Pursuasive Essay

Chyse · Post by **Chyse** » Tue Jun 12, 2007 10:40 am

Okay, so i'm writing a pursuasive essay in composition about gay marriage and i need some feedback. willing to give me a hand?

feel free to PM me if you dont feel like posting here.

and yes, i'm in summer school.

:doublepuke:

:goalguarder: :goalguarder:

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3290, old post ID:59804

Reaper · Post by **Reaper** » Tue Jun 12, 2007 1:41 pm

Give you a hand how? This is all about you trying to persuade people.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3290, old post ID:59805

Clueless · Post by **Clueless** » Tue Jun 12, 2007 8:02 pm

well we need to know what you think first.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3290, old post ID:59815

Stasi · Post by **Stasi** » Tue Jun 12, 2007 9:17 pm

I voted "no". Granted, I'm not religious, so that doesn't play into it. I have nothing against civil unions, but "marriage" has been for a man and a woman (or women) from the beginning of time. I have never heard of two men or two women being in a union recognized as "marriage" from any history I've read. Therefore, as human society has set such a long precedent, why not leave "marriage" between males and females? Why polarize people over this issue?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3290, old post ID:59823

Red Squirrel · Post by **Red Squirrel** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 7:20 am

I voted no because of the same reason as stasi as well as the fact that I'm Christian. I say if they really want to do it, at least call it something other then marriage.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3290, old post ID:59827

Reaper · Post by **Reaper** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 9:19 am

Stasi wrote: I voted "no". Granted, I'm not religious, so that doesn't play into it. I have nothing against civil unions, but "marriage" has been for a man and a woman (or women) from the beginning of time. I have never heard of two men or two women being in a union recognized as "marriage" from any history I've read. Therefore, as human society has set such a long precedent, why not leave "marriage" between males and females? Why polarize people over this issue?

I do believe this is the first time I've ever heard a non-religious person say that.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3290, old post ID:59828

Chyse · Post by **Chyse** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 9:39 am

Clueless wrote: well we need to know what you think first.

I am for legallizing homosexual marriage.

one thing you need to know about me before i get into any of this is i believe in a strong separation of church and state. I think that if we start making laws based on any religion, we will become like those countries in the middle east that we are fighting.

having said this:
Red, If marriage is to be recognized as a christian union, then it shouldn't hold any legal binding at all. if that's the case, then everybody should have to have a "civil union" or something other than a christian marriage.
that's like putting legal binding on getting baptized or getting confirmed. you can't mix law and religious rituals or beliefs.

Stasi, for a LONG time women have been seen as the "lesser" of the sexes. They've gone through tremendous sexism and prejudice. This has been happening since the earliest forms of civilization. but we have abolished such sexism and made it illegal. Same thing with slavery. Slaves have been around for thousands of years. even the Incan and Myan indians had slaves. but we banned it because we know it's wrong.
Basically, what i'm saying is, just because a belief has been around for a long time, doesnt mean that it's not racist or immoral.

now this somewhat depends on whether you think gay marriage is a choice or if it's biological. I don't think that a choice someone makes that doesn't hurt anybody in any way at all, should have an effect on their legal rights.

And what bothers me absolute most, and really makes me pissed off, is that it doesnt effect heterosexuals. when homosexuals get married, they are just married....it's not like they go to your house and try to have sex with you or try to make you become gay. They're minding their own business. the only way i can see heterosexuals being effected by that would be that they see it and it's "gross" to them. i'm sorry if it's gross, but maybe i think that girls who have premarital sex are gross. should they be not allowed to marry just because premarital sex is against the christian belief? should they get less rights than a normal american just because of a choice they made that doesnt hurt ANYBODY around them?
No. that would be total bullshit and stupid. why? because TONS of people have permarital sex. hell, most people have premarital sex. and you wouldn't want people to take away your rights just because of a choice you made, especially because it doesn't hurt anybody around you.
get the picture? step into the shoes of a homosexual and look at all the discrimination. think how you'd feel if the government was taking away your rights to marry the person that you're in love with just because it's against a certain religion and people think it's gross.

i'm sorry, but in my opinion, that's just the stupidest thing i've ever heard.
not to mention unconstitutional. it states that all men are created equal. why are we not treating all people equally? if heterosexuals can marry, then so should homosexuals. everyone should have equal rights unless they commit a serious crime.

and if we are to uphold "freedom of religion," we cant make laws based on any religion, because it forces the people to obey the rules of that religion that they have the freedom to not believe in.

