Do you agree with same sex marriages? Whats your view on same sex relationships?

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="Barbariser"]

Irrelevant. I never attempted to relate Saudi Arabia's relative lack of freedoms to the relative equality between the two. According to both of you, ANY inequality results in having no equality at all, and this implies that the U.S. is equally inequal to a nation which practises far more sexual and religious discrimination than the U.S. Consequently, your statements also suggest that the modern U.S. is equally inequal to the U.S. of centuries ago, despite the fact that one of them bats a very large eye at the idea that you should be allowed to enslave any member of a particular race.

Barbariser

Don't dodge the point. What we're arguing is whether or not the existence of an inequality invariably leads to the conclusion that there is no equality at all, which is what you said. Do you believe that the U.S. has equal equality/inequality to Saudi Arabia?

I think it's not beneficial for those involved in the marriage. I don't think two men/ two women can make each other happy. I certainly don't think it's something we should promote either way, since it's founded on confusion. It would be equal even if none of us could vote.SolidSnake35

How do you know the causes of same-sex orientation? The scientific community at large hasn't been able to pin it down. And how many homosexuals do you actually know? Is your knowledge of them indepth and on a large enough sample scale for you to conclude that they're confused and can't satisfy each other? Or are you just guessing based on preconceptions?

Yes, it would be equal if none could vote. However, there was a point where men had an infinitely larger legislative authority for their opinions than women, and a point where white men had an infinitely larger legislative authority for their opinions than black men. Right now, those disparities don't exist. If equality is meaningless, then how do you justify giving non-white and non-male citizens equal voting power to white male citizens?

[QUOTE="Barbariser"]

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"] Just because the US predominantly gets equality right and uses it well doesn't make a difference. Equality in itself is empty.SolidSnake35

Don't dodge the point. What we're arguing is whether or not the existence of an inequality invariably leads to the conclusion that there is no equality at all, which is what you said. Do you believe that the U.S. has equal equality/inequality to Saudi Arabia?

Saudi Arabia does not permit the public practicing of non-Muslim religions. This is in direct contrast to the U.S. legal philosophies which explicitly state that all religions have equal status.

Yet, by your logic, the equality difference between both nations is nonexistent because 0 equals 0.

[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"][QUOTE="toast_burner"] I never commnted on your grammar. I'm saying that the fact that you even bring it up is pathetic. toast_burner

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]I think it's not beneficial for those involved in the marriage. I don't think two men/ two women can make each other happy. I certainly don't think it's something we should promote either way, since it's founded on confusion. It would be equal even if none of us could vote.Barbariser

How do you know the causes of same-sex orientation? The scientific community at large hasn't been able to pin it down. And how many homosexuals do you actually know? Is your knowledge of them indepth and on a large enough sample scale for you to conclude that they're confused and can't satisfy each other? Or are you just guessing based on preconceptions?

Yes, it would be equal if none could vote. However, there was a point where men had an infinitely larger legislative authority for their opinions than women, and a point where white men had an infinitely larger legislative authority for their opinions than black men. Right now, those disparities don't exist. If equality is meaningless, then how do you justify giving non-white and non-male citizens equal voting power to white male citizens?

My opinion on the matter is irrelevant, as two consenting adults getting married is none of my business. My consent is not required for two people I don't know to be able to be in a relationship.

Why people choose to make it their business is baffling, they are poking their nose where it doesn't belong.

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"] Almost as "pathetic" as the fact that you think I'm "digging" myself a "hole" because I don't agree with your point of view.UT_Wrestler

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="Barbariser"]

Don't dodge the point. What we're arguing is whether or not the existence of an inequality invariably leads to the conclusion that there is no equality at all, which is what you said. Do you believe that the U.S. has equal equality/inequality to Saudi Arabia?

Barbariser

Saudi Arabia does not permit the public practicing of non-Muslim religions. This is in direct contrast to the U.S. legal philosophies which explicitly state that all religions have equal status.

