Poll: Gay marriage

[Flavus Aquila]

A money-grab.
I think the gay marriage thing started because there are same sex people that are in love as any two heterosexual people might be and they feel they should have equality. No?

Please don't tell me that this is not about money, or power.

The only reason that any campaign is run so publicly - and so successfully, I might add - is when votes and dollars are involved.

In terms of legal consequence, what makes civil unions different from marriage? It's money.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

So gay people are like animal fuckers? Since when has marriage been about children? Isn't it about love and wanting to be together forever and making the bonds official? Do you know that here in my country, gay people cannot see each other if dying in the hospital because they are not considered family? For that matter, if we're using your example, why should a couple where one or both parties are sterile get the same tax, legal, etc treatment as a family with three children? What about straight couples who don't intend to have children? Should they be not allowed to get married?

Gay marriage originated as gay people wanting to get married. I'm gay, I don't want money. Shit, my girlfriend isn't rich, she makes $900 a month from social security (unable to work due to medical issues, legit), I'm broke aside from music royalties that come once a month (barely over $900 after taxes), we're straight up in love. We will likely want to get married at some point.

Why?

I would want her to be able to see me on my deathbed, and she would want me to. We would want the same rights as any other married couple. And even though we're both sterile (yes! both of us!), we might want to have children in whatever capacity available to us! We want respect and equality. That is what we seek. Fuck the money. We want the same breaks as a married straight couple with no kids. The ones who have kids can have whatever breaks the government want to give them, but WE want the right to at least start a family together.

THAT'S what gay marriage is about!

In the meanwhile - if you both sign enduring power of attorney to each other, that should take care of most of your wants.

Adoption is a welfare category of its own.

 

[unpersons]

Please don't tell me that this is not about money, or power.

The only reason that any campaign is run so publicly - and so successfully, I might add - is when votes and dollars are involved.

In terms of legal consequence, what makes civil unions different from marriage? It's money.

In my country, I could not leave my belongings to my gay partner without my family, even distant family I hate or have never met, being able to challenge my will and win.

Cut the money shit. I already told you as a gay person what it's all about. I don't care if people want to make bank from it, I WANT TO GET MARRIED. I don't want to be civil unioned. If it matters to much to you, you get a civil union and I'll get married.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

In my country, I could not leave my belongings to my gay partner without my family, even distant family I hate or have never met, being able to challenge my will and win.

Cut the money shit. I already told you as a gay person what it's all about. I don't care if people want to make bank from it, I WANT TO GET MARRIED. I don't want to be civil unioned. If it matters to much to you, you get a civil union and I'll get married.

Apparently all girls DO want to get married. Guys always say that.

 

[unpersons]

Apparently all girls DO want to get married. Guys always say that.

So your only points are: children, money, votes, I hate gay people.

Good to know your arguments are vapid and totally worthless. You could have left this thread after your first post and we would have all maintained more of our braincells.

 

[the]

I dont think the government should be involved in any straight marriage I may participate in. If gay people want the government in their marriage they are fools. If you want so and so in your hospital room when you are dying (or any other "benefit" of marriage) then get some kind of legal contract written up. The whole issue is dumb to me.

 

[Billy]

I support it but don't vote lol

 

[Flavus Aquila]

So your only points are: children, money, votes, I hate gay people.

Good to know your arguments are vapid and totally worthless. You could have left this thread after your first post and we would have all maintained more of our braincells.

As completely off-topic as your post is - and ad hominum in its style (pun intended), it does prompt me to one relevant point:

Whether one is for, or against gay marriage - one should not despise those one does not agree with, or those one is different to. Those things are the basis of discrimination, bigotry, and hatred.



I'll edit in a question...
Anyhow, a question: We already have something called marriage. If money and power are not the issue, why do you want what you have to be equated with something you don't want/choose?

 

[This]

I don't really give a fuck what other people do as long as it doesn't effect me, so I'd vote for letting people do whatever they want as long as it's not hurting anyone else. I see no way that gay marriage could hurt anyone else, so go for it.

