teenaged

"There are lots of guys who I love, but you don't see me walking up to them and say "will you marry me?"."

I never said my definition is correct.alexside1

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="alexside1"] My point is that I define love differently from other people. Which if you want to prove me wrong than gave me an authorize source that says different.alexside1

"There are lots of guys who I love, but you don't see me walking up to them and say "will you marry me?"."

Indication of different types of love are the different types of relationships between people.

Something which even your example shows.

If you want to prove me wrong then give me an authorize source.

alexside1

No I dont have to give you an authorised source.

Unless you dont have a problem with Wikipedia.

"As an abstract concept, love usually refers to a deep, ineffable feeling of tenderly caring for another person. Even this limited conception of love, however, encompasses a wealth of different feelings, from the passionate desire and intimacy of romantic love to the nonsexual emotional closeness of familial and platonic love to the profound oneness or devotion of religious love. Love in its various forms acts as a major facilitator of interpersonal relationships and, owing to its central psychological importance, is one of the most common themes in the creative arts."

[QUOTE="alexside1"]

So denying the mother's right to kill her own child is prejudice? Your reasoning doesn't add up.

Why yours be any different than mine?

I'm going to respectfully disagree. I can see how you might call freedom of speech or freedom from undue incarceration civil liberties, but I don't see how the granting of a document with the title "marriage certificate" to whomever wants one is a civil liberty.jimmyjammer69

If two compotent rational adults (regardless of gender) wish to get married I can't think of any logical reason to stop them, land of the free. We shouldn't want anyone to make decisions that limit a persons freedom when it comes to whom they can or can't get married to (pedophilia and incestuous relationships excluded of course).

[QUOTE="alexside1"]

So denying the mother's right to kill her own child is prejudice? Your reasoning doesn't add up.

Why yours be any different than mine?

Burnt_Star

Why your opinion be any different than mine?

So if murder is all of sudden legally ok, would you be ok that a mother kill her own child? Why your opinion be any different than mine?

alexside1

[QUOTE="alexside1"]

If you want to prove me wrong then give me an authorize source.

Teenaged

Unless you dont have a problem with Wikipedia.

The problem is that wikipedia can be edit by anyone and shouldn't be consider to be a reliable source. I learn this at school.

Wait wut ? i never saw anyone considering it beautifull. And another thing, a bit off topic, dont you think this gay marriage thing will increase the number of HIV infected?Drakes_Fortune

[QUOTE="alexside1"][QUOTE="Burnt_Star"] But a woman and a woman, that's hot! I lol'd, don't feel like getting into this debate again with the over zealous homophobes, its a free country and as a million other people have said marriage is not exclusive or original to Christianity. Gay marriage is just as beautifal (and has the potential to be just as ugly) as any other marriage, odds are they're all destined to fail anyway. The ignorance in this topic is destroying my last shreads of faith in humanity.

Teenaged

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"] I'm going to respectfully disagree. I can see how you might call freedom of speech or freedom from undue incarceration civil liberties, but I don't see how the granting of a document with the title "marriage certificate" to whomever wants one is a civil liberty.Burnt_Star

If two compotent rational adults (regardless of gender) wish to get married I can't think of any logical reason to stop them, land of the free. We shouldn't want anyone to make decisions that limit a persons freedom when it comes to whom they can or can't get married to (pedophilia and incestuous relationships excluded of course).

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="alexside1"]

If you want to prove me wrong then give me an authorize source.

alexside1

Unless you dont have a problem with Wikipedia.

The problem is that wikipedia can be edit by anyone and shouldn't be consider to be a reliable source. I learn this at school.

Just ask yourself this: do you have the same feelings for your mother that you have for your girlfirend? Even though they can both be described as "love" are they the same?

If you answer yes then you pretty much have stated that you "see" your mother in the same way you "see" your girlfriend.

If you answer no, then you have proven my point.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="alexside1"] So you label those who disagree with you (when comes to marriage) as homophobes? That's very prejudge of you.alexside1

But since I know what you are talking about (how that other user replied to the user who was labeled a "homophobe") then I dont think he/she needs to excuse him/herself because I might not be respectful to a homophobe either.

