"Love won today,"

originally posted by: NoRulesAllowed

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n
a reply to: FlyersFan

Same sex "marriage" is a self contradicting term because the objective definition of marriage is that its between a man and a woman.

Sometimes I would like to join a nice, heated debate...but your (and mind you, your's ALONE as it looks) arguments are so silly and hideous that I didn't so far. ?

Well, I feel the same way about the arguments I keep hearing. They are always 100% of the time an appeal to emotion...or makes a laughable attempt to make same sex 'marriage' a civil rights issue. Basically its ''you disagree? How can you be against civil rights and love and equality''. That about sums up the posts made on these kinds of threads.

a reply to: sk0rpi0n

Then give us a logical, unemotional, secular argument as to why same sex marriage should not be allowed in addition to straight marriage - other than "it's always been this way", because that is a very lame argument.

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n

originally posted by: NoRulesAllowed

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n
a reply to: FlyersFan

Same sex "marriage" is a self contradicting term because the objective definition of marriage is that its between a man and a woman.

Sometimes I would like to join a nice, heated debate...but your (and mind you, your's ALONE as it looks) arguments are so silly and hideous that I didn't so far. ?

Well, I feel the same way about the arguments I keep hearing. They are always 100% of the time an appeal to emotion...or makes a laughable attempt to make same sex 'marriage' a civil rights issue. Basically its ''you disagree? How can you be against civil rights and love and equality''. That about sums up the posts made on these kinds of threads.

And? What are you - the devil?

Edit: I do believe I'm far more likely to get an answer to that question that the one I previously put to you.

a reply to: maes2

It's not right only in your brain. Offense is personal and the one who is offended is the only one with the problem. Stop making your problem everyone else's.

The frivolous argument about the redefinition of marriage is all the religious zealots have left to hang onto. Change is inevitable, so whatever small thread they can hang onto, they will grasp it like they're dangling from it over a cliff.

There are so many other incredibly important issues going on not just in America but all over the world. If two consenting adults want to pledge their love to each other through marriage, there's not a single reason in the universe to say they shouldn't be able to.

Personally, as a heterosexual, I don't find any reason for anyone to marry. I've been in my relationship now for 15 years and we have two children, but I have no desire for it, but not because I am not happy. But that's my choice, just like if two men want to marry each other, that's their choice. Unfortunately, there's still too many dingle-berries out there who feel like their personal butt-hurt on the subject trumps everyone else's rights.

I'm sinning, supposedly, in their eyes by living in "sin" with children out of wedlock. Where are the zealots on that? Not that I care but it's truly amusing how they cherry-pick so much.

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n
They are always 100% of the time an appeal to emotion...or makes a laughable attempt to make same sex 'marriage' a civil rights issue. Basically its ''you disagree? How can you be against civil rights and love and equality''. That about sums up the posts made on these kinds of threads.

OK. Let's leave civil rights out of it. Make your case. You say there's no reason to "redefine" marriage. Why not? There are people who wish to be married to their partners of the same gender. That's the reason. I say there's no reason NOT to redefine it. Please give me one.

The word "person" has been redefined. In 1857, black people were declared NOT persons, but property. Eventually, that was redefined.

"Tweet" used to mean the vocalization of a bird. Now, it's a written message. It still means the vocalization of a bird. It hasn't lost its original meaning. Many words in our language have two or more meanings.

"Marriage", at some time in history, has been the union of a man and a woman.
It also means "to blend or fit together", as in spices or countries that have common interests.
Now, it also means a union between people of the same gender.

Why do you deny this ONE meaning?

Eight Words that have Changed Meaning

I am still thinking how can a homosexual relationship be called a marriage !
The question is, Why people may marry homosexually.
I think the answer is dependent on why the heterosexual people marry.
Maybe just for pleasure !
Pleasure of having sex. Being with someone or having children.
Of course this is not a problem related to homosexuals or .... It is epidemic among us.
So I think we all may choose our goal wrongly. Pleasure is not everything.

a reply to: maes2

You're right - pleasure isn't everything. It's nice to have a little of it, though and not be stymied by other people intent on making other's lives as miserable as their own.

You missed out that marriage is also for security of companionship. I'm sure that many people view the institution as a contract between the two partners involved, as much as it is between they and their government and appreciate the notion that their commitment has to be maintained and cannot lightly be voided.

a reply to: maes2

Um...really? Your comment sounds as though you're talking about a complete different species. Gay people are still human beings with human emotions. Why would you choose to marry someone?

People marry for love and they have sex for the pleasure. Two men or two women getting married is no different than a man and a woman getting married. I can ask you back the same question: Why would someone who is heterosexual but is physically incapable of having children get married?

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n
They are always 100% of the time an appeal to emotion...or makes a laughable attempt to make same sex 'marriage' a civil rights issue. Basically its ''you disagree? How can you be against civil rights and love and equality''. That about sums up the posts made on these kinds of threads.

OK. Let's leave civil rights out of it. Make your case. You say there's no reason to "redefine" marriage. Why not? There are people who wish to be married to their partners of the same gender.

Lets say you start a restaurant. And I order a nice juicy steak. I'm sitting there at my table salivating expecting a nice steak. And after 20 minutes, you show up with a bowl of soup and tell me 'enjoy your steak'. I tell you 'thats not steak'...and you tell me it is steak because YOU ... REDEFINED 'steak' to include soup. Do you expect me to drink soup and acknowledge I had 'steak' just because you defined 'steak' to include soup? Point is, same sex unions (soup) canot be passed off as 'marriage' (steak).so dont show me soup and ask me why i dont accept soup being included in your definition of 'steak'. Gay unions are not marriage.just as soup isnt steak.

