Gay Marriage

I didn't realize your cat had rights. Is it a legally registered citizen?

You sound crazy with your slippery slope fallacy. Bestiality is Between Man and another type of creature. Gays is Two Same gendered people who want to marry, while being of age and being consentant. Now your gonna tell me you wanna marry your sister and im going to tell you that its not the same because, Incest can make fucked up babies.

Homosexuality can't make any. What's your point? Is having Down Syndrome a crime now?
Are you saying there should be laws against two consenting adults from having sex because of their family line? Sure is Middle Ages in here.

Swerve, you didn't exactly gave me an example as to why gays should not be married. More so, you pointed a small flaw in my statement. The flaw isn't that significant anyways. Had I stated "Love wins against everything", yeah.

Homosexuality can't make any. What's your point? Is having Down Syndrome a crime now?
Are you saying there should be laws against two consenting adults from having sex because of their family line? Sure is Middle Ages in here.

No, Down syndrome is not a crime. I am not talking about that.
I'm saying that its inbreeding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding

I think homosexual marriage is a wonderful thing.

White people watching anime is infinitely more offensive.

You sound crazy with your slippery slope fallacy. Bestiality is Between Man and another type of creature. Gays is Two Same gendered people who want to marry, while being of age and being consentant(This kills pedophilia argument). Now your gonna tell me you wanna marry your sister and im going to tell you that its not the same because, Incest can make pineappleed up babies. If you tell me your gonna marry your pillow well imma tell you its an inanimate object so it cannot consent.

Animals are intelligent creatures that are capable of loving humans. As far as slippery slopes go, I'm just very liberal with my beliefs. If we allow same-sex marriage then we should also allow all forms of relationships between two species that are unable to reproduce. My interpretation is scientific and devoid of social prejudices and normative bias. If we are going to be fair, let's be fair to all oppressed minorities. If we are going to truly make history, let us not leave any group out and consider all minorities. That is truly enacting fair legislature. It's not fair for individuals of heterosexual orientation to have the exclusive right to have marriages. Is it then fair that homosexuals and heterosexuals are able to hog an exclusive right to marriage when true minority groups among the populace are told that their beliefs are foolish and stupid? Let us not discriminate due to decadence of social relevance. Let us not discriminate against the oppressed. If we are truly talking about "making history" then it should include all groups. Not just a popular minority.

I didn't realize your cat had rights. Is it a legally registered citizen?

No. We should legally register every animal though. They have feelings and opinions. Every animal we kill and eat is a sacrifice for our success. We progress at the expense of their lives and carry on their dreams, hopes, and aspirations for the future. Just because we can't understand what animals are saying does not necessarily mean that they are inferior in terms of intelligence. They are intelligent beings. Just not a humanoid form of intelligence and understanding. The only reason why we discriminate is because we cannot afford to survive without depending on their sacrifice. At the expense of our gluttonous nature we have condoned the heinous act of killing another life so that we may live. A true atrocity. Animals should be buried and commemorated for their heroism for the progress of the human race.

I think homosexual marriage is a wonderful thing.

White people watching anime is infinitely more offensive.

This made me laugh.

Animals are intelligent creatures that are capable of loving humans. As far as slippery slopes go, I'm just very liberal with my beliefs. If we allow same-sex marriage then we should also allow all forms of relationships between two species that are unable to reproduce. My interpretation is scientific and devoid of social prejudices and normative bias. If we are going to be fair, let's be fair to all oppressed minorities. If we are going to truly make history, let us not leave any group out and consider all minorities. That is truly enacting fair legislature.

See, where you fail is thinking we cannot reproduce. We cannot with eachother, but there are surrogates... Me and my partner could each have children through surrogates and have a family. Before you say that a child needs a mother and a father figure. A study.

See, where you fail is thinking we cannot reproduce. We cannot with eachother, but there are surrogates... Me and my partner could each have children through surrogates and have a family. Before you say that a child needs a mother and a father figure. A study.

But that child will either be from your sperm or your partner's sperm. It's genetically either 50% your child and 0% partner's child or 50% your partner's child and 0% your child. It would be the same if I donated my sperm and got an egg from a human female. My child would still be 50% mine and 50% from a stranger. Same thing if my cat was inseminated with the sperm from a male cat. The kitten would be 50% of her child and 50% from a stranger. No matter what, it's biologically not going to be the others child.

But that child will either be from your sperm or your partner's sperm. It's genetically either 50% your child and 0% partner's child or 50% your partner's child and 0% your child. It would be the same if I donated my sperm and got an egg from a human female. My child would still be 50% mine and 50% from a stranger. Same thing if my cat was inseminated with the sperm from a male cat. The kitten would be 50% of her child and 50% from a stranger. No matter what, it's biologically not going to be the others child.

