Why same sex marriages can never be

[OneWithDunamis]

Nicole Ekishou

OneWithDunamis

Nicole Ekishou

OneWithDunamis

Nicole Ekishou

So says the guy who thinks a single definition alteration will do what Television, Comics, Rock n' Roll, and Hip-Hop couldn't do combined.

I never said they couldn't, and I condemn them as well.

I say they couldn't, because they haven't. The first three in particular have been around for more than half a century. They have certainly changed civilization, but are a long way from destroying it.

I'd say teen pregnancies, drug use encouragement, skeet skeet, are all downfalls of society caused by mass media, to name a few.

All of which existed way before they came onto the scene.

Hell, as little as two hundred years ago, Teen pregnancy (with marriage, of course) was encourgaged. Girls married early and often in Colonial America, mostly due to the high mortality rate among their husbands. It wasn't that uncommon for a woman, as she approached her twilight years, to have had children from two or even three successive marriages. And don't get me started on the middle ages and earlier.

Drug use? Have you ever heard of Opium? It actually used to be legal only a hundred years ago. People would run opium dens where a patron would come in, rent a bunk, and smoke the day away in that one little spot. Mankind's history with drugs is long and storied, and stretches back for a milennium at least.

Indeed! But these views are continually supported by the media even after we know of the negative effects they have on people. At least back then they could use ignorance as an excuse.

[Counting_the_days]

all in all dunamis ur reasoning is really faulty and short on proof i want to see PHYSICAL PROOF on this subject as i am gay and am looking to legally get MARRIED and have it to were my husband is actually my husband not just domesticated partners BTW if u believe in the bible i hope u know there is many types of marriages kk thanks bye

so in the words of my great generation

I HOPE U BURN IN THE LOWEST CIRCLES OF HELL

thanks have a great and wonderful day


days

[TheVoiceOfTheLobster]

OneWithDunamis

TheVoiceOfTheLobster

OneWithDunamis

TheVoiceOfTheLobster

OneWithDunamis

Self contradiction.

I don't really think it's self-contradiction to tell you that people's views and definitions of things are not all the same.

I wish you'd stop being so hostile with me. I'm trying to understand what you would change by making everyone uniformed. When has uniformity ever made everyone happy in history?

I meant to bold the part about there being no absolute truth at all, but since all your posts are bolded already, I got lazy and hoped you would see what I was referring to.

Uniformity never made everyone happy in history because it was never achieved, and thus cannot be analyzed.

Yeahhh, I enjoy bold fonts. I'm sorry.

But I have to go. I would love to continue this conversation on absolute truth and universalism when I get back, however, if that's okay with you.

Take your time. I have to go soon myself anyway.

I'm sorry for not coming back. It turned out 'when I get back' meant 'tomorrow'

So more on this definition theory...I'm wondering how you would feel progress would be made if no one ever changed their definitions on anything.

[TheVoiceOfTheLobster]

Counting_the_days

all in all dunamis ur reasoning is really faulty and short on proof i want to see PHYSICAL PROOF on this subject as i am gay and am looking to legally get MARRIED and have it to were my husband is actually my husband not just domesticated partners BTW if u believe in the bible i hope u know there is many types of marriages kk thanks bye

so in the words of my great generation

I HOPE U BURN IN THE LOWEST CIRCLES OF HELL

thanks have a great and wonderful day


days

Harsh much? How do you ever expect to win people over by telling them to burn in hell?

[Biria]

I think this may just be a homophobe trying to play this topic off "rationslly" confused

[Torrent_Of_Octane]

Biria

I think this may just be a homophobe trying to play this topic off "rationslly" confused

Whats not rational about his statement? Yeah, we're homophobes, but what does that have to do with the argument?

[Biria]

It's not rational because it make no sense whatsoever. Different states (as in foreign countries) define marriage in a different way. That's why we have some, such as Canada and Spain, that declare marriage as a bond between man and woman, woman and woman, or man and man. OUR definition of marriage is not the definition around the world, though it seems to dominate most states.
Secondly, he can't use the example of words changing because Vernecular is constantly changing. Nearly 200 years ago, the common language of most Americans was similar to shakesperian.
ONE act will not create the downfall of anything, especially language.

