Gay Marriage: Should It Be Allowed?

lmfao you f*cking knuckle head, you keep quoting your own opinion, were you dropped on your head when you were a child?

next time you wanna dig dirt up on somebody, make sure you know your facts because you will only further your radical dumbass stance you've proven so well to me. you lost at this argument, good day to you sir.

if it weren't for straight people you wouldn't be alive.

 

If it wasn't for gay people you wouldn't have half your fashion or art or know how to have a decent party!

 

i've never needed a gay man to show me how to party or fashion design. but owell

 

you wanna bet? go check out your clothes stores. seem who designed them

 

Nate, you look bad the moment you attempt to form a cogent thought and put it down, because you can't; you don't have the ability, and so you resort to the last bastion of the limited: schoolyard taunts like the above. The reason noone posted dictionary.com verbatim is because it wasn't necessary. Your point was lost much earlier on. If you really need it in order to rest, here (I use the American Heritage Dictionary, as well as the OED):

You will note (or try to note, I should really say) that the dictionary defines gay union as marriage as well. It proceeds logically that since gay marriage isn't legally defined in most jurisdictions, the "legal" distinction is one of man and woman; Once gay marriage is legalized, the dictionary will follow suit and define marriage as "the legal union between two adults," or some such thing. By your logic, from this and the other thread, everything you stand for apparently rests on "definitions" as provided by dictionary.com. What will you do when your only resource defines legal union to include both straight and gay marriage?

You are apparently "tired of" a good many things in this wide world, which is sad - judging by your posts, you are quite young, quite low in native ability, or both. Either way, your narrowness will only find itself increasingly clashing with a world that laughs at your stammering. Best of luck.

 

Nate, you should look yourself up in Dictionary.com.
Who knows, maybe you'll find yourself defined as a very happy gay person

Aye.

 

You know, more then once you brought up the term "liberal"...

I'd like to point something out...

You (and those opposing gay marriage):
Want to impose more government restrictions (big gov't)
Want a same-sex marriage ban, requiring congress time, consuming money (big gov't)
Would want the legislation enforced, consuming police funds (big gov't)

All we (supporting gay rights) want, is equality and less gov't restrictions...

So, who's the "liberal"?

 

Actually your logic is flawed.

Gay marriage will imcrease the size of the goverment due to the strain on the family court system.

 

I don't agree - Tarpon is right, in my view. I don't understand the argument, even from a purely laissez-faire, libertarian point of view, that says two adults may not enter into a market arrangement (to put it solely in those terms), and beyond, that government should have its hand in preventing such a mutually-consensual arrangement:

How would it strain the family court system? Straight folks suddenly turning gay, and parental custody issues? What are you referring to, specifically?

 

Gay people are not entitled to the benefits of legal marraige

The States purpose of marriage is procreation

The states provides benefits to the "man and woman" so that they may raise children like tax deductions and education

Legal marriage affects taxes and employee benefits

same-sex unions have damaged traditional marriage in the Netherlands

Europes population is is decline

 

How many gay marriages do you expect there will be? I've seen a few estimates, and none of the predictions I've seen would create any "strain" on our current systems...

Just because we would allow gay marriages, doesn't mean every gay person will immediately marry...

 

How?

Why is that negative?

 

Then why are "sterile" men allowed to marry? What about those that are over 70 years old?

 

My 2 cents -

I don't see a problem with gay couples/marriage/liaisons, we are all human have different needs/wants/attractions. It is personal choice and not really up for discussion by outsider's, but in saying that there is always individuals who believe it is up to them to make a stance. So you win some you lose some!

As long as you are happy who cares what others think...

Marriage should be allowed and available for gay couples, they should be given the same freedom of choice as straight, even though you don't really need consent to be married by soul/heart, I guess it would be nice to have that piece of paper everyone else is allowed to have.

 

In your example - what about childless couples? Since the "State purpose of marriage is procreation," should the state intervene and disallow this, too? Where does that stop - we have one child, for example. Is this "worse" than having many children?

Let me tease this out, a bit, too. From my experience in the restaurant biz, I can tell you that a a goodly part of the clientele that has frequented my restaurant, and those I have worked for or enjoyed, are gay people. If I were to make a general assessment, I have found them to be GREAT customers. Fun, sophisticated, a culturally aware lot, who enjoy fine food and wine (my only experience is as a French chef). They go out, in other words, they drop money, and they bring friends. The amplifier effect of businesses that are aware of this is not inconsequential, hence you'll find marketing aimed to reach these folks in the many cities I have lived in. They significantly aid the economy, in other words. And couples who save on taxes, for whatever the reason, either save, or spend, the marginal money obtained by the tax reduction, obviously. Money is transferred from the public to the private sector.

It is inescapable. Let's ask ourselves: what should we be asking - what benefits the individual, or what benefits the state? Is the individual to live in service of state priorities, or the other way around? You cannot say you are entirely for the free market, and then argue for, in essence, higher taxes for a particular group of people. If you want to argue for some sort of "public good," as I am glad to do on many things, that's fine - let's just be clear what we are debating. Then, you will have to make a moral stance and we'd simply disagree on that basis. Your economic line isn't weighing in too well, to me.

 

Marriage is not a piece of paper.

Marriage is a legal union

Gay people are not entitled to the benefits of legal marraige

I'm not making any moral judgements on gay people, celibate people or unmarried people that have sex.

Most marriages without children are unstable.

You will have to ask the Europeans this.

Everyday I see news about the governments in Europe offering money to have children

Have you ever heard of eminent domain?

 

I'm not even going to bother negating your other paragraphs, but one really stuck out to me:

"Most childless marriages are unstable."

May I please see what statistics you viewed to get this inane quote? Are you seriously trying to imply that without a child, a marriage will hit rock bottom? I've seen plenty of couples with children that are more unstable than a couple who doesn't have a child.

 

what does that mean?

 

bogart it's not even worth it bro. you could have these people clearly beaten and they'd still find a way to drag things on out. and also, if you do too well, you get infraction points for owning people.

i admire your debate though. without your kind i would be in a wasteland full of drooling fools.

 

Originally Posted by ncz_nate

Ernst Rohm co-founder of the Nazi party was a homosexual.

His associate Adolf Hitler, a lot of people accuse of being a gay painter.

Himmler the head of the SS was an interior decorator

A couple of gay guys showing you how to nazi party.

Most women know that a man is not really theirs until they have children with him.