*sigh* and that's my view on gay marriage. sorry it's so long, but i feel REALLY stongly about this. it just seems so completely wrong to me.

lol, i think i just wrote my rough draft of my paper. lol. except without some of the swear words lol.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3290, old post ID:59830

Bookworm · Post by **Bookworm** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 11:46 am

goalguarder12 wrote: now this somewhat depends on whether you think gay marriage is a choice or if it's biological.

Wouldn't marriage always be a choice?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3290, old post ID:59831

Reaper · Post by **Reaper** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 2:02 pm

We are not fighting any countries in the Middle East.

you can't mix law and religious rituals or beliefs.

You CAN mix religious belief and government law. It's called a theocracy.

Stasi, for a LONG time women have been seen as the "lesser" of the sexes. They've gone through tremendous sexism and prejudice. This has been happening since the earliest forms of civilization. but we have abolished such sexism and made it illegal. Same thing with slavery. but we banned it because we know it's wrong.
Basically, what i'm saying is, just because a belief has been around for a long time, doesnt mean that it's not racist or immoral.

Sexism and slavery still exist, and will always as far as I can tell. And sexism is illegal? If that is so, hate should be illegal.

And what bothers me absolute most, and really makes me pissed off, is that it doesnt effect heterosexuals. when homosexuals get married, they are just married....it's not like they go to your house and try to have sex with you or try to make you become gay. They're minding their own business. the only way i can see heterosexuals being effected by that would be that they see it and it's "gross" to them. i'm sorry if it's gross, but maybe i think that girls who have premarital sex are gross. should they be not allowed to marry just because premarital sex is against the christian belief? should they get less rights than a normal american just because of a choice they made that doesnt hurt ANYBODY around them?

Whoa whoa whoa. The choice that girl makes can affect people. Herself and whoever she had sex with.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3290, old post ID:59832

Stasi · Post by **Stasi** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 4:54 pm

goalguarder12 wrote: Stasi, for a LONG time women have been seen as the "lesser" of the sexes. They've gone through tremendous sexism and prejudice. This has been happening since the earliest forms of civilization. but we have abolished such sexism and made it illegal. Same thing with slavery. Slaves have been around for thousands of years. even the Incan and Myan indians had slaves. but we banned it because we know it's wrong.
Basically, what i'm saying is, just because a belief has been around for a long time, doesnt mean that it's not racist or immoral.

The definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman has nothing to do with slavery or oppression of women as second class human beings. In fact, I don't see how it is fundamentally immoral. "Marriage" means a union between a man and woman, just as "gay" means preferring people of your own gender for love or sex. Oh, and this issue doesn't even compare with racism.

having said this:
Red, If marriage is to be recognized as a christian union, then it shouldn't hold any legal binding at all. if that's the case, then everybody should have to have a "civil union" or something other than a christian marriage.
that's like putting legal binding on getting baptized or getting confirmed. you can't mix law and religious rituals or beliefs.

I don't believe Red said that marriage is to be recognized as only a Christian union. He said that his Christianity played into his opinion. That isn't to say that marriage between muslims, Jews, pagans, or athiests isn't or shouldn't be recognized.

now this somewhat depends on whether you think gay marriage is a choice or if it's biological. I don't think that a choice someone makes that doesn't hurt anybody in any way at all, should have an effect on their legal rights.

Ummm, voluntarily entering into ANY legal agreement, including marriage, is a choice. But maybe you didn't mean to ask the question that way. I don't believe homosexuality is a "choice", in most cases. But why should homosexuals be allowed to be "married" because of that?