Like i said, It doesn't make sense. This is a perfect example of him trying to create scapegoats so that he can find a way around his hate for gays.

[Nicole Ekishou]

OneWithDunamis

NCP Samael

OneWithDunamis

Think of the greater good of society, if you intend to stay with the society you're familiar with.

Change is good for a society. If we never had change we would never advance in life. Besides there is more to mirage than just a union between two people. There is a lot of political crap that is involved and gays just want the same rights. If you ask me it's closed minded stuff like this that hold the potential of people back.

Progress isn't always beneficial to society. How wonderful it'd be if the atom bomb was never invented. Now people are fighting to put an end to one example of technological advance. The fear and paranoia are products of change.

If the Atomic Bomb had never been invented, The US and Japan would probably have ground Japan into the ground the old-fashioned way, then gone straight into World War III afted they licked their wounds from that. The sole reason the Cold War was fought by proxy was because both sides were afraid that direct warfare would lead to nuke-slinging.

OneWithDunamis

Nicole Ekishou

OneWithDunamis

Nicole Ekishou

OneWithDunamis

I never said they couldn't, and I condemn them as well.

I say they couldn't, because they haven't. The first three in particular have been around for more than half a century. They have certainly changed civilization, but are a long way from destroying it.

I'd say teen pregnancies, drug use encouragement, skeet skeet, are all downfalls of society caused by mass media, to name a few.

All of which existed way before they came onto the scene.

Hell, as little as two hundred years ago, Teen pregnancy (with marriage, of course) was encourgaged. Girls married early and often in Colonial America, mostly due to the high mortality rate among their husbands. It wasn't that uncommon for a woman, as she approached her twilight years, to have had children from two or even three successive marriages. And don't get me started on the middle ages and earlier.

Drug use? Have you ever heard of Opium? It actually used to be legal only a hundred years ago. People would run opium dens where a patron would come in, rent a bunk, and smoke the day away in that one little spot. Mankind's history with drugs is long and storied, and stretches back for a milennium at least.

Indeed! But these views are continually supported by the media even after we know of the negative effects they have on people. At least back then they could use ignorance as an excuse.

Sexuality is a constant factor in human life, despite the actions of many to villify it or pretend it doesn't exist. Music and television talk about it, from the point of view of their artists/writers. Messages are in suppourt in general (no song that I know of is pro-teen pregancy, for instance), or telling a story about experiences with it. Many speak out against it.

As for drugs, neither does any more than either depict it as part of their stories (not the same as support), and just as often speak out against it.

[Riviera de la Mancha]

OneWithDunamis

Riviera de la Mancha

OneWithDunamis

Riviera de la Mancha

OneWithDunamis

Riviera de la Mancha

What mass confusion? I never spoke to this. I am addressing the OP, which makes the argument that the government cannot re-define marriage because to do so causes chaos. Ignoring the chaos point, I addressed the idea that a government cannot do x because of effect y on the populous. I am saying that the government can do whatever it wishes to anything it creates, and the government created marriage, so it is free to do what it wills to it, regardless of the effects it has on the populous, provided it does so in accordance to the proper regulation and law.

It is incorrect to say that if I make product y I cant then change to call it product t if I so wish because I created product y; it is mine to do with as I wish. The government created marriage and, so long as it abides by the rules and regulations, it may define it as it wishes. To talk of chaos is merely irrelevant babble as it relates to the argument presented in the OP.

Yes, technically they are able to do so, but they mustn't, because it'll destroy society. It's like calling Pluto a moon instead of a planet now. People will likely refer to it as either moon or planet, but only one is right. Think of the mass confusion!!

We're talking more than legal issues here. The impact will certainly decimate the nation.

Again, for the second time, 'the destruction of society' argument is irrelevant. If the change is made within the confines of regulation, then it is permissible. There is nothing within the idea of marriage that demands it retain one definition over another.

