Gay Marriage page 3

3390 posts

Flag Post

Sex is sex. Words mean things and are not just words. The gays stole normal words and changed the meanings. Gay used to mean you were happy. Fags used to be cigarettes. All words that have been corrupted because of them. At least women use a word I never heard used any other way, Lesbian.

Because before English, gays did not exist? You are still stuck in this whole language ordeal. Before English, there were Greek, Chinese, Hebrew, etc. words for gay. I’m not really sure how hard of a concept this is to grasp, but it really applies to lots of areas of discussion.

Also, you continue to stereotype and generalize.

 
Flag Post

I don’t see why we are discussing language. Words do have meanings, you must agree. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. In over 60 years of my life, this has not changed. It is a part of my teachings, my beliefs, my understanding, and I don’t intend to change the meaning for a minority, just because they say so. Catch you tomorrow.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

I don’t see why we are discussing language. Words do have meanings, you must agree. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. In over 60 years of my life, this has not changed. It is a part of my teachings, my beliefs, my understanding, and I don’t intend to change the meaning for a minority, just because they say so. Catch you tomorrow.

Well your argument is Gays can have a “partnership” which is exactly the same as marriage, they just cant call in “marriage”…

So lets represent the word “partnership” as the letter X and the word “marriage” as the letter Y. Lets also represent the concept of what marriage entails as Z. So you are saying

X=Z, Y=Z, but X does not equal Y.

It makes no sense, it is a terrible argument. Even proponents against gay marriage, shouldn’t be so thick as to support such a silly argument.

So calling it Marriage is wrong to you, can we call it Narriage? Can we call it Marriaga? How about Morriage? Your so worried about defining the word Marriage, instead of defining the concept Marriage. All words are subjective. All words. If I want cat to mean dog, and dog to mean cat, I can switch the words around. However I can never actually change what truly is a cat or dog.

No one can change what you have with your wife It is what it is. Changing the definition of the word marriage does not change what you actually have with your wife. This is what I mean by words don’t have meaning. Words will never truly be able to fully grasp the concept of reality, we just use them to do it the best they can. It is just a word.

I’m curious, after thinking about this, do you still defend your position on the matter? If so, i’m afraid there is just no changing your mind.

 
Flag Post

Marriage has always been between a man and a woman.

No, it hasn’t. Not even in the US is this true.

In over 60 years of my life, this has not changed. It is a part of my teachings, my beliefs, my understanding, and I don’t intend to change the meaning for a minority, just because they say so.

The problem is you don’t own the word, yet you are trying to lay claim to it’s definition through legal means for no better reason than because you want to. You can define marriage however you like, you don’t get to demand that only that definition is a valid or legally acceptable one.

 
Flag Post

Christians should respect others’ sexual preference. QFD. “Love others as I love you.”

 
Flag Post
Separation of the Church and State exists for exactly this reason.

Separation of church and state doesn’t exist at all.

 
Flag Post

I thought for any viewpoint to be accepted there has to be logically sound and scientifically valid reasoning in its defense. None of that is found in the first post, or any other post opposing homosexual marriage. I don’t believe it’s necessary for me to refute any of your points. Firstly, because it has already been done by the majority of posters here. Secondly, because of the very fact that you do not have any correct arguments at all. I mean, come on. Restricting one part of an entire issue (homosexual marriage versus heterosexual marriage) to restrict people’s rights purely because of religious offense? The “unnatural” argument? Really? And a slippery slope one? Plus, as pointed out, the whole “seperate but equal” issue?

So many fallacies and invalid arguments in a single post. None of which even vaguely come close to showing that, indeed, one type of marriage shouldn’t be allowed.

As I have said many times, I don’t care what they do in their bedroom, but I do care when they get in my face.

I don’t care what you do in your bedroom, but I do care when you get in my face. So you, specifically, shouldn’t be allowed to marry. It’s against my religion.

