Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Dreadwinter wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:Telling supporters of gay marriage to calm down and then comparing homosexuality to bestiality is like saying "calm down, you FETHING BASTARDS", IE, it's inherently contradictory.

That explains why it never has the desired effect when I gently remind the childrens that my yard has hazards and is not a good place to play on.

It would also help if you were not letting the Weiner Legions out of your house while saying it.....

It not the old wienie you can see that is the danger. Its the young wiener quietly sneaking up behind you that is the NOM!NOM!NOM! OH GOD SO MUCH BLOOD!

Frazzled wrote:It not the old wienie you can see that is the danger. Its the young wiener quietly sneaking up behind you that is the NOM!NOM!NOM! OH GOD SO MUCH BLOOD!

apparently the biggest danger is someone with a weiner trying to marry another person with a weiner.

But seriously ...i dunno why this issue matters at all. The simplest solution is to make all unions between partners civil unions. If you wish to get married (which lets face it is a religious rite) you can take it up with a priest, rabbi, reverend, imam ect. Therefore all peoples are equal under civil law whilst keeping the use of marriage palatable to those religious people, who want to take issue with gay marriage. Problem solved. Bullockist....solving stupid problems since 2012.

starhawks wrote:I would first like to say I am completely for gay marriage, if it were up to me I'd legalize it across the country. However, it really bothers me when people complain and rage against people whose opinions differ from theirs. I'm referring to posts in this thread. Just because you're offended by someone's opinion doesn't mean it's the wrong opinion, or that they're bad people. It's just a differing opinion.

If your opinions are racists, then you are a racist.
If your opinions are sexist, then you are a sexist.
If you opinions are bigoted, then you are a bigot.

There are right and wrong opinions.

Sirlynchmob you are very aptly named. Remember that peoples opinions are not black and white and vary from person to person. Getting anal about stuff leads very quickly to thinking your right about things which in the end leads to being a bigot (even if you think your opinions are "right")

Bullockist wrote:Sirlynchmob you are very aptly named. Remember that peoples opinions are not black and white and vary from person to person. Getting anal about stuff leads very quickly to thinking your right about things which in the end leads to being a bigot (even if you think your opinions are "right")

I'm glad you agree, that their are right and wrong opinions.

I don't think that's what he said.

Bullockist wrote:

Frazzled wrote:It not the old wienie you can see that is the danger. Its the young wiener quietly sneaking up behind you that is the NOM!NOM!NOM! OH GOD SO MUCH BLOOD!

apparently the biggest danger is someone with a weiner trying to marry another person with a weiner.

But seriously ...i dunno why this issue matters at all. The simplest solution is to make all unions between partners civil unions. If you wish to get married (which lets face it is a religious rite) you can take it up with a priest, rabbi, reverend, imam ect. Therefore all peoples are equal under civil law whilst keeping the use of marriage palatable to those religious people, who want to take issue with gay marriage. Problem solved. Bullockist....solving stupid problems since 2012.

I did not have a religious wedding (shock horror I know ) but why can't I be 'married' just because I don't have an imaginary friend? What exactly makes that the sole property of the religious?]

SilverMK2 wrote:I did not have a religious wedding (shock horror I know ) but why can't I be 'married' just because I don't have an imaginary friend? What exactly makes that the sole property of the religious?]

Do you also wonder why you can't take communion or have a bar mitzvah?

Personally, I'd respect gay marriage proponents a lot more if they would advocate for polygamy.

biccat wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:I did not have a religious wedding (shock horror I know ) but why can't I be 'married' just because I don't have an imaginary friend? What exactly makes that the sole property of the religious?]

Do you also wonder why you can't take communion or have a bar mitzvah?

Personally, I'd respect gay marriage proponents a lot more if they would advocate for polygamy.

The term marriage is not reserved for those who follow the Bible, be it old or new testament. Hindus can also get married and there is nothing in their holy texts (which pre-date the Bible) which forbids marriage between a homosexual couple.

I say by all means allow polygamy so long as the man/woman is fully capable of supporting their husbands/wives emotionally, financially and physically.

biccat wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:I did not have a religious wedding (shock horror I know ) but why can't I be 'married' just because I don't have an imaginary friend? What exactly makes that the sole property of the religious?]

Do you also wonder why you can't take communion or have a bar mitzvah?

Personally, I'd respect gay marriage proponents a lot more if they would advocate for polygamy.

if you want to marry more than one wife, go for it. others have already done so. but no one is currently trying to change constitutions to specifically ban the the states recognition of them, that's the difference here.

why can't have a bar mitzvah if you'd like, Its just a big part when you turn 13.
If everyone starts having a big bar mitvah party when their kids turn 13 do you think they jews would push for laws to ban the practice? I doubt it.

