homophobic homosexual

[Jonathan Clement]

I'm talking about having a family! Having somebody to love!

[FartinMowler]

If your from British Columbia (where I grew up) then you should be a tree hugging fag lover :/ or a racist ignorant idiot.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Wait a minute, you're both from BC?

Have we learned something here?

[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Clement

I'm talking about having a family! Having somebody to love!

I have a friend back in Arkansas who has two moms and he loves them both very dearly, and they love him. The only real difference between him and you (besides that fact that he is awesome and you suck) is that he has to buy two cards on mother's day and none on father's day.

[Rosenstern]

First off, I will say that I was very conflicted about writing this, because I don't really want to hear any more out of Jonathan. I then decided that my urge to tell him off overpowers that, so here I go.

Jonathan, the fact of the matter is that marriage means different things to different people. To you, it may only be the Christian definition of being between a man and a woman. If this is what you personally hold true, good for you: follow it and get on with your life. To someone else, it may not hold the same meaning. To them, it can be between a man and a man or a woman and a woman, but still must have a deep feeling of love associated to it. Whoever is right (there is no such thing) is entirely irrelevant. What matters is that two males or two females getting married doesn't hurt you or anyone else in any way, shape, or form, expect for your pride as a self-rightous moral crusader.

Good day, sir.

[kahljorn]

As far as I know marriage in one form or another existed before christianity.

[Rosenstern]

Originally Posted by kahljorn

As far as I know marriage in one form or another existed before christianity.

Exactly! The now-traditional Christian ritual is not all there is to marriage. All it really has to be, if it has to be anything, is a recognition of someone's deep, long-term love for someone else. That's all

Edit: in case it sounds like it, I'm not contesting you, Kahljorn
Edit: typo correction

[Spectre X]

Christianity didn't just copy marriage, it monopolized it, turning it into a tool to secure followers and excercise controll over them.

Shut up, Johnny-boy. If anybody or anything has been ruining marriage, it's religion.

[Preechr]

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

Have we learned something here?

Yes. It is always pointless to argue with a Canadian. I have few rules for the internet. That is one of them.

Originally Posted by Rosenstern

...the fact of the matter is that marriage means different things to different people. To you, it may only be the Christian definition of being between a man and a woman. If this is what you personally hold true, good for you: follow it and get on with your life. To someone else, it may not hold the same meaning. To them, it can be between a man and a man or a woman and a woman, but still must have a deep feeling of love associated to it. Whoever is right (there is no such thing) is entirely irrelevant. What matters is that two males or two females getting married doesn't hurt you or anyone else in any way, shape, or form, expect for your pride as a self-rightous moral crusader.

That is a nicely expressed libertarian sentiment. Well, the part in parenthesis was maybe leaning more relativistic (though you are making a moral judgement with your post, so...) but the rest looks solidly lib, assuming you can correctly answer the following question: Why is your way of thinking better than Johnathan's here?

[Rosenstern]

I'm a determinst (and was before that thread a few weeks ago, BTW). I don't believe in better or worse. I go with what I feel to be right. Not knowing if that's you're "correct answer", or if there even is one (knowing you I doubt it, for some reason) the only answer I could possibly give you is that as long as no one is getting personally harmed, governmental restrictions on cultural conventions are unnecessasry. Now, If a gay marriage were to entale a mass orgy where the spread of STDs is a great possibility, government intervention would be a good idea there. But it doesn't. It's the same as straight marriages or anything else: a hell of a lot of normal ones (once again, no such thing), one or two freak occurences here and there where legel action should be taken.

I hope this is satisfactory.

Ps: I am a cultural libertaritan, but an economic socialist. This makes me... not a libertarian

[Rosenstern]

hm... Nothing I just said really has to do with Jonathan's argument about a family... But I guess that first part about determinism could pretty much cover all bases... :/

[Rosenstern]

WAIT!!!!!! STOP THE PRESSES!!!!! The correct answer is: "What exactly would make any answer correct, Preechr?" OH YEAH!!!
[poses like the Buddy Christ]

[kellychaos]

The gay conspiracy!!

[Rosenstern]

Kelly, there is not a damn thing any gay person could do to make you gayer than you already are. I fail to see why you would feel threatened in any way.

[kellychaos]

ummm... sarcasm, perhaps you've heard of it?


i.e. live and let live. I really don't care ... really ... :okbubbye

[Rosenstern]

Sarcasm... yes. Doesn't that usually have humor attached to it?

[Jonathan Clement]

Fool! It DOES afect me! If it's legalized, yoiu can bet all the women will support it and I sure as hell don't want to marry a person who supports such a mockeryof marriage!

[MLE]

unless you're being forced to marry a man, it doesn't affect you.

you may have an opinion about it, but it doesn't affect you. i think that either marriage should be extended to whomever + whomever -which includes all of the tax benefits, or marriage can be kept to a man + woman, and the tax breaks are eliminated. that way it's still even.

it's unfair to keep gays and lesbians out of these tax breaks and make their lives harder than they already are. i don't care if you hate them. it doesn't give you the right to make their lives that much harder.

if gay and lesbian marriages are outlawed, people like you are the ones affecting others -not the other way around.

[Rosenstern]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Clement

I sure as hell don't want to marry a person who supports such a mockeryof marriage!

Then DON'T! Marry a conservative girl who, at the same time, believes that marriage should be man/woman and and is stupid enough to submit herself to living her life with you.

Girls like this will still be around. Trust me. We are in no short supply of them.

Edit: And might I add that this thread wasn't even about gay marriage until you rode in here on your now-trademark moral high-horse and starting bitching about it? You were asking to be told off.

[ziggytrix]

I'm less concerned with the tax issues than I am with denying someone the right to see the person they've devoted their whole life to in the hospital or having some poor queer's estranged parents making life support decisions, for example, when in a straight relationship it would be the spouse.

To me, that's civil rights. And denying civil rights to someone because they are physiologically attracted to their own gender is just as oppressive as denying someone civil rights because they have a different skin color.

[MLE]

that was said very eloquently, zig

[Jonathan Clement]

Well, WHY do you want to call it a marriage for purposes other than attention seeking? WHY don't you call it a civil union?!

[MLE]

in my understanding (which may be wrong. i haven't personally researched it) civil unions do not have the same rights as marriages. plus, you don't get to make choices for the other person like ziggy said.

that's why.

[Jonathan Clement]

Then think of something else to call it.

[MLE]

there are also gays and lesbians that are religious. they want the same equality in that reign as well.

i'm personally not religious, so i don't fight that fight.