Loading
These are a few people from the Left who haven't been on in a while. And since leftists have been in short supply I think a little challenge might be in order. So I put forth an open challenge to the Left to a debate on any topic, barring only Religion, of their choosing.
And in case you haven't been keeping track that is part of the problem. Whenever the people in those states have the opportunity the state 'marriages' are denied. As I have said before, call them civil unions. End of controversy.
"why exactly isnt it a marriage(if its in a courthouse)? just because it isnt traditonal? thank you for proving that youre not as smart as you appear-some of the dems actually consider you intelligent.lol"
1) A rebuttal criticizing intellect that contains LOL by default loses
2) A courthouse wedding isn't a traditional marriage, no
"who the hell disagreed with that? i told you i dont think it is a freedom."
<<KristiAnn (Democratic) - 3 days ago: marriage is not a right, it is a basic freedom. if you dont know the diffrence, look it up.>>
"they have been fighting for years to have the oppurtunity to present thier love before god,friends and family."
According to the dogma of most religions, their love is a sin before God. Do you seriously expect a preist, minister, rabbi, imam etc, of that religion to conduct a ceremony for a relationship based in sin?
"i will experience joy on my wedding day.i imagine that they will too.
beautiful parties, decor,honeymoons,etc. hell, thats what look forward to."
Do whatever you want. IMO they are a pain in the arse.
"if weddings werent beautiful, i wouldt want one personally. i answered that question already. its a set and stone aggreement that they will remain faithful to each other and have eternal love throughout all situations. why do you think so many people get married?"
Tradition. We've been over this.
"hey jackass, "
that'll help you win arguments....
"religious people could still get married . what religion says that gay marriage is wrong?"
The dogmas of most major religions hold that homosexuality is a sin. To marry two people of the same gender is in effect condoning a sinful oath before God.
"people say its wrong, not the bible. islam may be the only religion. thats a very small minority in the united states. "
Yet large enough to overturn every court, govenor, mayoral or congressional ruling that allowed the practice, every single time it came to a vote no matter where the vote is held.
"traditions? isnt it traditional for blacks and whites not to marry one another? for women not to work? not every tradition is good."
I never said they were, likewise not every tradition is bad or needs to be changed. In this case the minority is trying to force acceptance upon the majority, using government which is supposed to work *for* the people, not *upon* them. That is a really good recipe for social resistance and loss of ground. Instead of trying to find a palatable compromise the 'gay marriage' groups are trying to get government to do their dirty work for them, and people like myself fight back. This is that who 'tearing the fabric of religion, traditions, and anti-government intrusion" I've been talking about.
"a quickie las vegas wedding is something that you will stand behind but not a gay wedding thats filled with love and intimacy. tsk tsk tsk"
Actually no, I do not appreciate the LV weddings at all. Those are something condoned by the Nevada state government as a revenue stream. The wedding chapels have no problems wedding anything that comes through the door, so long as it is male and female. Usually they are terrible decisions and the newlyweds regret what they did.
"another question, say that there was a religion that states it is okay for gays to marry. should that religion be ignored so that the alpha dog( christianity) would be satisfied?"
Actually there is a Christian denomination that condones gay marriages: Unitarians. They hold the belief that God is love, and that He sees no difference in love between genders so long as they truly love each other. Buddhists also have no problem with a wedding ceremony since they see the spirit of the individual and not the external genitalia. They will entertain the prospect of marrying a homosexual couple, though I do not claim to know what other conditions they may require. The government will not license it as a marriage however, and there we come back to the true problem. Consenting adult homosexual couples are being denied the same legal benefits that consenting adult heterosexual couples are. That is the inequality problem, and that is the only thing that the government should fix. Government should not get involved in Marriage.
Do you understand the compromise here?
"my point is that christianity isnt the only religion in the world and we are definitley not the creators behind it. why should we be favored. we are one of the 90+ plus religions in the world after all"
When have I ever mentioned a specific religion by name in my previous arguments? Stop blaming Christianity for this issue. Perhaps you should ask yourself why there is a reason that gay marriage has not been condoned in any major influential culture following any religion in any part of the world in recorded history, even though many of those cultures were more tolerant towards homosexuality than ours has historically been, with the caveat that they did allow same-sex contracts and partnerships.... but not proper marriages.
traditonal marriages had little to do with religion. not every state: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hamsphire and California have performed ceromonies.
