Poll- Marriage Equality

[WinterBorn]

Nope. Same sex couplings are never going to equal a marriage, doesn't matter what the government or any of it's cult following say.

Government should not even be asked if we can marry someone.

Why is a secular state involved in the marriage business?

To destroy it as a separate instution is what it looks like at this point.

If the state gets out of the marriage industry then pretty soon the only ones getting married will be those who are religious......which is where marriage started in the first place.

No longer will people marry for financial reasons. Lawyers would soon be out of a job.

This! Get the gov't out of teh marriage business and leave it to religious groups and/or the decisions of private citizens.

Well I got news for you old chap. Getting the government out of anything is like trying to pry a steak away from a pit bull.

They can't operate efficiently, but they can damn sure hold on tight.

 

[Ringel05]

Nope. Same sex couplings are never going to equal a marriage, doesn't matter what the government or any of it's cult following say.

Government should not even be asked if we can marry someone.

Why is a secular state involved in the marriage business?

For money and legal reasons, think about it.

Legal reasons? What legal reasons are there to deny some people marriage and not others?

Why should someone who is single not be able to have the same rights?

Think about it.

You're obviously not thinking about it........ I'll give you a hint, ever hear of the concept of shared property and assets? Have you ever heard of the concept of divorce?
If you're single do you legally share property and assets with someone else? No.
What's the legal reason to deny some people marriage? Bestiality...... Paedophilia are two reasons that come to mind, they can't get "marriage licenses" to marry children or animals.

 

[daws101]

Nope. Same sex couplings are never going to equal a marriage, doesn't matter what the government or any of it's cult following say.

hey asshat what do you think marriage is ?

It's a union between a man and a woman. And it's not that I think, I know.

You're the morons that "think" you can define it differently.

false

 

[Correll]

While I am not in favor of same sex marriage, I am certainly opposed to forcing everyone else to consider these shams valid.

This fails as a straw man fallacy, no one is "forcing" anyone to accept anything.

And yet it does not bother you that the OP is Begging the Question.

You are revealed to be a hypocrite.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Nope. Same sex couplings are never going to equal a marriage, doesn't matter what the government or any of it's cult following say.

Government should not even be asked if we can marry someone.

Why is a secular state involved in the marriage business?

To destroy it as a separate instution is what it looks like at this point.

What is being destroyed?

It would take too much time for me to explain it all in this thread, so I won't go into it on this thread, but rest assured I am not blaming homosexuals for it.

 

[Ringel05]

Nope. Same sex couplings are never going to equal a marriage, doesn't matter what the government or any of it's cult following say.

Government should not even be asked if we can marry someone.

Why is a secular state involved in the marriage business?

To destroy it as a separate instution is what it looks like at this point.

If the state gets out of the marriage industry then pretty soon the only ones getting married will be those who are religious......which is where marriage started in the first place.

No longer will people marry for financial reasons. Lawyers would soon be out of a job.

Uuummmm, false dilemma........

 

[daws101]

Nope. Same sex couplings are never going to equal a marriage, doesn't matter what the government or any of it's cult following say.

hey asshat what do you think marriage is ?

It's a union between a man and a woman. And it's not that I think, I know.

You're the morons that "think" you can define it differently.

Sorry to bust your bubble, but the legal definition now includes same sex couples. You can disagree with that. But it does not change the facts.

I don't give a damn about "legal" definitions...it's not actually marriage. It's two filthy degenerates playing house.

in the closet are we ?

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Nope. Same sex couplings are never going to equal a marriage, doesn't matter what the government or any of it's cult following say.

hey asshat what do you think marriage is ?

It's a union between a man and a woman. And it's not that I think, I know.

You're the morons that "think" you can define it differently.

false

Nope. True.

 

[daws101]

btw
marriage predates any existing religion (except perhaps Hinduism). But it is difficult to determine whether it predates ANY religion....people have been inventing religions for a long time.

