Gay Marriage

Originally Posted by Virtigo

If asked to read a legal document of consent, it fails to do so.

If asked to sign a legal document of consent, it cannot.



Animals are not usually considered able to give informed consent in a legal sense.

So should metally handicapped people be denied marriage?

Those that still have some cognitive function can sign and acknowledge, and they have advocacy groups to ease them through the legal process of marriage.

Those who cannot also have their parents, legal guardians, and legal advocates.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

So should metally handicapped people be denied marriage?

Potentially? Yes.

However, the person would have to be unable to give consent, and that takes quite a mental handicap.

As a gay guy (please don't poke or stare) I kinda like the idea of getting married in the future, sure its not ACTUALLY a holy union in the eyes of 'god' because if it were . . . I'm pretty sure the place the ceremony was being held would sink right into 'hell'

Its a civil partnership, pretty much the same as a wedding your just cutting out the (false) deity and replacing it simply with the law.

Originally Posted by Virtigo

Those that still have some cognitive function can sign and acknowledge, and they have advocacy groups to ease them through the legal process of marriage.

Those who cannot also have their parents, legal guardians, and legal advocates.

So then a horse can have an advocacy group. Well we better start letting people marry animals and Captain Crunch boxes.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

So then a horse can have an advocacy group. Well we better start letting people marry animals and Captain Crunch boxes.

There's no person in the world is sexually attracted to another specie.

Your logic fails hard. Lisent to your mind, no to your thoughts.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

So then a horse can have an advocacy group. Well we better start letting people marry animals and Captain Crunch boxes.

No. No they cannot. A mentally retarded person who is deemed unable to understand and support themselves is not considered eligible for marriage, but those that can are free to marry.

Do you plan on carrying this charade on for much longer? It's a waste of our time.

Originally Posted by exidid

There's no person in the world is sexually attracted to another specie.

Your logic fails hard. Lisent to your mind, no to your thoughts.

Actually, you're wrong on that one. How do you explain all the man on animal/animal on man porn floating around? Some guy just died from being sodomized from a horse, if you hadn't heard the story.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

So then a horse can have an advocacy group. Well we better start letting people marry animals and Captain Crunch boxes.

None of the above can sign any of the legal documents that a signature is required for when it comes to a legal marriage license.

At this point I just wish people would stop playing the "it happens in the wild" card. Yeah, a lot of things happen in the wild: Murder, infantacide, kidnapping, stealing, enslaving, ect.

Now, I'm neutral on homosexuality because the best thing I can think of for opposing it is that I don't like the idea. I don't support it because I don't like it, and I don't oppose it because I can't think of a way that it harm society to the extent that many illegal acts do.

However, I would still like people to stop using the fact that other species do something as a reason that it's ok. Because the things I listed abve that happen in the wild are illiegal, and the fact that "everyone else does it" isn't going to float in court if someone tries to legalize it.

However, I would still like people to stop using the fact that other species do something as a reason that it's ok.

As far as I have seen, so far in this thread people have used that argument against the claim that Homosexuality isnt natural. In that context, it is completely valid. (Kind of Like what DrZaius said)

Originally Posted by Daphnes

At this point I just wish people would stop playing the "it happens in the wild" card. Yeah, a lot of things happen in the wild: Murder, infantacide, kidnapping, stealing, enslaving, ect.

Now, I'm neutral on homosexuality because the best thing I can think of for opposing it is that I don't like the idea. I don't support it because I don't like it, and I don't oppose it because I can't think of a way that it harm society to the extent that many illegal acts do.

However, I would still like people to stop using the fact that other species do something as a reason that it's ok. Because the things I listed abve that happen in the wild are illiegal, and the fact that "everyone else does it" isn't going to float in court if someone tries to legalize it.

The fact that homosexuality exists in the wild shows that it isn't caused by a bunch of weirdos who have serious issues and it happens to be genetic.

Originally Posted by DrZaius1

The fact that homosexuality exists in the wild shows that it isn't caused by a bunch of weirdos who have serious issues and it happens to be genetic.

I suppose. I do lean towards it being genetic. If it was just a lifestyle choice, then more people would go back to being straight instead of risking their lives like they do/did in some places.

I suppose. I do lean towards it being genetic. If it was just a lifestyle choice, then more people would go back to being straight instead of risking their lives like they do/did in some places.

No choice does not equal a Genetic cause. (Just for the sake of the argument).

i think i should stay outta this one. i dont want to be hated by the community.

You shouldnt be afraid of posting just because you think someone might not like it.

