NationStates Jolt Archive

Bottle, ball is in your court if you still want to debate the Holland is a viable example of a state with working gay marriages. Prohibition lasted over a decade, I think that this has a lot longer to play out.
huh? when was i talking about the Dutch?

to be fair, when an entire side of a debate places their fingers in their ears and sings "la la la, we're not listening," it's easy to see why the opposition might begin raising their voices :).

Yeah... you removing them soon? :D

Do as you will. Snarkiness like that, however, is just plain silly.
that was the point

huh? when was i talking about the Dutch?

Sorry, by bad. I attributed this to you by mistake:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8329024&postcount=186

BTW, congrats on your post #10000

Yeah... you removing them soon? :D
no, i see no reason to try to remove other people's fingers for them. if they don't wish to participate in a serious discussion then i am not about to try to force them.

BTW, congrats on your post #10000
whoa, i didn't notice! time to scurry off to make a celebratory thread!

Sorry, by bad. I attributed this to you by mistake:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8329024&postcount=186

BTW, congrats on your post #10000

Yeah that was me.

My point with all this was to point out that, despite what some people might claim, same-sex marriages have as of now not led to even the slightest push for man-boy marriages.

Yeah that was me.

My point with all this was to point out that, despite what some people might claim, same-sex marriages have as of now not led to even the slightest push for man-boy marriages.

Right. I'm taking the position that 4 years is not enough time to prove that.

Remember all: I am all for Civil Unions, as posted waaay back. If gays want to *say* they're married, hey, fine. Just so long as the states continue to call them Civil Unions.

Thanks all, for an enlightening (if sometimes inflammatory) thread.

Right. I'm taking the position that 4 years is not enough time to prove that.

Remember all: I am all for Civil Unions, as posted waaay back. If gays want to *say* they're married, hey, fine. Just so long as the states continue to call them Civil Unions.

Thanks all, for an enlightening (if sometimes inflammatory) thread.

As they say, only time will tell.

Right. I'm taking the position that 4 years is not enough time to prove that.

Remember all: I am all for Civil Unions, as posted waaay back. If gays want to *say* they're married, hey, fine. Just so long as the states continue to call them Civil Unions.

Thanks all, for an enlightening (if sometimes inflammatory) thread.
Why? why does the state have to call them civil unions? what if I have a religion that would marry me and my boyfriend (I am strait but hey) why could I not be married?

Why? why does the state have to call them civil unions? what if I have a religion that would marry me and my boyfriend (I am strait but hey) why could I not be married?

Well, just because you're straight doesn't mean you can't have a boyfriend and marry him right?

Why? why does the state have to call them civil unions? what if I have a religion that would marry me and my boyfriend (I am strait but hey) why could I not be married?

Because the state is the people.
Relgion is God.

I don't believe that the people can marry two people. :)

Let me be a little more clear:
* Marriage is by a cleric of some kind.
* Civil union is by a magistrate, ship's captain, etc.
* I don't care if a couple is straight or gay. But the State cannot marry them. Civil Union them? Sure.
* If (hypotetically) there was a religion which allowed gay marriage, hey, cool.


...and with that, exeunt Markreich from this thread

* If (hypotetically) there was a religion which allowed gay marriage, hey, cool.

Then..? It would be fine?

Because the state is the people.
Relgion is God.

I don't believe that the people can marry two people. :)

Let me be a little more clear:
* Marriage is by a cleric of some kind.
* Civil union is by a magistrate, ship's captain, etc.
* I don't care if a couple is straight or gay. But the State cannot marry them. Civil Union them? Sure.
* If (hypotetically) there was a religion which allowed gay marriage, hey, cool.


...and with that, exeunt Markreich from this thread
Fair enough similar thoughts to my own

The union whether strait or gay is just that a union … with marriage an additional title given by an authorized member of your religion

Then..? It would be fine?

Of course. I've never maintained otherwise.

Of course. I've never maintained otherwise.

Well, apparently there are religions that allow same-sex marriages.

