The Gay Marriage debate!

But the problem with your comparisons is, 'a marriage' is NOT a Christian identity and a church does NOT own the right give the definition for marriage. Thus, if another instance can form an union called marriage (as is the case already),they can also broaden the definition of it. Just like the right to vote was re-defined as people realized it was unfair

 

But this is the whole point of the name debate. If a gay union has to be called anything other than a 'marriage', it indicates that it is somehow lesser than a traditional marriage, otherwise there wouldn't be any problem. The name is as important here as the legal rights

 

Why is it so important for Gays to be partakers in the term "marriage"? What do they lose without that identity?

 

So if a black man cannot be called "Caucasian" this by itself indicates that he's lesser than a caucasian? So for blacks and whites to be equal they need to have the same identity? That's basically the analogy for the nonsense that you're telling me.

 

No. But a black person wants to have the right to vote, not to give a 'black vote that counts the same as a real one'. To be able to get married is a right, ethnic background is not

 

No maybe you've missed mine. Your analogy doesn't stand up.

 

How about if a black man can't be called 'a man'? What if he has to be called a 'civil agent' but has all the same legal rights?

 

Sorry but no. Gays have votes. They have rights. The analogy is being allowed to be called by a name...not having a vote that counts.

 

I think the bummers can consider it a mark of their progress that this non-debate is the corner their repressors have been backed into. :bears:

 

But then you'd have to change the definition of "a man" for him to not be called that. This is silly. "a man" is the identity of an adult male human. It's not up for discussion. Marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman and leads to husband and wife (Bride and groom etc). The definition wasn't changed in order to demean gays....that was/is the definition.

But let me play your game (since I like you).

If America had a black man defined as some other name instead of "a man" but gave him all of the same rights and opportunities as those called "men"...blacks would be irritated but it wouldn't be holding them back and so that's just a small matter.

 

:bears:

 

Should siblings be allowed to marry? Should a man be allowed to have multiple wives if all parties are in agreement?

 

Livin' the dream.

 

Personally I think Polygamy should be legal. I see no reason why it shouldn't be. :bears:

 

Same. As long as everyone is down, it's all good. :bears:

 

word.

Plus it doesn't violate the whole male/female prerequisite thingy.

 

Next people will be able to marry their furniture!!! :scared:

 

The nerve!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Now that's just weird.

But I have heard of a guy marrying his goat!

 

What about two brothers getting married? Surely there's no harm in that according to the liberal mind?

 

::

Haven't put much thought into it. As a general rule of thumb, as long as it doesn't have a negative impact on my life or the lives of others it's really not a big deal.

 

Did the goat have big tits?

 

The definition of 'man' has expanded and contracted over and over again to suit agendas. Ethnicity/race even more so, even in the last 100 years (the Irish weren't considered whites for a long time, Nazis considered Eastern Europeans an inferior race). And these are catagories which correspond to some sort of physical taxonomy, too.

Marriage doesn't. It's boundries are wherever we decide they are, it's a social construct. It's included gays before (ancient China, ancient Rome, doubtless loads of tribal societies), so effectively, all you've apealled to is a western/abrahamic convention of discriminating against gays on the matter.

 

This is what love about Sly. I can come in here, offend left and right, and Sly will always, ahem, bring up the rear with reinforcements. He's black, and that stymies them some. Its fucking wonderful. Note how Sly, who doesn't want Gay Marriage at all, is yet to be called an asshole, but the guy who will accept Gay Marriage, albeit reservedly, is called an asshole. :: If only I had pretended to be black when I first signed up to Secondsout.com :laugh11: Of course, picking Cooney to blast out Shavers would have blown my cover in any case. Oh well.

 

No! Deformed children.::

Sure.

Gays? Sure.

Animals? No, consent.

Children? No, consent.

Furniture? No, consent::

 

Do you see the age of consent being lowered in the future, Hut?

I do. I reckon its only a matter of time before it is under 16 for both boys and girls.

 

Sly's Christian. That gives him more leeway to be bigoted against gays than you have ::

 

Fletcher Christian? Or should I say...Feltcher Christian....:laugh11: Hmmmmm. Its all, uh, "coming out" now. Boys in tight shorts, swabbing the decks, land ahoy, etc etc.

 

I read an article a few years back where some guy tried to legally marry his car. Obviously it was rejected by officials. The guy did it more to piss of his ex-wife though as she bitched that he loved the car more than her. ::

 

It's already meaningless for sex between kids of same age but it stops grown men macking on 14 year old girls. So i wouldn't lower it

If anything I would raise the marriage age of consent. 16 is bonkers