No matter what your stance one gay marriage is, I don't think anyone can deny the fact that a man can love another man.
Reading some of the posts, I think people forget WHY gays want to get married. it's because they love eachother, not because they want to start a huge fight/debate.

Originally Posted by Skootle

No matter what your stance one gay marriage is, I don't think anyone can deny the fact that a man can love another man.
Reading some of the posts, I think people forget WHY gays want to get married. it's because they love eachother, not because they want to start a huge fight/debate.

Tax reasons are an incentive as well.

Originally Posted by exidid

There's no person in the world is sexually attracted to another specie.

Your logic fails hard. Lisent to your mind, no to your thoughts.

Not true, actually. It's called bestiality and is not all that uncommon.

Originally Posted by Daphnes

However, I would still like people to stop using the fact that other species do something as a reason that it's ok. Because the things I listed abve that happen in the wild are illiegal, and the fact that "everyone else does it" isn't going to float in court if someone tries to legalize it.

It's not being used as a reason to legalize it, it's been used to counter the argument that it isn't natural.

Originally Posted by exidid

There's no person in the world is sexually attracted to another specie.

Your logic fails hard. Lisent to your mind, no to your thoughts.

You don't know that for sure. Besides if you start letting gays marry then you have to let other people marry whatever the hell they want. If people can help a monkey run for mayor then I think we can help them get married too. Non-human electoral candidates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No. No they cannot. A mentally retarded person who is deemed unable to understand and support themselves is not considered eligible for marriage, but those that can are free to marry.

Do you plan on carrying this charade on for much longer? It's a waste of our time.

Not a charade, just a point.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

You don't know that for sure. Besides if you start letting gays marry then you have to let other people marry whatever the hell they want. If people can help a monkey run for mayor then I think we can help them get married too.

I still don't see why you can't realize there's a difference between two people of the same species marrying, regardless of gender, and someone marrying an animal or an object. There's just no comparison, as others have shown.

Originally Posted by Skootle

^ first time I saw porn I was shocked.

to a kid, porn looks like a scary wrestling match. it IS confusing for a child to withness sex with no knowledge of it. it's weird and gross to them, and actually, one time, my ex (when he was little) heard his parents having sex and went in the room and asked "why is mommy crying?"

so yes, a kid could be confused about sex and when you allow a kid to figure stuff out for themselves, sometimed\s they an come up with a harmless explanation or rationalizatiion, other times, they may just be scared or disturbed. especially if they come to assume the type of sex they see in porn is how all sex is. they'd grow up with that mentality, and it's possible that they may never be taught otherwise.

anyhoo- I've defended my poition on porn, although it's off topic...

but I've already stated my opinion on gays and gay marriage.

I think it's not fair that 2 people who happen to be of the opposite sex can be able to get health benefits and tax breaks, but if 2 people of the same sex, who love each other just as much and have the same level of devotion to each other and want to build a life together, they have to try to get by the harder and more expensive way.
EXAMPLE:
say a married woman's husband gets prostate cancer and the husband is covered by the woman's health insurance. they can get better/cheaper treatment and support. But if a man in a gay couple gets cancer, he can't get benefits through his partner's insurance (although SOME insurance companies DO have domestic partner benefits, many don't). they have to bankrupt themselves to get treatment and they suffer more because financial hardship often can take a toll on one's overall happiness and drains one's sense of hope, and maybe the man even suffers and/or dies due to lack of proper coverage.

both scenarios involve a pair of loving, devoted partners, but one couple has to suffer more because the government wants to impose the opinion of the moral majority on them. how is that fair?

Originally Posted by Margar

but I've already stated my opinion on gays and gay marriage.

I think it's not fair that 2 people who happen to be of the opposite sex can be able to get health benefits and tax breaks, but if 2 people of the same sex, who love each other just as much and have the same level of devotion to each other and want to build a life together, they have to try to get by the harder and more expensive way.
EXAMPLE:
say a married woman's husband gets prostate cancer and the husband is covered by the woman's health insurance. they can get better/cheaper treatment and support. But if a man in a gay couple gets cancer, he can't get benefits through his partner's insurance (although SOME insurance companies DO have domestic partner benefits, many don't). they have to bankrupt themselves to get treatment and they suffer more because financial hardship often can take a toll on one's overall happiness and drains one's sense of hope, and maybe the man even suffers and/or dies due to lack of proper coverage.

both scenarios involve a pair of loving, devoted partners, but one couple has to suffer more because the government wants to impose the opinion of the moral majority on them. how is that fair?

It isn't. That's why gays should be able to have something available to them. Make it marriage without the name. It doesn't really matter, as long as the result is the same.