Yet, by your logic, the equality difference between both nations is nonexistent because 0 equals 0.

[QUOTE="toast_burner"][QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"] I still can't figure out what hole you're talking about, and yeah it's you're not "your". /facepalm Using bad grammar while chastising me about it. /irony

UT_Wrestler

Don't remember me claiming I was smarter than you. I didn't even imply it, but then again I can see where you might have gotten that from seeing as I repeatedly pointed out flaws in your reasoning while you found none in mine. I mean I guess I didn't suggest it, but I suppose in a way it is implied inherently. I guess when your argument falls apart you've got to fall back on something, like say, poor grammar, even though there's literally one typo. I've got a surprise for you UT, this a forum, no one cares how good your grammar (Well aide from one person apparently.) is as long as people can read it. You're not writing an essay, you're writing a post on a gaming forum. If you don't like then you could always leave, and join a forum with all your gramar friendly buddies, no wait sorry meant grammar, see there's a second 'm' there. I must have gotten confused because you missed that earlier. I guess even grammar masters make grammatical mistakes sometimes, even when talking grammatical mistakes and miss use of grammar, eh? :)

I don't know if this has been posted yet, but... just sayin'.

[QUOTE="Barbariser"]

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]I think it's not beneficial for those involved in the marriage. I don't think two men/ two women can make each other happy. I certainly don't think it's something we should promote either way, since it's founded on confusion. It would be equal even if none of us could vote.SolidSnake35

How do you know the causes of same-sex orientation? The scientific community at large hasn't been able to pin it down. And how many homosexuals do you actually know? Is your knowledge of them indepth and on a large enough sample scale for you to conclude that they're confused and can't satisfy each other? Or are you just guessing based on preconceptions?

Yes, it would be equal if none could vote. However, there was a point where men had an infinitely larger legislative authority for their opinions than women, and a point where white men had an infinitely larger legislative authority for their opinions than black men. Right now, those disparities don't exist. If equality is meaningless, then how do you justify giving non-white and non-male citizens equal voting power to white male citizens?

Yes. And I can have an "opinion" that caucasians are secretly plotting to conquer the world and deprive everyone else of ice cream. That doesn't give me a good legal precedent for supporting laws which promote the genocide of whites and which force the distribution of ice cream to non-white peoples so that they may ensure their supply of ice cream continues to exist.

If there is no net change of equality then obviously the concept of equality cannot be used to justify it. The justifying reason for why people should have voting power vs having no voting power works on the principle that citizens should be given the authority to decide how their nation acts. Whereas the justifying reason for why black citizens should have the same voting power as white citizens is that blacks are equal members of society to whites and therefore should have equal administrative influence per capita. The concept of equality does not factor into the former, whereas it's a central tenet of the latter.

Wow, what a long thread. 23 pages! Anywho: 1. I am fine with SSM. I think it should be legal, and it has been legal here in Canada with absolutely no negative side effects. 2. I don't see why people are so hung up about it. If you get your idea of marriage from religion, then a secular marriage that has nothing to do with god should have no interference on your version of marriage. If you're secular and oppose SSM, ...well, I've yet to hear any stable argument with a strong secular foundation, so I'll just say that we'll just have to disagree here. 3. Instead of everyone going insane over the issue, why doesn't the US government remove marriage from the legal system? Just give civil unions from here on out with all the same privileges federally and state-wide, and allow private institutions to hand out marriage licenses(which are just pieces of paper with no legal benefits). This way, marriage culture is maintained, the marriage issue is resolved, the rights and benefits issue is resolved, the DOMA and state rights issues are resolved, and the taxpayers won't have to foot the bill for all these court proceedings for and against SSM.Lockedge

[QUOTE="Barbariser"]

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"] I don't know what laws they have. Give me one that you think is terribly unequal and morally impermissible. SolidSnake35

Saudi Arabia does not permit the public practicing of non-Muslim religions. This is in direct contrast to the U.S. legal philosophies which explicitly state that all religions have equal status.