its all about taste. some people are traditional and perfer those things. personally, there will be no rice throwing( its illegal in my state to do that) and garters? please. i wont be changing my last name and i will probally not want my father to walk me down the aisle. just because im not traditional doesnt mean i wont be married.
civil unions should be a choice left to any couple...so should a wedding.
why exactly isnt it a marriage(if its in a courthouse)? just because it isnt traditonal? thank you for proving that youre not as smart as you appear-some of the dems actually consider you intelligent.lol
who the hell disagreed with that? i told you i dont think it is a freedom.
they have been fighting for years to have the oppurtunity to present thier love before god,friends and family. i will experience joy on my wedding day.i imagine that they will too.
beautiful parties, decor,honeymoons,etc. hell, thats what look forward to. if weddings werent beautiful, i wouldt want one personally. i answered that question already. its a set and stone aggreement that they will remain faithful to each other and have eternal love throughout all situations. why do you think so many people get married?
hey jackass, religious people could still get married . what religion says that gay marriage is wrong? people say its wrong, not the bible. islam may be the only religion. thats a very small minority in the united states.
traditions? isnt it traditional for blacks and whites not to marry one another? for women not to work? not every tradition is good. a quickie las vegas wedding is something that you will stand behind but not a gay wedding thats filled with love and intimacy. tsk tsk tsk
another question, say that there was a religion that states it is okay for gays to marry. should that religion be ignored so that the alpha dog( christianity) would be satisfied? my point is that christianity isnt the only religion in the world and we are definitley not the creators behind it. why should we be favored. we are one of the 90+ plus religions in the world after all
"i am incorporating the meaning of marriage inside of the actual ceromony/wedding."
I noticed. The social progressive part of our society is hard at work to remove religion from marriage. As we have seen from every state vote by the people so far, they are losing.
When people think 'marriage' they think 'in a church.' They think throwing rice, grabbing bouquets, and nabbing the garter. They think of traditions.
Your definition, however, is perfect for civil unions, commonlaw, and/or being partnered by a justice of the peace.
Do I have a problem with gay civil unions? Not one bit. Do I think two gay men or women who are commited to each other deserve the same legal benefits that a heteroseual couples gets because of government? Absolutely. I just don't think it is a marriage. My wife's sister was wed in a courthouse, I don't say they are married either.
Next, a freedom is something that a person innately has that is as natural as breathing. It does not require another person to enable the freedom, it does not place an obligation on another. By that definition Marriage is not a freedom. It requires at least 3 other people: the soon-to-be-spouse, a minister, and the deity that the couple places their vows to. This doesn't even get into growing up past adolescence, dating, falling in love, engagement, finding a church, etc.
Now you say that gays will feel joy when they get married. Why? How does a ceremony make their love any greater? How does it increase their happiness? How does it improve what they already have? Seriously, I wish people would just be honest and admit this is about legal partnership benefits, and not marriage.
Finally, you ask how this will affect me personally. It will tear away at the fabric of religion. It will give government another excuse to encroach on my life and our traditions. It will give another inch to social progressives. Therefore I say no, I do not support gay marriages. I do not support legal encroachment upon religion.
Stick with calling for legal benefits to all commited couples, people will be much more sympathetic to that rather than seeing their traditions further eroded by people who think they know better.
anyone who lives in loganville georgia knows that there is no such thing as a liberal school system... or the south in general
i read the bible(not as often as i should) more than alot of other
people. i, a christian, dont know anything of hate. i resent that statement but enjoy the ignorrance inside.
i put my definition followed by an online source...is that a problem?
my mom is against it and my dad,(as he would say) "doesnt give a rats @ss"
i have not claimed marriage to be a right. i recognize it as being a basic freedom.
i dont believe government should be involved in personal choices such that of gay marriage.
it will redifine marriage? wasnt that the same argument people in the sixties used to justify the the damning of intteracial marriage?
traditional marriages took place after the father found a rich man he thought his daughter might like. modern day unions redefine traditional marriage by a long shot. is that okay?
undeniably, it will redefine marriage...for the better
i do agree with that. many claim that its a religious institution but believe two atheists have more right than two male christians. it has little to do with religion, it s a freedom that everyone deserves
Once again i have to invoke the difference betweeen a privilige which requires a license and a right and a freedom. marrriage is a privilige, hence the marriage license. and just like people require a certain age to get a drivers license, there are certain standards for abtaining a marriage license.
