Five reasons why gay marriage is a basic, conservative value

reply to post by ollncasino

Gays have no right to hijack the word 'marriage' and force the majority to consider a union between two men to be the same, in a very legal sense, as a union between a man and a women.

This sentence sums up the whole problem very nicely - you and those who think like you think everything is about you - and what you believe - and what you think is acceptable

The word has not been hijacked - the word, along with it's meaning - doesn't belong to anyone

If it does, then that must mean there are many more words (or concepts) that actually belong to one group or another

Are concepts private property now? Language belongs to the majority?

Also, nobody is forcing you to do anything - don't consider it a union if you don't want to - fine by me

Just don't tell me that in this country where we're all supposed to be equal that you and yours have a right that I don't have because you don't want me to have it. That right doesn't depend on your permission

You gots no case here Casino :-) give it up

Live your life - everyone else will live there life - live and let live...

When someone is on your lawn then you can shout - get off my lawn

This particular situation isn't about your lawn

Originally posted by ollncasino


By the way. I am still waiting for a coherent reason why the tradtional, legal and theological meaning of the word marriage should be changed?

Can you answer this question? Why has the traditional, legal and theological meaning of marriage been changed throughout the years?

Traditional: marriage is arranged between families - CHANGED - now people choose their own mate

Legal: marriage is to be between people of the same race - CHANGED - now interracial marriages are legal

theological: marriage is for procreation only - CHANGED - now some people get married with no intention of having children

Originally posted by ollncasino
Nice straw man argument there.

Don't they burn so well?

That's your response? You don't want to give "marriage" to gay people because of "the sanctity of marriage" or "traditional marriage". I point out that marriage is hardly considered sacred or traditional - especially not by heterosexuals, and your response is "straw man"? Excellent job of defending your argument…

I rest my case.

Just for good measure, since the term marriage is so much at issue here, let's look at the etymology of the word.

The modern English word "marriage" derives from Middle English mariage, which first appears in 1250–1300 C.E.

So technically, the word marriage is only 700 years old, not thousands. This of course takes religion out of the argument since the Bible was written well before 1300 C.E. (the english version that you're so defensive about anyway)

Traditional? Well we have covered several times how marriage has gone from being arranged, plural, mono-racial to now being chosen, open to all races and involving only two participants.

Legal? That's where the issue is at the moment. If it is open to two people of opposing genders, there is no reason it should not be open to two people of the same gender or it is discriminatory. If there were no government "perks" for it, then fine, be discriminatory within your own churches, but when there are government perks, it must be open to all people who are of legal age to participate.

reply to post by Gemwolf


Frankly if we stripped all the advantages out of marriage, or at least removed the ease of divorce, we'd have a lot less of that.

Problem is that as long as someone's calling for people to sanctify what they are doing when they still have the "shacking up mentality", then the marriage is going to mean nothing.

Originally posted by ollncasino
Why can't gays keep sex out of classroom?

Well you see, school is for learning truth.

And, as we can see you are great at spouting opinion. Fact is, folks were/are gay. And that IS history, as in that IS fact.

So, the school will teach this stuff to combat the ignorance of opinion. See when you spout your opinion, that is NOT fact. And you are teaching children lies...

This way they get a little dose of truth with their bigotry pie.

Topic!!

As for "gay marraige", I can understand why the folks want it. Who want's to be a "less than", and all these bigoted "marraige is for man+woman only" folks are constantly letting the LGBT community know just how "less than" they are.

Hell, we can't even talk about them in schools without the tears and screams a flowin....Such drama queens

reply to post by CynicalDrivel


Good points concerning divorce.
If the "sanctity" of marriage is really what is at issue, the group screaming it so loudly should be trying to do away with divorce instead of focusing on homosexuals being able to marry.
The one, absolute that is most detrimental to marriage in tradition and law is divorce.
If they insist on keeping "marriage", then do away with all divorce regardless of the reason, do away with any governmental "perks" associated with marriage and enforce these rules or stop trying to pretend that there is a monopoly on it and only people of their choosing may participate.

reply to post by kaylaluv


Legal: was changed into no mixed race marriages first. Before Black-only slavery took hold of our societies, what race you were allowed to marry varied widely from family to family. Yes, an us-vs-them mentality is easy to pick up, but the whole reason English is so mixed up is because England's conquerors were trying to hook up with the bar maids.

reply to post by PurpleChiten


Keep in mind that the same could be applied to him. It's not that he's attacking people, but that his worldview is so different from yours that it comes across as insulting when to him all he is doing is stating facts. This happens all the time.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by kaylaluv
All this education bill wants to do is to point out that this group of people have contributed positive things to our society. It won't turn children gay -- I promise you.

Why can't gays keep sex out of classroom?

What has being gay got to do with sex except for who they're attracted to?

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by kaylaluv
That has nothing to do with gay marriage. Leonardo DaVinci was gay -- you don't think his historical contributions should be included?

Why should the fact that Leonardo DaVinci was gay (?) be taught to kids at all?

Why is his sexuality relevant when teaching children?

Perhaps to show them that homosexuals are respected historical figures for their achievements?

