Gay people's opinion should not be taken into account in the marriage debate

This is because marriage has been a straight institution for centuries and gay people have no first hand experience with marriage or why it's significant as a cultural factor, therefore their opinions should be ignored because they don't have the centuries of experience with marriage that straight people do.

 

Gay people have no first hand experience with marriage? lol. They've been involved in the same marriages and cultures as everyone else.

 

My argument is just as good as the one in the other thread - I'm just providing some balance.

 

No, it actually isn't. When I referred to the marriage debate, I was talking about the gay marriage debate - I would've included the word gay in the title but it wouldn't fit with the word limit.

The right for Straight people to marry is not on the debating table at the moment in the media, sorry if this confused you. If it was on the table and the situation was reversed I'd be saying that gay people's opinions should not be taken into account in the straight marriage debate.

This thread amounts to pathetic and inane wordplay on your part, this is pretty much what I'm seeing:



I'm not going to post again if you reply, I'm just explaining the situation.

 

Yea, because straight people have been nothing but honorable and honest in the institution of marriage.

 

Gay people want the following:

1. Steal 1/2 the other person's finances as an incentive for break-up.

2. Be able to take out a plethora of debt in the other person's name and stick them with the bill.

3. Ruin the other person's last name in the media, only to change it back to yours and go incognito.

4. Use another person's stuff and money to live on for several years.



Only men and women get to do that.

 

Considering how splendid heterosexual marriage success rates are, not sure how gays could do any worse. Shaquille O'neal has a better chance at hitting a free throw than straights entering into a successful marriage

 

You are confusing the social institution with the legal institution--a common mistake.

 

The legal institution is really a civil union, the social institution is marriage. Gays can already get married. They can't have a civil union.

And...it's also discriminatory towards single people...

 

Marriage existed before Christianity.

Same sex marriage were performed before Christianity.

Your argument is moot.

 

Really????? Cool.

Where? Do you have a link? I'm interested in this.

 

But Christianity was not the first religious institution to implement marriage.

 

I'm only concerned with what the law says and how it's applied.

 

I'm only concerned with what the law says and how it's applied.

 

No, the legal institution is definitely called marriage -- thousands of examples of it in the law. Not sure how single folks are being discriminated against.​

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

Mostly by the Native Americans.

 

Your opinion should not be taken into account regarding gay marriage. Gay relationships have been an institution for ever, you have presumably no experience of gay relationships or why gay people have the same rights as straight people, therefore your opinions should be ignored because you don't have any experience with gay marriage and you should keep your nose out of gay peoples business...

 

Bingo.

We have a winner.

Don't tell the deluded right wing zealots that.

 

The institution of marriage historically traces its origins back to a time when women were considered property and marriage was the "legal" arrangement of property exchanging hands.

Not sure if you're trolling or not, if so, kudos. Conservative viewpoints today so closely mirror asinine & cartoonishly perspectives it's sometimes different to tell them apart.

 

The thoughts of those on the far-right (where most Conservatives reside today), remind me of those who once promoted the notion that the Earth was 'flat'.

 

Here's a funny bit from wikipedia.org:

Talk about your obvious violations of the first amendment. We may not all agree *cough*republicans*cough* that the church shouldn't be bossing the state around ... but we do all agree that the state shouldn't be bossing the church around, right?

 

It's funny right?

Imagine seeing a thread like this:

Scientists worldwide are engaging in a global conspiracy, palentologists, biologists, astronomers, and all fields that claim to have their own independent studies claiming an "old earth". The reality is, the earth is only 6000 years old, and dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark.

Is this trolling or serious? It's impossible to tell.

 

Depends, is it the right church or the wrong church?

 

Tax breaks, etc. is my guess.

 

I'm trying to think of a Maynard reference that coincides with gay marriage...umm love his mohawk? "it may hurt a little but its something you'll get used to"