And what bothers me absolute most, and really makes me pissed off, is that it doesnt effect heterosexuals. when homosexuals get married, they are just married....it's not like they go to your house and try to have sex with you or try to make you become gay. They're minding their own business. the only way i can see heterosexuals being effected by that would be that they see it and it's "gross" to them. i'm sorry if it's gross, but maybe i think that girls who have premarital sex are gross. should they be not allowed to marry just because premarital sex is against the christian belief? should they get less rights than a normal american just because of a choice they made that doesnt hurt ANYBODY around them?
No. that would be total bullshit and stupid. why? because TONS of people have permarital sex. hell, most people have premarital sex. and you wouldn't want people to take away your rights just because of a choice you made, especially because it doesn't hurt anybody around you.
get the picture? step into the shoes of a homosexual and look at all the discrimination. think how you'd feel if the government was taking away your rights to marry the person that you're in love with just because it's against a certain religion and people think it's gross.

The definition of marriage as being between a man and woman has nothing to do with premarital sex. And, the analogy doesn't work. What's being advocated by a vocal minority is that something whose fundamental definition is a certain way should be redefined to suit a small minority. A union between a man and man is not marriage any more than a union between a man and a goat. As I've said before, I have no problem with "civil unions", even if they grant gay couples all of the same legalities as "marriage" between heterosexuals.

i'm sorry, but in my opinion, that's just the stupidest thing i've ever heard.
not to mention unconstitutional. it states that all men are created equal. why are we not treating all people equally? if heterosexuals can marry, then so should homosexuals. everyone should have equal rights unless they commit a serious crime.

The Constitution argument doesn't work. As long as the law is applied equally to people of various persuasions, and doesn't violate other Constitutional statements, then it is legitimate under the Constitution. But since marriage is fundamentally about a union between a man and a woman, it can be applied to men and woman of various races, religions, etc. (hell, even a gay man can marry a gay woman if they wanted to). Thus, that a man and man can't get married because of the way marriage is defined, both legally and traditionally, it is not unconstitutional.

and if we are to uphold "freedom of religion," we cant make laws based on any religion, because it forces the people to obey the rules of that religion that they have the freedom to not believe in.

You seem to think that only religious people oppose gay marriage, but that's not the case. And no, I don't oppose it because I think it's "gross", either.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3290, old post ID:59833

Chyse · Post by **Chyse** » Thu Jun 14, 2007 9:47 am

Stasi wrote:
"Marriage" means a union between a man and woman, just as "gay" means preferring people of your own gender for love or sex. Oh, and this issue doesn't even compare with racism.

Where, in the Master Dictionary of the world, does it say that marriage is between a man and a woman?
and yes it can be compared to racism because both are taking away certain rights of people. one of the "undeniable human rights", from the UN document on undeniable human rights, is freedom to marry. the US signed this document. should we totally disregard it?

I don't believe Red said that marriage is to be recognized as only a Christian union. He said that his Christianity played into his opinion. That isn't to say that marriage between muslims, Jews, pagans, or athiests isn't or shouldn't be recognized.

well what about the atheists then? their marriage is recognized as a legal binding ritual, just as christian marriage and jewish marriage and all the others. but jewish marriage and christian marriages work differently. they have different rules. what are the rules for an atheist marriage? is one of them that homosexuals can marry? what if i'm atheist and i think they should marry? am i entitled to be atheist and believe in gay marriage then? because it sounds like you're saying that all marriages in the world are just like christian marriages. and that's completely not true. they change. so either you're saying they're all like christian marriages, or all other types of marriages are wrong. take your pick. and you cant just single out one type of marriage for criticism. that's not treating all religions equally and completely violates the US constitution.

Ummm, voluntarily entering into ANY legal agreement, including marriage, is a choice. But maybe you didn't mean to ask the question that way. I don't believe homosexuality is a "choice", in most cases. But why should homosexuals be allowed to be "married" because of that?

if you believe that people are born homosexuals, then banning gay marriage is EXACTLY like racism. with that belief, people have no choice over them being gay or not, just like african americans and women have no choice whether they are white or male. and to deny ANY african american a job, marriage, or ANYTHING AT ALL that the law has any part in, would be COMPLETELY out of line and not allowed at all.

