ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 5:23 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 87 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: The Gay marriage thing
PostPosted: Sun Feb 29, 2004 8:48 am 
Offline
n00b
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:38 pm
Posts: 4
Location: watching you...from your closet
i personally think it should definetly be legal and my reasons are:

what is the problem?! i dont see why people are so against it. sure they can say its not what "god" intended but im also pretty sure "god" didn't want us the live in misery. if you were homosexual wouldn't it bother you to live your life without being legally married to the one you love, eventhough im sure its enough just to be with the person. its the principle of the thing. people who are homosexual are almost treated like they arent even human. but they are, therefore dont they deserve the same rights as anyone else.

well im tired, its early and i probably couldv'e done better with that post.

_________________
"Fame is vapor, popularity an accident; the only earthly certainty is oblivion." -Mark Twain


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 29, 2004 8:55 am 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2003 7:47 pm
Posts: 6152
Location: somewhere in Canada
Ok, first something like this belongs in Debate, not here. Second, I'm pretty sure that there are at least 2 threads on this topic (maybe not currently active, but still reasonably accurate on the feelings and opinions of the others). Please try to at least look for existing threads before starting a new one.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 29, 2004 12:20 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 10:31 pm
Posts: 1496
Location: Seattle, Washington
About four pages into the Debate forum. I found it. Nyeeeer...

_________________
http://www.ericaenns.com
http://spools.comicgen.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 29, 2004 1:51 pm 
Offline
Addict

Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2003 11:08 pm
Posts: 2115
Location: Lair of the Internet Anti-Hero
Come on icy, wheres that "Aw Geez, not this shit again" Piccie?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 29, 2004 2:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2038 9:00 pm
Posts: 3209
Like the man said.

DEBATE FORUM.

_________________
election results: still an op
Let me put it to you this way: I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 29, 2004 7:21 pm 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2003 5:00 pm
Posts: 7672
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Unlocked, and open for debate! I say this be a debate about the potential ramafications of the proposed amendment to the constitution officially defining marraige as the union of a man and a woman and putting the power to give benifits fully into the state's hands.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 29, 2004 7:32 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2003 7:12 pm
Posts: 731
Location: Central Coast, Colanirfia
Putting it in states' hands is a bad idea because if states have to recognise marraiges from other states then one state can say "yes" and all the others are affected, while if you say states don't have to recognise other states' marraiges then you wind up with insecurity of marraige for all couples, not to mention needless splits within the nation.

Besides, if you work on the theory of "the more local, the better," then you wind up leaving it up to the individuals to decide anyway. I don't think this is a bad solution, but it kinda misses the point.

_________________
Quote:
"In real life, you don' have a Subterfuge skill above one." - Phill
"What?! You spent THREE YEARS believing that I didn't masturbate!" - Steven


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:29 am 
Offline
Addict

Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2003 11:08 pm
Posts: 2115
Location: Lair of the Internet Anti-Hero
Gay *Unions*, sure, go knock yourself out.

And have your tac benifits too, you money grubbing whores.

I still say gay unions be called a "party"

..Must go dig up that old thread for that chestnut..


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:50 am 
Offline
Expatriate

Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 139
The implications of repealing the "full faith and credit" clause, at least partially, are quite disturbing. At the moment I'll refrain from attempting to draw historical parallels from a period that is not my forte.

Further, it disgusts me that some would use arguments regarding relgion and marriage: first in that the US is ostensibly secular and while the prevailing religions may ban gay marriage their standards should not affect legal decisions and second in that marriage has always been a legal institution and predates all existing religions by several millennia anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:59 am 
Offline
Addict

Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2003 11:08 pm
Posts: 2115
Location: Lair of the Internet Anti-Hero
Hasufin wrote:
been a legal institution and predates all existing religions by several millennia anyway.


Back it up or pack it up, bitch.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2004 1:27 am 
Offline
Expatriate

Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 139
There are innumerable relevant archeological texts. I reccomend Life and Society in the Hittite World which includes translations from the legal code of a late bronze age legal society, several of which relate to marriage.

That marriage, in a form not dissimilar to what we know it today, was also practiced by the ancient Egyptians, Greeks, Etruscans, Persians, and various other ancient civilizations is a matter of such common knowledge that I have trouble believing anyone could be wholly unfamiliar with the fact.

Of course, none of the ancient civilizations I have mentioned were secular - however, they generally practiced different religions, but nonetheless managed to agree on terms of marriage at least well enough to manage diplomatic agreements on such bases, implying a common understanding of what "marriage" was.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2004 1:41 am 
Offline
Addict

Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2003 11:08 pm
Posts: 2115
Location: Lair of the Internet Anti-Hero
Uh-huh, and all this time the Jewish fath was around, which split into the modern jewish faith and the christian faiths.

Kinda puts a damper on the "OMG MARRIAGE IS 1000's OF YEARS OLDER THAN MODERN RELIGIONS, LOLZ"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2004 1:47 am 
Offline
Expatriate

Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 139
Excepting, of course, the minor detail the Judaism is not the oldest religion; it's one of the oldest practiced religions, to be sure, but is predated by no few now-extinct cultures - all of which did have marriage in a form recognizable as such.