Prove me wrong.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

Some X are Y. Some X aren’t Z. Therefore, all Y aren’t Z?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

Some X are Y. Some X aren’t Z. Therefore, all Y aren’t Z?

yes, my logic is flawless :D

 
Flag Post

You didn’t actually address any of the points I made jhco and continued sharing your opinion. Why does your opinion about gay people, or the majority’s opinion about gay people, have anything to do with the legal standing of that relationship? You’re also equating morality with sexuality, which only happens in your book and isn’t at all indicative of how laws are written.

You also failed to address my specific pointed question that no one ever is able to answer because: Bigotry. Yes, the word is bigotry. You don’t like gay people because you don’t like gay people. Nothing about being gay is immoral until you prove it to us, and saying your bible doesn’t like it isn’t proving it. Saying it’s unnatural and drawing this conclusion because of pink sock is specifically bigotry. “Black people aren’t natural because they all have glaucoma” is literally what you’re saying.

You’re saying gay people can do whatever they want in their own home, but you also want to judge them for that as far as the law is concerned. You want it both ways. “I am accepting, I just don’t want to be.”

And this needs to stop in this thread: Marriage has existed in every single culture mankind’s civilizations has ever provided. Weddings and many of the traditions associated with modern marriage were invented in the last 60 years, as marriages before this time were often had out of political, financial, or social gain, and had very little to do with love. For most of our world’s existence, black people were not allowed to marry in any non-black civilization, so marriage was defined as the legal binding of two land owning parties of opposite gender that are Caucasian. Should we stick to this standard of marriage? Or should the definition of Marriage that has been used for eons in every culture also apply to what other churches and individuals believe relationships are, including homosexual ones.

Here’s a more convenient list for homophobes to ignore:
1. What arguments do you have that couldn’t be used against black people or heterosexual couples as well?
2. How does homosexual marriage affect you personally besides boosting the economy?
3. Why does your religion matter to the law?
4. Why are you concerned with homosexuality but not shellfish, or Jesus’ sexist admonition of the act of marriage?

Also I left because this place is insufferably stupid sometimes, and it’s a waste to put as much effort as I do explaining something to people who are almost certainly just getting their lulz. I have only so much rope until I’m hung.

 
Flag Post

For the record, the bible says its only bad for a man to lay with a man as he would a woman.

Therefor, lesbians are 100% OK in God’s eyes.

If you don’t allow lesbians to get married, you must HATE GOD D:

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Dapper_Lion:

Gay people aren’t human.

PROOF: animals are gay
Animals aren’t human

THEREFOR

Gays are not human!!

Wait, but, biologically speaking, humans are animals…

Does that means humans arent human?

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

I don’t see why we are discussing language. Words do have meanings, you must agree. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. In over 60 years of my life, this has not changed. It is a part of my teachings, my beliefs, my understanding, and I don’t intend to change the meaning for a minority, just because they say so. Catch you tomorrow.

Exactly, words have meanings, in this case things like being able to share insurance, and all sorts of exclusive rights granted to married people. Which is why this whole thing is so unfair. It wouldn’t matter in the least if marriage was purely symbolic.

Honestly I’d be fine changing both heterosexual and homosexual “marriages” into “civil unions” for the sake of legal terminology, then we can transfer all the rights over to a civil union, and the religious institutions can keep their term marriage. That way we can preserve the “sanctity of marriage” (as if such a thing ever existed in the first place) and we can allow for equal rights.

 
Flag Post

It wouldn’t matter in the least if marriage was purely symbolic.

I’d have to disagree there. Restricting people at all is completely based on bias and bigotry.

Honestly I’d be fine changing both heterosexual and homosexual “marriages” into “civil unions” for the sake of legal terminology, then we can transfer all the rights over to a civil union, and the religious institutions can keep their term marriage.

I would again disagree. That is giving in to the same bigotry I described above. I disagree with this type of bias and therefore don’t want to give in to any of such things.

 
Flag Post

Well, when you consider the fact that the whole evolutive point of sexual desire is reproduction, despite the fact that it isnt exclusive of humans, homossexuality is pretty pointless, and in fact, probably some kind of disorder… However, as we cannot wonder around forcing people to get married, and we arent exactly in the need of more people right now, there is no reason to, in our current society, restrict gay rights, including the right to marriage. Or civil union, but come on, it is the same thing.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

I would again disagree. That is giving in to the same bigotry I described above. I disagree with this type of bias and therefore don’t want to give in to any of such things.