Government in marriage- originally i beleive marriage in itself belongs to religion but society has taken it from religions and declared it an institution under the government. your definition of marriage (the webster) mentions it being recognized by law. that is why government is involved, it has become a government institution.
would gay marriage affect us all- Yes, it will redefine marriage
P.S- but ultimately, the way i see it is, since the society has already removed the religious sanctity of marriage, what reason do they have for declaring that marriage be between a man and a woman. that statement in itself is religious.
Teikiatsu don't bother with trying to get anything into her thick skull, she has been indoctrinated into believing what she is saying by the liberal school system and media. She will spout verses of the bible and has probably never read it, liberals hate Christianity.
She had to go to a dictionary to define it, that shows she doesn't have a clue, her parents would probably disagree with her on this and most of the things she says.
me:
when two beings of either the same (or opposite) sex commit themselves to one another and present thier vows before at least one witness. i am incorporating the meaning of marriage inside of the actual ceromony/wedding.
merriam-webster dictionary:
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
marriage is not a right, it is a basic freedom. if you dont know the diffrence, look it up.
is that a serious question? if gay marriage was legal in all 50 states, it would have a huge impact on the gay community. gay men and woman experiencing a specific joy that for years only straight people could capture would be an unexplainable feeling.
ive answered all of your ludacris questions, i have just one for you. how will it impact you personally?
Define marriage, let me see how much you think you know.
Then try to explain to me how marriage is a right.
Finally, describe to me how gays being able to marry like a heterosexual couple improves anything, how it will impact their lives.
yes and yes. no,you cant ask any questions to show "my ignorance". even if you did, id still be smarter than most of the people on this site.
i know plenty of what i speak and have fool proof evedence to back it up. do you?
liberal masters???
Do you know how AIDS got to our country without looking it up? Do you know the date of the Spanish Armadas attack on England without looking it up? I could ask you many questions that show your ignorance and you question my memory. You are a liberal who knows little of what you speak and only know to parrot what your liberal masters tell you.
how arrogant for a government to tell people whom they can marry. gay marriage will not impact your life in any way. marriage has little to do religion. especially when atheists get married everyday.
exactly what major religions rebuke homosexuality? christianity and catholicism?not even. the bible does, however, state that unless your a virgin, you shouldnt wed...so i guess alot of people should have thier license revoked.
priests dont have to be forced to perform ceromonies. there are plenty who will do it willingly. redefining the institution?okay
your timeline is a joke. you have no substantial defense for your beliefs. i just defied your outrageous theory about the gay conspiracy and you return to direct me to wikipedia...really?
a site that anyone with an account can contribute to? get a life
I'm against gays redefining marriage, I am not against them being allowed to join in a consenting partnership where they gain the same legal benefits as a heterosexual couple. But it's not marriage unless a church performs it.
The institution of marriage predates American government, hell most existing governments. It is a religious ceremony representing the oath of a man and a woman before their God to share their lives with one another. How arrogant for a government to think it can change what marriage is,
If those religions do not condone homosexuality, the government cannot force them to bend knee and cast aside their beliefs. There is no right to marry, you cannot force a priest, rabbi or imam to perform the ceremony when they choose not to.
So there you go. The gay marriage argument is ill defined. Conservatives don't have a problem with gays getting legal benefits, we have a problem with redefining the institution. If gays would change the message I bet the results would be better.
So, you choose to debate Gay Marriage? Alright then.
Civil Unions are the domain of the government, the only of of the groups you listed that a case could be made against allowing them to have civil unions would be the marriage of kin.
Marriage is the domain of the people, a tradition pased down for centuries. It is controled by the people. The government has no power upon it other than to make sure those who are getting married are of the age of consent.
You are the umpteenth person to accuse me of this so let me make myself perfectly clear. I do not nor have I ever advocated for a "War on Coitus". What people do in the bedroom is none of my damn business and I frankly don't care. Abortion is another matter but we've been over that one many times before.
I have never downloaded, subscribed to or bought anything pornographic. Ever. Wasn't it you who said, and I quote, "I never assume, I don't like the taste of my foot."?
Use Wikipedia or whatever, I am correct in my time line and facts, They were wanting government sanctioned marriage in the 80's for insurance(spouse coverage) and survivor benefits, Social security etc. Mostly a money scam.
gay men were the first in america to get the aids virus, but there is no evidence that the first "outcry" came forth because of that. the 80s was when aids risen for the gay community but, little do you know the first gay marriage took place in the 1970s. wanna admit that youre a liar? i found the article, it is on a civil rights website and unbiased:
http://yesongaymarriage.com/why_yes/history_of_gay_marriage/
by the way: you responded to the wrong comment. as i suspect you did because the other one was more harsh and full of questions that youre incapable of answering.
