Poll: Gay marriage

[This]

I'm trying to figure out why anyone would want to get married in the first place.

 

[Apone]

This isn't even an issue that's worth debating, because every single argument against it is so laughably backwards and ignorant.
That's pretty much all I have to say about that.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

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!


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.

From the United States Law concerning Marriage:

Elements for Nullification

:

1. The other spouse had another husband or wife living at the time of the marriage;
2. Either spouse was younger than sixteen at the time of the marriage and did not have court approval;
3. Either spouse was sixteen or seventeen at the time of the marriage and did not have parental consent, as long as the annulment action is filed within 60 days after the marriage ceremony;
4. Either spouse was under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the marriage, as long as the annulment action is filed within 60 days after the marriage ceremony;
5. Either spouse was mentally incompetent or unable to consent at the time of the marriage;
6. One of them was threatened or forced to get married;
7. One of them agreed to be married based on fraudulent statements or actions by the other spouse;
8. One of them was physically and incurably impotent at the time of the marriage, unless the other spouse knew about the impotence before the marriage;
9. The marriage is one that is prohibited by law due to the relationship between the parties.

From: http://usmarriagelaws.com/

I think you need to come to terms with the fact I don't agree with your position, because I don't think laws should be changed without compelling reasons. You have offered none so far.

 

[Rferraris]

I'm trying to figure out why anyone would want to get married in the first place.

Really. Is this a serious question.


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?3x4upc

 

[This]

Really. Is this a serious question.


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?3x4upc

Yes, as far as I can tell all the legal benefits can be handled by signed legal contracts. Other than joint tax filing which I think is a bad idea to begin with.

 

[unpersons]

From the United States Law concerning Marriage:


[/LIST]

From: http://usmarriagelaws.com/

I think you need to come to terms with the fact I don't agree with your position, because I don't think laws should be changed without compelling reasons. You have offered none so far.

Nullification is not the same thing as not being able to marry. Nullification is used to end a marriage. By your call, you don't believe that marriage should happen in the first place.

You have offered no compelling reasons for a damn thing you've said. You seem to be a standard homophobe. I'm not too worried about debating you if you refuse to defend yourself, as you have done repeatedly. I'm not arguing with someone who's entire rationale for marriage exists only in their heads.

 

[unpersons]

Oh yeah, know this: your way of thinking is dead in the 21st century. Majorities in first world countries (including the US!) now support gay marriage. Your anti-gay marriage attitude is going to become as unwelcome and antisocial in the first world as racism and segregation. You are living in the past.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

This isn't even an issue that's worth debating, because every single argument against it is so laughably backwards and ignorant.
That's pretty much all I have to say about that.

Similarly, every argument for it is irrational and emotive. But I don't laugh at them, but try to answer them - although any answer to an absurd request will sound absurd, or backwards.

For example: We should call the sky green, shouldn't we? A: No, because we call the predominant colour in the sky blue.
Sounds backward and outdated. No compelling argument can be given as to why the sky's colour should be named blue, however, it is stupid to want to change the definition of the words 'blue' and 'green' without a compelling reason to do so.

 

[unpersons]

Similarly, every argument for it is irrational and emotive. But I don't laugh at them, but try to answer them - although any answer to an absurd request will sound absurd, or backwards.

For example: We should call the sky green, shouldn't we? A: No, because we call the predominant colour in the sky blue.
Sounds backward and outdated. No compelling argument can be given as to why the sky's colour should be named blue, however, it is stupid to want to change the definition of the words 'blue' and 'green' without a compelling reason to do so.

No fucking where in any definition of marriage do we see the need for children. It's not about that.

 

[the]

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!

Oh yeah, know this: your way of thinking is dead in the 21st century.

Apparently it is not since you are here blathering on about it.

I dont see the point in arguing at this point. He doesnt agree with what you believe should be the norm and you are all butt-hurt about it. Now you are disrespecting his beliefs and he will probably also get butt-hurt. I suppose that you think mocking him will either change his mind or will shame everyone else to being on your side. Well bravo to you, let me know how it works out. [/Me thinking outloud via writing.]