Well, apparently there are religions that allow same-sex marriages.

If they are recognised as religions by the gov't, then the gov't cannot say boo. And the gov't should allow for civil unions. And that's my $0.02.

Now, really, I must be going. :)

If you have something against religion, then look at the United States Constitution/Declaration of Independence. What do they say? They say "He" and "Father" and yes, they are capitallized. They were refering to God in these points in the Constitution/Declaration of Independence. Furthermore, where do most weddings take place? They take place in churches, where religious people gather, who are against gay marriage, so I think the what you call "religious rebuttals" are quite good enough to prevent gay marriage. And religious people are terrified of gays because gays are going to burn in ****. And gays are not going to take down each other, they are going to turn as many 'strait' people down too "because they are like, totally, hot!" :eek: Thank you, and have a nice day with your gay friends. :fluffle:

Well, to echo what's already been said, no specific religion was mentioned, you can't flaunt Christianity only because it's what the majority of the US practices.

Now for my point. Actions out of context are meaningless. So let's give the context.

The people of the United States had had their rights repeatedly abridged by a government on the other side of the ocean. Now, a group of people, most (if not all) of whom believed in the separation of Church and State, are called upon to come up with a declaration of independance. They can't go existentialist on everyone, cus that'd just give Great Britain the right to keep dominating us (existentialism: no duty to a higher cause, we are what we create.) So they had to go for independance on behalf of something higher. That is why they mentioned a "He", to give legitimacy to the breakaway, to show that they draw this right from a power that requires us to be true, to be noble, to be free. It would have been far too easy to mention "Christ" in the Constitution or Declaration if they really wanted to be subject to the present-day Jesuslanders. ;)

And don't give me this BS about "Father" being Yahweh. Many religions view God as a Father.

Yeah that was me.

My point with all this was to point out that, despite what some people might claim, same-sex marriages have as of now not led to even the slightest push for man-boy marriages.
'nuff said.

How can someone believe that allowing two men to marry will push for allowing minors to marry adults? That's like saying hetero marriage will lead to beastiality or some such. Anyone who believes that is mentally unfit to be married.

'nuff said.
Exactly ... no data to even make a supposition that they would

'nuff said.
So are you suggesting, that despite no evidence supporting it, that there will be a "slippery slope?"

How are we defining marriage here and now?

Marriage isn't a gift from a god. It's a social construct to ensure the legitimacy of posession and responsibility. It's a feature of most societies, not just the traditional christian-judaic-muslim societies.

It's a ruling to ensure that you can only have sex with one person (which in hetero situations prevents the spread of both foetuses and disease), and that if children result from the partnership, they are adequately provided and cared for by the people who begot them, so that they don't become a burden to everyone else. From an evolutionary perspective, marriage prevents the need for males to fight for access to skirts, which is sensible, since we don't have antlers.

We value-added the construct with crap like love and tiered cakes, but at the root (excuse the pun) marriage is all about breeding.

So if gay marriage is wrong because there are no oncoming foetuses to justify the partnership, then does that mean we withhold the right of infertile people to be married? Or heteros who choose to remain child free? I don't think so. People have evolved, societies have evolved, and marriage has evolved to accomodate more than merely breeding-ownership rights. Marriage can no longer be defined as a union between a man and a woman for raising offspring. Its defined by the love that underlies it, especially in the west. And with the U.S. as the bastion of all that is *cough* good about the west, it must lead by the example of respecting the commitment and dignity of both homosexuals and heterosexuals. :fluffle:

So are you suggesting, that despite no evidence supporting it, that there will be a "slippery slope?"
Apparently so ;)
"Slippery slope" seems to be a popular buzzword thesedyas to legitimize just about anything, from gun rights to gay marriage. :rolleyes:

Apparently so ;)
"Slippery slope" seems to be a popular buzzword thesedyas to legitimize just about anything, from gun rights to gay marriage. :rolleyes:
It's not a buzzword, it's a suitable name for a logical fallacy. Do you not understand the principles of consent, which have been outlined in this and other threads? Children cannot give legal consent. Animals cannot consent. etc. etc.