That means women and men who have disabilities and cannot reproduce should not be allowed to marry. Why do we allow condoms ? it stops reproduction. Birth control pills, abortions, all of these things that go against reproduction are allowed and Gay marriage is not ? Oh and that means people should stop adopting, whats the point if your are caring for someone who does not share the same genes. And Even if my partners child is not biologically mine it does not mean I will not take care of it like my own. (think I went off subject).

That means women and men who have disabilities and cannot reproduce should not be allowed to marry. Why do we allow condoms ? it stops reproduction. Birth control pills, abortions. All of that is allowed and Gay marriage is not ? And Even if my partners child is not biologically mine it does not mean I will not take care of it like my own. (think I went off subject).

No. It means that if you're going to support gay marriage then you should also support male-animal relationships, male-plant relationships, male-inanimate object relationships, and so forth. People who believe in gay marriage believe that they are liberals and are oppressed. But the truth of the matter is that this notion is only with respect to a biased form of social engineering that lies and creates make believe dichotomies to make people believe that they are a "minority" when this opinion is actually a major social construct that people can relate and understand. I seriously believe that animals are intelligent and should be respected a lot more than the way we treat them in our society. I am grateful for their sacrifice and entertain the possibility that I am eating an equally intelligent if not smarter organism that simply does not share similar linguistic capabilities. The truth of the matter is that people argue that homosexual marriages should be allowed because it is fair. The world is cruel and unfair. Democracy is nothing more than mob mentality and false dichotomies (Democrats or Republicans). If we were to truly be "fair" and change "unfair" rules, then marriage should incorporate every type of relationship instead of exclusively being limited to only one, two, or three types of relationships.

I don't care if anyone is gay, straight, bestiality, or anything else. Who or what you love is none of my concern. I think that this form of equalized apathy towards judging other people's relationships has caused me to decide to treat all factors equally when it comes to absolutely being "fair." After all, all normative opinions are relative. Yes I truly believe that it is possible for someone to love a doll as much as a real woman. Yes it is sad. But who are we to judge one idea as being right and another idea as being wrong because we're biased. Allowing gay marriage will result in social change. But it won't really result in real social change. To me at least, it will seem shallow. Like everything else in the world. When it comes down to it, who decides what can be defined as a radical revolution? Certainly not me. I'm clearly insane.

No. It means that if you're going to support gay marriage then you should also support male-animal relationships, male-plant relationships, male-inanimate object relationships, and so forth. People who believe in gay marriage believe that they are liberals and are oppressed. But the truth of the matter is that this notion is only with respect to a biased form of social engineering that lies and creates make believe dichotomies to make people believe that they are a "minority" when this opinion is actually a major social construct that people can relate and understand. I seriously believe that animals are intelligent and should be respected a lot more than the way we treat them in our society. I am grateful for their sacrifice and entertain the possibility that I am eating an equally intelligent if not smarter organism that simply does not share similar linguistic capabilities. The truth of the matter is that people argue that homosexual marriages should be allowed because it is fair. The world is cruel and unfair. Democracy is nothing more than mob mentality and false dichotomies (Democrats or Republicans). If we were to truly be "fair" and change "unfair" rules, then marriage should incorporate every type of relationship instead of exclusively being limited to only one, two, or three types of relationships.

I just want some way to mooch off of my potential partner's health care. I don't care too much about fairness, nor do I feel very oppressed.

As a matter of fact, I talk down to straight people for not being as fabulous as I am.

No. It means that if you're going to support gay marriage then you should also support male-animal relationships, male-plant relationships, male-inanimate object relationships, and so forth. People who believe in gay marriage believe that they are liberals and are oppressed. But the truth of the matter is that this notion is only with respect to a biased form of social engineering that lies and creates make believe dichotomies to make people believe that they are a "minority" when this opinion is actually a major social construct that people can relate and understand. I seriously believe that animals are intelligent and should be respected a lot more than the way we treat them in our society. I am grateful for their sacrifice and entertain the possibility that I am eating an equally intelligent if not smarter organism that simply does not share similar linguistic capabilities. The truth of the matter is that people argue that homosexual marriages should be allowed because it is fair. The world is cruel and unfair. Democracy is nothing more than mob mentality and false dichotomies (Democrats or Republicans). If we were to truly be "fair" and change "unfair" rules, then marriage should incorporate every type of relationship instead of exclusively being limited to only one, two, or three types of relationships.

TBH, you are being stubborn, you will not even try to understand so i will not give up. One last thing Gay marriage means if I die my partner will get guardianship of my child(I think),Which is what I would want. Plants, Animals, inanimate objects cannot do so, even if they are as smart as you say they are. I want my partner to have the choice to keep me plugged or unplug me if I'm in a coma, I want equality because we deserve to be equal because we are humans like you. We did not choose to be homosexuals, I did not choose to be bashed by ignorant people like you, but I am, and even if you don't agree, these are my rights and i should be allowed to exercise? them.
But.. I am in Canada so i can already do all of those things, I'm fighting for gays who can't in their country.