The definition of marriage as being between a man and woman has nothing to do with premarital sex. And, the analogy doesn't work. What's being advocated by a vocal minority is that something whose fundamental definition is a certain way should be redefined to suit a small minority. A union between a man and man is not marriage any more than a union between a man and a goat. As I've said before, I have no problem with "civil unions", even if they grant gay couples all of the same legalities as "marriage" between heterosexuals.

again. where the hell does it say that marriage has to be with a man and a woman? and you can't say the bible, because making a law based on any certain religion takes away the rights of other religions because they have to follow the other religion's laws, thus violating their freedom of religion.

The Constitution argument doesn't work. As long as the law is applied equally to people of various persuasions, and doesn't violate other Constitutional statements, then it is legitimate under the Constitution. But since marriage is fundamentally about a union between a man and a woman, it can be applied to men and woman of various races, religions, etc. (hell, even a gay man can marry a gay woman if they wanted to). Thus, that a man and man can't get married because of the way marriage is defined, both legally and traditionally, it is not unconstitutional.

legally? where is it legally defined that way other than in recently made state-laws banning it? you keep coming back to this definition of marriage being between a man and a woman. it's not defined that way. maybe in your mind. maybe in some dictionary out there. but not throughout the world. and not throughout the nation. the only document like that would be the bible. and making laws based on the bible would violate human rights.

You seem to think that only religious people oppose gay marriage, but that's not the case. And no, I don't oppose it because I think it's "gross", either.

i'm glad that's not your reason.

and still, you didn't adress the fact that gay marriage doesnt hurt ANYONE. it's a personal decision to marry.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3290, old post ID:59850

Reaper · Post by **Reaper** » Thu Jun 14, 2007 1:40 pm

edit: nevermind, you probably wouldn't care.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3290, old post ID:59851

Chyse · Post by **Chyse** » Thu Jun 14, 2007 3:46 pm

Reaper wrote: edit: nevermind, you probably wouldn't care.

i care. what is it?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3290, old post ID:59856

Clueless · Post by **Clueless** » Thu Jun 14, 2007 4:17 pm

mar·riage (mār'ĭj) Pronunciation Key
n.

The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
The state of being married; wedlock.
A common-law marriage.
A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.

Stasi is pretty much right about marriage being defined as between a man and a woman. 2 heterosexuals and 2 homosexuals can have a union, but i think "marriage" isnt the correct term for a man and man union.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3290, old post ID:59861

EddieMossberg · Post by **EddieMossberg** » Thu Jun 14, 2007 6:06 pm

Clueless..

There are many laws which need to be revoked.. seriously! Let them be happy!

Great post goalguarder12, well said!

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3290, old post ID:59882

Clueless · Post by **Clueless** » Thu Jun 14, 2007 6:15 pm

im not saying anything about laws. im just saying that the word marriage means a union between a man and woman.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3290, old post ID:59884

Chyse · Post by **Chyse** » Thu Jun 14, 2007 6:24 pm

Clueless wrote: mar·riage (mār'ĭj) Pronunciation Key
n.

The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
The state of being married; wedlock.
A common-law marriage.
A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.

Stasi is pretty much right about marriage being defined as between a man and a woman. 2 heterosexuals and 2 homosexuals can have a union, but i think "marriage" isnt the correct term for a man and man union.

Where did you find that definition? The webster definition isn't the proper definition that everybody has to use.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3290, old post ID:59886

EddieMossberg · Post by **EddieMossberg** » Thu Jun 14, 2007 6:27 pm

Clueless wrote: im not saying anything about laws. im just saying that the word marriage means a union between a man and woman.

I understand, but that definition is what the laws are based on and that is what I think is the problem. I'm not necessarily a gay supporter, but I do believe strongly in protecting anyone's civil liberties and basic rights! I think it's OK! Just let them be happy!

