another post about gay marriages... but this one might make you go "hmmmm"...

Professur said:
Excuse me. I brought up Bish's marital status to make a point on the differing definitions of the concept of marriage. Not to have him berated about it. Nor on the wedding he and his chose to have. So enough already.
Click to expand...

But you see...Bish was saying that JOP is just as much a marriage...when we were talking about homsexuals...but for himself it isn't good enough?? hmmmm
 
I don;t care if he's married or not... I'm just trying to get to why JOP isn't good enough for him yet it is for homosexuals (like I said, personally I see no difference other than when you go to JOP it's uaully due to lackof money and thus there is no party)...but...the marriage is still just as valid...
 
chcr said:
Glutton for punishment, then?
Click to expand...
I'm not, but she is.

I wear the poor woman out. She has 16-hours days twice a week. I have days I don't dress past my PJ's. Two weeks ago the kids and I woke her at 04:00 and made her go Denny's with us :D .
 
Professur said:
Dear Rose. Statistics for heteros in the same instance are equally irrelevant. At issue is that these people have been screaming, shouting, sueing, and shit disturbing for the right to marry. And after 5 days, decide it's not all that important. THAT my dear, is relevant. Evidently, it wasn't all they'd hoped.
Click to expand...


I agree the statistics are irrelevant. There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics -- Mark Twain ;)

What I'm saying is that the group as a whole should not be judged on one couple. On one incident.
 
ResearchMonkey said:
I'm not, but she is.

I wear the poor woman out. She has 16-hours days twice a week. I have days I don't dress past my PJ's. Two weeks ago the kids and I woke her at 04:00 and made her go Denny's with us :D .
Click to expand...

Man, I'd still be sporting the bruises if I tried that.
 
HomeLAN said:
Man, I'd still be sporting the bruises if I tried that.
Click to expand...
I promised her life with me would always be exciting, I have made good on that promise much to her disdain.

Her number one reply in our life is: “Are you sure this a good idea?” :D
 
Rose said:
One incidence of this is hardly relevant. Want statistics for the heterosexuals in this same instance? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


It is most certainly relevent when the stats have just begun. Heterosexuals have thousands of years of history to have an occassional idiot couple. Homosexuals have a few hundred days.
 
Rose said:
I agree the statistics are irrelevant. There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics -- Mark Twain ;)

What I'm saying is that the group as a whole should not be judged on one couple. On one incident.
Click to expand...


Very true. Because no group, however organised, all have the same goals. Should we then start remaking all the laws to fix such a group? How many new permutations will we have to endure? How long before pedophiles start using the same legal precidents? Or zoophiles? Or anyone else with an agenda? Don't forget, in Quebec, you can already legally marry a 14 year old. How big a push is it 'til 12 year old boys devolve into anal sex dolls? Or 11 year old girls find themselves married to transvestites?
 
ResearchMonkey said:
Her number one reply in our life is: “Are you sure this a good idea?” :D
Click to expand...


If it's a good idea, go back to sleep, it'll be boring.
 
Professur said:
Very true. Because no group, however organised, all have the same goals. Should we then start remaking all the laws to fix such a group? How many new permutations will we have to endure? How long before pedophiles start using the same legal precidents? Or zoophiles? Or anyone else with an agenda? Don't forget, in Quebec, you can already legally marry a 14 year old. How big a push is it 'til 12 year old boys devolve into anal sex dolls? Or 11 year old girls find themselves married to transvestites?
Click to expand...
I am so tired of hearing this argument. What part of allowing for two legal aged adults to get married sets any kind of precedent for allowing someone to get married to your dog? Hello? Is a dog a legal aged adult? Is a child a legal adult? Your arguement basically boils down the the point where if gay marriage makes it ok to marry your dog, then it's ok now for a guy to marry his female dog, or a woman to marry her male dog, since there isn't any gayness going on, it's ok.
 
:shrug: I disagree about it's relevancy.

It's quite clear everyone who entered this thread either for or against gay marriage has not and will not change their minds.
 
PuterTutor said:
I am so tired of hearing this argument. What part of allowing for two legal aged adults to get married sets any kind of precedent for allowing someone to get married to your dog? Hello? Is a dog a legal aged adult? Is a child a legal adult? Your arguement basically boils down the the point where if gay marriage makes it ok to marry your dog, then it's ok now for a guy to marry his female dog, or a woman to marry her male dog, since there isn't any gayness going on, it's ok.
Click to expand...



I tihnk it has something or other to do wiht Social Taboos. I find it to be bullshit tho
 
PuterTutor said:
I am so tired of hearing this argument. What part of allowing for two legal aged adults to get married sets any kind of precedent for allowing someone to get married to your dog? Hello? Is a dog a legal aged adult? Is a child a legal adult? Your arguement basically boils down the the point where if gay marriage makes it ok to marry your dog, then it's ok now for a guy to marry his female dog, or a woman to marry her male dog, since there isn't any gayness going on, it's ok.
Click to expand...


