Gay Marriage

[Shamwow]

I believe marriage is inherently between a man and a woman by definition. Therefore it's incoherent to speak of same-sex marriage; that's not what marriage is. Most people posting on this topic seem to think that marriage is just a social convention adopted by society - like driving on the right, or left-hand side of the road. We could just as easily adopt the opposite side of the road as convention. Or even reverse the function of the colours of our traffic lights (go on red, stop on green).

In the words of someone much more intelligent than myself, 'I would say that marriage has always and everywhere been defined and understood to be between a man and a woman, and that, therefore, the union of two persons of the same sex, whatever you might want to call it, just isn’t marriage. It would be as if someone wanted to redefine what it means to be an heir of someone else. Suppose I say, “I want to be the heir of Bill Gates,” and someone says, “Well, you can’t be. To be an heir you have to be designated in the will. You have to be a legal designee,” and I say, “Well, no. I don’t think we should define heir that way. I think an heir can be anybody who would like to have that fortune, and so, that is the way I think an heir should be defined and therefore, I want to be an heir of Bill Gates, and I am his heir.” Well, I think you can see that is just absurd. You are just arbitrarily redefining words. That is not what they mean. Similarly, I would say the same thing for marriage."

Furthermore, the title of this thread is Gay Marriage, whereas it should really be Same-Sex Marriage since it's differentiated from 'regular' marriage through gender, and not through sexual orientation. Gay people have been perfectly free to marry - just not to members of the same gender! So opposing same-sex marriage on these grounds isn't a question of discriminating against homosexuality.

People seem to be convinced that to oppose same-sex marriage is to be intolerant, to be close minded, and to be bigoted against a certain class of people, but I disagree. Tolerance should mean, “though I disagree with what you say, I will defend to the death, your right to say it.” So we tolerate people but we discriminate between views. We discriminate views as true or false though we tolerate those who advocate false views. We recognize their right to an opinion and their right to express it. But in the new tolerance, the kind of new value that has been accepted, you discriminate against people but you tolerate all views. So, that you tolerate same-sex marriage as well as traditional marriage. You tolerate all the views, but now you will discriminate, for example, against those who hold traditional views, by calling them bigots and intolerant and rejecting them and vilifying them.

And I expect my views to be tolerated

Do you know who invented marriage?

 

[Silva]

People said the same about those who wanted mixed race marriages, now you'll find very little opposition to it. The same will happen to same sex marriage soon enough. I also think straight couples should be allowed to have a civil union if they wish.

Civil unions are bloody pointless, just a way to put off gay marriage until enough people were willing to vote for it.

 

[2 man midfield]

It's like complaining the guy on the table next to you in a restaurant has cake when you don't like it, therefore you want his cake taken away.

I saw a very good tweet by someone pointing out the hypocrisy, i'll try and find it.

EDIT: Spoilered, cos size.

Spoiler

 

[Alex99]

I believe marriage is inherently between a man and a woman by definition. Therefore it's incoherent to speak of same-sex marriage; that's not what marriage is. Most people posting on this topic seem to think that marriage is just a social convention adopted by society - like driving on the right, or left-hand side of the road. We could just as easily adopt the opposite side of the road as convention. Or even reverse the function of the colours of our traffic lights (go on red, stop on green).

In the words of someone much more intelligent than myself, 'I would say that marriage has always and everywhere been defined and understood to be between a man and a woman, and that, therefore, the union of two persons of the same sex, whatever you might want to call it, just isn’t marriage. It would be as if someone wanted to redefine what it means to be an heir of someone else. Suppose I say, “I want to be the heir of Bill Gates,” and someone says, “Well, you can’t be. To be an heir you have to be designated in the will. You have to be a legal designee,” and I say, “Well, no. I don’t think we should define heir that way. I think an heir can be anybody who would like to have that fortune, and so, that is the way I think an heir should be defined and therefore, I want to be an heir of Bill Gates, and I am his heir.” Well, I think you can see that is just absurd. You are just arbitrarily redefining words. That is not what they mean. Similarly, I would say the same thing for marriage."

Furthermore, the title of this thread is Gay Marriage, whereas it should really be Same-Sex Marriage since it's differentiated from 'regular' marriage through gender, and not through sexual orientation. Gay people have been perfectly free to marry - just not to members of the same gender! So opposing same-sex marriage on these grounds isn't a question of discriminating against homosexuality.