Marriage certainly predates Christianity by several thousands of years though.

 

[WinterBorn]

Nope. Same sex couplings are never going to equal a marriage, doesn't matter what the government or any of it's cult following say.

Government should not even be asked if we can marry someone.

Why is a secular state involved in the marriage business?

To destroy it as a separate instution is what it looks like at this point.

What is being destroyed?

It would take too much time for me to explain it all in this thread, so I won't go into it on this thread, but rest assured I am not blaming homosexuals for it.

The only people who can destroy a marriage are the people in it. Other than that, it is fine.

 

[daws101]

Nope. Same sex couplings are never going to equal a marriage, doesn't matter what the government or any of it's cult following say.

hey asshat what do you think marriage is ?

It's a union between a man and a woman. And it's not that I think, I know.

You're the morons that "think" you can define it differently.

false

Nope. True.

you believing that and and the actuality of it are mutually exclusive.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Nope. Same sex couplings are never going to equal a marriage, doesn't matter what the government or any of it's cult following say.

Government should not even be asked if we can marry someone.

Why is a secular state involved in the marriage business?

To destroy it as a separate instution is what it looks like at this point.

What is being destroyed?

It would take too much time for me to explain it all in this thread, so I won't go into it on this thread, but rest assured I am not blaming homosexuals for it.

The only people who can destroy a marriage are the people in it. Other than that, it is fine.

You're free to believe that, but like I said...I don't have the time to explain it all to you so I won't be addressing that topic on this thread.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Nope. Same sex couplings are never going to equal a marriage, doesn't matter what the government or any of it's cult following say.

hey asshat what do you think marriage is ?

It's a union between a man and a woman. And it's not that I think, I know.

You're the morons that "think" you can define it differently.

false

Nope. True.

you believing that and and the actuality of it are mutually exclusive.

No you're wrong and I'm right. End of story.

 

[Votto]

Nope. Same sex couplings are never going to equal a marriage, doesn't matter what the government or any of it's cult following say.

Government should not even be asked if we can marry someone.

Why is a secular state involved in the marriage business?

For money and legal reasons, think about it.

Legal reasons? What legal reasons are there to deny some people marriage and not others?

Why should someone who is single not be able to have the same rights?

Think about it.

You're obviously not thinking about it........ I'll give you a hint, ever hear of the concept of shared property and assets? Have you ever heard of the concept of divorce?
If you're single do you legally share property and assets with someone else? No.
What's the legal reason to deny some people marriage? Bestiality...... Paedophilia are two reasons that come to mind, they can't get "marriage licenses" to marry children or animals.

I should be able to legally share anything with anyone, even a group of people if I so choose.

That's no argument at all.

About the only issue would be children, but then, what does marriage have to do with that? Lots of people have children who are not even married.

 

[WinterBorn]

Government should not even be asked if we can marry someone.

Why is a secular state involved in the marriage business?

To destroy it as a separate instution is what it looks like at this point.

What is being destroyed?

It would take too much time for me to explain it all in this thread, so I won't go into it on this thread, but rest assured I am not blaming homosexuals for it.

The only people who can destroy a marriage are the people in it. Other than that, it is fine.

You're free to believe that, but like I said...I don't have the time to explain it all to you so I won't be addressing that topic on this thread.

You are free to believe that some outside force is destroying marriages. But that is simply false. Your refusal to explain your position is not my problem.

If I am married, and my wife and I maintain our marriage, nothing outside of our deaths can destroy it.

 

[daws101]

1. Defining Marriage
‘Marriage’ can refer to a legal contract and civil status, a religious rite, and a social practice, all of which vary by legal jurisdiction, religious doctrine, and culture. History shows considerable variation in marital practices: polygyny has been widely practiced, some societies have approved of extra-marital sex and, arguably, recognized same-sex marriages, and religious or civil officiation has not always been the norm (Boswell 1994; Mohr 2005, 62; Coontz 2006). More fundamentally, while the contemporary Western ideal of marriage involves a relationship of love, friendship, or companionship, marriage historically functioned primarily as an economic and political unit used to create kinship bonds, control inheritance, and share resources and labor. Indeed, some ancients and medievals discouraged ‘excessive’ love in marriage. The ‘love revolution’ in marriage dates popularly to the 18th century (Coontz 2006, Part 3).

