now for something completely different

[xiphoid2010]

That's the problem. Marriage's definition and qualifications are fluid. Marriage between two different religions used to not be tolerated by some churches. Now its OK. Same with race. We keep changing the qualifications to what is an acceptable marriage. The allowing gays to marry is just the next step in that fluidity of the term.

Again, you can not use the few exceptions to justify the majority. Most religions don't forbid inter-marriages during history, and the definition of marriage between man and woman by far stands universal and unchanged.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[All4MyDaughter]

Again, you can not use the few exceptions to justify the majority. Most religions don't forbid inter-marriages during history, and the definition of marriage between man and woman by far stands universal and unchanged.

So what? Slavery has been universal throughout history, too. Historical precedent doesn't confer absolute correctness.

 

[eagles22]

Again, you can not use the few exceptions to justify the majority. Most religions don't forbid inter-marriages during history, and the definition of marriage between man and woman by far stands universal and unchanged.

You can't just hold on to the part of the definition that you want to. And these aren't the zebras amongst the horses as much as you like to say they are.

 

[xiphoid2010]

Ok, why yes? Because it's the morally and legally right thing to do.

Its not legal thus far. As for moral. I don't see how trying to alter the definition of marriage thus far is moral or immoral. Its a question of whether those of us who earned this title want to share it or not. I just personally think they should get a new title, I like mine the way it is.

 

[xiphoid2010]

So what? Slavery has been universal throughout history, too. Historical precedent doesn't confer absolute correctness.

Neither does change. Again, no compelling reason yet to change the definition, just a lot of political correctness talk.

 

[eagles22]

Its not legal thus far. As for moral. I don't see how trying to alter the definition of marriage thus far is moral or immoral. Its a question of whether those of us who earned this title want to share it or not. I just personally think they should get a new title, I like mine the way it is.

So white, landowning men should have kept the title citizen and given former black slaves a different one? We as a society have agreed that separate but equal is immoral and illegal. That is what you're proposing.

You didn't earn ****. You were born liking the other sex and found someone to spend your life with and got a marriage license. Marriage is not some crazy accomplishment.

 

[xiphoid2010]

So white, landowning men should have kept the title citizen and given former black slaves a different one? We as a society have agreed that separate but equal is immoral and illegal. That is what you're proposing.

You didn't earn ****. You were born liking the other sex and found someone to spend your life with and got a marriage license. Marriage is not some crazy accomplishment.

Going out on limb to grasp at straws at slavery to compare with sharing marriage definition isn't very convincing. Try to come up with a more rational argument. I'm not even going to dignify your second part.

 

[eagles22]

Going out on limb to grasp at straws at slavery to compare with sharing marriage definition isn't very convincing. Try to come up with a more rational argument. I'm not even going to dignify your second part.

You refuse to accept historical comparison. You refuse to acknowledge that the concept of marriage has been fluid throughout US history. You refuse to come up with any justification other than "I like my title and don't want to share". You claim this is apples to oranges yet have not shown how one is an apply and the other is an orange. Let me just pose this one question to you. What is the valid reason that prohibits gays from marrying?

 

[zelman]

Going out on limb to grasp at straws at slavery to compare with sharing marriage definition isn't very convincing. Try to come up with a more rational argument. I'm not even going to dignify your second part.

While the tone was disrespectful, I think the inquiry is valid. How did you earn your right to marriage? Mine cost me a $40 fee as I recall.

 

[PharmDstudent]

Again, who said I care about if people think gay or not? Do you have an identity? Are you different than john doe over there? Does a bachelors in biology the same as BA in communications? If everyone is called a doctor, is your title worth anything? I got married, it means a man and a woman before God when we did. Sorry if I don't want to share or change into something else. Sorry, but this name's taken. There are plenty of other things you can call it, so don't butt into mine please.

Identities can change with and without a person's control, but your identity wouldn't be any different just because the definition of marriage changes. Marriage is like race, I suppose. Regardless of who you marry, you can't change your marital status as "married",
"single", "divorced", etc. just like you can't change your race. Either you're married or not, single or not, divorced or not, etc. Your ethnicity can change, though, just like your marital identity - a man and a woman under God, a man and a man under God, a woman and a woman under God, neither a man nor a woman under God, etc.

 

[pharmasaur]

Must we throw away every tradition to accommodate new phenomenon?

You think being gay is a new phenomenon??????? Like you think it's a hot new trend like a handbag or something and in 30 yrs people won't be gay anymore...? I don't think you know what you're talking about.

 

[npage148]

Well, I'm glad we got to the bottom of the issue. Xiphoid doesn't like gay marriage simply because he doesn't want to be mistaken for a gay person, ssm will pervert be definition of marriage and he feels they should continue to be descrimintaed against. What was even your point of starting this thread? it only damaged your reputation

 

[mustang sally]

Okay, I didn't read the whole thread, but I do support equal marriage rights. Not too sure why we need to come up with a new name for gay marriage, especially if it's going to carry the exact same legal rights as traditional marriage (as it should). I know it's just a word and all, but I think if we allow it under a different name it's sending the message that gays somehow aren't really married.

