Dude I'm sorry you think me saying these attitudes are bigoted is some sort of flame job. By no means do I think that should prevent you from discussing how you feel. My last post compared these attitudes to other, acknowledged forms of bigotry. That was an attempt at debate. You chose to ignore this point and continue to claim that if I think someone is guilty of bigotry then I am childish and ridiculous.

Again, I am sorry, I do not accept this.


Right. Even though about 2/3rds of all marriages end in divorce. Where is your outrage when Britney Spears gets married on a whim and has it annulled less than a week later.

I hardly think it's a sacred institution.

I am definitely outraged at the fact that these people don't take their marriage vows seriously. Or at the first hint of trouble, it's off to divorce court. Especially with kids involved. There is too much selfishness in our society simply speaking. And it is from this "anything goes" attitude that is prevalent with the activists trying to redefine society. It's not only an "anything goes" attitude, but it also stems from "if it feels good...do it" type of mentality. The very same people trying to redefine society, attack morality and family structure first. Ain't that something???

And sorry, you alluded that another forum member was being bigoted for expressing a point of view. A point of view different from yours, but I saw nothing bigoted from it. Is it bigotry to think that a young child needs a father and mother as both provide different yet necessary functions for a developing child? Is it bigoted to point out studies which show children develop better with the traditional setup? Is it bigoted to quote a marriage definition from a source such as Merriam Webster?

You need to go look up the word bigot, because nobody here has displayed anything like it. Just honest opinion.

I know. Those very same people who got women the right to vote. And thought it was wrong to own other people as slaves. The b*st*rds!


In this context, yes. Very much so. Because marriage and raising a child have nothing to do with one another. It's looking for a reason to justify bigotry.
My best friend is married, yet her and her husband have no intention of having children.
If you feel this way, should my friend have been allowed to be married knowing they weren't going to have children? Yes or no. Don't dodge this, give a yes or no answer. Answering YES dismisses your point completely.

Link?

It was a meaningless post. As the law being discussed seeks to change this. The dictionary is only stating what the unjust law says.

I thought it was your government that was attempting to "redefine society" by proposing to amend the constitution?

Are you seriously implying that gays are responsible for womens sufferage and freeing the slaves? :roll:

Answering yes would not dismiss his point. Married men and women (sad that i have to specifiy their genders), even if they have no current plans to have children, have the potential to have them in the future, either by intent or mistake, so you're wrong. Marriage and having children are indeed linked.

No, it only states the historical meaning of the term. Marriage has ALWAYS meant a permanent union between a man and a woman for the purpose of having children. The law being discussed is an attempt to keep that definition from being changed against the wishes of a great majority of the population.

Again, nobody is saying that gays shouldn't form permanent partnerships, nor are they saying that these partnerships can't be recognized via the newly defined and codified institution of "Civil Unions". But there is no need to change the definition of a term that has been with us since our species first started forming community groups.

This thread is gay :doh:

At least then you are following the BBC way of defining the word gay in these modern times. ;)

Seems to me the solution is fairly straight-foward:

1. Amend the Constitution to outlaw gay marriage.

2. Strike the word "marriage" out of all current laws and governmental forms. Replace it with "Civil Union".

3. Get "married" at your local church. Wear a ring if you'd like. Get your kids Baptized if that suits you.

4. Apply for a "Civil Union" at your local judiciary branch office. Know that your Civil Union means that you are now legally responsible for whatever children you have with your Civil Union Partner.

5. Have gay sex in the confines of your own castle, not the local coffee shop's bathroom glory-hole.

6. Profit!

Another example of Umfeld zigzagging around in the search for the "sense". You sense of logic and having a clear line of argument already was broken in the pedophile threat. And in the alcohol-car-accident-thread. But with this one you have delivered your masterpiece in decosntructing clear thought.Simple truth is: you will shout names at everyone who is not accepting your babbled nonsens as ultimate truth. Third time you do it now to me. So who is it using the internet as an anonymous protection!?And now hush-hush back into the garden, play with the other kids. ;)

Cmon now. Can't we all just get along?