You can call him/her out on being disrespectful but not on him/her calling the other person a "homophobe".

When they disagree with a disrespectful and offensive manner, then yes "homophobe" is the most appropriate title to attribute to them.

What about other people who dissagre in a disrespectful and offensive manner? What do you call them?

alexside1

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="alexside1"]

If you want to prove me wrong then give me an authorize source.

alexside1

Unless you dont have a problem with Wikipedia.

The problem is that wikipedia can be edit by anyone and shouldn't be consider to be a reliable source. I learn this at school.

Wait wut ? i never saw anyone considering it beautifull. And another thing, a bit off topic, dont you think this gay marriage thing will increase the number of HIV infected?Drakes_Fortune

[QUOTE="alexside1"]So if murder is all of sudden legally ok, would you be ok that a mother kill her own child? Why your opinion be any different than mine?

Burnt_Star

You and my personal feelings concerning both murder and gay marriage don't dictate its legal stance.

[QUOTE="Burnt_Star"]

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"] I'm going to respectfully disagree. I can see how you might call freedom of speech or freedom from undue incarceration civil liberties, but I don't see how the granting of a document with the title "marriage certificate" to whomever wants one is a civil liberty.jimmyjammer69

If two compotent rational adults (regardless of gender) wish to get married I can't think of any logical reason to stop them, land of the free. We shouldn't want anyone to make decisions that limit a persons freedom when it comes to whom they can or can't get married to (pedophilia and incestuous relationships excluded of course).

Because incest is a crime. Marriage isn't exclusive to religion, I don't see any harm in allowing gays the same privileges as those who are involved with a religion. If a homosexual couple wants the tile of a married couple instead of a unified one I don't think religions should have any say in the matter simply because they get riled up.

Wait wut ? i never saw anyone considering it beautifull. And another thing, a bit off topic, dont you think this gay marriage thing will increase the number of HIV infected?Drakes_Fortune

You are obviously uninformed on the issue of the HIV virus.

[QUOTE="alexside1"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

Unless you dont have a problem with Wikipedia.

BumFluff122

The problem is that wikipedia can be edit by anyone and shouldn't be consider to be a reliable source. I learn this at school.

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

[QUOTE="alexside1"]

The problem is that wikipedia can be edit by anyone and shouldn't be consider to be a reliable source. I learn this at school.

alexside1

I thought it was all about "civil liberties" and "rights" when it's legally ok.

This is democracy. People can vote for whatever thing they want regardless it's emotional or illogical. alexside1

Yet I don't see you starting any grass root organizations in your crusade against gay marriage, obviously its not that big of a moral issue for you. Committing murder is not a liberty, don't confuse or freedoms with justice. You have the freedom to believe that gay marriage is a sin against your God, but that doesn't make it just for you to prevent couples from engaging in a marital union.

[QUOTE="alexside1"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

Unless you dont have a problem with Wikipedia.

Teenaged

The problem is that wikipedia can be edit by anyone and shouldn't be consider to be a reliable source. I learn this at school.

Just ask yourself this: do you have the same feelings for your mother that you have for your girlfirend? Even though they can both be described as "love" are they the same?

If you answer yes then you pretty much have stated that you "see" your mother in the same way you "see" your girlfriend.

If you answer no, then you have proven my point.

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"][QUOTE="Burnt_Star"]

If two compotent rational adults (regardless of gender) wish to get married I can't think of any logical reason to stop them, land of the free. We shouldn't want anyone to make decisions that limit a persons freedom when it comes to whom they can or can't get married to (pedophilia and incestuous relationships excluded of course).

Because incest is a crime. Marriage isn't exclusive to religion, I don't see any harm in allowing gays the same privileges as those who are involved with a religion. If a homosexual couple wants the tile of a married couple instead of a unified one I don't think religions should have any say in the matter simply because they get riled up.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="alexside1"]

The problem is that wikipedia can be edit by anyone and shouldn't be consider to be a reliable source. I learn this at school.

alexside1

Just ask yourself this: do you have the same feelings for your mother that you have for your girlfirend? Even though they can both be described as "love" are they the same?

