"Love won today,"

a reply to: FlyersFan

Just because something was acceptable doesn't mean it was right.
Just because something was unacceptable doesn't mean it was wrong.

Then the same applies to people who say same-sex marriage should be acceptable because some ancient culture allowed it. I've actually seen that argument pop up many times before.

So, there is no real basis for changing the definition of ''marriage'' and allowing new kinds of marriage, which for millenia has been between man and a woman.

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n
a reply to: FlyersFan

Just because something was acceptable doesn't mean it was right.
Just because something was unacceptable doesn't mean it was wrong.

Then the same applies to people who say same-sex marriage should be acceptable because some ancient culture allowed it. I've actually seen that argument pop up many times before.

So, there is no real basis for changing the definition of ''marriage'' and allowing new kinds of marriage, which for millenia has been between man and a woman.

The reason equality - in this case marriage equality - is acceptable is because it's the right and good thing.

Marriage over the time you have specified has changed countless times and this is just one of those changes.

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n
there is no real basis for changing the definition of ''marriage''

There is no real basis for NOT changing the definition of marriage in the modern day.

If a man is against gay marriage, then he can either stay single or go marry a woman. It's none of his business what the other people do. It doesn't effect him. It has nothing to do with him.

You still haven't provided any information as to why it shouldn't be changed. Just saying 'it's always been done that way so we shouldn't evolve and have equality' ... that doesn't work.

originally posted by: gusdynamite
The reason equality - in this case marriage equality - is acceptable is because it's the right and good thing.

The concept of equality is lost on many religious extremists.
Their 'holy books' don't allow for it.

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n
Then the same applies to people who say same-sex marriage should be acceptable because some ancient culture allowed it.

No one is suggesting that same-sex marriage should be legal BECAUSE some ancient culture allowed it. It's just that when you claim that same-sex marriage is something "new", you're incorrect and shown that it isn't new. It was, in fact, accepted in some ancient cultures, but that's not WHY it should be legal now.

So, there is no real basis for changing the definition of ''marriage'' and allowing new kinds of marriage, which for millenia has been between man and a woman.

That basis is equal treatment under the law. No one is changing the definition of marriage. There is no ONE definition of marriage. It is defined by the people participating in it.

What are you afraid of?
Do you agree that blacks should be treated equally under the law?
Do you agree that women should be treated equally under the law?

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: gusdynamite
The reason equality - in this case marriage equality - is acceptable is because it's the right and good thing.

The concept of equality is lost on many religious extremists.
Their 'holy books' don't allow for it.

Its great that christians themselves are opposed to traditional marriages prescribed by christianity. Perfect.

a reply to: sk0rpi0n
You still haven't answered the question. (not surprised).
What exactly is a good reason for NOT finally having equality?
Five pages of this thread. Haven't seen a single valid reason ....

@benevolent heretic.....''
Do you agree that blacks should be treated equally under the law?
Do you agree that women should be treated equally under the law?''................. as ALWAYS more emotionally charged language.....desigened to silence the opposition.

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n
@benevolent heretic.....''
Do you agree that blacks should be treated equally under the law?
Do you agree that women should be treated equally under the law?''................. as ALWAYS more emotionally charged language.....desigened to silence the opposition.

I don't know what's emotional about it. I'm trying to have a discussion with you and figure out where you're coming from. What's your answer? I'm assuming it's "yes". If so, why shouldn't gay people be treated equally?

If that's an emotional question to you, maybe you should consider why it is.

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n


And you failed to answer those questions as well.
BH asked .. Do you agree that blacks should be treated equally under the law?
BH asked .. Do you agree that women should be treated equally under the law?
And I asked for one valid reason why marriage equality shouldn't be happening.
Answer them.

Page 5 .. or is it now page 6 ... still waiting.

a reply to: sk0rpi0n

No. It's designed to understand where you're coming from...

As for emotion? If equal treatment under the law of the land isn't emotional, I don't know what should be.

Equal rights for all. As long as no one is hurt in practicing those rights.