 

[unpersons]

I dont see the point in arguing at this point. He doesnt agree with what you believe should be the norm and you are all butt-hurt about it. Now you are disrespecting his beliefs and he will probably also get butt-hurt. I suppose that you think mocking him will either change his mind or will shame everyone else to being on your side. Well bravo to you, let me know how it works out. [/Me thinking outloud via writing.]

81% of people who have voted are already on my side. Some people deserve to be shamed.

Important edit: if someone's going to just be up front and say 'my religion prohibits it' or whatever else, dandy, that can't be argued with so easily. If you're going to try to use facts and definitions to your advantage and have no idea what you're talking about, that's not so dandy.

 

[Apone]

For example: We should call the sky green, shouldn't we? A: No, because we call the predominant colour in the sky blue.
Sounds backward and outdated. No compelling argument can be given as to why the sky's colour should be named blue, however, it is stupid to want to change the definition of the words 'blue' and 'green' without a compelling reason to do so.

The colour of the sky isn't a question of minority rights.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Nullification is not the same thing as not being able to marry. Nullification is used to end a marriage. By your call, you don't believe that marriage should happen in the first place.

You have offered no compelling reasons for a damn thing you've said. You seem to be a standard homophobe. I'm not too worried about debating you if you refuse to defend yourself, as you have done repeatedly. I'm not arguing with someone who's entire rationale for marriage exists only in their heads.

Actually, nullity is precisely a declaration that marriage never took place:

nullity n. something which may be treated as nothing, as if it did not exist or never happened. This can occur by court ruling or enactment of a statute. The most common example is a nullity of a marriage by a court judgment.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/nullities

If you're going to try to use facts and definitions to your advantage and have no idea what you're talking about, that's not so dandy.

 

[unpersons]

Actually, nullity is precisely a declaration that marriage never took place:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/nullities

I suppose the state is well into doublethink.

An ironic note: so we can use a dictionary in support of your claims but... not mine? Yep, you win this debate.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

The colour of the sky isn't a question of minority rights.

If minority rights are an issue, why is it that immigrants cannot be elected to the office of President of the United States?

 

[Apone]

If minority rights are an issue, why is it that immigrants cannot be elected to the office of President of the United States?

It's one of those things that makes certain people more comfortable.

 

[Peppermint]

I don't think adding the modifier het. (or something to that effect) before marriage if needed would be particularly hard...?
Really, in what way can this possibly be a compelling point

This. It's semantics. The laws can be rewritten but it would require significant change in the system and who wants to deal with that, right? Never mind that, who wants to deal with the moralizing outrage of the conservatives? It's just so much simpler to do the upkeep of status quo.


Also, I wasn't aware that gay people cannot have children. Granted, many will have gripe with the idea of children being raised by homosexuals, and that's a different topic but artificial insemination is a pretty viable method. What's also interesting to note is that there are many claims how currently most births in the US happen out of the glorified wed lock, childtrends.org claims 41% of births in 2009 happened out of marriage.

 

[unpersons]

I renounce my personal support for gay marriage and refuse to get gay married. On the other hand, I promise to be as gayly promiscuous as possible to make up for all the marriages I'm not ever going to have. (Maybe one or more likely two, considering how people in general are.)

Gay marriage is an affront to children everywhere, even ones under gay parents! I have seen the light!

 

[Peppermint]

I renounce my personal support for gay marriage and refuse to get gay married. On the other hand, I promise to be as gayly promiscuous as possible to make up for all the marriages I'm not ever going to have. (Maybe one or more likely two, considering how people in general are.)

Gay marriage is an affront to children everywhere, even ones under gay parents! I have seen the light!

Well, you know, if we let gay people marry, they are going to raise their kids to be gay, and those promiscuous mofos are going to out reproduce us and there won't be any normal people left.

 

[Apone]

This. It's semantics. The laws can be rewritten but it would require significant change in the system and who wants to deal with that, right? Never mind that, who wants to deal with the moralizing outrage of the conservatives? It's just so much simpler to do the upkeep of status quo.

Words can be pretty important, though… and seriously, who cares about the moralizing rage of the conservatives? Those people aren't the majority, no matter how loudly they complain.

If anything, redefining marriage to include homosexual partnerships would be one of those symbolic gestures that signals the embrace of homosexuality as natural in the eyes of the law, and to some extent in the eyes of the heterosexual majority. I think it's an important enough issue that it's worth the relatively small amount of effort that it would take to change things.