TBH, you are being stubborn, you will not even try to understand so i will not give up. One last thing Gay marriage means if I die my partner will get guardianship of my child(I think),Which is what I would want. Plants, Animals, inanimate objects cannot do so, even if they are as smart as you say they are. I want my partner to have the choice to keep me plugged or unplug me if I'm in a coma, I want equality because we deserve to be equal because we are humans like you. We did not choose to be homosexuals, I did not choose to be bashed by ignorant people like you, but I am, and even if you don't agree, these are my rights and i should be allowed to exercise? them. But.. I am in Canada so i can already do all of those things, I'm fighting for gays who can't in their country.

If you want those individual rights then you should fight for those rights that you deserve. Marriage shouldn't be used as a means to an end in order to achieve certain benefits or rights that you desire. That's ruining the integrity of marriage. Even though it might be more practical to aspire for marriage, you are ruining the deontological and inherent essence of the subject for consequentalist benefits. It's not explicitly aimed at homosexuals but with the world in general. People have stopped doing things for the enjoyment of just doing it. All of a sudden college is used to get a six figure salary or to get into Medical School. Playing sports is seen as a fast-track to popularity and success. Heterosexuals have pissed all over the integrity of marriage. But that doesn't change what I believe should happen and how we should view things that we choose to pursue.

If you want those individual rights then you should fight for those rights that you deserve. Marriage shouldn't be used as a means to an end in order to achieve certain benefits or rights that you desire. That's ruining the integrity of marriage.

Do you mean that, as in Marriage is a holy (blablabla) only between woman and man ? Marriage (in the U.S.) is seperate from religion so ?
And its not only for those benefits its a way to show love to eachother.

If you want those individual rights then you should fight for those rights that you deserve. Marriage shouldn't be used as a means to an end in order to achieve certain benefits or rights that you desire. That's ruining the integrity of marriage.

Integrity of marriage hahaha.

It's a title that people get to show off; it has no meaning. It's not a right, but it's not a privilege that shouldn't be withheld from any group solely because the idea of sharing that title makes them uncomfortable. And that's all it is. I guess we should kick gays off our buses and out of our stores too. Sharing that space with them gives me the willies and God (or some ancient parchment) says it's unnatural for a flamer to eat fruit.

Marriage lost it's integrity long ago thanks to adulterers and people who just stopped caring about how "sacred" it was; and oh yeah, they're all straight. So this "right" is not only fine for you to withhold but for you to abuse until it's nothing but a joke, and even then it's too good for homosexuals? Right.

Integrity of marriage hahaha.

It's a title that people get to show off; it has no meaning. It's not a right, but it's not a privilege that should be withheld from any group solely because the idea of sharing that title makes them uncomfortable. And that's all it is. I guess we should kick gays off our buses and out of our stores too. Sharing that space with them gives me the willies and God (or some ancient parchment) says it's unnatural for a flamer to eat fruit.

Marriage lost it's integrity long ago thanks to adulterers and people who just stopped caring about how "scared" it was; and oh yeah, they're all straight. So this "right" is not only fine for you to withhold but for you to abuse until it's nothing but a joke, and even then it's too good for homosexuals? Right.

I never said marriage was a "right." He was listing examples including the right for determining situations like "euthanasia" and other factors supposedly linked to being achieved via marriage. I said that the concept of marriage should be separated from those rights and that those issues should be contested individually by homosexuals or any individuals for that matter instead of practically trying to gain those rights via arguing the topic of marriage.

Again I'm arguing what I think "should" happen. I understand that practically speaking the "should" often gets in the way of achieving results and real accomplishments.

I know this isn't the Funhouse, but I find this video quite relevant.

[video=youtube;rdH1ZEbnIms]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdH1ZEbnIms[/video]

It sums up what I feel about gay marriage.

I never said marriage was a "right." He was listing examples including the right for determining situations like "euthanasia" and other factors supposedly linked to being achieved via marriage. I said that the concept of marriage should be separated from those rights and that those issues should be contested individually by homosexuals or any individuals for that matter instead of practically trying to gain those rights via arguing the topic of marriage.

I was really only referring to the integrity part of your comment. Marriage is a worthless feel-good concept that has been degraded into something people laugh about because of how others have treated it. There is no integrity attached. Once there was, but no longer.

I was really only referring to the integrity part of your comment. Marriage is a worthless feel-good concept that has been degraded into something people laugh about because of how others have treated it. There is no integrity attached. Once there was, but no longer.

The concept of deontology does not subject itself to the objects it is being applied. It is a theory that to do something for the sake of doing it is an act of intentional purity. No ulterior motives.