Do you believe same sex marriage is okay?

NO I ACTUALLY AM RIGHT AND THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT

Natural_Genius

Is this guy trolling us?

[QUOTE="teddyrob"]

[QUOTE="smc91352"]

I'd like to say that all the people that use the slippery slope argument are making my side look better.

PannicAtack

Could you explain the slippery slope argument to me, which side are you on if any?

[QUOTE="Darth-Caedus"][QUOTE="Natural_Genius"][ 1 2. Second of all what I am saying is that if we legalize same sex marriage, the people who want to engage in polygamy will be asking, " You allow same sex couples to get married, why not us" I am not saying that people who would normally be in a 2 person marriage would all of a sudden take on more partners due to the legalization of polygamy. There a reason it is called the slippery slope FALLACY. Stop with it already, your just making yourself look like an idiot. 3. People dont always marry people they love, if they did then there would be no divorce. Sometimes they marry for SES (ie Anna Nicole), sometimes its an arranged marriage. And that has what to do with anything?:| 4. If I was an orphan, then what I would want is to be normal, and that would mean a normal daddy/mommy family. Gay people may want to adopt, but why should they be able to take away that child's chance at a normal life. Another thing is most married people have kids but most gay couples do not. That isn't taking away their chance at a normal life, its giving them a chance at a happy life.:| I AM RIGHT, ALL WHO DISAGREE WITH ME ARE WRONG, AND THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT. No. Your just another illogical bigot using faulty logic and fallacies to attempt to justify your bigotry. Natural_Genius

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="teddyrob"]

Could you explain the slippery slope argument to me, which side are you on if any?

Teenaged

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Natural_Genius"] We dont always marry the ones we love, just look at the divorce rates. Plus some marry for SES (Anna Nicole) and some are in an arranged marriage. Natural_Genius

The point still stands that people get married because they love each other. Individual cases dont prove anything here, avatar_genius. ;)

You are not really countering my point, avatar_genius.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Natural_Genius"] We dont always marry the ones we love, just look at the divorce rates. Plus some marry for SES (Anna Nicole) and some are in an arranged marriage. Natural_Genius

The point still stands that people get married because they love each other. Individual cases dont prove anything here, avatar_genius. ;)

[QUOTE="teddyrob"]

[QUOTE="smc91352"]

I'd like to say that all the people that use the slippery slope argument are making my side look better.

smc91352

Could you explain the slippery slope argument to me, which side are you on if any?

slippery slope is when they say "if we let THIS happen, it won't be long before THAT happens."

I'm against the recognition of marriage by the government.

There should be NO benefits for getting married by law because it treats "single" people differently.

As I've said why don't you follow the UK model of CIVIL UNION instead of Marriage everyone is happy with that in the UK,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_Kingdom

...Ok, your trolling right?:|Darth-Caedus

There should be NO benefits for getting married by law because it treats "single" people differently.smc91352

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"] Slippery slope is when you say "if x thing happens, bad thing y can happen."PannicAtack

[QUOTE="Serraph105"][QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="Natural_Genius"] Its not the same thing. Nobody is denying gay people their right to get married. They can marry someone of the opposite sex just as easily as you and meNatural_Genius

Personally, it really doesn't matter. Politically, there's no way it can be illegalized for much longer. The government simply cannot have the right to dictate people's lives.

Of course it is ok. What two people wish to do is their business first and foremost. Second, whether heterosexual or homosexual no couple should be treated as lesser citizens because of their sexual preference. I find it to be highly hypocritical to discourage sexual preference discrimination for employment, yet allow sexual preference discrimination for marriage. We are basically in the homosexuality sufferage movement in the U.S. these days, and I see this discrimination ending soon. Eventually people will realize homosexuality is not going anywhere and allowing them to marry is futile to oppose as it does nothing to actually discourage homosexuality.

It is extremely arrogant, vindictive, and asinine to oppose gay marriage solely because it defies your own set of preferences. Homosexuality exists regardless, so why cling to old tradition JUST for the purpose of mistreating others? Hell, I do not go to church so should I support the banning of something that I have absolutely nothing to do with? Solely to take it from others who want it, considering the pessimistic arguement could be made how both degrade the quality of society.