That said, I don't feel like any marriage should be a legal issue anyway.

 

[Rferraris]

...

Whether one is for, or against gay marriage - one should not despise those one does not agree with, or those one is different to. Those things are the basis of discrimination, bigotry, and hatred.

....

I think it's impossible to tolerate people that preach indifference to something that means so much to so many. And confusing it with some sort of attempt to get money out of a system is really ineffable.


I'm getting the feeling the attempt here is to start arguments and push and agenda that hurts people. Good luck with that


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?juvp3s

 

[unpersons]

As completely off-topic as your post is - and ad hominum in its style (pun intended), it does prompt me to one relevant point:

Whether one is for, or against gay marriage - one should not despise those one does not agree with, or those one is different to. Those things are the basis of discrimination, bigotry, and hatred.

Oh please, need I remind you that you made the first move in this game of fallacious and "off-topic" chess; "Apparently all girls DO want to get married. Guys always say that." It was unrelated, offensive, misogynistic, and baiting. I don't need to use a fallacy finder to point that out.

I'll edit in a question...
Anyhow, a question: We already have something called marriage. If money and power are not the issue, why do you want what you have to be equated with something you don't want/choose?

What are you talking about? Marriage is a choice and a want. Nobody is forced into it. Why so vehemently exclude gay couples?

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Oh please, need I remind you that you made the first move in this game of fallacious and "off-topic" chess; "Apparently all girls DO want to get married. Guys always say that." It was unrelated, offensive, misogynistic, and baiting. I don't need to use a fallacy finder to point that out.



What are you talking about? Marriage is a choice and a want. Nobody is forced into it. Why so vehemently exclude gay couples?

The word marriage at present basically means: The lifelong union of a man and woman, propitious for the begetting of children. (give or take some terms)

Do lesbians want to form a life-long union with a man, propitious for begetting children? Probably not.

So why is it, that when two lesbians (unlike two heteros) want to pair up, they should want to name their union after hitched heteros?
The only answers seem to be: irony, money, power, a romantic love of the word 'marriage' etc.

 

[unpersons]

The word marriage at present basically means: The lifelong union of a man and woman, propitious for the begetting of children. (give or take some terms)

Give or take that whole last part.

mar·riage noun \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\

Definition of MARRIAGE

1
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>
b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock
c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

Do lesbians want to form a life-long union with a man, propitious for begetting children? Probably not.

Since the children part does not apply, and the above definition includes homosexual couples, you're barking up the wrong tree.

So why is it, that when two lesbians (unlike two heteros) want to pair up, they should want to name their union after hitched heteros?
The only answers seem to be: irony, money, power, a romantic love of the word 'marriage' etc.

The only answer is because marriage is a special bond between people. Civil unions are not. There is no irony. There is no money. There is no power. There is no romance for the word. Why is it that heteros want to use a word originally used to note that a man had exchanged his goat for a woman or twenty?

 

[MindYourHead]

I didn't always feel this way, but after giving it much thought over the years have changed my mind.
I support it and would vote for it.

For me it boils down to the State offering the same rights that a married hetrosexual couple enjoy when they marry.
The church can keep it's undies in a bunch over it for all I care.

There is going to be a referendum on our State ballot this year.
Minnesota law currently defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman, but proponents say that a constitutional amendment is necessary to protect against same-sex marriage being legalized by a court.
http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/issues/issues.aspx?issue=gay
I'll be voting against this amendment.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Give or take that whole last part.

mar·riage noun \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\

Definition of MARRIAGE

1
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>
b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock
c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage


Since the children part does not apply, and the above definition includes homosexual couples, you're barking up the wrong tree.


The only answer is because marriage is a special bond between people. Civil unions are not. There is no irony. There is no money. There is no power. There is no romance for the word. Why is it that heteros want to use a word originally used to note that a man had exchanged his goat for a woman or twenty?

Purpose is not usually included in a definition.

And marriage is actually named after what a man did to a woman after they were wed: he made her a mother.
Latin: mater is mother. Matrimony is to make a mother (ie. to make one pregnant). And marriage is a corruption of the word matrimony.

