Why do YOU have the right to vote on MY rights?

[Quiddity]

so if i can provide a religious aspect to my gay marriage....... that is to say, if i can show that a form of deity i worship approves of homosexual marriage, is it then allowable?

My OP regarding the history of marriage was directed at Pah and I did not intend to say what you just said.

 

[Quiddity]

My G-d does. : D My G-d will accept your marriage.


... As long as there's some crabcakes. Yum. : D

Talk about a pissing contest.

 

[Mike182]

My OP regarding the history of marriage was directed at Pah and I did not intend to say what you just said.

i think the religious aspect of marriage is off topic to this debate, maybe a follow-up thread for it?

 

[Quiddity]

i think the religious aspect of marriage is off topic to this debate, maybe a follow-up thread for it?

No problem.

 

[jamaesi]

Talk about a pissing contest.

Talk about can't take a joke.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Because homosexuals are human.

I second that motion.

Motion denied

*sound of gavel falling*

Wow, that was an incredibly mean thing to say. Surely you didn't intend to suggest that homosexuals are not human?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

You continue to make the same assertion over and over and over again. What I am asking for is evidence that this assertion is correct and NO ONE has been able to provide that.

I think the evidence that gay marriage should be a right is the same as the evidence that "straight" marriage should be a right: the evidence is that it does not infringe on anyone else's rights, and in a free society people should have the legal right to live their life as they choose as long as they aren't infringing on other peoples' rights.

Pedophilia, rape, theft, etc. all infringe on the rights of other citizens. I know you and Victor say you aren't making a comparison between pedophilia and rape and gay marriage, but in fact that is exactly what you are doing. Imagine how flabbergasted you would be if you were talking to someone who opposed interracial marriage, and he/she mentioned the fact that "Hey, we have to have some morality, you know....if we allow interracial marriage, why not allow pedophilia, rape, and theft?"

 

[nutshell]

And yet he seems to be the only person who doesn't seem to give a toss about it. At least his lack of comment infers such.

He did comment on it. You weren't listening.

Yeah, and I believe she also said something about commitment. What do you reckon about love in conjunction with commitment? Pray enlighten us.

Obviously, commitment is important too, but the ability to love and commit does not make a couple qualified for marriage.

 

[nutshell]

If it does then I bet it's because everyone is wondering what your evidence is that your assertion of heterosexual marriage is a human right and not homosexual marriage. Evidence further than religious belief. And you have none. Which is why you are getting the responses you are. You adamently stand there stomping your foot down that you are right because you are right with nothing more that your religious belief to back it up. You believe how you believe and demand that others back up their assertions while still staying within the constrains of your belief. Can't work. Never will. You are unable to see the way others see because you are church instructed not to. Because you choose to adhere to that thought you will not be budged by logical, legal, secular talk or speech. It will not reason with you. So asking for evidence you are unwilling to see makes your question a moot point.

The burden of proof is on those seeking to change the definition, not me.

Erase my religious beliefs and I still believe gay marriage is a bad idea.

 

[nutshell]

There's no "PROOF" or "EVIDENCE", is just common sense, if two grown up persons decide to spend their lifes together getting married they should be allowed to do so, no harm is made to others. Why should they suffer for something they didn't choose?

We straight people forget all the great privileges we have, is a shame that a gay couple can't decide what to do with the body of their partner in the event of death, is a shame both can't get social security when only one works, is a shame we live in such an intolerant society and that this rights are even questioned.

I can just as easily argue that it's common sense that two people of the same sex should not be married. It seems to me my stance is a bit more common than yours, mate.

I'm not against legal benefits for same sex partners, but it should not be a marriage. Other posters on this thread have even said they "don't really care" about marriage. They just want the tax breaks I guess.

 

[nutshell]

jamaesi and Mike182, he will not recognize your answers for the reasons I have already stated. Mainly...they don't fall into his nice little belief instructed constrains of right and wrong. There is no swaying or convincing him. Any valid answer will go overlooked or disregarded because it is something his belief will not allow him to accept or realize.