People seem to be convinced that to oppose same-sex marriage is to be intolerant, to be close minded, and to be bigoted against a certain class of people, but I disagree. Tolerance should mean, “though I disagree with what you say, I will defend to the death, your right to say it.” So we tolerate people but we discriminate between views. We discriminate views as true or false though we tolerate those who advocate false views. We recognize their right to an opinion and their right to express it. But in the new tolerance, the kind of new value that has been accepted, you discriminate against people but you tolerate all views. So, that you tolerate same-sex marriage as well as traditional marriage. You tolerate all the views, but now you will discriminate, for example, against those who hold traditional views, by calling them bigots and intolerant and rejecting them and vilifying them.

And I expect my views to be tolerated

You're a bigot.

 

[McUnited]

People said the same about those who wanted mixed race marriages, now you'll find very little opposition to it. The same will happen to same sex marriage soon enough. I also think straight couples should be allowed to have a civil union if they wish.

If I had a 18-year-old sister, could I marry her? How about my deceased dog? Where would you draw the line?

 

[Silva]

If I had a 18-year-old sister, could I marry her? How about my deceased dog? Where would you draw the line?

You couldn't marry your sister or your dog for the same reason you're not allowed to stick your tiny little dick in them. But you are allowed to stick your tiny little dick in all the men you want. Though I suspect you're more of a rimmer considering how much shit you're regurgitating.

 

[Alex99]

If I had a 18-year-old sister, could I marry her? How about my deceased dog? Where would you draw the line?

At sibling incest, necrophilia, bestiality and necrophilic bestiality, presumably.

 

[Big-Red]

You couldn't marry your sister or your dog for the same reason you're not allowed to stick your tiny little dick in them. You are allowed to stick your tiny little dick in all the men you want though. Though I suspect you're more of a rimmer considering how much shit you're regurgitating.

 

[17Larsson]

If I had a 18-year-old sister, could I marry her? How about my deceased dog? Where would you draw the line?

Ah yeah dead dogs, that's the first thing I thought of when I heard this was being voted on. Those people marrying the dead dogs. How are the kids going to turn out when they are being raised by a man and a dead dog? They'll turn into dead dog lovers themselves

 

[duffer]

If I had a 18-year-old sister, could I marry her? How about my deceased dog? Where would you draw the line?

If you really want to compare homosexuality with incest or necrozoophaelia (I just made that up) then ok, I'll play along.

You personally don't draw the line. Neither do I. What business is it of yours what two consenting adults (or consenting dead dogs) do so long as they are hurting nobody?

 

[rednev]

The religious people are right to say that marriage was historically defined (and designed as) a union between man and woman. It was a device that was invented to secure monogamous procreation, and a very good one too. However, this is not an argument against gay marriage, as society reserves the right to change definitions of social and legal constructs. The idea that marriage is sacred is nonsense, because it existed long before Christianity (for example) rolled up in Northern Europe (for example), and it has continued to exist in a secular fashion alongside religious marriage for decades.

 

[Shamwow]

If I had a 18-year-old sister, could I marry her? How about my deceased dog? Where would you draw the line?

Are you really comparing two men loving each other getting married to incest or marrying a dead dog?

Also did you know that the majority of marriages in history were probably between cousins?

Did you know that monogamous marriages being preferred is relatively recent in history?

Do you know who invented marriage?

 

[Raoul]

Rather than attacking McUnited, why not form a cogent argument as to why he's wrong.

 

[rednev]

I dislike the 'you're a bigot if you don't take my side' style of argument in this debate. Religious people are perfectly entitled to oppose gay marriage and can do so without being bigoted, even though it is very difficult to do so on rational grounds.

 

[Silva]

Rather than attacking McUnited, why not form a cogent argument as to why he's wrong.

Because he's comparing gay marriage to someone marrying a dead dog Raoul. That shit needs ridiculing.

 

[2 man midfield]

If there's one thing that halts progress it's people clinging to centuries old definitions that have little to no relevance today. Similar thing with the second amendment and how people cling to that. They meant muskets, not AK-47s.

 

[Silva]

I dislike the 'you're a bigot if you don't take my side' style of argument in this debate. Religious people are perfectly entitled to oppose gay marriage and can do so without being bigoted, even though it is very difficult to do so on rational grounds.

He just compared gay marriage to marrying a dead dog. We can't be standing for that. That's about as bigoted as it gets. There are non-bigots who are against it, but they don't compare it to marrying a decomposing pet.

