Main > Everything Else
election irony
allroy1975:
I just wanted to point out that I love it when people tell me I'm closed minded because I don't agree with them. I can see their point of view...I understand that you read this one book that says all this stuff and you eat it up hook, line and sinker. I'm asking that you look outside that book...other things have happened in the last 2000 years...
I can see that it's one set of ideas that doesn't affect you. You're not gay (at least your book says you can't be, so you pretend you're not) so what do you care?
Can anyone tell me why same sex marriages should be illegle?
and I swear if you tell me it will demoralise our country...I insist that you quit this stupid crusade and go on one against MTV.
Allroy
Dexter:
--- Quote from: allroy1975 on November 08, 2004, 10:29:13 am ---
Can anyone tell me why same sex marriages should be illegle?
Allroy
--- End quote ---
I can tell you they shouldn't be illegal. What we're moving towards in europe more and more is the idea of a civil union between two gays thats legally binding and gives both people the same benefits and protection as a hetrosexual marriage. They're not seen to be married in the eyes of God, but as they're both sinners ::) anyway (crap of course), I wouldn't imagine this matters enough to put many off the idea.
I can't see anything wrong with this. There are people being left homeless when their partners die because they have no claim by law on their home, which they would have if they had been allowed to marry their partner. It's a disgrace. A civil union would prevent this discrimination from happening.
Dexter
patrickl:
--- Quote from: TA Pilot on November 08, 2004, 10:21:34 am ---Nowadays people know better so you would change rules that were based on those outdated beliefs.
So, how about 5 men and 4 women?
Any reason why they should not all be allowed to marry one another?
--- End quote ---
Your "eliza" approach to discussing is getting boring. Of course you can ask random questions to divert from the original question, but it doesn't prove a point. It's only annoying.
TA Pilot:
--- Quote ---
--- End quote ---
Your "eliza" approach to discussing is getting boring. Of course you can ask random questions to divert from the original question, but it doesn't prove a point. It's only annoying.
--- Quote ---
--- End quote ---
You arent answering the question.
if you want to change the (long-accepted) definition of marraige (against the will of the vast majority of the people) to include 2 people of the same gender, what argument is there to exclude a marriage of numerous people of the same and different gender?
You aren't answering the question because you find it annyoying, you arent answering it because you dont like where the answer leads.
Grasshopper:
--- Quote from: TA Pilot on November 08, 2004, 03:20:11 pm ---
--- Quote ---
--- End quote ---
Your "eliza" approach to discussing is getting boring. Of course you can ask random questions to divert from the original question, but it doesn't prove a point. It's only annoying.
--- Quote ---
--- End quote ---
You arent answering the question.
if you want to change the (long-accepted) definition of marraige (against the will of the vast majority of the people) to include 2 people of the same gender, what argument is there to exclude a marriage of numerous people of the same and different gender?
You aren't answering the question because you find it annyoying, you arent answering it because you dont like where the answer leads.
--- End quote ---
TA, presumably you are aware that Mormon and Muslim men have traditionally been allowed to have more than one wife?