But at the same time, this is perhaps the solution that best suits everybody. Those who are members of a religion that does not tolerate any sexuality except heterosexual, and only then to procreate, can continue defining marriage narrowly, whilst the actual rights are conferred onto any union between two consenting adults.

It’s not so much giving in to bigotry, as accepting it is their right as part of their religion, to be bigots. So, its finding a solution that works best for everybody.

 
Flag Post

You don’t like gay people because you don’t like gay people. Nothing about being gay is immoral until you prove it to us, and saying your bible doesn’t like it isn’t proving it.

I see no reason why a Christian can’t find homosexual marriage immoral because of the Bible. Aren’t morals based on religous beliefs and culture? Of course they are. I can find homosexuality wrong without hating homosexuals.


Why does your opinion about gay people, or the majority’s opinion about gay people, have anything to do with the legal standing of that relationship?

I guess it just depends on if you think the government should be able to make laws based on moral issues. Interestingly enough, liberals often want much involvement by government in everything except moral issues, where conservatives would rather have the opposite.


1. What arguments do you have that couldn’t be used against black people or heterosexual couples as well?

Thinking that the best option for a child is a mother and father? (Black people and heterosexual couples can do this!!)


2. How does homosexual marriage affect you personally besides boosting the economy?

You have of course the slippery slope argument – maybe we’d slide on down, maybe not. To me, perhaps, it is more of a cultural thing than anything. I want what I think is best for the country and its culture.


Why does your religion matter to the law? Why does your opinion about gay people, or the majority’s opinion about gay people, have anything to do with the legal standing of that relationship?

Interesting question really. Also brings to mind what the law is really based on. The Constitution? The wishes of the people?… The US government was never intended to ignore religion when it made laws. Even Thomas Jefferson, when he wrote about Separation of Church and State was persuading a church that the government would not interfere with it.


Why are you concerned with homosexuality but not shellfish, or Jesus’ sexist admonition of the act of marriage?

I’m not concerned with shellfish because that was explicitly overturned. What specifically are you referring to in the latter half of that?

Now I’ll just take my homophobic self and grab some lunch with one of my homosexual friends. Wait… something doesn’t add up with that.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheBSG:

You didn’t actually address any of the points I made jhco and continued sharing your opinion. Why does your opinion about gay people, or the majority’s opinion about gay people, have anything to do with the legal standing of that relationship? You’re also equating morality with sexuality, which only happens in your book and isn’t at all indicative of how laws are written.

You also failed to address my specific pointed question that no one ever is able to answer because: Bigotry. Yes, the word is bigotry. You don’t like gay people because you don’t like gay people. Nothing about being gay is immoral until you prove it to us, and saying your bible doesn’t like it isn’t proving it. Saying it’s unnatural and drawing this conclusion because of pink sock is specifically bigotry. “Black people aren’t natural because they all have glaucoma” is literally what you’re saying.

You’re saying gay people can do whatever they want in their own home, but you also want to judge them for that as far as the law is concerned. You want it both ways. “I am accepting, I just don’t want to be.”

And this needs to stop in this thread: Marriage has existed in every single culture mankind’s civilizations has ever provided. Weddings and many of the traditions associated with modern marriage were invented in the last 60 years, as marriages before this time were often had out of political, financial, or social gain, and had very little to do with love. For most of our world’s existence, black people were not allowed to marry in any non-black civilization, so marriage was defined as the legal binding of two land owning parties of opposite gender that are Caucasian. Should we stick to this standard of marriage? Or should the definition of Marriage that has been used for eons in every culture also apply to what other churches and individuals believe relationships are, including homosexual ones.