A communion is just a feast, you could call thanksgiving, or christmas dinners communions if you'd like. or any dinner party really.

First thing we need when we get a time machine is to go back int time. Get Jesus, and bring him here to tell everyone how we have gotten his teaching.

hotsauceman1 wrote:First thing we need when we get a time machine is to go back int time. Get Jesus, and bring him here to tell everyone how we have gotten his teaching.

Then we get a gak load of water bottles and have a huge partay!!

sirlynchmob wrote:if you want to marry more than one wife, go for it. others have already done so. but no one is currently trying to change constitutions to specifically ban the the states recognition of them, that's the difference here.

Likely because there hasn't been any push to make polygamy legal in those states.

Also, polygamy is at least a misdemeanor throughout the US. And a felony in many.

Let me know when they criminalize gay marriage and we can have a discussion.

biccat wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:if you want to marry more than one wife, go for it. others have already done so. but no one is currently trying to change constitutions to specifically ban the the states recognition of them, that's the difference here.

Likely because there hasn't been any push to make polygamy legal in those states.

Also, polygamy is at least a misdemeanor throughout the US. And a felony in many.

Let me know when they criminalize gay marriage and we can have a discussion.

you can marry a wife, so you're one up on the gays and 1/2 way to a polygamous marriage. Let me know when a man married to another man gets elected to the senate. These are two different issues. the gays just want marriage equality, so they can marry the person they love.

but the polygamy/polyandry issue is interesting in itself, you think it should be part of the gay rights movement, yet I would think it would be the christians pushing for it. It is supported by the bible after all.

but here you go:
Tom Green is an American polygamist. This month, he will appeal his conviction in Utah for that offense to the United States Supreme Court, in a case that could redefine the limits of marriage, privacy and religious freedom.

sirlynchmob wrote:the gays just want marriage equality, so they can marry the person they love.

So do polygamists.

sirlynchmob wrote:but the polygamy/polyandry issue is interesting in itself, you think it should be part of the gay rights movement

If it's wrong to limit marriage to a man-woman couple, why isn't it equally wrong to limit marriage to 2 people? Consistency of the argument requires supporting polygamy.

sirlynchmob wrote:Tom Green is an American polygamist. This month, he will appeal his conviction in Utah for that offense to the United States Supreme Court, in a case that could redefine the limits of marriage, privacy and religious freedom.

And cert. will probably be denied.

Nobody is advocating for polygamy because it's not popular. That's all.

biccat wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:the gays just want marriage equality, so they can marry the person they love.

So do polygamists.

sirlynchmob wrote:but the polygamy/polyandry issue is interesting in itself, you think it should be part of the gay rights movement

If it's wrong to limit marriage to a man-woman couple, why isn't it equally wrong to limit marriage to 2 people? Consistency of the argument requires supporting polygamy.

sirlynchmob wrote:Tom Green is an American polygamist. This month, he will appeal his conviction in Utah for that offense to the United States Supreme Court, in a case that could redefine the limits of marriage, privacy and religious freedom.

And cert. will probably be denied.

Nobody is advocating for polygamy because it's not popular. That's all.

nice hatchet job on my post, and again they are two different issues. That is all.

biccat wrote:Do you also wonder why you can't take communion or have a bar mitzvah?

No, because they are religious rites (as far as I am aware, though the comments above seem to indicate otherwise), while marriage is not.

SilverMK2 wrote:

biccat wrote:Do you also wonder why you can't take communion or have a bar mitzvah?

No, because they are religious rites (as far as I am aware, though the comments above seem to indicate otherwise), while marriage is not.

It is a sacrament if you're Catholic.

DoctorZombie wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:

biccat wrote:Do you also wonder why you can't take communion or have a bar mitzvah?

No, because they are religious rites (as far as I am aware, though the comments above seem to indicate otherwise), while marriage is not.

It is a sacrament if you're Catholic.

Otherwise it's just wafer and wine.

A Town Called Malus wrote:Otherwise it's just wafer and wine.

Only lacking cheese to be something sophisticated

A Town Called Malus wrote:

DoctorZombie wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:

biccat wrote:Do you also wonder why you can't take communion or have a bar mitzvah?

No, because they are religious rites (as far as I am aware, though the comments above seem to indicate otherwise), while marriage is not.

It is a sacrament if you're Catholic.

Otherwise it's just wafer and wine.

We prefer the terms Jesus Juice and ChristChex thanks!

DoctorZombie wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:

biccat wrote:Do you also wonder why you can't take communion or have a bar mitzvah?

No, because they are religious rites (as far as I am aware, though the comments above seem to indicate otherwise), while marriage is not.

It is a sacrament if you're Catholic.

