Conquer Club

Beastly wrote:I have posted but not voted yet...

I can't understand why the sanctity of Religious Marriage should be for everyone if you are only using it to have the same rights as the Religious Sect.

Do Judges use the bible to marry? If not, then I don't see why Gays can't be married.

But just to be married because you want to change society, that is not a good reason for marriage, that was not the purpose of marriage.

To have equal Rights, as far as taxes, death, children and so on YES that is a good reason to have a Civil Union.

But just to be married for the sake of " I want what straight people have" is ridiculous to me.

Sanctity of religious marriage? Since when? What is it with the delineation between marriage and civil union? And the idea of reducing the rights of an individual to the status of "only" is a bit absurd. Using marriage "only" to have the same rights as the religious? They shouldn't have to use anything to get the same rights.

What if two religious homosexuals want to get married? What if the way that they interpret Christianity, or Judaism, or whatever, allows for it? Their opinions on the subject are no more right (or wrong, or useless) than any heterosexual religious individual's, since metaphor and the interpretations of them are the loopholes any religionist uses to get out of a religious conflict. It's then one interpretation over the other, and, by the laws (or precedents, or unwritten rules, or whatever) of every civilized nation of the world, federal restriction of marriage to those homosexuals violates the prevention of the establishment of one religious version of nonsense over the other. And if we decide to let those homosexuals marry, we might as well let the rest.

Guiscard wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Fieryo wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote: Either this advantage has a utility proening from a tangible reality (one or several children) from which society benefits, as is the case for normal couples, and the advanage has reason to exist, or there is none, and the advantage hould not be granted.

So are you saying marriage is only allowed for people who plan on having children?

It is also question of public recognition of a couple or family. Besides, the fact is also that these couples could have children, whereas gays cannot.

I do however for there to be a proper marriage, the possibility of children must be envisaged, for me, for both moral and religious reasons, this is essential.

What about heterosexual couples who are sterile? Can they not marry?

Don't get your hopes up Guiscard, we've asked that about a dozen times already and he hasn't responded to that particular question yet.

Jamie wrote:Virtually everyone posting here is for allowing gay marriage, but yet the poll speaks differently. Sounds pretty two faced to me, when if able to be identified you take the side that draws the least criticism, but when voting anonymously, you say the opposite. Is everyone who voted against gay marriage not posting or something, or am I missing something?

Shouldn't you be delivering pizzas to married homosexuals and then shopping them in or something? Or working on your fake degree?

Guiscard wrote:

Jamie wrote:Virtually everyone posting here is for allowing gay marriage, but yet the poll speaks differently. Sounds pretty two faced to me, when if able to be identified you take the side that draws the least criticism, but when voting anonymously, you say the opposite. Is everyone who voted against gay marriage not posting or something, or am I missing something?

Shouldn't you be delivering pizzas to married homosexuals and then shopping them in or something? Or working on your fake degree?

Actually Guiscard, he's got a point. The majority of debaters is in favour of allowing people to marry regardless of what sex they and their partner are, but the poll says that the majority of voters sees no problem with having their rights diminished.

That's a thought that just struck me, this isn't really about gay rights, it's about the rights of everyone. It's just that people don't realize it because they don't feel the need to fully exercise this right of marrying whichever person they want to (as long as this other person consents, obviously).

MeDeFe wrote:

Guiscard wrote:

Jamie wrote:Virtually everyone posting here is for allowing gay marriage, but yet the poll speaks differently. Sounds pretty two faced to me, when if able to be identified you take the side that draws the least criticism, but when voting anonymously, you say the opposite. Is everyone who voted against gay marriage not posting or something, or am I missing something?

Shouldn't you be delivering pizzas to married homosexuals and then shopping them in or something? Or working on your fake degree?

Actually Guiscard, he's got a point. The majority of debaters is in favour of allowing people to marry regardless of what sex they and their partner are, but the poll says that the majority of voters sees no problem with having their rights diminished.

That's a thought that just struck me, this isn't really about gay rights, it's about the rights of everyone. It's just that people don't realize it because they don't feel the need to fully exercise this right of marrying whichever person they want to (as long as this other person consents, obviously).