OK, for all of those who think they've answered me, I'd like to let you know I am sincerely interested in your arguments. However, all I have seen you repeatedly do is offer your conclusion as evidence, which is a logical flaw.

That said, I am willing to accept I am wrong if you can show me where you have a) not answered my question with a question or b) not answered my question by submitting your conclusion as your evidence.

 

[nutshell]

Wow, that was an incredibly mean thing to say. Surely you didn't intend to suggest that homosexuals are not human?

I already stated I don't not believe homosexuals are sub-human. Read the thread.

It was a joke and I am not ashamed of it. Christianity has become the new punchline for Western entertainment and I will throw it back every chance I get.

 

[nutshell]

I think the evidence that gay marriage should be a right is the same as the evidence that "straight" marriage should be a right: the evidence is that it does not infringe on anyone else's rights, and in a free society people should have the legal right to live their life as they choose as long as they aren't infringing on other peoples' rights.

Pedophilia, rape, theft, etc. all infringe on the rights of other citizens. I know you and Victor say you aren't making a comparison between pedophilia and rape and gay marriage, but in fact that is exactly what you are doing. Imagine how flabbergasted you would be if you were talking to someone who opposed interracial marriage, and he/she mentioned the fact that "Hey, we have to have some morality, you know....if we allow interracial marriage, why not allow pedophilia, rape, and theft?"

Thank you for providing your evidence. I understand the difference between the disgusting evil that is pedophilia and rape and a caring homosexual relationship between consenting partners. That said, I do not believe (religious or not) that all acts between consenting adults should be allowed, even if they aren't infringing on the rights of others. That's why we have laws such as seat belt laws.

I want to thank you again for providing your evidence. You were the first.

 

[standing_alone]

I do not believe (religious or not) that all acts between consenting adults should be allowed,

Give me a secular reason why homosexuality should not be allowed.

That's why we have laws such as seat belt laws.

Cause, like car accidents, we need to protect people from the gays.

 

[standing_alone]

Other posters on this thread have even said they "don't really care" about marriage.

You're taking that way out of context.

 

[nutshell]

Give me a secular reason why homosexuality should not be allowed.

Tradition.

Cause, like car accidents, we need to protect people from the gays.

It's not people that are being protected in this case.

 

[nutshell]

You're taking that way out of context.

Really? It seemed pretty clear before.

 

[standing_alone]

Tradition.

Ooooooooooooh! You just swayed me!

It's not people that are being protected in this case.

Right, we need to protect a man-made institution from people we don't like so we can feel better about our place in the world and think we're appeasing God. Because those homos would ruin marriage, mercilessly just ruin it. :banghead3

 

[standing_alone]

Really? It seemed pretty clear before.

Yeah, I said I don't care if the word "marriage" is used, I care that I get the same treatment/legal rights married heterosexuals do.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I already stated I don't not believe homosexuals are sub-human. Read the thread.

It was a joke and I am not ashamed of it. Christianity has become the new punchline for Western entertainment and I will throw it back every chance I get.

Your comment was intended to discourage people from regarding your beliefs as a joke? I think it rather had the opposite effect.

I'm not against legal benefits for same sex partners, but it should not be a marriage.

Meanwhile, Hachmed from Saudi Arabia is saying, "I'm not against legal benefits for Christian churches, but it should not be a religion." The problem, of course, is that both you and Hachmed are retreating to a position that is incredibly trivial. Okay, nutshell, we'll give same-sex couples all the legal benefits and protections as same-sex couples, only we won't call it "marriage". Okay, Hachmed, we'll give churches all the legal benefits and protections as mosques, only we won't call it a "religion". Whatever floats your boat.

Other posters on this thread have even said they "don't really care" about marriage. They just want the tax breaks I guess.

Or maybe they just want to be treated equally. It's their government, too.