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3290, old post ID:59887

manadren · Post by **manadren** » Thu Jun 14, 2007 6:58 pm

The definitions of words can and have changed over time. Personally I'm with goalguarder on this. If the word marriage is to be used in legal terms, then it needs to be open to everyone regardless of sexual orientation.

Personally, I take marriage as a religious term, and thus it has no place in government. If it were up to me, let the government be concerned with civil unions only, and let the churches marry who they will (but marriage would only be significant in terms of the church, the legal status, i.e. a civil union, should be obtained separately).

But I don't run things, and the term marriage is already written into law. So if we are to use the term marriage in a legal sense, it must be open to everyone.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3290, old post ID:59890

Stasi · Post by **Stasi** » Thu Jun 14, 2007 7:28 pm

The "definition" I keep referring to, gg, is the traditional definition, just as I've pointed out already in this thread. A gay man and a gay woman, or a gay man and a straight woman can marry. Thus, there is nothing in "marriage" law that denies gays this right. Take a prozac, learn to read, and try to think about the argument someone is making before you start going apeshit.

Some questions for you, gg:

Where has a union between two same-sex gay people been called "marriage" traditionally or historically?

Where hasn't "marriage" been culturally defined as a union between a man and woman?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3290, old post ID:59897

manadren · Post by **manadren** » Thu Jun 14, 2007 7:50 pm

Stasi wrote: A gay man and a gay woman, or a gay man and a straight woman can marry.

Telling a gay man he can marry a woman is like telling a Christian he can't go to church but is perfectly welcome to join the mosque down the street. And just because a word is defined culturally, traditionally, or historically, doesn't mean it's necessarily correct.

The government isn't in the business of writing dictionaries. They have no right to govern who and how a word can be used.

But this isn't about the definition. The thing is you can't simply look at tradition only in an ever changing society. Particularly when the tradition is founded on a religious base. It may be more than one religious base, but it's still religious.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3290, old post ID:59902

Chyse · Post by **Chyse** » Thu Jun 14, 2007 9:04 pm

Stasi wrote: Take a prozac, learn to read, and try to think about the argument someone is making before you start going apeshit.

WTF?
i'm trying to have a discussion here. i wasn't attacking anybody personally.
this is a discussion, not an insult thread. we all have different opinions, lets voice our opinions and at the end of the day can't we still all be friends? politics shouldn't get in the way of our relationships guys. and i'm not just talking about Stasi. i mean everybody. dont get mad at anybody in here because they have a different view than you do. we're all friends here, lets keep it that way =)
we can be mature about this and debate like adults....well.....debate like adults we DONT see on TV. LMAO

and what manadren said hit the nail on the head. i couldn't have said it better. in fact i probably would have said it worse. lol.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3290, old post ID:59907

Stasi · Post by **Stasi** » Fri Jun 15, 2007 9:46 am

Well, I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree. For a lot of gay folks, the issue isn't really even about "marriage" per se, it's about gay couples having equal rights and priveliges as legally married people. I've said before and I'll say again, this issue would largely be dealt with if the government would provide such things for gay couples, though it wouldn't be marriage. Sure, I mean, if you want to call two women or two men "married", fine, and while you're at it, you can start calling a duck a pig. I wholeheartedly disagree with the idea that culture and tradition don't provide valid definitions for things. The broken system of thinking that is political correctness shouldn't be altering the way words or concepts are commonly defined for the sake of making someone here or there feel better. Something is what it is and shouldn't have to be revised for a new edition of "PC Newspeak".

The point I was making when saying a gay man can marry a gay woman (or straight woman) was that marriage as a legally recognized union between a man or a woman is NOT denied to gays. And when did "marriage" really have to do with love? I'm looking at it at its base components. Men and women get "married". Men and men do not. Call it something different with the same rights and privileges for all I care.

GG, it just seemed that you got steamed and didn't seem to be paying attention to, or thinking about the arguments I was making. For example, throughout your rebuttal, you keep going on about where I was getting this "definition" of marriage, when I made it quite clear in my original post that the definition I was going off of was that of culture and tradition.

And you still haven't answered the question/s I posed to you....

And Manadren...

The government isn't in the business of writing dictionaries. They have no right to govern who and how a word can be used.