Apparently so ;)
"Slippery slope" seems to be a popular buzzword thesedyas to legitimize just about anything, from gun rights to gay marriage. :rolleyes:
the "slippery slope" is a well-established falacy. those who identify it aren't in the wrong, it's the people who USE it. it's become a popular tactic of late, forcing people who understand logic to point out the error more often, so that's why you get more cries of "slippery slope!"

think of it this way: if a herd of elephants passed through your town, you would probably hear the word "elephant" more often than you normally do. is that indicative of something wrong with the people saying it? of course not.

Originally Posted by UpwardThrust
Why? why does the state have to call them civil unions? what if I have a religion that would marry me and my boyfriend (I am strait but hey) why could I not be married?


Because the state is the people.
Relgion is God.

I don't believe that the people can marry two people.

Let me be a little more clear:
* Marriage is by a cleric of some kind.
* Civil union is by a magistrate, ship's captain, etc.
* I don't care if a couple is straight or gay. But the State cannot marry them. Civil Union them? Sure.
* If (hypotetically) there was a religion which allowed gay marriage, hey, cool.



Does that mean that atheists can't get married? After all, they have no priests/churches, so any who are already married would have to believe the state *is* capable of issuing marriage wouldn't they? Therefore the state issuing marriage licenses to gay atheist couples, but civil union certificates to gay christian (just as an examle, I'm not singling out christianity here) would be discriminating against the christian gays wouldn't it?

I just dont get why people are so determined to keep civil unions and marriage seperate. They're both at their root the same thing (a decleration of fidelity between two loving people) so why not give them the same name?

which in hetero situations prevents the spread of both foetuses and disease

Sorry but i have to do this...

! QUICK !

The foetuses are spreading, they are taking control. Stop them now. If you see a foetus in the street report it to your local police station or shaman.

How can someone believe that allowing two men to marry will push for allowing minors to marry adults? That's like saying hetero marriage will lead to beastiality or some such. Anyone who believes that is mentally unfit to be married.
indeed.

i mean, why isn't anybody yelling, "How can this country allow straight marriage?! Look what has happened to us: by allowing straight people to marry, we have openned the door for gay people to marry! We must stop straight marriage now! Won't somebody please think of the children?!"

Well, apparently there are religions that allow same-sex marriages.

Many forms of Buddism (particulary that practised in Hawaii, who are protesting all anti-gay movements to ban gay marriage) perform gay marriages as part of their religious ceremonies. Yes, Buddism is a recognised religion by the US government. Yes, the US government is ignoring this, and their constitution, in order to ban what some consider their religious right to marry.

Unfortunatly Buddhisms pretty weak when it comes to marriage. Its stance generally is more one of "you can do what you like" which doesnt put up much of a fight against the other religions who all same to be screaming no very loudly.

Does that mean that atheists can't get married? After all, they have no priests/churches, so any who are already married would have to believe the state *is* capable of issuing marriage wouldn't they? Therefore the state issuing marriage licenses to gay atheist couples, but civil union certificates to gay christian (just as an examle, I'm not singling out christianity here) would be discriminating against the christian gays wouldn't it?

I just dont get why people are so determined to keep civil unions and marriage seperate. They're both at their root the same thing (a decleration of fidelity between two loving people) so why not give them the same name?
Um thats what I was pointing out ... I was trying to show why one religion does not control all of marrige.

Many forms of Buddism (particulary that practised in Hawaii, who are protesting all anti-gay movements to ban gay marriage) perform gay marriages as part of their religious ceremonies. Yes, Buddism is a recognised religion by the US government. Yes, the US government is ignoring this, and their constitution, in order to ban what some consider their religious right to marry.
indeed.

there are Christian churches, Jewish sects, pagan groups of all stripes, and a whole host of other religious organizations that recognize gay marriages. the claim that allowing gay marriage somehow discriminates against religious people is so obviously a lie that it's not even funny.

indeed.

i mean, why isn't anybody yelling, "How can this country allow straight marriage?! Look what has happened to us: by allowing straight people to marry, we have openned the door for gay people to marry! We must stop straight marriage now! Won't somebody please think of the children?!"