 

[Eboue]

I believe marriage is inherently between a man and a woman by definition. Therefore it's incoherent to speak of same-sex marriage; that's not what marriage is. Most people posting on this topic seem to think that marriage is just a social convention adopted by society - like driving on the right, or left-hand side of the road. We could just as easily adopt the opposite side of the road as convention. Or even reverse the function of the colours of our traffic lights (go on red, stop on green).

In the words of someone much more intelligent than myself, 'I would say that marriage has always and everywhere been defined and understood to be between a man and a woman, and that, therefore, the union of two persons of the same sex, whatever you might want to call it, just isn’t marriage. It would be as if someone wanted to redefine what it means to be an heir of someone else. Suppose I say, “I want to be the heir of Bill Gates,” and someone says, “Well, you can’t be. To be an heir you have to be designated in the will. You have to be a legal designee,” and I say, “Well, no. I don’t think we should define heir that way. I think an heir can be anybody who would like to have that fortune, and so, that is the way I think an heir should be defined and therefore, I want to be an heir of Bill Gates, and I am his heir.” Well, I think you can see that is just absurd. You are just arbitrarily redefining words. That is not what they mean. Similarly, I would say the same thing for marriage."

Furthermore, the title of this thread is Gay Marriage, whereas it should really be Same-Sex Marriage since it's differentiated from 'regular' marriage through gender, and not through sexual orientation. Gay people have been perfectly free to marry - just not to members of the same gender! So opposing same-sex marriage on these grounds isn't a question of discriminating against homosexuality.

People seem to be convinced that to oppose same-sex marriage is to be intolerant, to be close minded, and to be bigoted against a certain class of people, but I disagree. Tolerance should mean, “though I disagree with what you say, I will defend to the death, your right to say it.” So we tolerate people but we discriminate between views. We discriminate views as true or false though we tolerate those who advocate false views. We recognize their right to an opinion and their right to express it. But in the new tolerance, the kind of new value that has been accepted, you discriminate against people but you tolerate all views. So, that you tolerate same-sex marriage as well as traditional marriage. You tolerate all the views, but now you will discriminate, for example, against those who hold traditional views, by calling them bigots and intolerant and rejecting them and vilifying them.

And I expect my views to be tolerated

This post is hilarious.


That Bill Gates thing has to be the worst analogy ever. Are you Plugsy in disguise? Marriage has only recently been defined as a marriage between a man and a woman. For most of human history, it could be a man and a girl. Or a man and several women. Or a man and woman but only of the same race. The idea that marriage between consenting adults of opposite genders has been traditional in an unbroken line since time immemorial is farcical.

 

[Raoul]

Because he's comparing gay marriage to someone marrying a dead dog Raoul. That shit needs ridiculing.

It can be ridiculed, but in a broader context his view is a common one in the anti-gay Christian scene, and it needs to be engaged in a constructive debate. Otherwise, it sort of squanders the value of having this thread.

 

[Eboue]

If I had a 18-year-old sister, could I marry her? How about my deceased dog? Where would you draw the line?

Two consenting adults. I think that's a pretty simple line.

 

[rednev]

He just compared gay marriage to marrying a dead dog. We can't be standing for that. That's about as bigoted as it gets. There are non-bigots who are against it, but they don't compare it to marrying a decomposing pet.

I don't think he compared the two. He was making a point about legal constructs and how vulnerable they are to change.

 

[adexkola]

Incest and bigamy are outlawed in some jurisdictions, even amongst consenting adults

I'm pro LGBTQU rights, just playing devils advocate.

 

[Amethyst]

If I had a 18-year-old sister, could I marry her? How about my deceased dog? Where would you draw the line?

I know the rest of the contributors in the thread have already responded to this but I would say that two consenting adults is a good line to draw. As others have explained, saying we could descend to people marrying animals in absurd.

 

[Cheesy]

If I had a 18-year-old sister, could I marry her? How about my deceased dog? Where would you draw the line?

The whole "where do you draw the line?" thing is a bit ridiculous, though, since it has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand. This is allowing two consenting adults to marry each other, no matter their gender. You marrying a dog or family member is irrelevant to the discussion: if you feel the line should be drawn further, you are perfectly entitled to share that opinion, but that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

 

[stu_1992]

In as far as the upcoming referendum in Ireland, anyone planing to vote against Same-sex marriage on religious grounds is ridiculous. It's not redefining your religion's definition of marriage, just redefining it in the eyes of the state. It gives these people the same tax rights, adoption rights and even the right to make decisions regarding treatment their partner receives if ill and in hospital. Currently, they are being denied such rights as "traditional"couples. I've yet to see a valid argument for denying same-sex couples these rights.