... absolutely incorrect. Read a lawbook. Things are defined ad nauseum. In order to have a meaningful legal system, the government must define words. Obviously, the definition may differ from person to person, but to say that the government has either no right or business in defining words, ideas, etc. is incorrect.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3290, old post ID:59934

Chyse · Post by **Chyse** » Fri Jun 15, 2007 11:24 am

Stasi wrote: Sure, I mean, if you want to call two women or two men "married", fine, and while you're at it, you can start calling a duck a pig.

calling a duck a pig and calling two men married are two completely different things. i see the point you're trying to make, but it sounds completely prejudice to me. i'm sorry, but that's like saying that calling african americans equals is the same as calling a chicken a snake.
the point i'm trying to make here is that if we dont allow homosexuals to have a civil union, but allow heterosexuals to, that is absolutely prejudice and extremely against the consitution. that's like letting boys go to school, but not letting girls go because they are girls.
to quote the declaration of independance directly,

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

note the part about all men being created equal and that certain rights are unalienable.
so that means that all people deserve equal rights, always because all people are equal and to abolish such rights would be not seeing all people as equal.
hmmmm.......

The point I was making when saying a gay man can marry a gay woman (or straight woman) was that marriage as a legally recognized union between a man or a woman is NOT denied to gays. And when did "marriage" really have to do with love? I'm looking at it at its base components. Men and women get "married". Men and men do not. Call it something different with the same rights and privileges for all I care.

Marriage having to do with love? no...of course not.....why would ANYBODY marry for love ever? it's just sickening. (if you hadn't already noticed, sarcasm is oozing from my keyboard right now)
you say you look at it's basic components. alright, lets take a look at marriage:
first of all, it's religious.....that's problem #1
second, in the ceremony of marriage, nowhere does the priest say "Are you two of different sexes? if not, you can't be wed." So i dont know where you're pulling this "Men and women get 'married'. Men and men do not." bullcrap, but your opinion has no legal rammifications. so back that up with some facts.
lastly, in the ceremony of marriage, the priest says "'till death do you part." So when people get divorces, should that be illegal? because in the ceremony it says they should only be parted by death. Should we ban divorces?
Stasi, i just think you need some more facts to base your opinion on. You talk about "traditional" and "historical" definitions. give me a hard copy of said definitions and show me how they stay the same and never change.
and when you start looking for facts to base this opinion on, don't get upset with me when the only thing you find is "religion" and "traditional definitions" that have no supporting facts or evidence.

And you still haven't answered the question/s I posed to you....

well if what i just said didn't answer enough for you, i said earlier that i completely agree with what manadren said. he adressed your questions toward me.

When you really think about it and research it, banning gay marriage has no strong foundation except for religion. (which is why i put such a big stress on the religion argument) and it's already been stated that any law based on any religion would be unconstitutional.

I don't know why, but i've always been taught that equality is what's right. Lol, i was making a joke to my dad the other day about jagermeister, but i called it jager for short. he thought i said the N word and almost kicked me out of the house until my sister explained to him what he actually heard.
And i think not having a religion has helped me understand more about equality. nobody is less than anybody else because of what they believe in. and nobody deserves different treatment than anybody else based on any choice in life unless that choice, of course, causes harm to somebody. and they ESPECIALLY dont deserve different treatment based on something they were born with.
The fact of the matter is that banning gay marriage is simply immoral. it strips away the foundation of equality and opens room for more prejudice based on choices or birth-traits.

what i REALLY need to know, nobody has been able to give me a not-bullshit answer for this yet, is how homosexuals marrying hurts heterosexuals? how does it hurt ANYBODY at all? Why can't we let people live the life they want to live as long as it doesn't endanger anybody or anything? it makes no sense?! just leave the homosexuals alone! it's not like they're coming to your house and trying to convert you or something lol. They're just trying to live like the average american except when it comes to sexuality of course. leave them alone. it pisses me off that we have to attack people just because they're different. last time i checked, being different wasnt a bad thing. that's so extremely prejudice i can't even believe it. the wrong-ness of this is just eating me alive. i can't stand how completely immoral this is and it's seriously making me want to puke.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3290, old post ID:59941

Stasi · Post by **Stasi** » Fri Jun 15, 2007 1:04 pm

calling a duck a pig and calling two men married are two completely different things..

