Gay marriage: your opinion?

Forgiveness_Man wrote:I thought I explained it. It ain't got nothing to do with hating gay people. It's merely a belief that marriage is one thing and one thing alone. The poll did ask a question, and I didn't think only one answer was allowed.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:

How about the lack of a logical reason to change it?

Kral wrote:

A bit defensive, aren't you? All I did was ask you why.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:@Robbie: Nothing said meets the definition of homophobia(no hate, no fear, not seeing eye to eye doesn't equate to homophobia), and latent sexual desires? Down boy. Sorry to burst your bubble, I'm taken.

Impact wrote:Come on out the closet Forgiveness, we won't hate you for it.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:^^^^Okay, NOW we are getting somewhere. That's a common reason given. My solution is that we change the rules of wills then, and we make whoever is in that will get what's coming to them? How about that? Frankly, wills should override everything so if there is an issue with a will not being followed, that's not something gay marriage would fix. It's a problem that requires a better solution.

What if I am a single guy but I have a best friend who needs money. Say I am sick and decide to leave him money when I die. You saying we gotta get hitched to ensure that?

The fact is, if living wills aren't being followed, then the way to solve that isn't to redefine marriage; it's to make it so wills are followed.

So while I can understand the intentions, there's just a better and more efficient way to get what you want done.(Not to mention marriage really wouldn't change much anyway.)



That is actually NOT me being a bit defensive. That is me simply answering a question simply. You haven't seen me getting a "bit defensive." That's nothing but a one-liner in comparison.

CeCe wrote:People deserve to be treated like human beings. It's a far superior solution to "changing the rules of wills". What goes on in this country is a travesty. People actually have their property STOLEN from them because they have no legal rights. I think that's a fairly "logical reason".

Forgiveness_Man wrote:^^^^ Oh, so because they pay taxes, they have a right to redefine marriage. In that case, I'ma taking three wives.(Don't worry, they'll all pay taxes) We won't be hurting anybody and it will be easier to raise a family with three Moms. And sorry, you do make the positive claims, hence the burden of proof falls on you. But we'll call anybody who doesn't support gay marriage a homophopbe because calling people names is the best way to show that you aren't as intolerant as you make them out to be. *sighs The burden of proof is on the ones looking to make the change. There is no logical reason to make the change, hence they contrive catchphrases and call their "opponents" names to cloak that fact.



Step into the 21st Century? lol I'm there, I just don't use it as an excuse to try and justify a bunch of crap.
Gay marriage is crap? See, there you go...you're starting to come out now...be blunt instead of dancing around the subject.
As for me getting laid more often, I'll leave my response to that off. But thanks for the tip.

You're welcome. I think it would do wonders for you.

So you want me to say that marriage should only be between one man and one woman? I thought you could see that when I said that it shouldn't be changed.(Sorry, I gave you the credit of seeing that on your own. You assumed so much about me that wasn't true, I figured you could see at least one thing that was.) Your wrong that everybody presented logical reasons to change it, they said "they want it, they should get it" in summary, and that just ain't logical. Marriage is between one man and one woman, that's what marriage is. Those wishing to redefine it have the burden of proving logical reasons better than "we want it changed."

LOL, nobody in favor of it said that. YOU brought up the 'logical' bs. They said two people who love each other should be able to legally cement the union and they're unable to because the law says two people of the same sex can't marry. WHY is that? If you and your wife can get married, why can't they? Homosexuals aren't new. If you write, then surely you can read. How many laws have been changed....and not necessarily on the federal level, because the constituents 'want it'? Please.

Side note: Looking at the word, homophobia, it's amazing how ridiculously overused it is. I could so write a spoof about how ridiculous the usage of that word has become.

Write it. Maybe it'll get published this time.

captainbryce wrote:I see no logical argument against it, therefore I vote yes.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:That's the non-logical reason. Just cause people wanna do something doesn't necessarily mean the law has to or should accommodate them. When I hear a logical reason why it should be done, we'll talk.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:^^^^

I think the burden of proof lies with those wishing to change things. There's no logical reason to change it, hence I don't see why we gotta waste time doing it. The "two people in love" thing is an emotional argument, not a logical one. When we let emotions dictate laws, we end up with a bunch of laws that really don't help anybody. And as you said, there are more important things to worry about than gay marriage. So since we don't have it now, why waste time with it when there are real problems and injustices to correct. And you might be right, you can't stop the train, which is a shame cause it is headed for a cliff and stopping it would actually be in it's best interest.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:^^^^

Those things weren't really based on emotion, this is.(And I am glad you conceded that) And yes, I realize that was HER point, I was showing how her point works both ways.

There is no logical reason TO change anything. It's nothing to do with a power trip, and the LGBT are not a group of "have not's" either. There's just no reason to change it and cloaking the attempts in "they love each other" and "Civil Rights" doesn't do anything but distract from that. From where I see it, we all have equal rights. When I see genuine discrimination, then I'll put the outrage cap on.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:I thought I explained it. It ain't got nothing to do with hating gay people. It's merely a belief that marriage is one thing and one thing alone. The poll did ask a question, and I didn't think only one answer was allowed.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:^^^
The reasons why people say they need it are crap. I really don't care what two people do in the privacy of their own home(which is where, IMO, romantic affection should typically be kept anyway, heterosexual or otherwise); it's their business. It's redefining marriage I don't like.

IDK, I see plenty of people getting plenty laid and they're still grumpy meanies. Unless they really aren't and just talk a big game.

I didn't really bring it up.

The reason they can't is cause marriage can only exist between one man and one woman; it's that simple. The poll asked a question, didn't know only one answer was permitted.

What do you mean THIS time?

kinetic wrote:As I mentioned before in this thread, here in Canada we have full marriage equality for everyone - straight and gay, and it hasn't sent us crashing into the depths of hell. No one has died from it, no one cares about what other couples do with their relationships. It's just business as usual. It's easy to chuckle at the US (Land of the Free) having such an issue with this. Makes no sense.