 

[rednev]

Incest and bigamy are outlawed in some jurisdictions, even amongst consenting adults

I'm pro LGBTQU rights, just playing devils advocate.

Indeed. The bigamy/polygamy examples are useful because it is very difficult for people who are making the pro gay marriage argument (which includes me as well) to argue against polygamy.

 

[Eboue]

Incest and bigamy are outlawed in some jurisdictions, even amongst consenting adults

I'm pro LGBTQU rights, just playing devils advocate.

Both of those have negative social outcomes. Gay marriage doesn't.

 

[Alex99]

I believe marriage is inherently between a man and a woman by definition.

Bigot.

Therefore it's incoherent to speak of same-sex marriage;

No it isn't.

that's not what marriage is.

It can be.

Most people posting on this topic seem to think that marriage is just a social convention adopted by society

It is.

- like driving on the right, or left-hand side of the road.

You wouldn't download a car.

We could just as easily adopt the opposite side of the road as convention. Or even reverse the function of the colours of our traffic lights (go on red, stop on green).

Yes we could.

In the words of someone much more intelligent than myself,

Sloth of Goonies fame?

'I would say that marriage has always and everywhere been defined and understood to be between a man and a woman,

No it hasn't.

and that, therefore, the union of two persons of the same sex, whatever you might want to call it, just isn’t marriage.

*bigot klaxon*

It would be as if someone wanted to redefine what it means to be an heir of someone else.

No it wouldn't.

Suppose I say, “I want to be the heir of Bill Gates,” and someone says, “Well, you can’t be.

They'd be correct.

To be an heir you have to be designated in the will. You have to be a legal designee,”

Correct. Imagine if two people decided they wanted to marry each other and they could because they both legally designated each other as their spouse?

and I say, “Well, no. I don’t think we should define heir that way. I think an heir can be anybody who would like to have that fortune, and so, that is the way I think an heir should be defined and therefore, I want to be an heir of Bill Gates, and I am his heir.”

And I say, I think I should be able to marry Bill Gates (against his will), and I am married to Bill Gates (against his will). Or, Bill Gates could say yes and we could live happily ever after.

Well, I think you can see that is just absurd.

Your face is absurd.

You are just arbitrarily redefining words.

It's almost as if language evolves. Literally grows wings and becomes something new.

That is not what they mean.

Wait, who means what?

Similarly, I would say the same thing for marriage."

Oh, gotcha.

Furthermore, the title of this thread is Gay Marriage, whereas it should really be Same-Sex Marriage

Really, it should be Marriage Equality but we'll let it slide in the interests of not getting it confused with wanting to marry a dead dog.

since it's differentiated from 'regular' marriage through gender, and not through sexual orientation.

Or dead dogs.

Gay people have been perfectly free to marry - just not to members of the same gender!

How wonderful.

So opposing same-sex marriage on these grounds isn't a question of discriminating against homosexuality.

Apart from that being exactly what it is.

People seem to be convinced that to oppose same-sex marriage is to be intolerant,

Because it is.

to be close minded,

Because it is.

and to be bigoted against a certain class of people,

Because it is.

but I disagree.

*bigot klaxon*

Tolerance should mean, “though I disagree with what you say, I will defend to the death, your right to say it.”

I thought we couldn't change the meanings of words? Does it mean that or should it mean that. Also, that's free speech, not tolerance.

So we tolerate people

Not bigots.

but we discriminate between views.

Only against bigoted ones.

We discriminate views as true or false

Not necessarily.

though we tolerate those who advocate false views.

Not necessarily.

We recognize their right to an opinion and their right to express it.

And then say they're a bigot because that's a decent summary.

But in the new tolerance,

Is this like Nu-Rave?

the kind of new value that has been accepted,

What new value? Basic human decency?

you discriminate against people

Only bigots.

but you tolerate all views.

Only non-bigoted ones.

So, that you tolerate same-sex marriage as well as traditional marriage.

Tradition sucks. Let's all bum each other.

You tolerate all the views,

No.

but now you will discriminate, for example, against those who hold traditional views,

"traditional"

by calling them bigots and intolerant and rejecting them and vilifying them.

That's because some people are intolerant bigots that deserve rejection and vilification.

And I expect my views to be tolerated

lol

 

[Archie Leach]

Is @McUnited Jeremy Irons?