Not really. In both cases you're trying to say that something is what it is not.

i see the point you're trying to make, but it sounds completely prejudice to me.

Sorry, buddy. I commit thought and speech crimes quite often. Fact is, you're prejudiced. We all are. And I don't mean that in some kind of sappy PC way. You and I prejudge people based on various things we may notice about them that elicit some response based on our frame of reference. To say that something sounds "prejudice" to you isn't really saying anything meaningful at all.

i'm sorry, but that's like saying that calling african americans equals is the same as calling a chicken a snake.

Only if you don't think blacks are "equals".

the point i'm trying to make here is that if we dont allow homosexuals to have a civil union, but allow heterosexuals to, that is absolutely prejudice and extremely against the consitution. that's like letting boys go to school, but not letting girls go because they are girls

I haven't written anything here in disagreement with this point. If you say I have, you'll have proven that you're not reading or thinking about what I'm saying and you'll have to be blacklisted as yet another moron who has high, arrogant notions, that doesn't challenge them by considering others' ideas. In any case, I think here you're using the word "prejudice" in poor context because once again, it doesn't explain anything. What it does say is that you must attach a vaguely, though powerfully offensive connotation to the word.

note the part about all men being created equal and that certain rights are unalienable.
so that means that all people deserve equal rights, always because all people are equal and to abolish such rights would be not seeing all people as equal.
hmmmm.......

A lofty statement to be sure, but quite vague. That's why there's a lot more to the Constitution and shitloads of other laws out there.

Marriage having to do with love? no...of course not.....why would ANYBODY marry for love ever? it's just sickening. (if you hadn't already noticed, sarcasm is oozing from my keyboard right now)

You might think I'm a bad, "prejudice" person, but I assure you, I am familiar with the concept of sarcasm and don't need a disclaimer to be posted after said sarcasm.

I never said that people didn't marry for love. However, love is not a requirement for marriage. Generally, the relationship goes better and lasts longer if there is love, but two people who hate each other can get married. I see no reason to believe it's been different historically.

you say you look at it's basic components. alright, lets take a look at marriage:
first of all, it's religious.....that's problem #1

Actually, whatever its religious roots, nonreligious people can get married. Furthermore, "marriage" occurs and has occurred historically cross-culturally, and cross-religiously.

second, in the ceremony of marriage, nowhere does the priest say "Are you two of different sexes? if not, you can't be wed." So i dont know where you're pulling this "Men and women get 'married'. Men and men do not." bullcrap

They don't say that because traditionally, there has not been same-sex marriage - nevermind the fact that generally speaking, if you're talking about a priest handling the marriage, they're not going to believe in gay marriage anyway. I've already told you where I'm getting my definition of marriage - cultural tradition. How many more times am I going to have to say this? Do I need to use smaller words? Do you know what "cultural tradition" is?

but your opinion has no legal rammifications. so back that up with some facts.

Hehe, where did I pretend to be a lawyer or a judge? I'll think what I want and the legislature and judicial branch of the government will do whatever they want. What facts do you want? Short of making a study of anthropological literature on the subject, I don't have any concrete resources to back what I'm saying. However, as I said before, I have no recollection of ever reading any historical literature that suggested that "marriage" has ever included gay relationships. I can't prove it to your satisfaction, I'm sure, but I will tell you I am pretty well read.

lastly, in the ceremony of marriage, the priest says "'till death do you part." So when people get divorces, should that be illegal? because in the ceremony it says they should only be parted by death. Should we ban divorces?

Once again, you're arguing this based on a particular religious ritual of marriage that does not represent all religious marriage rituals, or nonreligious ones. My arguments have been secular.

Stasi, i just think you need some more facts to base your opinion on. You talk about "traditional" and "historical" definitions. give me a hard copy of said definitions and show me how they stay the same and never change.