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n
@benevolent heretic.....''
Do you agree that blacks should be treated equally under the law?
Do you agree that women should be treated equally under the law?''................. as ALWAYS more emotionally charged language.....desigened to silence the opposition.

Well, I'm not sure if you noticed that while it didn't silence you as such, you didn't answer the questions.

The Idea of controlling marriage is a politicians construct . It has been used to subjugate people. Cant marry out of class cant marry a certain race and of course invading people forced new brides to sleep with invading lords before the husband could. Just a control issue thats all.

Marriage is a legal document it has nothing to do with love. Its a contract between 2 people and the government. I am married my wife and I were not going to get married for the governmental control but we had to to protect each others interests. Financial reasons rather the want to be married we are totally committed to each other just the governmental nose in matters of heart bothered us. We do love each other deeply . The government has the monopoly on granting marriage rights, but has laws against cohabitation .

No governmental agency should intervene in affairs of the heart. Fees to get married fees to get divorce taxing love taxing falling out of love.

All governments should stay out of the marriage issue .

a reply to: sk0rpi0n

You've signed back on a few times but haven't addressed the questions so I'm going to bump this thread and remind you to answer them. Three questions ... give a valid reason why marriage equality shouldn't be happening ... should blacks and women be treated equally under the law? I"m especially interested to see what a sharia-muslim has to say about if women should be treated equally under the law. Let's hear it ....

a reply to: FlyersFan

give a valid reason why marriage equality shouldn't be happening ...

The people arguing for same-sex marriage need to first give a valid reason why the definition of "marriage" had to suddenly be modified to include homosexual "marriage". If it 'aint broke, don't fix it.

Its clear that social acceptance of homosexual marriage as "normal" is a rather recent phenomena.

But the pro-same sex marriage folks are absolutely clueless on as to how their societies accepted concepts that were unacceptable only a few decades ago. They are unable to explain this phenomena and so, resort to parroting media buzzwords like "love" or "equality" or invoke civil rights sounding language. Proof : This very thread.

should blacks and women be treated equally under the law?

And for the 100th time in a row, people always invoke legitimate civil rights issues to try and defend their positions.
Those questions are inconsequential to the issue at hand, i.e - homosexuals "marrying".

a reply to: sk0rpi0n

Are you actually, honestly saying you don't believe marriage equality is a civil rights issue?

If you answer is yes I'd be curious as to why.

Edit: By the way, many people find that it is 'broke', so I guess they can go about the business of fixing it.

There is concrete evidence that peoples perceptions on homosexuality was altered by outside forces. Even Americas vice president testifies to that.

Heres an excerpt from a news article I posted some time ago...

Biden: Jewish Leaders Drove Gay Marriage Changes

Vice President Joe Biden is praising Jewish leaders for helping change American attitudes about gay marriage and other issues.

Biden says culture and arts change people's attitudes. He cites social media and the old NBC TV series "Will and Grace" as examples of what helped changed attitudes on gay marriage.
......

Biden says the influence is immense and that those changes have been for the good.

There you have it. Don't shoot the messenger, but the only reason you've all changed your perceptions on homosexuality.... is because powers worked towards implementing that change through the media. But, feel free to continue with the broken record player routine and keep chanting buzzwords like "love", "equality" etc.

a reply to: LDragonFire

I dont agree with same-sex marriage...

But what really gets me is when these gay couples decide to adopt. Thats crossing the line, soon enough humanity will see the ill-effects of such a morphed cultural outlook.

And btw..... 'love' didnt win.... its the sex drive that won!

a reply to: gusdynamite

Are you actually, honestly saying you don't believe marriage equality is a civil rights issue?

The very definition of "marriage" has been that it takes place between a man and a woman. That has been the definition of marriage.... for millenia and across cultures the world over.

Re-defining marriage to include a union of 2 people of the same sex and putting a shiny label called "marriage equality" on it....and then asking the opposition "don't you believe marriage equality "... is both dishonest and fallacious. It is a loaded question, not worthy of an address.

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n
There is concrete evidence that peoples perceptions on homosexuality was altered by outside forces.

Well, yeah - how else would they learn?