Indeed. He does have a point, I'm just running a 'no tolerance to trolls' program and so feel unable to respond to Jamie.

Beastly wrote:But just to be married because you want to change society, that is not a good reason for marriage, that was not the purpose of marriage.

To have equal Rights, as far as taxes, death, children and so on YES that is a good reason to have a Civil Union.

I think the purpose of marriage is to show a commitment to the person you love and want to spend the rest of your life with. There should be no qualifiers needed in order to be allowed this (i.e. that the person you love is the opposite sex).

Beastly wrote:But just to be married for the sake of " I want what straight people have" is ridiculous to me.

Why shouldn't gays have what straight people have? Why should their ability to express their commitment to someone be a second tier option? Why should they be different? I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's unconstitutional and flat out mean.

Guiscard wrote:I'm just running a 'no tolerance to trolls' program.

This makes me very sad.

Sad on the inside.




Of my heart.

Historically, the definition of marriage has rested on a bedrock of tradition, legal precedent, and theology.
After the introduction of marriage between homosexuals, however, it will be supported by nothing more substantial than the opinion of a single judge or by a black-robed panel of justices. After they have done their wretched work, the family will consist of little more than someone's interpretation of "rights."

Napoleon Ier wrote:Historically, the definition of marriage has rested on a bedrock of tradition, legal precedent, and theology.
After the introduction of marriage between homosexuals, however, it will be supported by nothing more substantial than the opinion of a single judge or by a black-robed panel of justices. After they have done their wretched work, the family will consist of little more than someone's interpretation of "rights."

But see, our legal systems are secular. They cannot include the religious basis because not everyone has the same religion. However, if you live in the US or any other country you do have to obey their laws. Thus legality is the common denominator, not religion.

Fieryo wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:Historically, the definition of marriage has rested on a bedrock of tradition, legal precedent, and theology.
After the introduction of marriage between homosexuals, however, it will be supported by nothing more substantial than the opinion of a single judge or by a black-robed panel of justices. After they have done their wretched work, the family will consist of little more than someone's interpretation of "rights."

But see, our legal systems are secular. They cannot include the religious basis because not everyone has the same religion. However, if you live in the US or any other country you do have to obey their laws. Thus legality is the common denominator, not religion.

Absolutely. Secular. That does not mean against traditional and natural marriage.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Fieryo wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:Historically, the definition of marriage has rested on a bedrock of tradition, legal precedent, and theology.
After the introduction of marriage between homosexuals, however, it will be supported by nothing more substantial than the opinion of a single judge or by a black-robed panel of justices. After they have done their wretched work, the family will consist of little more than someone's interpretation of "rights."

But see, our legal systems are secular. They cannot include the religious basis because not everyone has the same religion. However, if you live in the US or any other country you do have to obey their laws. Thus legality is the common denominator, not religion.

Absolutely. Secular. That does not mean against traditional and natural marriage.

:wades inadvisably into therad:

How can gay marriage be 'against' anything? are civil ceremonies 'against' church weddings?
Live and let live. I know you think two men or two women raisign a child are going to f*ck it up, but you are, of course, as wrong to generalise about gay couples as you are to generalise about the suitability of hetero couples.

I don't generalize about the suitability of hetero couples. I believe in extremely careful checks into what sort of couple adopt a child. Once more I am misrepresented by uninformed philistinic leftist rabble who have little other substantiated argument than accuse me of bigotry and being a nasty wacist.

Napoleon Ier wrote:Absolutely. Secular. That does not mean against traditional and natural marriage.

Sure. But is also means that there is no foundation for an opposition to gay marriage. Legal systems are put into place to ensure equal treatment of people (hopefully). To not allow gays to marry in a secular system because of ingrained religious tension is contradictory to the said secular legal system.

The decision between two humans to engage in a monogamous declaration of love, honor and fealty certainly does predate the court system. It's unfortunate, however, that the court system in many nations only recognizes the declaration for some percentage of its population.

Two consenting adults, regardless of sex, should have the opportunity to unite themselves in matrimony. I am shocked to see the level of blind bigotry in this thread, and on website.