Even the oldest Sumerian texts have records of marriage; I cannot name any culture that lacks some such institution.

If you wish to claim that marriage began with Judaism, I suppose that's your prerogative; the archeological record firmly refutes such a claim, but there is no rational argument to deal with such faith.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2004 2:17 am 
Offline
Addict

Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2003 11:08 pm
Posts: 2115
Location: Lair of the Internet Anti-Hero
So, you lost your point, so your trying to sidetrack us with crap that doesnt have anything to do with what we were discussing, which was your inane claim that marriage is litrally thousands of years older than modern religions.

Admit it.

You Lost.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2004 2:51 am 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 10551
Location: Bris-Vegas Australia
I don't see any problem with marriage between gay people.

I do however see and understand that religious groups that don't approve of Gay couples can deny them the option of marriage in thier churches and approval. Its their damn religion, they shouldn't have to change it for someone else.

The problem is some people see Marriage as both a legal and moral binding. And these people don't see that other people accept different ideas of morality(Like sleeping with other women). And to make matters worse, the same people seem to think that their ideas should be made into law.

To conclude: Lesbians.

Actor.

_________________
"Why can't we go back to living like cavemen? I know it was a rough and ready existence - the men where always rough and the women were always ready! " - Santa.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: here"s the grain of salt. now for the post.
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2004 2:56 am 
Offline
<font color=darkred><b>Lorem Ipsum
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3342
Location: ich bin ein Auslander
Forevergrey wrote:
gay marriage?! that's fer poofters!


Evolution has created a number of 'partner for life" species. Fucked if i can be bothered looking up what they are though...some birds i think. saw it on some rabbitborrough doco...

if monogamous relationship predates society, or even cognitive thought, i'd call that predating religion, of any sort.

Marriage seems to be a phenomenon that springs up spontaneously in many societies, regardless of whether their roots go back to judaeisim, or predate it.

i could go on about my opinions on confusing state and religion, but i really have better things to do, like go look at porn.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2004 3:00 am 
Offline
Addict

Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2003 11:08 pm
Posts: 2115
Location: Lair of the Internet Anti-Hero
I do belive I stated I didnt have a problem with gay unions twice.... but what the hell

Madadric wrote:
Im a jiggly, fat, lazy whore who spend damn near a quarter of a century existing on the providence of others"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2004 7:26 am 
Offline
Local

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:33 am
Posts: 187
Location: Undisclosed at this time.
Gray, so you have no problem with gay unions, and you laugh at the whole "Marriage is a holy union, Cletus! *hyuk*" argument. Why exactly are you against gay marriage? And no, this isnt attack, Im asking why.

_________________
I came to see the CIRCUS, not some half dressed tart spouting dire warnings. -BG2, Shadows of Amn


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2004 8:53 am 
Offline
Expatriate

Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 139
Forevergrey wrote:
So, you lost your point, so your trying to sidetrack us with crap that doesnt have anything to do with what we were discussing, which was your inane claim that marriage is litrally thousands of years older than modern religions.

Admit it.

You Lost.
What, is this your only tactic? Insult twice and then claim victory without having addressed any of the points made?


Now, according to Jewish tradition, Abraham was born in the city of Ur circa 1800 BC. This is the earliest date that can be claimed for the origins of Judaism.

For a bit of perspective.... this is roughly the same time as the beginnings of the Hittite empire - please note that the the civilization can reasonably be assumed to predate the empire by a considerable degree. Abraham was also likely a near-contemporary of Hammurabi, whose Code of Laws does specifically cover marriage. So, obviously, marriage at the absolute minimum developed simultaneous with and independent of Judaism.

But it doesn't stop there. The great pyramid of Khufu was completed around 2560 BC. over seven centuries before the birth of Abraham. I bring this up because a surprising many of our marriage customs actually originate from Egyptian culture. A good example of this is the marriage band, which has been shown to be used by the ancient Egyptians at least as early as 2800 BC (Why, that's a milennium before Abraham!). And that was only 3rd dynasty - further forays into the origins of marriage vanish into antiquity, since I'm not going to make an attempt on pre-Egyptian Sumer. Nonetheless simple inference indicates that such customs do not happen overnight nor rapidly at all, and so one can readily assume that marriage predates even these vastly ancient dates by a not inconsiderable degree.

My point through this is simply that no modern culture or religion originated "marriage" and so no one can claim to have the definite and final claim on its definition. Lacking that, therefore, we should consider secular authority which while not being able to lay even a false claim on the origins of the institution does have control over its implementation. And lacking in non-secular arguments there are scant reasons offered to prevent homosexual marriages.


Last edited by Hasufin on Mon Mar 01, 2004 1:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2004 11:42 am 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2003 5:00 pm
Posts: 7672
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Forevergrey wrote:
I do belive I stated I didnt have a problem with gay unions twice.... but what the hell

Madadric wrote:
Im a jiggly, fat, lazy whore who spend damn near a quarter of a century existing on the providence of others"


Grey, this is a warning. Don't do this again in the debate scenario. I'm not saying you can't monger your hate, just keep it out of places it doesn't belong.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 87 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group