[QUOTE=Captain Lawlrus;34473714]It's noteworthy that in practically every dictionary on earth, marriage is strictly defined as the formal union of a man and a woman.[/quote]
This is a stupid fucking argument. In 1875 I'm sure black people were defined as being some kind of subhuman ape, does that mean the civil rights movement should never have happened?
[quote]I care who marries who because gay marriage is an oxymoron. I have no problem with any sort of civil-union esque setup, but it is logically impossible for gays to "marry".[/QUOTE]
You are retarded
[QUOTE=rumer-willis;34474641]
Regarding marriage Jesus said “A man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife.” He clearly lays out that marriage is ordained by God to be between and man and woman (males and females).[/QUOTE]
I just feel I should point out two things:
1. That wasn't Jesus, it was Paul.
2. He was saying that as a metaphor, you've taken it out of context. He was talking about the relationship between Christ and the Church.
[QUOTE=Captain Lawlrus;34473922]Again with the proper institution of marriage involving a providing male, in the event of the dependent spouse requiring medical attention, the insurance would carry over. In homosexual relationships there isn't an assumed provider nor is there any natural means of acquiring children. Had the depicted couple not adopted children, it can be assumed that there would be excess income capable of covering hospital bills. I personally don't believe in the lack of public healthcare but that is an irrelevant issue.[/QUOTE]
yo, none of this stuff matters. if opposite-sex couples get something, same-sex couples should get the same thing, whatever it may be. it's as simple as that.
[QUOTE=Captain Lawlrus;34473714]It's noteworthy that in practically every dictionary on earth, marriage is strictly defined as the formal union of a man and a woman. [/QUOTE]
Incorrect.
I would suggest you google it and take note of the Wikipedia definition, Webster definition, Dictionary.com definition, The Free Dictionary definition, and Macmillan definition.
Your statement is correct for Oxford and definitions in other sources (e.g. Cambridge) borrowed from Oxford. [URL="http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2011/06/shifted-meanings-marriage/"]Oxford would also have you note:[/URL]
[QUOTE]The meaning of marriage has likewise shifted. Although the first definition found in Oxford Dictionaries Online is for a union between a man and a woman, there is also an entry for a formal same-sex union. [B]It is important to note that no dictionary entry tells you how a word should be used; rather it tells you how a word is currently used.[/B] In other words, dictionaries are generally apolitical entities – the people who compile them really do not (and indeed cannot) allow their feelings on whether same-sex marriage should or should not be allowed to influence whether or not they think that word should be in the dictionary. [B]As always, evidence is the key, and the evidence shows a definite move towards using the word marriage to describe a same-sex union which has been formalized with a civil partnership.[/B] Interestingly, the Oxford English Corpus shows that the word marriage is often modified by terms like same-sex, gay, homosexual and heterosexual. While it seems likely that for the near future the addition of such adjectives will remain, it also seems quite possible that at some point it will no longer be necessary to clarify what kind of union is under discussion, and the various forms of marriage will simply be referred to as ‘marriage’. Time and evidence will tell.[/QUOTE]
dictionary makers are historians, not lawmakers
The homophobia in this thread :v:
This thread only proves that there is no scientifically deducible reason to not have gay marriage, only that the broken morals of religious zealots are what is holding civilization back as a whole.
[QUOTE=Kellerbewohner;34474333]I did not say gays shall not marry, I said they are not equal.
And that is true. Equal in rights yes, but never equal, tolerated nothing more and nothing less.[/QUOTE]
if they are equal in rights, how are they not equal? and what do you mean "tolerated"? you make it sound like gays are some horrible creature that we just have to live with, and hope one day disappears. That's nonsense.
[QUOTE=DanTehMan;34483307]This thread only proves that there is no scientifically deducible reason to not have gay marriage[/QUOTE]
You know what would be a better solution to this debate? Just removing the concept of marriage all together.
[QUOTE=Rad McCool;34490617]You know what would be a better solution to this debate? Just removing the concept of marriage all together.[/QUOTE]
no it wouldn't. i'm pretty sure we've already been over this in this thread.
[editline]1st February 2012[/editline]
i'm not even going to attack that on a legal-historical basis
it's actually just not an easier solution. that's the most unhinged, outlandish solution to the same-sex marriage debate possible.
Think about it. Marriage is pointless. It's a stupid invention.
Remove the legal implications it possesses.
[QUOTE=Rad McCool;34493117]Think about it. Marriage is pointless. It's a stupid invention.
Remove the legal implications it possesses.[/QUOTE]
pointless? marriage gives spouses things like visitation rights, inheritance if they didn't leave a will, and many other things. Marriage is a very useful thing; the problem is that people don't realize all it is is a contract. Why should we limit who can sign the contract?
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;34493648]pointless? marriage gives spouses things like visitation rights, inheritance if they didn't leave a will, and many other things. Marriage is a very useful thing; the problem is that people don't realize all it is is a contract. Why should we limit who can sign the contract?[/QUOTE]
Visitation rights can and should be managed differently, and if you are married but you haven't written a will, it's probably your fault.
I would like to suggest that it appears that marriage "gives" these things simply because those things have been structured around marriage. It would also appear that the idea of marriage is so basic and ingrained that you can not see it this way.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;34493648]pointless? marriage gives spouses things like visitation rights, inheritance if they didn't leave a will, and many other things. Marriage is a very useful thing; the problem is that people don't realize all it is is a contract. Why should we limit who can sign the contract?[/QUOTE]
That's my point, just make it a contract that anybody can sign with any-whom.
So you're talking about civil partnerships? The main problem with them at the moment, is that different countries have different laws regarding them.
I think that marriage should have the legal implications removed, so that there's a single system which is available to all. Then if you want, you can also go through the religious ceremony.
Yeah that's a start at least. In the long run, I personally don't see why the government should have to be involved at [I]all[/I] when it comes to matters like this. Surely we should be able to just handle all the potential issues ourselves?
I might be late, but I heard that it is not genetic or a choice, it is an error that occurs in the womb related to horomones.
I'm not homophobic, it [U]is[/U] an error because it is something that can negatively affect the survival of the species. Not that it is much of a problem any more, but it is still an error.
I'm pansexual and the people who know are acceptant of it.
[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;34496053]I might be late, but I heard that it is not genetic or a choice, it is an error that occurs in the womb related to horomones.
I'm not homophobic, it [U]is[/U] an error because it is something that can negatively affect the survival of the species. Not that it is much of a problem any more, but it is still an error.[/QUOTE]
I like coming to this thread to get my daily dose of being called less than human and being reminded that I would have more rights if I only turned out straight.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