The legal institution of marriage != the Catholic sacrament.

sirlynchmob wrote:

starhawks wrote:I would first like to say I am completely for gay marriage, if it were up to me I'd legalize it across the country. However, it really bothers me when people complain and rage against people whose opinions differ from theirs. I'm referring to posts in this thread. Just because you're offended by someone's opinion doesn't mean it's the wrong opinion, or that they're bad people. It's just a differing opinion.

If your opinions are racists, then you are a racist.
If your opinions are sexist, then you are a sexist.
If you opinions are bigoted, then you are a bigot.

There are right and wrong opinions.

Right, but they are opinions, and those opposing gay marriage are completely entitled to their opinion. Even though I personally disagree, I don't have the right to say they're wrong. It would be hypocritical.

starhawks wrote:Right, but they are opinions

Why should opinions be sacrosanct?

starhawks wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

starhawks wrote:I would first like to say I am completely for gay marriage, if it were up to me I'd legalize it across the country. However, it really bothers me when people complain and rage against people whose opinions differ from theirs. I'm referring to posts in this thread. Just because you're offended by someone's opinion doesn't mean it's the wrong opinion, or that they're bad people. It's just a differing opinion.

If your opinions are racists, then you are a racist.
If your opinions are sexist, then you are a sexist.
If you opinions are bigoted, then you are a bigot.

There are right and wrong opinions.

Right, but they are opinions, and those opposing gay marriage are completely entitled to their opinion. Even though I personally disagree, I don't have the right to say they're wrong. It would be hypocritical.

and if they state an opinion that is known to be wrong, you should point it out to them. Or is it hypocritical to point out to people who think the earth is flat, that its really not?

If it was just their opinion that's one thing, but those people who think gay marriage is wrong, are acting on their wrong opinions and discriminating against other americans. Just because they think its wrong should not lead to a bigoted campaign against a minority group in america, and taking it to the point where they are modifying constitutions just to discriminate against them. Its wrong, its horribly wrong. No two consenting adults should have to ask permission to get married, and the government should have no power to say no to anyone for any reason.

Its really no different from when that same religion said interracial marriages are wrong. they were wrong then, and they are wrong now.

My litmus test is "does it hurt anyone"

who does two same sex couples marrying hurt? no one.
Who does it hurt when they are forbidden to marry by constitution? anyone who is kicked out of a hospital room when their partner is dying. being denied the 1,049 other benefits the government grants married couples.

http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm
"The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them. "

just think about it a minute and ask yourself.
"when I go/went to get married, what if the government told me no, that I couldn't marry this person" is that ok with you? Do you really think the government should have this power? If you think its wrong if its done to you then its wrong for any american.

Maybe I didn't make it clear enough that I would like to see gay marriage legalized? Take, for example, if someone was opposed to gay marriage because it conflicts with their religion. I have no right whatsoever to say their belief is wrong, and they're bad people for it. It's just not right. That being said, I DO feel the goverment has no right to say some people have rights while others don't based on sexual preference, and people who feel otherwise should just have to live with it.

starhawks wrote:Maybe I didn't make it clear enough that I would like to see gay marriage legalized? Take, for example, if someone was opposed to gay marriage because it conflicts with their religion. I have no right whatsoever to say their belief is wrong, and they're bad people for it. It's just not right. That being said, I DO feel the goverment has no right to say some people have rights while others don't based on sexual preference, and people who feel otherwise should just have to live with it.

Sure you do, if someone voices an opinion on something, you are free to state your opinion on it. And if they have a opinion that is wrong, you should tell them they are wrong. And time permitting you should start pulling up all the facts you need to demonstrate them to be wrong.

sirlynchmob wrote:

starhawks wrote:Maybe I didn't make it clear enough that I would like to see gay marriage legalized? Take, for example, if someone was opposed to gay marriage because it conflicts with their religion. I have no right whatsoever to say their belief is wrong, and they're bad people for it. It's just not right. That being said, I DO feel the goverment has no right to say some people have rights while others don't based on sexual preference, and people who feel otherwise should just have to live with it.

Sure you do, if someone voices an opinion on something, you are free to state your opinion on it. And if they have a opinion that is wrong, you should tell them they are wrong. And time permitting you should start pulling up all the facts you need to demonstrate them to be wrong.

This. An opinion which you are using in this kind of way (denying people rights) should be based on facts and evidence and be open to change if the facts and evidence change.

The opinion of gay marriage being wrong is completely different to the opinion of "X is the prettiest woman in the world" unless we lived in a society where the prettiest person got tax breaks and more legal rights than an just average looking person.

Well I guess we have....different opinions on opinions.

We seem to be a rather... opinionated bunch. Having opinions on opinions.


This is just my Opinion though.