 

[unpersons]

Purpose is not usually included in a definition.

And marriage is actually named after what a man did to a woman after they were wed: he made her a mother.
Latin: mater is mother. Matrimony is to make a mother (ie. to make one pregnant). And marriage is a corruption of the word matrimony.

So would you agree that if a woman is sterile and can't have children, she should not get married?

 

[Flavus Aquila]

So would you agree that if a woman is sterile and can't have children, she should not get married?

I don't think she should, if she knows about it. Nor should a guy.

In most countries, impotence from the outset nullifies marriage. (Different, but related issue). (no pun intended)

 

[unpersons]

I don't think she should, if she knows about it. Nor should a guy.

In most countries, impotence from the outset nullifies marriage.

So this one is for the record: if one party is sterile, he or she should not get married?

You're sounding great on record so far, do continue.

Let's keep going: why not outlaw marriage of sterile persons in first world countries? If a couple does not intend to have children, should they too be unallowed to get married? What if a gay couple intends to have kids? Let's keep the party going!

 

[Flavus Aquila]

So this one is for the record: if one party is sterile, he or she should not get married?

You're sounding great on record so far, do continue.

Let's keep going: why not outlaw marriage of sterile persons in first world countries? If a couple does not intend to have children, should they too be unallowed to get married? What if a gay couple intends to have kids? Let's keep the party going!

Nevertheless, in terms of government policy married people (or people in marriage-like situations) can be presumed to be the demographic in which most (statistically, all) children will be begotten. On the other hand, most gay/lesbian unions are not child-bearing. So it would seem to be an injustice against children, for whom most provisions for the married are made, to have benefits spread out to more and more groups claiming equality with the married.

If you wish to extend the argument into the reductio ad absurdum, as you have, why shouldn't room-mates or dorm-buddies apply for recognition and the state benefits of the married? At least for the term of their rental contract, during which they are bound to live together?

 

[unpersons]

Nevertheless, in terms of government policy married people (or people in marriage-like situations) can be presumed to be the demographic in which most (statistically, all) children will be begotten. On the other hand, most gay/lesbian unions are not child-bearing. So it would seem to be an injustice against children, for whom most provisions for the married are made, to have benefits spread out to more and more groups claiming equality with the married.

Children are the primary people who grow up and want to get gay married, you know. My lesbian cousin has three children. Two of my gay friends each have one child. I have taken on motherly roles to various children over the years and may want some of my own.

What about all of us? Do our children not deserve the same as others?

When your only argument is for the children, you might want to reconsider. Shall we make alcohol illegal to protect the children? Shall we make pornography illegal to protect the children? Surely these things hurt children more than if their neighbors are legally married!

If you wish to extend the argument into the reductio ad absurdum, as you have, why shouldn't room-mates or dorm-buddies apply for recognition and the state benefits of the married? At least for the term of their rental contract, during which they are bound to live together?

Are they in love? Do they wish to be with each other for the rest of their lives ala marriage vows? Who's stopping them from getting married?

If you found out tomorrow you were sterile, would you vow to not get married? To protect the children which could come from any potential mother's eggs, of course.

You're really not impressing anyone here. I've already had three private messages from people who say you look ridiculous trying to argue these points. One even made note of your fascination with fallacies. I, too, could look up fallacies on Google. Thing is, I actually have things to say. I don't want to avoid debate, I want to debate. Pointing out fallacies is a good way to get around defending your points, but you don't actually have points.

You say marriage is for the purpose of children and imply that anyone who is incapable of having children as a consequence should not get married, but at the same time would deny marriage to gay couples who have or want children. Do you not see the flaws in your own logic here? I'm beyond stunned that you've continued arguing. Like really, I get that INFJs have their weird morality systems, and that's fine and dandy, but we're not arguing from your moral system, we are arguing logical points of view.

The idea that people who can't have kids should not get married is ridiculous. Literally one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard in my life. Easily up there with those who believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old and man lived with dinosaurs.