Ethical and political questions regarding marriage are sometimes answered by appeal to the definition of marriage. But the historical and cultural variation in marital practices has prompted some philosophers to argue that marriage is a ‘family resemblance’ concept, with no essential purpose or structure (Wasserstrom 1974). If marriage has no essential features, then one cannot appeal to definition to justify particular legal or moral obligations. For instance, if monogamy is not an essential feature of marriage, then one cannot appeal to the definition of marriage to justify moral or legal norms of monogamy. To a certain extent, the point that actual legal or social definitions cannot justify purportedly essential elements of marriage is just. First, past applications of a term need not yield necessary and sufficient criteria for applying it: ‘marriage’ (like ‘citizen’) may be extended to new cases without thereby changing its meaning (Mercier 2001). Second, appeal to definition may be uninformative: for example, legal definitions are sometimes circular, defining marriage in terms of spouses and spouses in terms of marriage (Mohr 2005, 57). Third, appeal to an existing definition in the context of debate over what the law of marriage, or its moral obligations, should be risks begging the question: in debate over same-sex marriage, for example, appeal to the current legal definition begs the normative question of what the law should be. However, this point also tells against the argument for the family resemblance view of marriage, as the variation of marital forms in practice does not preclude the existence of a normatively ideal form. Thus, philosophers who defend an essentialist definition of marriage offer normative definitions, which appeal to fundamental ethical or political principles. Defining marriage must depend on, rather than precede, ethical and political inquiry.

 

[WinterBorn]

hey asshat what do you think marriage is ?

It's a union between a man and a woman. And it's not that I think, I know.

You're the morons that "think" you can define it differently.

false

Nope. True.

you believing that and and the actuality of it are mutually exclusive.

No you're wrong and I'm right. End of story.

Oh, well in that case. You say you are right, and yet will not offer any evidence or explanation? Of course we will immediately accept your word and change our minds. Why didn't you just say "No you're wrong and I'm right" before? That explains everything.

 

[Syriusly]

Nope. Same sex couplings are never going to equal a marriage, doesn't matter what the government or any of it's cult following say.

hey asshat what do you think marriage is ?

It's a union between a man and a woman. And it's not that I think, I know.

You're the morons that "think" you can define it differently.

Sorry to bust your bubble, but the legal definition now includes same sex couples. You can disagree with that. But it does not change the facts.

I don't give a damn about "legal" definitions...it's not actually marriage. It's two filthy degenerates playing house.

See I don't give a damn if a degenerate like you plays house or even gets married.

Marriage equality- even degenerates like yourself have the right to marry.

 

[daws101]

hey asshat what do you think marriage is ?

It's a union between a man and a woman. And it's not that I think, I know.

You're the morons that "think" you can define it differently.

false

Nope. True.

you believing that and and the actuality of it are mutually exclusive.

No you're wrong and I'm right. End of story.

the classic dumbshit response ..
your belief that your are right is subjective and meaningless to others that don't share your blinders on pov.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

It's a union between a man and a woman. And it's not that I think, I know.

You're the morons that "think" you can define it differently.

false

Nope. True.

you believing that and and the actuality of it are mutually exclusive.

No you're wrong and I'm right. End of story.

Oh, well in that case. You say you are right, and yet will not offer any evidence or explanation? Of course we will immediately accept your word and change our minds. Why didn't you just say "No you're wrong and I'm right" before? That explains everything.

Daws is claiming that just because some western countries voters or judges say that two people of the same sex in a relationship is the equvilant of an actual marriage by decree that it is so....it's not so.