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

Legal: was changed into no mixed race marriages first. Before Black-only slavery took hold of our societies, what race you were allowed to marry varied widely from family to family. Yes, an us-vs-them mentality is easy to pick up, but the whole reason English is so mixed up is because England's conquerors were trying to hook up with the bar maids.

Yes... the confines of marriage have changed from here to there, to back again - and yet, we're all still here. But to change marriage to include homosexual unions will turn the earth on its axis and everyone will die a horrible death, apparently.

reply to post by Garfee


That's what I was trying to say, but apparently my meaning was lost...

They have to teach about the "good" in homosexuals, because the only "learning" the kids recieve now is from bigoted mindsets. (More or less...)

They will see how "Marraige is for a man and woman only" but not compareable "good news". If folks started seeing how many respected figures were homesexual, well then being gay wouldn't be so "different".

THAT is what is being protected, the ability to fear.

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

Legal: was changed into no mixed race marriages first. Before Black-only slavery took hold of our societies, what race you were allowed to marry varied widely from family to family. Yes, an us-vs-them mentality is easy to pick up, but the whole reason English is so mixed up is because England's conquerors were trying to hook up with the bar maids.

Yes... the confines of marriage have changed from here to there, to back again - and yet, we're all still here. But to change marriage to include homosexual unions will turn the earth on its axis and everyone will die a horrible death, apparently.

Maybe we should wait until 2013 to change it.....
Otherwise, they'll find some way to say the myans forcasted gay marriage and a comet is going to wipe us out all because God didn't like it or something. Let's go ahead and get past the December 21st craziness so they won't be able to scream "Sodom and Gamorraaaaaaaaaahhhhh" if anything, even slightly devastating in any way, shape or form should happen

reply to post by kaylaluv


Come on. As we all know, if we allow two men or women to enter into a marriage, it would allow for all kinds weird behaviour. Next people would want to marry their pets because a dog has legal rights and can sign a legal document... And once again, there goes the sanctity of marriage right out the door.

Originally posted by adigregorio

Originally posted by ollncasino
Why can't gays keep sex out of classroom?

Well you see, school is for learning truth.

And, as we can see you are great at spouting opinion. Fact is, folks were/are gay. And that IS history, as in that IS fact.

So, the school will teach this stuff to combat the ignorance of opinion. See when you spout your opinion, that is NOT fact. And you are teaching children lies...

This way they get a little dose of truth with their bigotry pie.

Topic!!

As for "gay marraige", I can understand why the folks want it. Who want's to be a "less than", and all these bigoted "marraige is for man+woman only" folks are constantly letting the LGBT community know just how "less than" they are.

Hell, we can't even talk about them in schools without the tears and screams a flowin....Such drama queens

Very good post, and very insightful.
....just wanted to make sure you knew of the quality of it. Could actually be a topic all its own as it speaks to many interwoven issues!

Originally posted by Gemwolf
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

Come on. As we all know, if we allow two men or women to enter into a marriage, it would allow for all kinds weird behaviour. Next people would want to marry their pets because a dog has legal rights and can sign a legal document... And once again, there goes the sanctity of marriage right out the door.

But only if it lasted more than 72 hours, otherwise, it would be just fine by their reasoning right?

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by Evansr
You know what the problem is with marojity deciding this kind of issues?
Black slaves and no rights for women..yeah, i went there.

Gays' already have equal legal rights in the UK with civil partnerships.

That has not stopped them from agitating for the legal meaning of the word marriage to be changed.

Same-sex couples may choose to have a civil partnership but no one has the right to redefine marriage for the rest of us.

Gay marriage does not redefine heterosexual marriage. Heterosexual marriage is still heterosexual marriage, no matter what you call gay unions. Gay marriage doesn't affect my heterosexual marriage in the least. I am a woman married to a man, and I will still be a woman married to a man when gay marriage is legalized.

So we should change the name of both and call one heterosexual marriage and the other gay marriage? I think not... let marriage continue to be what it is. Let the gays have the same rights under a different term.

We got seperation between state and church, to be our own masters, now we have the marriage construct in the state, where you have to take the marriage to a judge when either party wants to break it up. I dont see the appeal of a one size fits all contract. State marriage should be done away with and the obligations 2 people want to enter with each other on the legal level should be up to them and customizable. Marriage was supposed to be a promise, not a contract.

Originally posted by SilentKillah


So we should change the name of both and call one heterosexual marriage and the other gay marriage? I think not... let marriage continue to be what it is. Let the gays have the same rights under a different term.

Separate but equal huh? Didn't work very well the first time, won't work very well this time either.

Originally posted by Cassius666
We got seperation between state and church, to be our own masters, now we have the marriage construct in the state, where you have to take the marriage to a judge when either party wants to break it up. I dont see the appeal of a one size fits all contract. State marriage should be done away with and the obligations 2 people want to enter with each other on the legal level should be up to them and customizable. Marriage was supposed to be a promise, not a contract.

That would be perfectly acceptable, but in order to do it, all the government "perks" would have to be removed from those promises and that's the part the opponents are unwilling to let go of.
They don't really care about "marriage" at all, they don't care about tradition, they don't care about theology, they care about two other people of the same gender getting the same "perks" they get and they won't be "special" anymore. ... only my opinion only of course, I have absolutely nothing to back that up with.