Not really:

1. The amendment is to clarify what constitutes a marriage, it is not a direct ban.

2. There is no justifiable reason to do this.

3. We can do that anyways regardless of the government position.

4. You're financially responsible for your children regardless of your matrimonial status.

5. Public sex is disgusting regardless of flavor.

6. Whose profit? Certainly not the general public who would now have to fund gay divorce proceedings and gay marriage tax breaks and shelters.

Right. So switch it to a man who has had his testicles cut off by a tragic lawn mower accident. Or anyway in which a man and woman cannont have a child due to medical reasons.
And answer the question in that way.

Or just refuse to again, because it dismisses the entire point.


And you are wrong about the dictionary. Yes, it simply lists the legal definition. If gays are allowed to marry, guess what, the dictionary isn't going to keep the old definition as some sort of politcal statement.

Good lord.


I'm implying that it's foolish to whine about people who are trying to change things and act like the status que has always been great and never needed changing.

Duh, get it?

Yeah i get it. You're reduced to imagining obscure testicle accidents in a desperate attempt to make your flawed point.

However, regardless of your own "gimme, gimme" childish arguments, the status quO on the definition of the word marriage is fine as is and doesn't need changing. Come up with some really valid reasons for changing it and just maybe people will listen to you, but change for changes own sake is not one of them.

As for the dictionary, you could redefine any word to mean something it doesn't but that wouldn't make it accurate or proper to do so. Changing the definition of a word just to make a political statement, which is what you, not me, are demanding, would be as ridiculous as asking what the definition of "is" is.

Im an American. And I beleive that if this country wants to wag its finger at the world, call its self the leader of Democracy, spout off about freedom and liberty until the cows come home, then It need to practice what it preaches. Gay Americans are Americans. Thats it. Given that fact, they should in no way be barred from engaging in marraige, here in the "Land of the Free".

Amen. :up:

So you too refuse to answer a simply yes or no question, but still try to pretend you have a valid argument. So I can pretty much skip over whatever you post in the future then? Okay.


Here's your valid argument: There are people who want to get married who aren't allowed to for no reason other than simply bigotry.

How's that killer?

And no offense, but about the dictionary thing, there aren't 'Definition Fairies' floating around deciding what words mean. They mean what humans say they mean. And in this case it's simply the LEGAL defininition of a word. And whether it's this year or the year 3006, when the law is changed to end this discrimination, the dictionarie's difinition will be changed.
I mean good lord! Are you kidding me? Why did I come here?

Are you kidding?!!

I have no problem with you ignoring me Pal. There's even a forum feature i believe that will help you do just that.

As for your latest gasp, you're right, they DO mean what humans say they mean, including the legal definition but since the public overwhelmingly DON'T want the meaning to change to accomodate a few activist nuts don't hold your breath waiting for it to happen.

In the UK we already have the civil unions and I think they work just fine. Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a women. It's terminology. At the end of teh day what matters is whether the couple involved have recognition of the union in law and protection. A civil union does just that, the great thing is it can be used by heterosexuals too....

However I agree with most of the people on this, I don't give a damn what someones arientation is as long as they aren't arseholes and it doesn't involve children, animals or brutality.

What I do get peed of with is those homosexual people who shove it down your throat. In the UK at least (and the rest of the EU) there is legislation that protects and gives equal rights to gays in work, life etc. I have know many gay people and well didn't know until it just came about. I have met a couple who made it their business that you knew they were gay and hell become you lest you forgot.

As for a gay couple adopting, well There are many children who are brought up succesfully without either a mother or a father so I wouldn't say just because a couple are gay they are, by default not ideal parents. The issue is that in this society children will be horendously bullied at some point. Also I think it is a symptom of the "have anything no matter what" culture that exists in the west, at least in the UK, and that extends to people using IVF, which I don't agree with but that's another topic.

I haven't seen anything here that is bigotted, some of it I might not agree with but none of it is homophobic.

No? go read the very first post again. :oops:

Im sarchastic. I tend to refer to alot of things in a deragatory fashion (Ie, my use of the word "fudgepacker" instead of homosexual.) . I may not agree with what somone does, but i don't beleive they're privacy or any of their rights should be infringed upon simply because i dont agree with them. Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, these are, as i recall, our unalienable rights.