"Gay marriage is bad because my kids could turn gay."

"Churches are bad because my kids could turn religious."

IMO both arguments are fallcious, pessimistic, and ignorant. You can't just ban everything that is not easy to handle, or doesn't directly suit you.

Another reason I dislike religion, it puts people up on a faith based pedastal of moral supremacy. Live and let live. I am straight, and I see no problem with letting two people in love get married. What's the big deal?

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]Adding: while the connection between x and y is very far fetched and alarmistic in nature.

Teenaged

[QUOTE="smc91352"]There should be NO benefits for getting married by law because it treats "single" people differently.Vandalvideo

What? One example is that the married people pay less in taxes 'cause the government wants to support procreation.

Saying that ALL people get married to make babies is just false; and its saying that "single" people don't procreate.

Personally, it really doesn't matter. Politically, there's no way it can be illegalized for much longer. The government simply cannot have the right to dictate people's lives.

Maniacc1

Doesn't really effect me so I say let them do what they want.

[QUOTE="teddyrob"]

[QUOTE="Natural_Genius"]1.First of all you spelled color wrong (No "our" brit, get it right).Natural_Genius

If he is a Brit then he has spelt COLOUR correct.

Since we were here before you Americans then we spell things the correct way and as you went to the New World without an education you naturally fell into spelling things incorrectly and all the rest just fell into copying their forefather's mistakes.

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="smc91352"]There should be NO benefits for getting married by law because it treats "single" people differently.smc91352

What? One example is that the married people pay less in taxes 'cause the government wants to support procreation.

Saying that people get married to make babies is just false; and its saying that "single" people don't procreate.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]I had a debate today, for class. We argued about video games. My opponent said that video games lead to gambling, alcohol, and drugs.PannicAtack

[QUOTE="Bourbons3"][QUOTE="Rob0_Jesus"]

Discrimination because of color is unconstitutional. Thats why it would never happen again. Unfortunately there is nothing in the constituiton about gays. It sounds like we need another amendment huh?

Rob0_Jesus

It got amended after a long long long while though. What about gay marriage or gays in general? Is there anything in the constitution about gays? Probably not so that means we need another amendment that says what we should do about the gay community.

[QUOTE="Natural_Genius"][QUOTE="teddyrob"]

If he is a Brit then he has spelt COLOUR correct.

teddyrob

Since we were here before you Americans then we spell things the correct way and as you went to the New World without an education you naturally fell into spelling things incorrectly and all the rest just fell into copying their forefather's mistakes.

In America, they haven't used it for years!

[QUOTE="smc91352"]

[QUOTE="teddyrob"]

Could you explain the slippery slope argument to me, which side are you on if any?

teddyrob

slippery slope is when they say "if we let THIS happen, it won't be long before THAT happens."

I'm against the recognition of marriage by the government.

There should be NO benefits for getting married by law because it treats "single" people differently.

As I've said why don't you follow the UK model of CIVIL UNION instead of Marriage everyone is happy with that in the UK,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_Kingdom

[QUOTE="Natural_Genius"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]The divorce might as well mean that there was love but that it faded in time. Marriage did happen because of love though.

The point still stands that people get married because they love each other. Individual cases dont prove anything here, avatar_genius. ;)

You are not really countering my point, avatar_genius.

[QUOTE="Rob0_Jesus"]

How do you know? Are you hetero?

Teenaged

I am a homosexual and I dont get aroused by the opposite sex in any way. Doesnt it logically follow that the reversed is true for heterosexuals.

Also most people around me are heterosexuals. If what you claim is so common wouldnt I know about it? Not for specific people. Even as a rumour.

Then it needs an amendment. We can agree on that cant we?

Rob0_Jesus

The point though is that you cant refer to the constitution as to what is right or wrong as if the constitution is not prone to criticismor changes.

Thanks for the insight. I think Im done with this topic for the day.

[QUOTE="Maniacc1"]

Personally, it really doesn't matter. Politically, there's no way it can be illegalized for much longer. The government simply cannot have the right to dictate people's lives.

Vandalvideo

That's the problem. You can't have a country based on "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," as well as "with liberty and justice for all," and then persecute a group of people because of their lifestyles. The Supreme Court will hold for constitutionality every time.