Why don't you look this stuff up yourself, I have other things to do with my time. After all, you're the one who's supposed to write a friggin' essay on it. Oh, and asking someone in an internet forum for a "hard copy" of something is kind of retarded, unless you actually expect them to mail it or hand it to you.

and when you start looking for facts to base this opinion on, don't get upset with me when the only thing you find is "religion" and "traditional definitions" that have no supporting facts or evidence.

Why would I get upset with you if I turned out to be wrong? I know that I don't know everything. Not all people (even "prejudice" ones) are as emotionally fragile and uncritical with their ways of thinking as you may think they are. It is funny, though, that you would say that "traditional definitions" have no supporting facts or evidence. It's funny because for something to be considered "traditional" (in the context of a society or culture), it has to have been commonly interpreted in some way and in practice by the general public. That itself is "evidence", is it not?

well if what i just said didn't answer enough for you, i said earlier that i completely agree with what manadren said. he adressed your questions toward me.

Hmmm. My questions were:

Where has a union between two same-sex gay people been called "marriage" traditionally or historically?

Where hasn't "marriage" been culturally defined as a union between a man and woman?

Manadren didn't answer these, and neither did you. Oh, that's right, you want ME to answer these questions for you....

When you really think about it and research it, banning gay marriage has no strong foundation except for religion. (which is why i put such a big stress on the religion argument) and it's already been stated that any law based on any religion would be unconstitutional.

There'd certainly be less opposition to redefining marriage to include gay unions it if people weren't so religious.

I don't know why, but i've always been taught that equality is what's right.

Hmmm.... You do realize that total "equality" is a pipe dream, no?

Lol, i was making a joke to my dad the other day about jagermeister, but i called it jager for short. he thought i said the N word and almost kicked me out of the house until my sister explained to him what he actually heard.

Unless you were saying "jager" totally wrong, how on earth could your dad think you said "n*gger" unless he's got major hearing problems? Sounds like your dad is a presumtuous prick to "almost" kick you out of the house for mishearing something. I assume you tried to explain? Isn't the virulent, PC censorship mentality a nice one?

nobody is less than anybody else because of what they believe in.

That depends on what their beliefs are. If someone's beliefs are going to lead to unnecessary harm and strife, then I would first try to sway them. If that was unsuccessful, I'd oppose them in other ways, up to and including taking up arms against them.

and nobody deserves different treatment than anybody else based on any choice in life unless that choice, of course, causes harm to somebody.

Depends on how you define "harm" - and I'm being totally serious here. Some people think, for example, that using recreational drugs of all varieties in the privacy of their own home doesn't result in "harm" to anyone. I think people tend to be short-sighted in how they define "harm" in this context and fail to consider harmful, and otherwise undesirable effects of their choices.

and they ESPECIALLY dont deserve different treatment based on something they were born with.

People born with mental disorders and some deformities are treated differently as a practical matter. I consider true homosexuality to be a mental disorder. *Please, if you're going to start arguing about this point, please make a new thread in the debate forum....* I know that's going to make you sure that I'm "prejudice". Whatever.

what i REALLY need to know, nobody has been able to give me a not-bullshit answer for this yet, is how homosexuals marrying hurts heterosexuals?

Who's said that it hurts heteros?

it pisses me off that we have to attack people just because they're different.

Alright, Mr. Furious. Who's been attacking gay people here because they're different - or are you just making a general statement?

last time i checked, being different wasnt a bad thing. that's so extremely prejudice i can't even believe it. the wrong-ness of this is just eating me alive. i can't stand how completely immoral this is and it's seriously making me want to puke.

Heh, now go find your arch-rival, Mr. Prejudice, and defeat him for the good of all mankind! Sounds like someone's attaching a bizarre emotional impetus to the issue akin to religious zeal.

"the wrong-ness of this is just eating me alive"

LOL

Wow, long post, and I'm going to be hurting at work tonight since I'll now be getting a substandard amount of sleep. Se la vie.

***Edit: Nice... f'ing quote tags....

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3290, old post ID:59942