 

[Amethyst]

 

[duffer]

To the people against it, what is the downside. Genuine question. Where's the harm if two guys can get married?

 

[ThierryHenry]

It can be ridiculed, but in a broader context his view is a common one in the anti-gay Christian scene, and it needs to be engaged in a constructive debate. Otherwise, it sort of squanders the value of having this thread.

I don't really agree. This isn't an American forum, why is there the need to pander to a ridiculously illiberal point of view that compares homosexuality to shagging dead dogs? That should be an immediate banning, and a cut off point from being allowed to engage in serious debate. How is that any better to calling black people sub-human?

 

[Eboue]

To the people against it, what is the downside. Genuine question. Where's the harm if two guys can get married?

Jesus kills a kitten every time two gay people get married.

 

[Cheesy]

Jesus kills a kitten every time two gay people get married.

Why's he killing them? Surely he'd want to leave more pussy for the men in case they change their minds?

 

[Alex99]

Jesus kills a kitten every time two gay people get married.

A Christian kitten.

 

[Eboue]

Why's he killing them? Surely he'd want to leave more pussy for the men in case they change their minds?

Because Jesus is spiteful. Have you learned nothing from centuries of Christian domination over the western world?

 

[Shamwow]

Why's he killing them? Surely he'd want to leave more pussy for the men in case they change their minds?

I thought Crackers was the terrible pun one?

 

[Silva]

I don't think he compared the two. He was making a point about legal constructs and how vulnerable they are to change.

We're talking about the same guy who's comparing this to declaring yourself Bill Gate's heir. He genuinely thinks they're equal.

Jesus kills a kitten every time two gay people get married.

I thought that was RiPs job.

 

[gormless]

I believe marriage is inherently between a man and a woman by definition. Therefore it's incoherent to speak of same-sex marriage; that's not what marriage is. Most people posting on this topic seem to think that marriage is just a social convention adopted by society - like driving on the right, or left-hand side of the road. We could just as easily adopt the opposite side of the road as convention. Or even reverse the function of the colours of our traffic lights (go on red, stop on green).

In the words of someone much more intelligent than myself, 'I would say that marriage has always and everywhere been defined and understood to be between a man and a woman, and that, therefore, the union of two persons of the same sex, whatever you might want to call it, just isn’t marriage. It would be as if someone wanted to redefine what it means to be an heir of someone else. Suppose I say, “I want to be the heir of Bill Gates,” and someone says, “Well, you can’t be. To be an heir you have to be designated in the will. You have to be a legal designee,” and I say, “Well, no. I don’t think we should define heir that way. I think an heir can be anybody who would like to have that fortune, and so, that is the way I think an heir should be defined and therefore, I want to be an heir of Bill Gates, and I am his heir.” Well, I think you can see that is just absurd. You are just arbitrarily redefining words. That is not what they mean. Similarly, I would say the same thing for marriage."

Furthermore, the title of this thread is Gay Marriage, whereas it should really be Same-Sex Marriage since it's differentiated from 'regular' marriage through gender, and not through sexual orientation. Gay people have been perfectly free to marry - just not to members of the same gender! So opposing same-sex marriage on these grounds isn't a question of discriminating against homosexuality.

People seem to be convinced that to oppose same-sex marriage is to be intolerant, to be close minded, and to be bigoted against a certain class of people, but I disagree. Tolerance should mean, “though I disagree with what you say, I will defend to the death, your right to say it.” So we tolerate people but we discriminate between views. We discriminate views as true or false though we tolerate those who advocate false views. We recognize their right to an opinion and their right to express it. But in the new tolerance, the kind of new value that has been accepted, you discriminate against people but you tolerate all views. So, that you tolerate same-sex marriage as well as traditional marriage. You tolerate all the views, but now you will discriminate, for example, against those who hold traditional views, by calling them bigots and intolerant and rejecting them and vilifying them.

And I expect my views to be tolerated

That's exactly what it is. How could it be anything else?

 

[rednev]

I don't really agree. This isn't an American forum, why is there the need to pander to a ridiculously illiberal point of view that compares homosexuality to shagging dead dogs? That should be an immediate banning, and a cut off point from being allowed to engage in serious debate. How is that any better to calling black people sub-human?

He did not compare gay people to dead dogs. Christ, why do people get so hysterical when it comes to this topic. It makes both sides sound like religious nuts, especially when 'ban him! ban him!' is thrown in.