Forum
  Classifieds
  News
  Localband
  Shows
  Show Pics
  Polls

  OT Threads
  Other News
  Movies
  VideoGames
  Videos
  TV
  Sports
  Gear
  /r/
  Food

  New Thread
  New Poll

E-mail

New site? Maybe some day.

Username:

SPAM Filter: re-type this

(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)

Message:

UBB enabled. HTML disabled Spam Filtering enabledIcons: (click image to insert) Show All - pop

b i u add: url image video(?)

:	post by Murph at 2009-04-08 13:52:21

I don't get how marriage is anything other than two, consenting adults becoming a recognized single entity under law.

Other than the fact that states identify "adult" differently, I fail to see how this does anything to promote any sort of contentious unions (pedophilic, with animals, polygamist) which would all still be illegal because THERE IS NO PRECEDENT set by same-sex unions in any way that could be used in a legal forum.

If people feel same sex marriage "cheapens" the identity of marriage, then they are failing to realize that there is no possible way to emotionally nor quantitatively study the "identity" of something, especially not the union between two unique people. Even our most "solid" theories of any system in life are just educated guesses about frameworks.

These are the same retards who fail to understand that "love" is an arbitrary term used to explain something that is unique on every single level to the person involved, even those people "in love" with each other.

The only arguments against same-sex marriage (just two people, consenting adults) are historical or personal. Personal arguments are given weight because we are a democracy and your argument is your vote, but historical arguments (especially in the case of legal precedent) only hold weight if there is ground on which to stand. Simply stating that nature in itself provides examples that same-sex unions are "unnatural" is false, and also against basic evolutionary theory which dictates an ever-changing, adaptive world (even in the sexual arena, where some creatures can alter reproductive organs to protect their species).

As far as procreation goes, I'm sorry, but basic mathematical principle dictates that NOT EVERYONE WILL EVER BE GAY, not even close (gay as in stylistically homosexual, not just engaging in same sex...sex) so don't worry, there are plenty of breeders (and successful unions simply amplifies the number of households able to hold our offfspring).

Hence, if you're arguing against same-sex unions in any sense, you have your right to an argument, but unless your argument is based on personal beliefs, you have no real standing and are simply perverting our systems.

[default homepage]

[print][

11:17:58am Apr 27,2024
load time 0.00947 secs/10 queries]

[search]

[refresh page]