Here’s a more convenient list for homophobes to ignore:
1. What arguments do you have that couldn’t be used against black people or heterosexual couples as well?
2. How does homosexual marriage affect you personally besides boosting the economy?
3. Why does your religion matter to the law?
4. Why are you concerned with homosexuality but not shellfish, or Jesus’ sexist admonition of the act of marriage?

Also I left because this place is insufferably stupid sometimes, and it’s a waste to put as much effort as I do explaining something to people who are almost certainly just getting their lulz. I have only so much rope until I’m hung.

If BSG can say that

this place is insufferably stupid

Then explain why my post gets silence for saying the same about him? If you would like to silence my post, silence his as well…

BSG, your post is insufferably stupid. You do not understand the laws of the bible, God does not ban us from eating shellfish. Instead of articulating good thoughtful arguments, you just resort to name calling and hate. How do you expect fighting hate with hate is going to turn out? Not good. Your not gonna change jhco’s view by just getting angry.

 
Flag Post

That is mindbogglingly obvious, Pac. Come on, high IQ like yours, you should be able to work it out.

BSG referenced SD as being mindbogglingly stupid at times, which is true. You specifically attacked him as being stupid, and made no other arguments in your post. The entire point of it was to tell BSG that he was obviously stupid. That is a direct personal insult, user harassment, and against the rules of both SD and Kongregate itself.

Also, do you really have to quote an entire, lengthy post, every time you wish to add two lines to the bottom of it?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

That is mindbogglingly obvious, Pac. Come on, high IQ like yours, you should be able to work it out.

BSG referenced SD as being mindbogglingly stupid at times, which is true. You specifically attacked him as being stupid, and made no other arguments in your post. The entire point of it was to tell BSG that he was obviously stupid. That is a direct personal insult, user harassment, and against the rules of both SD and Kongregate itself.

It is against the rules to harass an individual or a group. Silence both of us then. Also, I did make arguments. Is saying that I “made no other arguments in your post” a figure of speech or something? Because I most certainly did:

ou do not understand the laws of the bible, God does not ban us from eating shellfish.How do you expect fighting hate with hate is going to turn out? Not good. Your not gonna change jhco’s view by just getting angry.

Also, since when does making points allow harassment? Just because BSG made a point, does not give him the right to call a group of people insufferably stupid.

 
Flag Post

Getting back on topic. Pac, go mail kongregate (support@kongregate.com) to rant at them, or have a go at Zshadow for not moderating how it pleases you, if you have a problem, okay?

Originally posted by BobTheCoolGuy:

I see no reason why a Christian can’t find homosexual marriage immoral because of the Bible. Aren’t morals based on religous beliefs and culture? Of course they are. I can find homosexuality wrong without hating homosexuals.

Technically yes. However, should you not hate homosexuals as one of the tenets of your religion?

I would also ask how wrong you feel it is. Would you go out of your way to ensure homosexuals are punished for their thoughts and feelings, or make it a matter of general public awareness if you find a homosexual individual is living in your neighborhood?

You believe it to be wrong. How far would you go? Would you live and let live if it was not bothering you, or do you feel it is your duty to stamp it out wherever you see it?

To me, perhaps, it is more of a cultural thing than anything. I want what I think is best for the country and its culture.

This is largely relevant to the point I quoted and addressed prior, but, it is also a separate one. You feel I think, that a strong, united country with a single culture is best, preferable to a multi-ethnic melting pot and blend of different cultures. Therefore I feel I have to once again ask you this, phrased a slightly and profoundly different way:

To what extent are you willing to suppress other people’s ability to express themselves and live their lives as they desire, in order to present a united single cultural thrust for the country? In other words, to what extent do you feel personal liberties should be curtailed and rights limited, in order to strengthen the country?

Now, that is quite a complex issue, but again I think it germane to the point here.

 
Flag Post

+1 vikaTae, I especially liked your comments on the second quote, I’ve thought about that many times, but as you mentioned, it is quite a complex issue. This whole issue is quite complex and its a shame that on this forum it always boils down to OMG U BIGOT HATEFUL PERSON FROM HELL vs OMG HOMOSEXUALS HAVE COOTIES AND WILL EAT US. Thanks for not insulting me also.