Yet, by your logic, the equality difference between both nations is nonexistent because 0 equals 0.

Then we can apply that to your original evidence of inequality. A rich family can easily acquire the same "right to free money" as a poor family by simply losing enough money, just like people in Saudi Arabia can acquire the right to publicly practise their religion by converting to Islam. Hence, the U.S. is perfectly equal and so is Saudi Arabia. 1 equals 1, therefore your logic still takes you to the conclusion that both countries are equally equal/inequal. Only this time it completely defeats your original point that equality doesn't exist.

[QUOTE="Lockedge"]Wow, what a long thread. 23 pages! Anywho: 1. I am fine with SSM. I think it should be legal, and it has been legal here in Canada with absolutely no negative side effects. 2. I don't see why people are so hung up about it. If you get your idea of marriage from religion, then a secular marriage that has nothing to do with god should have no interference on your version of marriage. If you're secular and oppose SSM, ...well, I've yet to hear any stable argument with a strong secular foundation, so I'll just say that we'll just have to disagree here. 3. Instead of everyone going insane over the issue, why doesn't the US government remove marriage from the legal system? Just give civil unions from here on out with all the same privileges federally and state-wide, and allow private institutions to hand out marriage licenses(which are just pieces of paper with no legal benefits). This way, marriage culture is maintained, the marriage issue is resolved, the rights and benefits issue is resolved, the DOMA and state rights issues are resolved, and the taxpayers won't have to foot the bill for all these court proceedings for and against SSM.toast_burner

It's not up to me to decide what other people can do and not do in there personal lives. I don't care about the religious rules either, mostly because if they are getting married and are of the same sex then it's a high probability they don't really care about them either so why should they abide by it? It's one thing to believe something and another to force those beliefs on other people. Government should have no place at all in the personal lives of it's citizens unless it's going to negatively impact the country and if you think two people who love each other getting married who are of the same sex is going to negatively impact the country then that's just.....sad

Do we REALLY need the government authorize in order to marry?alexside1

[QUOTE="alexside1"]Do we REALLY need the government authorize in order to marry?toast_burner

I think only same sex marriages should be allowed. Better them than us :xGallion-Beast

I agree completely

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"] I object to it being called a marriage because it isn't a man and a woman, plain and simple answer; you may not like the answer but you can't seriously keep telling me that I never answered the question, I'm just restating it.UT_Wrestler

Ah, seperate but equal I see.

UT, you're saying you want the same rights/etc. for gays, but for it to be called something else. What you've described is by its very nature "separate but equal," whether you want to admit it or not.

[QUOTE="toast_burner"][QUOTE="alexside1"]Do we REALLY need the government authorize in order to marry?alexside1

this thread has been going on for longer than a day and its got more posts than i have ever seen on a user created thread.

Dear TC, You picked a winner.

this thread has been going on for longer than a day and its got more posts than i have ever seen on a user created thread.

Dear TC, You picked a winner.

sonofsmeagle

He picked a generic topic that will always turn huge because these people never get tired of going in circles over it.

I'm Christian, so it's pretty self explanatory.

this thread has been going on for longer than a day and its got more posts than i have ever seen on a user created thread.

Dear TC, You picked a winner.

sonofsmeagle

[QUOTE="sonofsmeagle"]

this thread has been going on for longer than a day and its got more posts than i have ever seen on a user created thread.

Dear TC, You picked a winner.

Ace6301

I wouldn't be surprised of it wasn't...

[QUOTE="sonofsmeagle"]

this thread has been going on for longer than a day and its got more posts than i have ever seen on a user created thread.

Dear TC, You picked a winner.

Ace6301

[QUOTE="sonofsmeagle"]

this thread has been going on for longer than a day and its got more posts than i have ever seen on a user created thread.

Dear TC, You picked a winner.

Pffrbt

He picked a generic topic that will always turn huge because these people never get tired of going in circles over it.