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n
They are always 100% of the time an appeal to emotion...or makes a laughable attempt to make same sex 'marriage' a civil rights issue. Basically its ''you disagree? How can you be against civil rights and love and equality''. That about sums up the posts made on these kinds of threads.

OK. Let's leave civil rights out of it. Make your case. You say there's no reason to "redefine" marriage. Why not? There are people who wish to be married to their partners of the same gender.

Lets say you start a restaurant. And I order a nice juicy steak. I'm sitting there at my table salivating expecting a nice steak. And after 20 minutes, you show up with a bowl of soup and tell me 'enjoy your steak'. I tell you 'thats not steak'...and you tell me it is steak because YOU ... REDEFINED 'steak' to include soup. Do you expect me to drink soup and acknowledge I had 'steak' just because you defined 'steak' to include soup? Point is, same sex unions (soup) canot be passed off as 'marriage' (steak).so dont show me soup and ask me why i dont accept soup being included in your definition of 'steak'. Gay unions are not marriage.just as soup isnt steak.

You've had more than enough time to understand what soup means now....time to get with the program

Marriage means a partnership and union - between two consenting adults

It really couldn't be more simple - but I guess now I see why this has all been so complicated. It's not the denial of civil rights that's the real problem - it's all about reading comprehension

thanks for that

:-)

a reply to: sk0rpi0n
Why do you care what somebody at the next table over is having? It's their soup. Let them enjoy it. Doesn't prevent you from enjoying your steak.

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n
They are always 100% of the time an appeal to emotion...or makes a laughable attempt to make same sex 'marriage' a civil rights issue. Basically its ''you disagree? How can you be against civil rights and love and equality''. That about sums up the posts made on these kinds of threads.

OK. Let's leave civil rights out of it. Make your case. You say there's no reason to "redefine" marriage. Why not? There are people who wish to be married to their partners of the same gender.

Lets say you start a restaurant. And I order a nice juicy steak. I'm sitting there at my table salivating expecting a nice steak. And after 20 minutes, you show up with a bowl of soup and tell me 'enjoy your steak'. I tell you 'thats not steak'...and you tell me it is steak because YOU ... REDEFINED 'steak' to include soup. Do you expect me to drink soup and acknowledge I had 'steak' just because you defined 'steak' to include soup? Point is, same sex unions (soup) canot be passed off as 'marriage' (steak).so dont show me soup and ask me why i dont accept soup being included in your definition of 'steak'. Gay unions are not marriage.just as soup isnt steak.

No. It's like you ordered a steak, and the waiter brings you a steak AND a bowl of soup. You ask, "why do I get the soup too?" The waiter says, "we are now serving soup along with the steak. Don't want it? That's ok, you don't have to eat it. If all you want is the steak, then that's all you have to eat. But some prefer the soup, so we serve both. It's your choice." You can have soup AND steak, just like you can have gay marriage AND straight marriage. Neither one is forced on anyone. It's a choice.

What YOU are saying is that people should only be allowed to eat steak, because YOU don't like soup.

a reply to: sk0rpi0n

kaylaluv answered beautifully.

"Traditional" marriage (between a man and a woman) will not be REPLACED by gay marriage, as your steak was replaced with soup. Traditional marriage will still be around. I am in a traditional marriage and it didn't change ONE BIT when my state accepted gay marriage.

Your analogy failed completely.

Why are you afraid to let gay people get married?

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: sk0rpi0n

your analogy failed completely

the point of the analogy was to point out that you simply cant redefine 'marriage', which by default is between a man and woman. Dont present same sex unions as 'marriage...just as you wouldnt present soup simply calling it 'steak'.

Why are you afraid to let gay people get married?

Not afraid. Im not against gays living together as long as it isnt called marriage . And isnt forced as 'acceptable' and as ''normal'' as hetero marriage. Also the media smearing of people who insist marriage is by definition between man and woman....really needs to stop.

a reply to: sk0rpi0n

What a shame that the world you want to live in doesn't exist.

I suppose you could go and live in a stinky poo hole like saudi arabia, though.

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n
the point of the analogy was to point out that you simply cant redefine 'marriage', which by default is between a man and woman. Dont present same sex unions as 'marriage...just as you wouldnt present soup simply calling it 'steak'.

Yes they can and they did, the supreme court has ruled, and now state courts across the land are ruling.

originally posted by: LDragonFire

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n
the point of the analogy was to point out that you simply cant redefine 'marriage', which by default is between a man and woman. Dont present same sex unions as 'marriage...just as you wouldnt present soup simply calling it 'steak'.

Yes they can and they did, the supreme court has ruled, and now state courts across the land are ruling.

If the purpose of this thread was to gloat over a supreme court ruling, then go ahead and celebrate. It doesnt require any further debate. And it certainly doesn't change the fact that billions of people around the world see it as social degeneration.

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n

originally posted by: LDragonFire

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n
the point of the analogy was to point out that you simply cant redefine 'marriage', which by default is between a man and woman. Dont present same sex unions as 'marriage...just as you wouldnt present soup simply calling it 'steak'.

Yes they can and they did, the supreme court has ruled, and now state courts across the land are ruling.

If the purpose of this thread was to gloat over a supreme court ruling, then go ahead and celebrate. It doesnt require any further debate. And it certainly doesn't change the fact that billions of people around the world see it as social degeneration.

Who cares what the purpose of this or any other thread of similar nature is. The point is that good wins and evil loses and I know what side I'm on and I know what side you're on.

a reply to: combatmaster

Would you care to tell us what those "ill effects" yet?

Surely you want to share your wisdom with those of us so ignorant, and all... Don't you?

Or are you too busy lol'ing? Or still no words?