Originally posted by DinoDoc
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Republicans really do hate gay people
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by MrFun View PostAnd that makes no sense. That would be like saying, "Marriage is a right, but interracial marriage is not marriage."
Marriage is marriage, period - to hang onto the definition of marriage as being exclusively between a man and a woman makes no sense,
Yes, but only because it's a good idea to extend the meaning of marriage to cover lifelong monogamous relationships between same-sex partners, as it costs us nothing and makes them happy.
as even before gay marriage had been legalized in some states, gay people have ALREADY GOTTEN MARRIED symbolically
i.e. even they admitted that their marriage was metaphorical.
What is the difference between love and devotion between two men, and love and devotion between a woman and man besides gender?
Words have meanings! You think we should change the meaning. Fine! I agree with you! But the anti-gay marriage people are on solid ground when they say that this is a new meaning.
Comment
-
Originally posted by gribbler View PostMaybe his point is that if men are biologically incapable of pregnancy, then they are biologically incapable of entering a lifelong relationship with another man. Who knows, really.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kuciwalker View Post
When you have sex with your boyfriend, do you call it vaginal intercourse? Why not? How is it different just because you're giving it to some guy up the ass?A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.
Comment
-
Hell, it looks like all men are born polygamists. So if we're going to change the laws so that MrFun can get married, how about showing a little love to those of us who have normal and natural biological urges?John Brown did nothing wrong.
Comment
-
Originally posted by MrFun View PostThis says a lot about the shallowness of people who diminish love and devotion between two people, to where they put their dick.
Comment
-
Originally posted by MrFun View PostThis says a lot about the shallowness of people who diminish love and devotion between two people, to where they put their dick.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kuciwalker View PostNo, it wasn't, Imran. Anti-miscegenation laws had been clearly introduced with the specific intent of proscribing something that would have otherwise been considered well within the traditional notion of marriage. By contrast, the very idea of gay marriage did not exist until recently.
In the US, for instance, anti-miscegenation laws have been on the books since the late 17th Century - roughly as long as laws on marriage in the Colonies to begin with. Furthermore, if you really want to be pedantic - you had anti-miscengenation laws ongoing for thousands of years - look at Biblical prohibitions of Jews marrying non-Jews. It has been a primary facet of marriage for ages. The practice was prohibited for those of different ethnicity. So... "traditional marriage" means only something that may have been around prior to 3,000 years ago?
This is a great argument for why the prohibition on polygamy (as religious discrimination) is more Constitutionally suspect than the non-recognition of gay marriage. It isn't an argument that the institution of marriage doesn't exist or that the word has no definition. The evolution of ideas and language doesn't imply the radical linguistic relativism you're asserting.
Furthermore the right of marriage as guaranteed by the state is an institution that confers certain legal rights. For all intents and purposes equal obtaining of those legal rights is the issue. To the extent of "why can't we call it civil unions" argument, what's the point - from henceforth on all rights marriage has apply to civil unions means they are in essence the same thing and calling it different things is a silly thing the state is doing for no benefit or reason whatsoever. Especially when more than a few churches are in the business of performing homosexual marriage. There, of course, is the Brown v. Board argument that separate can never be equal.“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui View PostUtter nonsense.
In the US, for instance, anti-miscegenation laws have been on the books since the late 17th Century - roughly as long as laws on marriage in the Colonies to begin with. Furthermore, if you really want to be pedantic - you had anti-miscengenation laws ongoing for thousands of years - look at Biblical prohibitions of Jews marrying non-Jews. It has been a primary facet of marriage for ages. The practice was prohibited for those of different ethnicity. So... "traditional marriage" means only something that may have been around prior to 3,000 years ago?
This is an actual example of the exception proving the rule.Last edited by Kuciwalker; May 20, 2012, 01:54.
Comment
Comment