No. My argument is that it's not long before you're in court arguing that. There's a town here in quebec that's been trying to put in place a cerfew to stop teenagers being out after 10 unsupervised, because of alot of vandalism. It's been blocked at every turn by ... the human rights board. Seems that forcing kids off the streets at night is a violation of their human rights. Given that kids now must be given all human rights, without restriction, how long before a case is in the courts allowing a preteen marriage? Allowing any modification of a law opens the door to all modifications of the law. Surely you can see that.
 
Professur said:
No. My argument is that it's not long before you're in court arguing that. There's a town here in quebec that's been trying to put in place a cerfew to stop teenagers being out after 10 unsupervised, because of alot of vandalism. It's been blocked at every turn by ... the human rights board. Seems that forcing kids off the streets at night is a violation of their human rights. Given that kids now must be given all human rights, without restriction, how long before a case is in the courts allowing a preteen marriage? Allowing any modification of a law opens the door to all modifications of the law. Surely you can see that.
Click to expand...
Well, that case is fucked up. Guess I'm glad I'm in Missouri where we can still oppress our teenagers, although it's 11pm in Owensville. Anyway, I still don't think the leading to beastiality is a valid argument though, you are still talking two consenting adults. A dog or a child cannot consent. I think that is and needs to stay pretty well universal.
 
Rose said:
It's quite clear everyone who entered this thread either for or against gay marriage has not and will not change their minds.
Click to expand...


*ding ding ding*

Thats why it is fun to read and not respond....*whoops*

You know the weird part is I can actually now understand where they are coming from (Gonz, professeur etc etc)....doesn't change my POV but it helps to understand them better and not roll my eyes after reading their thoughts.
 
PuterTutor said:
Well, that case is fucked up. Guess I'm glad I'm in Missouri where we can still oppress our teenagers, although it's 11pm in Owensville. Anyway, I still don't think the leading to beastiality is a valid argument though, you are still talking two consenting adults. A dog or a child cannot consent. I think that is and needs to stay pretty well universal.
Click to expand...


And how long do you think your cerfew would stand up to a human rights council challenge? Or anyone's cerfew?

If I knew it would stay between two consenting adults, I'd be first in line to support it. But, when quebec allowed it, at first, how many people do you think crossed the border to get married? Most of them. Well, when they get home, what happens to that marriage? Most places, legally, recognise out of state marriages. What happens when the consenting age is lower? Like the drinking age in Que being lower than that of NY, ONT, or just about anywhere else?

What happens when the legalities of it become so muddled with Int'l policy? The entire system breaks down. And if you don't think that someone's gonna deliberately persue that angle, the look up at the now-seperating 5 day old lesbian couple. And you know as well as I do, once this shit gets broke, it doesn't get fixed.
 
IDLEchild said:
*ding ding ding*

Thats why it is fun to read and not respond....*whoops*

You know the weird part is I can actually now understand where they are coming from (Gonz, professeur etc etc)....doesn't change my POV but it helps to understand them better and not roll my eyes after reading their thoughts.
Click to expand...

Thank you. It was never my intent to change anyone opinion. But if at least one person can now see the other side of the coin (even without agreeing to it) then this hasn't been a total waste of fingertip skin.
 
Professur said:
Thank you. It was never my intent to change anyone opinion. But if at least one person can now see the other side of the coin (even without agreeing to it) then this hasn't been a total waste of fingertip skin.
Click to expand...
I can see the other side of the coin, it just don't like it. You're fighting for your side to protect the name of marriage, as well as the slippery slope you think allowing gays to marry will start. I say that heteros have fucked up the name quite well enough on their own, and that the slope has been sliding for quite some time, don't think this will make is slide any faster.
 
PuterTutor said:
I am so tired of hearing this argument. What part of allowing for two legal aged adults to get married sets any kind of precedent for allowing someone to get married to your dog? Hello? Is a dog a legal aged adult? Is a child a legal adult? Your arguement basically boils down the the point where if gay marriage makes it ok to marry your dog, then it's ok now for a guy to marry his female dog, or a woman to marry her male dog, since there isn't any gayness going on, it's ok.
Click to expand...
The issue is not as simple as you see it, It is complex. It’s about a fundamental basis of any society, morals and virtue.

If a society make exception for one group it then will be approached by the next on the list wanting change, that is when it leads to, pedophilia, bestially, polygamy, incest, and even necrophilia.

There has to be moral standards and our modern society, built upon thousands of years of wisdom, does not accept that homosexuality is the moral equivalent of heterosexuality.

Why do you feel two men can marry but 43 year old man and a 15 boy can’t get married? Because he is not 18? Why the arbitrary age of 18? Men are not mentally mature at 18.

You address only the emotional reasoning of the situation, the real world is not candy-land. There is social responsibility to be accounted for, this is the real world where there are truths that don’t always feel good.

Why must people be forced to accept gay marrige? Why does the minority need for validation need to out weigh the values of the majority.

this is not about race or sex's, this is about a behavior.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top