Gay Weddings

[Bombers 2003]

I don't think my cat will want to marry my dpg now, after he buried him.

Well not only that,but because they are completly different un'marriable' species.
Mantis
Dont take that comment the wrong way,it's just i thought your comment is silly.

 

[otaku]

Gay marriage?

Fine - go for it.

Churches get upset by the use of the word? Tough t***ies. Marriage is a legal state as well as a religious one.

If churches dont want to recognise a gay marriage a a religiously sanctified state of being, then fine. It should be a legal right though

 

[IntheNet]

please explain how allowing gay marriage (or civil union) weakens the traditional institution of marriage.

It cheapens the institution by reducing the standards, allowing perverts to partake; like allowing school athletes to play professional... like that...

Laws are laws; homosexuals cannot partake in marriage since they fail to meet the qualifications of one of each sex, rather than two of one. I am not willing to change the laws simply because a small minority cannot qualify.

 

[Mr Q]

It cheapens the institution by reducing the standards, allowing perverts to partake; like allowing school athletes to play professional... like that...

Hmmmm. I've never had a problem with "school" athletes playing professional sport. Since its not even that uncommon for school age sportsmen to play at the top level of the sport that this site is devoted to, you're probably not going to get far with that argument.

As for cheapening the standards, how would gay marriage cheapen the standards any more than say a celebrity marriage that lasts two months?

Laws are laws; homosexuals cannot partake in marriage since they fail to meet the qualifications of one of each sex, rather than two of one. I am not willing to change the laws simply because a small minority cannot qualify.

I would have thought that the primary qualification was two people that love each other. But hey, if your narrow mind wants to focus on special requirements when it comes to their wobbly bits, feel free.

You seem like the sort that would want the law changed to require (un)Intelligent Design to be taught in Science classes alongside evolution, even though that would be a much bigger issue - the invasion of religion into state education.

 

[IntheNet]

I would have thought that the primary qualification was two people that love each other...

And you would be wrong. According to most international requirements... love is not really a factor for marriage rite as it is a quantity which cannot be measured or legally determined, whereas sex; i.e., one male and one female participants, can be measured and is the international standard for tradiational marriage law.

 

[Mr Q]

And you would be wrong. According to most international requirements... love is not really a factor for marriage rite as it is a quantity which cannot be measured or legally determined, whereas sex; i.e., one male and one female participants, can be measured and is the international standard for tradiational marriage law.

Then its about time that we changed the law. I'd rate it more important to reduce the number of marriages that break down because the participants don't love each other than to arbitrarily state that its all OK because the participants have alternate genitalia.

 

[IntheNet]

Then its about time that we changed the law...

How do you measure "love"? Define its quantity? Love is not something the state should be concerned with; rather it should enforce the current laws, as written. For marriage, that means participants need to follow the law. One participant from each sex, male and female, for traditional marriage, has worked fine for 2,000 years...why change it for a few social outcasts that can't follow the law?

 

[Mr Q]

One participant from each sex, male and female, for traditional marriage, has worked fine for 2,000 years...

Go tell that to all the kids in broken homes....

 

[Monkster]

Hmmmm. I've never had a problem with "school" athletes playing professional sport. Since its not even that uncommon for school age sportsmen to play at the top level of the sport that this site is devoted to, you're probably not going to get far with that argument.

I believe he means amatuers playing professionally. Not the age of the participant rather their professional status.

 

[hawkeye23]

Go tell that to all the kids in broken homes....

Got him! Yes, he's gone!

 

[arrowman]

It cheapens the institution by reducing the standards, allowing perverts to partake; like allowing school athletes to play professional... like that...

In your opinion. An opinion that a church may be entitled to hold for its own definition of "the institution of marriage" but the question of how civil unions may be formed is one for the government.

Laws are laws;

When they suit you. I'm sure there are laws you would like to see changed.

... homosexuals cannot partake in marriage since they fail to meet the qualifications of one of each sex, rather than two of one.

Well, duh. That's what the argument is about.

I am not willing to change the laws simply because a small minority cannot qualify.

Do you think it is fair that that "small minority" currently actually enjoy an advantage over the heterosexual community in terms of welfare benefits etc?

 

[arrowman]

How do you measure "love"? Define its quantity? Love is not something the state should be concerned with;

And yet you think the state should be concerned with defining and enforcing "morality".

... rather it should enforce the current laws, as written.

As long as they suit you. Remember you said that next time you think a law should be changed.

For marriage, that means participants need to follow the law. One participant from each sex, male and female, for traditional marriage, has worked fine for 2,000 years...why change it for a few social outcasts that can't follow the law?

As I asked in my previous post - do you think it is OK that homosexuals enjoy an advantage over the heterosexual community in terms of welfare benefits etc?

 

[Mr Q]

I believe he means amatuers playing professionally. Not the age of the participant rather their professional status.

I'm sure he does, but he should perhaps learn to be a bit more generic in his terminology, rather than just assuming that people outside the US are just Americans that don't live in the States.

Mind you, this is the guy who said we should make it law in Australia to say the Pledge of Alleigiance every day, so I'm guessing he either has little or no actual knowledge of Australia.

 

[Bombers 2003]

Do you think it is fair that that "small minority" currently actually enjoy an advantage over the heterosexual community in terms of welfare benefits etc?

But is this strictly true?

 

[CursoryMercenary]

Wrong.

Reasons: It promotes immorality and grants social acceptance of perversion. Further, there is no procreative reason for it.

Yeah, and it was never meant to be this way in the first place.

 

[arrowman]

But is this strictly true?

In some areas, it is true - for example, a cohabiting heterosexual couple cannot avoid (after a period of time) being assessed as a de facto couple (rather than two singles) for purpose of calculating welfare entitlements. In other areas of course, heterosexuals have the advantage. I'm just challenging the poster's thinking.

 

[Murray]

Yeah, and it was never meant to be this way in the first place.

Says who?

 

[vindor]

Can your cat marry your dog? No. Why? Because we as a society are willing to apply standards and uphold an institution. Why cheapen it?

Ahem, looks like these "standards" you were talking about have just been flushed down the toilet. For more information visit the following url:

woman marries dolphin

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3191923,00.html

hahahaha
"At least the kids will learn to swim. Think of the savings on lessons!" hahahaha

Anyway, Im off to marry an inanimate carbon rod.

 

[skilts]

Ahem,
Anyway, Im off to marry an inanimate carbon rod.

That'll be hard.

 

[mantis]

That'll be hard.

Boom Tish.

 

[iameviljez]

Anyway, Im off to marry an inanimate carbon rod.

Well, make sure you use plenty of lubricant with that thing.

 

[Bombers 2003]

Im off to marry an inanimate carbon rod.

Why would anyone want to marry Van der ZeeValk?

 

[hawkeye23]

Anyway, Im off to marry an inanimate carbon rod.

Who'd marry a Cloke????

 

[Bombers 2003]

Who'd marry a Cloke????

Who'd marry Chris Judd?