If you answer yes then you pretty much have stated that you "see" your mother in the same way you "see" your girlfriend.

If you answer no, then you have proven my point.

Simply retorting that incestual relationships should remain unsanctioned because they're illegal is as circular as saying homosexual unions should be unrecognised as marriages because homosexuals can't legally marry. As far as I'm concerned, non-religious marriage should be (and almost is) as meaningless as not being married. I'd rather all the non-childbearing privileges be cut out of marriage altogether and it be reduced to the contract +/- religion it traditionally has been. If two people want to promise to love each other until the pretty stars in the sky rain down, they're free to do so. "Marriage" as opposed to "Garriage" has meaning through convention, so why should we all be forced to redefine marriage for the sake of a feeling of identicality among people who aren't identical?jimmyjammer69

Yet I don't see you starting any grass root organizations in your crusade against gay marriage, obviously its not that big of a moral issue for you.Burnt_Star

Committing murder is not a liberty, don't confuse or freedoms with justice.Burnt_Star

I'm not.

You have the freedom to believe that gay marriage is a sin against your God, but that doesn't make it just for you to prevent couples from engaging in a marital union.

Burnt_Star

What actions?

Teenaged

Some of the guys here keep preaching love all the time here, thinking it justfied their actions.

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"] Simply retorting that incestual relationships should remain unsanctioned because they're illegal is as circular as saying homosexual unions should be unrecognised as marriages because homosexuals can't legally marry. As far as I'm concerned, non-religious marriage should be (and almost is) as meaningless as not being married. I'd rather all the non-childbearing privileges be cut out of marriage altogether and it be reduced to the contract +/- religion it traditionally has been. If two people want to promise to love each other until the pretty stars in the sky rain down, they're free to do so. "Marriage" as opposed to "Garriage" has meaning through convention, so why should we all be forced to redefine marriage for the sake of a feeling of identicality among people who aren't identical?Burnt_Star

If this moral issue is big issue for me then why in the world should I start an organization?alexside1

I have the freedom to belive that murder is wrong, but I am not allow to prevent others from killing people?alexside1

One day I will find someone who can give me a solid non-religious based reason why gay marriage is wrong.

One day I will find someone who can give me a solid non-religious based reason why gay marriage is wrong.

Pixel-Pirate

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

One day I will find someone who can give me a solid non-religious based reason why gay marriage is wrong.

alexside1

Marriage always has been about children. Thanks to social equality campaigners, that's not necessary any more. Face it, it's a dead institution. Just because you and a few religious types want to breathe life back into its name, that doesn't make it any more sensical to be granted a raft of non-child-bearing related privileges simply in light of making an impossible promise akin to deciding you can "choose" to believe in God forever.jimmyjammer69

So sterile couples should never even consider marriage? The whole "productive" marriage thing sounds more like a way of destroying reasons for gay marital unions than an actual neccesity of marriage. Your tradition (regardless of its age) should not dictate my own.

[QUOTE="alexside1"]

If this moral issue is big issue for me then why in the world should I start an organization?Burnt_Star

I have the freedom to belive that murder is wrong, but I am not allow to prevent others from killing people?alexside1

I can easly tell that you are assuming about me A LOT.

I can easly tell that you are assuming about me A LOT.

alexside1

explain why its not-DirtySanchez-

It boils down to the having the same legal rights granted by the state to married couples with the consenting non-relative of your choice. Sex, children, love are all attached to marriage, but those are superfluous issues in a legal context. As it stands, most states restrict the choice of who a person can marry due to moral bias. In my opinion, moral bias is not the best foundation for law. This is more of an issue of the government laying restrictions on personal freedom. An issue I would think more conservatives cared about.

I don't know, watch the movie.

... Oh wait, that's about love, not marriage.