You are to young to remember when AIDS was killing the gay bathouse community. It was in the news at that time and it is a fact that the first gay marriage outcry was then and the had gays saying what I posted. YOU find articles from the 80's, my memory serves me. I don't need to find the articles.
definition of democratic: Democracy is a form government in which state-power is held by the majority of citizens within a country or a state......straight from Wikipedia.
Show me where it says that a democrat's personal viewpoint regarding other political parties is subject to their political stance.
I am a South African Democrat only. America is first world and I feel it needs some moral standing to be kept in place as there is no apartheid there. South Africa is still living in an apartheid mindset , I stand against that here which makes me part of the DEMOCRATIC ALLIANCE in South Africa.
yes fine being a democrat has a stand point but as far as America goes I am fully right! you only need to open your eyes and look around you and you could clearly see why.
Ahhh Gay marriage. What you do, who you date, who you have sex with, and who you marry is none of my business unless you do those things with a person of protected status. Wanna marry your cousin? As long as they are of the legal age of consent, who cares? A man wants to marry a man? A woman wants to marry a woman? Who the hell cares?!?!?!?!
American's seem to have a problem with 1. minding their own business, if it doesn't hurt or harm you why care? 2. keeping their mouths shut, if it's not your business then why speak out? 3. knowing when to leave things be and walk away, why keep the argument alive when you aren't going to change minds? you are going to get more people involved in the opposition when they hear the vileness coming from your mouth. 4. realize they can't change the world to fit their own selfish agenda? if it's not fair the majority then why should the minority get the field day?
Just let it rest already. What I decide to do with my body is my business, don't tell me who to have sex with and then try to deny me an abortion. Don't tell him he can't have sex with him because you think it's an abomination. Don't tell her that she can't have sex with her for love but you turn around and stream internet porn of the same exact thing. Stop being HYPOCRITES......
Interesting that you are bashing the leftists but claim the democratic party.
PLEASE find where i claimed to be 13 years old, i really need a good laugh. maybe the (claimed) other users can help you out.
heck yes, i called patriot a pedophile. im not ashamed...
what part of biology dont i understand? children are not the reason people get married. it might be why they stay married but many many couples have children without getting married. my parents were together(unmarried) for 14 years they made it official about 3 years ago. and i was not the reason for that. if gay peple get married, what big impact will it hve on you. find a hobby and mind your own business.
you never answered my question...coward
Like I said, you don't understand biology. I am talking about the basis of marriage how it started. Today biology pheromones and unconscious eye, facial, and body signals have more to do with love than most people would like to admit. Children are the reason for marriage weather you would like to admit it or not. There are those that do not have children but they are a vast minority with a majority of those unable to conceive.
So far 2 other people remember you or one of your friends saying you were 13, one said you called him a pedophile for making a remark about you.
so you think that unless youre gay, you shouldnt get involved in addressing the issue? if that was how you were raised then i feel bad for you-your parents shorthanded you in your upbringing.
the basis of marriage is not children. how many times do i have to bash this into your head?
the primary reason people get married is because they love each other. plenty of couples get married and decide to never have children. is that okay?please answer that question- your reply is in await.
>single woman had a hard time caring for a child on her own and to secure the child's future and pass on his genes the man formed a bond with the woman that later became a sanctioned event.<
are you suggesting that the very first marriage involved pregnancy out of wedlock?
no, the first marriages were arranged by the woman's father. after the lucky groom paid him of course. that a far cry for children.
can you cite a LEGIT source that claims AIDS is the reason gays wanted to get married? i cant take you serious when all you do is mustar out opinions and have the arrogance to attempt passing them off as facts.
I barred he DEBATING of religion. Not the use of it. But I don't need it on this topic.
Civil Unions are the domain of the government, the government oversees them and has no stance in denying them to anybody except in rare cases.
Marriage is the domain of the people.The government has no right to interfere with it insofar as to insure that the two are not related. The people decide when to alter a tradition held for centuries. Not the government.
And I have never said I am a Republican. I haven't said which, if any, Party I'm registered with and I don't have any plans to do so as of this moment. Also, I think you are either confusing Republican to be synonymous with Conservativism or Republicanism. Which it is not. At one time Republican was a synonym for the latter. But not anymore.
SPREAD THE WORD