Napoleon Ier wrote:Historically, the definition of marriage has rested on a bedrock of tradition, legal precedent, and theology.
After the introduction of marriage between homosexuals, however, it will be supported by nothing more substantial than the opinion of a single judge or by a black-robed panel of justices. After they have done their wretched work, the family will consist of little more than someone's interpretation of "rights."

Hahahaha. Aren't you even trying to make sense anymore?

After the introduction of marriage between homosexuals, however, it will be supported by nothing more substantial than the opinion of a single judge or by a black-robed panel of justices

I mean, seriously this makes no sense. How is religious marriage (two people who dedicate their lives to eachother in front of god) negatively affected by allowing gay people to marry each other for equal rights?

Single judge? What do you even mean by that last sentence? Was there some weird change in the legal system some time ago where the opinion of The High courts wasn't final? Are you saying we're not already allowing judges to judge us? Or do you think judges base their sentences on opinion rather than the law?

After they have done their wretched work, the family will consist of little more than someone's interpretation of "rights."

Oh I see, there is only one person in the entire world who is for gay marriage. Surely rights aren't decided upon by reason and common sense anymore, but by the leftists, metrosexual, hippy, nature-loving gays that rule this world.

But I'm interested in your definition of family at the moment that isn't "two loving parents and kids".

Marriage is more than that and you know it. Why else would they want it? I assue it is the same in the US, but under the civil code marriage entrains financial tax cuts and the right to adopt. That should only go to potential families, i.e opposite sex marriage (and before I get the crap about infertility, there's adoption, and just the fact you can't really deny that to people based on their infertility)

Napoleon Ier wrote:Absolutely. Secular. That does not mean against traditional and natural marriage.

Yes, and it also doesn't mean against homosexual marriage. Marriage is not suddenly going to be disallowed for heterosexual couples.

Napoleon Ier wrote:Marriage is more than that and you know it. Why else would they want it? I assue it is the same in the US, but under the civil code marriage entrains financial tax cuts and the right to adopt. That should only go to potential families, i.e opposite sex marriage

Why?

(and before I get the crap about infertility, there's adoption, and just the fact you can't really deny that to people based on their infertility)

But you deny that based on people's sexuality? And honestly there is also adoption for gay couples.

Napoleon Ier wrote:Marriage is more than that and you know it. Why else would they want it?

I know this is corny, but maybe the two people love each other and want to express that in an equal manner as straight couples so that their love isn't deemed as less because they love someone of the same sex.

Fieryo wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:Marriage is more than that and you know it. Why else would they want it?

I know this is corny, but maybe the two people love each other and want to express that in an equal manner as straight couples so that their love isn't deemed as less because they love someone of the same sex.

Fine, have a little ceremony. But these people are a danger to society of they're allowed to marry, adopt, and be considered by society as a family.

Napoleon Ier wrote:Fine, have a little ceremony. But these people are a danger to society of they're allowed to marry, adopt, and be considered by society as a family.

Why? How do they harm you? What detriment will they cause?

Fieryo wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:Fine, have a little ceremony. But these people are a danger to society of they're allowed to marry, adopt, and be considered by society as a family.

Why? How do they harm you? What detriment will they cause?

They cause the family and marriage as an institution to be weakened.

Napoleon Ier wrote:They cause the family and marriage as an institution to be weakened.

I hate to bring in the personal stuff, but my uncle is gay with a partner and two children. they are terrific fathers and my cousins are very happy. Do you know any children of gay couples who are miserable specifically because their parents are the same sex? I mean , I'm miserable sometimes because of my parents and they're heterosexual.

I don't. I know it is wrong to have children intentionally brought up by gays thoug, and that is every developmental psychological principle from Freud onward you flout by allowing Gay Marriage.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Fieryo wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:Fine, have a little ceremony. But these people are a danger to society of they're allowed to marry, adopt, and be considered by society as a family.

Why? How do they harm you? What detriment will they cause?

They cause the family and marriage as an institution to be weakened.

this notion is already very different than the present reality. The notions of a traditional family are nearly as idealistic and almost fantasy at this point as any other antiquated notion.