As one of the great justices on the Supreme Court wrote in an opinion, and I paraphrase, if the people wish to go to hell in a hand basket, then the courts are obliged to allow it to occur, so long as it is in accordance with the law.

How is that irrelevant? If society isn't destroyed as a result they can change every word in the dictionary for all I care. Even if it's permissible by law, people don't forget what words used to mean. And by change I'm including the addition of meanings to pre-existing words.

The courts are wrong then and are not fulfilling their duty to preserve society. If everyone wanted to rape and kill, should they allow it? I think not.

All you did was go off on a tangent.

Show me where, in the description of the court's powers, does it state that it is their job to 'preserve society'. I await your citations.

I knew I was right to look down on the courts.

Still awaiting your citations.

If you dont like the courts, then dont try to make a case for some kind of law. Argue merely from a philosophical view and end it, instead of trying to give your stance the force of legal weight is structurally cant allow for.

[Osaaka]

No, it never can be because you assholes never stop arguing about the s**t!!!

[Christopher Columbine]

Words always get redefined.

[AstroFemme]

Christopher Columbine

Words always get redefined.

Yep, and there are different "types" of marriages, defined differently from heterosexual marriages.

[ZechsK]

Kaosgirl

OneWithDunamis

Because by definition a marriage is the union between a man and a woman. If they change the definition of this word, what other words will they change next?

You speak like it hasn't happened before or something.

Besides, Webster Online's already changed the definition to include same-sex marriage. You're too late on this horse.

No offence but screw Webster, the best English dictionary is Oxford hands down. (Oxford specifies marriage as between man and woman but that's beside the point) Point is one dictionary does not a definition change. If I published Zechsk's dictionary, as I very well could, it doesn't mean it's going to be accepted. The second point is that you should use the most credible dictionary for the purpose, and in this case for an english language dictionary that's Oxford.

[xX..ibitsu..Xx]

"So give me something to believe..."

I've never really been a big fan of the "slippery slope" argument (mostly because it's crap), and that seems to be what you're using in your argument. An argument that also uses a fictitious story as evidence, I may add. But, back the point, I don't think it's for any government to decide or put into law who people are allowed to marry. It's right up there with allowing people to vote on separate but equal, back in the day. No one should be allowed to limit another persons rights.

However, on the basis that marriage is, in fact, a religious institution (at least in origin), I propose the following: Marriage in any form should not be recognized by the government. Religion has no place in government, law, etc. This way, each church may decide for itself whether or not it will marry two men or two women. Or hell, even three. Marriage can be whatever people need it to be, just like any religious practice these days. Now, for all those nice tax benefits and rights to your partner/spouse, there should be some sort of "civil union" contract available to everyone which would be recognized at legal level.

Now tell me, does this not solve everything aside from the actual underlying bigotry?

"...'Cause I am living just to breathe"

[Suzuku90]

xX..ibitsu..Xx

"So give me something to believe..."

I've never really been a big fan of the "slippery slope" argument (mostly because it's crap), and that seems to be what you're using in your argument. An argument that also uses a fictitious story as evidence, I may add. But, back the point, I don't think it's for any government to decide or put into law who people are allowed to marry. It's right up there with allowing people to vote on separate but equal, back in the day. No one should be allowed to limit another persons rights.

However, on the basis that marriage is, in fact, a religious institution (at least in origin), I propose the following: Marriage in any form should not be recognized by the government. Religion has no place in government, law, etc. This way, each church may decide for itself whether or not it will marry two men or two women. Or hell, even three. Marriage can be whatever people need it to be, just like any religious practice these days. Now, for all those nice tax benefits and rights to your partner/spouse, there should be some sort of "civil union" contract available to everyone which would be recognized at legal level.

Now tell me, does this not solve everything aside from the actual underlying bigotry?

"...'Cause I am living just to breathe"

Oh, if the nearby church lets them, gay couples can marry religiously. The law just prevents them from signing a little piece of paper that gives them tons of benefits.

And civil unions don't give all the benefits of marriage; they're available to both homosexual and heterosexual couples.