As there hasn't been mentioned one reason aside from upholding tradition that same sex marriage should be disallowed, i hereby declare it legal.

Not accpetable in my opinion, but there is absolutely no argument on why two people who are in love shouldn't be together! But I still think of this as not acceptable.

Not accpetable in my opinion, but there is absolutely no argument on why two people who are in love shouldn't be together! But I still think of this as not acceptable.

Mehdi-Y

Well unlucky for you it's becoming more and more acceptable in this day and age and the day when same sex relationships get the same respect as normal relationships is in the not to distant future

every country in the world who claims itself to be a "free" country should allow it.

Love is love. If two people who are deeply in love want to get married, let them, dammit. Doesn't matter if they're a man and a woman, both men, both women, two diffferent races, two different religions, whatever. As long as they're two consenting people of age, why not?

[QUOTE="XilePrincess"][QUOTE="ff-leader"]

Yes i am serious if you want go to hell i suggest you stop supporting same sex marriages

ff-leader

God is my shining light who are you to disrespect a perfect diciple of God

Troll in the dungeon.

Love is love. If two people who are deeply in love want to get married, let them, dammit. Doesn't matter if they're a man and a woman, both men, both women, two diffferent races, two different religions, whatever. As long as they're two consenting people of age, why not?

[QUOTE="ff-leader"]

[QUOTE="XilePrincess"] At least if you're going to be a bigot, be bigoted correctly. The_AI

God is my shining light who are you to disrespect a perfect diciple of God

Troll in the dungeon.

I agree marriage is very important part of life and if two people are in love they should be allowed to get married. People say but religion says it's wrong, it's evil but who in their right mind has never sinned or done something wrong, nobody so dont judge other people. Religion is a something which is going out of fashion in this day and age. Same sex marriages is not a sin!

I think the state should get out of marriage altogether. The state issues marriage liscences which give certain benefits like being able to own property jointly and being able to pay taxes together and some other pointless things. I see no reason that the state must be involved. If two gay people want to be married by a church that allows gay marriage then I am totally fine with that, but gay and straight couple should get no benefits from the government.

I think the state should get out of marriage altogether. The state issues marriage liscences which give certain benefits like being able to own property jointly and being able to pay taxes together and some other pointless things. I see no reason that the state must be involved. If two gay people want to be married by a church that allows gay marriage then I am totally fine with that, but gay and straight couple should get no benefits from the government.

hoola

There should be benefits for single people as well

I think the state should get out of marriage altogether. The state issues marriage liscences which give certain benefits like being able to own property jointly and being able to pay taxes together and some other pointless things. I see no reason that the state must be involved. If two gay people want to be married by a church that allows gay marriage then I am totally fine with that, but gay and straight couple should get no benefits from the government.

hoola

Marriage is a right and therefore should be protected regardless of the sex of the people being married and regardless how many people vote against it, because rights are not subject to a vote. However, I do not support the liberals' attempt to recognize same-sex marriage through judicial activism which undermines the entire legislative system. Same-sex couples simply pose no harm. If religious leaders and other homophobes want to "cleanse" society, then they should do it through private means such as using conversion therapy, not instill laws that discriminate against same-sex couples when their religious liberty is not at risk.Genetic_Code

The entire point of the judicial system is to undermine the legislative system.

Okay, marriage should be a religious union only, between a man a woman. Just like the bible says.
Oh and law has nothing to do with it since it's not secular. It's purely a church thing.
Consequenses are though, that there will be no legal benefits and social security attached to it by law.

happy now?

Okay, marriage should be a religious union only, between a man a woman. Just like the bible says.
Oh and law has nothing to do with it since it's not secular. It's purely a church thing.
Consequenses are though, that there will be no legal benefits and social security attached to it by law.

happy now?

TheFlush

In today's world you can get married anywhere you want by anyone as long as you sign the legal agreement afterwards, somarriage doesn't have to be religious at all, it can just be a spiritual/financial thing.