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]Really? :?

Teenaged

[QUOTE="smc91352"]

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"] Single people can get those same rights, its called a contract.Vandalvideo

What? One example is that the married people pay less in taxes 'cause the government wants to support procreation.

Saying that people get married to make babies is just false; and its saying that "single" people don't procreate.

Its not that I want my taxes down. Its that I don't want married people to take advantage of lower taxes for a notion that I don't support.

I don't believe making babies people is something people should get payed to do with taxpayers' money.

Especially when we have Foster homes filled with kids.

Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Natural_Genius"] If they married because of love, then they still would be married, but really they married because of LustMetalGear_Ninty

You are not really countering my point, avatar_genius.

Detecting alts is now called a Ninty?

Cool. :P

Saying no would get 55 million people to call me an ignorant hick, so i'll stay outta this one...

Its not that I want my taxes down. Its that I don't want married people to take advantage of lower taxes for a notion that I don't support. I don't believe making babies people is something people should get payed to do with taxpayers' money.Especially when we have Foster homes filled with kids.smc91352

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]Well guess what, gay people lust for people of the same sex. Therefore they should marry someone of the same sex.

You are not really countering my point, avatar_genius.

Teenaged

Detecting alts is now called a Ninty?

Cool. :P

[QUOTE="teddyrob"]

[QUOTE="smc91352"]

slippery slope is when they say "if we let THIS happen, it won't be long before THAT happens."

I'm against the recognition of marriage by the government.

There should be NO benefits for getting married by law because it treats "single" people differently.

Bourbons3

As I've said why don't you follow the UK model of CIVIL UNION instead of Marriage everyone is happy with that in the UK,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_Kingdom

Why not? I've not heard of any complaints. Please elaborate.

The Supreme Court will hold for constitutionality every time.Maniacc1

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]Well guess what, gay people lust for people of the same sex. Therefore they should marry someone of the same sex.

You are not really countering my point, avatar_genius.

Teenaged

Detecting alts is now called a Ninty?

Cool. :P

[QUOTE="Bourbons3"][QUOTE="teddyrob"]

slippery slope is when they say "if we let THIS happen, it won't be long before THAT happens."

I'm against the recognition of marriage by the government.

There should be NO benefits for getting married by law because it treats "single" people differently.

teddyrob

As I've said why don't you follow the UK model of CIVIL UNION instead of Marriage everyone is happy with that in the UK,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_Kingdom

Why not? I've not heard of any complaints. Please elaborate.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] Holy ****, you're doing a Ninty. :PPannicAtack

Detecting alts is now called a Ninty?

Cool. :P

From what I hear of other people he was annoying.

[QUOTE="Maniacc1"]The Supreme Court will hold for constitutionality every time.Vandalvideo

[QUOTE="smc91352"]Its not that I want my taxes down. Its that I don't want married people to take advantage of lower taxes for a notion that I don't support. I don't believe making babies people is something people should get payed to do with taxpayers' money.Especially when we have Foster homes filled with kids.Vandalvideo

but I'm just talking rhetoric (BS) and not making a movement. I know that things won't go my way; I'm just saying what I think is how it should be.

I'm very thankful for having a government that managed to pass the law in 2003 to grant civil partnerships. And they're a very good thing. But I'd just prefer it if I could actually refer to someone as my "husband" rather than my "civil partner" in an official capacity. Its marriage in all but name. I'd like that one last step.Bourbons3

You can call someone your husband if you like nothing is stopping you. I've seen them say it as well as non married straight couples calling each other wife and husband.

1.First of all you spelled color wrong (No "our" brit, get it right).Natural_Genius

If he is a Brit then he has spelt COLOUR correct.

[QUOTE="Bourbons3"]I'm very thankful for having a government that managed to pass the law in 2003 to grant civil partnerships. And they're a very good thing. But I'd just prefer it if I could actually refer to someone as my "husband" rather than my "civil partner" in an official capacity. Its marriage in all but name. I'd like that one last step.teddyrob

You can call someone your husband if you like nothing is stopping you. I've seen them say it as well as non married straight couples calling each other wife and husband.