Or what about: "Look what happened when we let women and black people vote! Now we are forced to let hamsters vote as well!"
Wait, no-one is saying that. I wonder why..?

I also wonder why no-one ever responds to this.

Or what about: "Look what happened when we let women and black people vote! Now we are forced to let hamsters vote as well!"
Wait, no-one is saying that. I wonder why..?

I also wonder why no-one ever responds to this.
HAMSTERS ARE PEOPLE TOOO (see I responded)

HAMSTERS ARE PEOPLE TOOO (see I responded)

Ok, make that "never get a *serious* response".

Ok, make that "never get a *serious* response".
I was serious *pouts* I love me mini hamsers!

It's a ruling to ensure that you can only have sex with one person (which in hetero situations prevents the spread of both foetuses and disease), and that if children result from the partnership, they are adequately provided and cared for by the people who begot them, so that they don't become a burden to everyone else. From an evolutionary perspective, marriage prevents the need for males to fight for access to skirts, which is sensible, since we don't have antlers.

That was what I thought was the wierdest part of Jared Diamonds "Guns Germs and Steel." The hunter/gatherer people in New Guinea have marriage, but if you talk to any woman over the age of 30 she'll have had several husbands, many of them the killers of their predecessors.

My wife and I have our squabbles sometimes, and I'm not saying that if I die she has to be a widow for life, but I like to think that if someone who had a crush on her came along and killed me, she'd look for someone else to move on with.

Or what about: "Look what happened when we let women and black people vote! Now we are forced to let hamsters vote as well!"
Wait, no-one is saying that. I wonder why..?

I also wonder why no-one ever responds to this.
i'm going to go out on a limb, here, and say that they don't supply a valid response to the point because they are too busying yelling, "But that's DIFFERENT! Shut up, yes it is! SHUT UP YOU FAGGOT!"

i'm going to go out on a limb, here, and say that they don't supply a valid response to the point because they are too busying yelling, "But that's DIFFERENT! Shut up, yes it is! SHUT UP YOU FAGGOT!"

But right now, they're not even doing that.
Shall I chalk it up as another "homophobes realise they're making fools of themselves and left, waiting for the next thread where they can pretend they never talked to us before." score?

How are we defining marriage here and now?

Marriage isn't a gift from a god. It's a social construct to ensure the legitimacy of posession and responsibility. It's a feature of most societies, not just the traditional christian-judaic-muslim societies.

It's a ruling to ensure that you can only have sex with one person (which in hetero situations prevents the spread of both foetuses and disease), and that if children result from the partnership, they are adequately provided and cared for by the people who begot them, so that they don't become a burden to everyone else. From an evolutionary perspective, marriage prevents the need for males to fight for access to skirts, which is sensible, since we don't have antlers.

We value-added the construct with crap like love and tiered cakes, but at the root (excuse the pun) marriage is all about breeding.

So if gay marriage is wrong because there are no oncoming foetuses to justify the partnership, then does that mean we withhold the right of infertile people to be married? Or heteros who choose to remain child free? I don't think so. People have evolved, societies have evolved, and marriage has evolved to accomodate more than merely breeding-ownership rights. Marriage can no longer be defined as a union between a man and a woman for raising offspring. Its defined by the love that underlies it, especially in the west. And with the U.S. as the bastion of all that is *cough* good about the west, it must lead by the example of respecting the commitment and dignity of both homosexuals and heterosexuals. :fluffle:
1)it talks in the bible about god granting the union between man and woman
2). you state that marriage is "all about breeding", then go on to say that only gay marriage is because of special feelings for one another... last time i checked, people dont marry the first slut/pimp they see on the streets...

although britney spears (again) is an exception to this :)

1)it talks in the bible about god granting the union between man and woman

Mr Bunnsy Has An Adventure states that marriage is between a snake and a badger, so sorry.