 

[xiphoid2010]

Well, I'm glad we got to the bottom of the issue. Xiphoid doesn't like gay marriage simply because he doesn't want to be mistaken for a gay person, ssm will pervert be definition of marriage and he feels they should continue to be descrimintaed against. What was even your point of starting this thread? it only damaged your reputation

Wow, way to make a lie. Bravo!

 

[owlegrad]

Neither does change. Again, no compelling reason yet to change the definition, just a lot of political correctness talk.

It has nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with equality.

 

[xiphoid2010]

You think being gay is a new phenomenon??????? Like you think it's a hot new trend like a handbag or something and in 30 yrs people won't be gay anymore...? I don't think you know what you're talking about.

SSM is a new phenomenon. Everyone who has been engaged in the debate thus far didn't miss it, how did you?

 

[xiphoid2010]

It has nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with equality.

Men and women are equal, but we must redefine a man as a woman to have equality?

 

[npage148]

Wow, way to make a lie. Bravo!

Where did I lie?

You said you are scared you might have to speicfy you're married to a women. You don't want to redefine marriage due to a "new phenomenon". You want separate but equal despite the Supreme Court previously stating that that is not suitable when it comes to civil rights.

Like I asked, why did you start this thread? Where you looking for an echo chamber to support your descriminatory views?

 

[xiphoid2010]

Identities can change with and without a person's control, but your identity wouldn't be any different just because the definition of marriage changes. Marriage is like race, I suppose. Regardless of who you marry, you can't change your marital status as "married",
"single", "divorced", etc. just like you can't change your race. Either you're married or not, single or not, divorced or not, etc. Your ethnicity can change, though, just like your marital identity - a man and a woman under God, a man and a man under God, a woman and a woman under God, neither a man nor a woman under God, etc.

Agree up to a point. But I see no no compelling reason to change the definition. Different races enjoy equal protection without having to change the definition of their identity. So I ask again why we must change the definition of everyone who has married so far to include a new legal phenomenon when it can be given its own identity definition such as civil union etc.

 

[npage148]

Men and women are equal, but we must redefine a man as a woman to have equality?

Why do you think there's no box for sex when applying for a job? It's not because employers willing left it out. In many situations it is illegal to ask about gender so yeah, we kind of already redefined it.

 

[xiphoid2010]

Well, I'm glad we got to the bottom of the issue. Xiphoid doesn't like gay marriage simply because he doesn't want to be mistaken for a gay person, ssm will pervert be definition of marriage and he feels they should continue to be descrimintaed against. What was even your point of starting this thread? it only damaged your reputation

Where you try to make a lie? How about that whole of part of it. Thank you for trying to make something up for me and try to put it on me. Bravo.

 

[xiphoid2010]

Why do you think there's no box for sex when applying for a job? It's not because employers willing left it out. In many situations it is illegal to ask about gender so yeah, we kind of already redefined it.

Illogical argument. Not allowing to ask gender doesn't redefine gender at all.

 

[npage148]

Illogical argument. Not allowing to ask gender doesn't redefine gender at all.

Then lets make it illegal to ask for marriage license applications to ask for gender. Then nothing needs to get redefined

 

[spacecowgirl]

And blacks weren't being denied the right to ride the bus, just the right to sit where they wanted. They can do something but just not the way they want to or the way that is fair. That's what your logic is.

So we let people decide the rights of others? We should allow states to decide to desegregate schools or put it to a popular vote. That way we could make sure no minority is ever protected in this country.

You're biggest worry is that people are going to ask if you're gay? Seriously? How do you deal with people asking if you have a "real" doctorate since you're not an MD (I'm assuming you have a Pharm.D.)? Do you have a problem with people asking if you're wife is black or white?

The terms husband and wife still apply here. So a man saying he has a wife is implied to be straight. A man saying he has a husband is implying that he's gay.

But what is the harm of allowing same sex couples to marry? What negative effect will it have on you or your marriage?

So what? Slavery has been universal throughout history, too. Historical precedent doesn't confer absolute correctness.

So white, landowning men should have kept the title citizen and given former black slaves a different one? We as a society have agreed that separate but equal is immoral and illegal. That is what you're proposing.

You didn't earn ****. You were born liking the other sex and found someone to spend your life with and got a marriage license. Marriage is not some crazy accomplishment.

All of this. Anyone who believes otherwise is at best an ignorant boob and at worst a hate monger. /thread

 

[eagles22]

Agree up to a point. But I see no no compelling reason to change the definition. Different races enjoy equal protection without having to change the definition of their identity. So I ask again why we must change the definition of everyone who has married so far to include a new legal phenomenon when it can be given its own identity definition such as civil union etc.

You can be straight and be married or gay and be married just like you can be a woman and vote or be a man and vote. Why did we have to change the definition of voter to include a new legal phenomenon? I guess we could have called men voters still and women "legally enabled ballot casters". Seems logical.

It didn't change the definition of voting. It's still going to the polls and casting a ballot. Extending a right to a previously excluded class did not redefine the classes previously granted the right or the right granted itself. Women were still women. Men were still men. Voting was still voting.

 

[zelman]

Agree up to a point. But I see no no compelling reason to change the definition. Different races enjoy equal protection without having to change the definition of their identity. So I ask again why we must change the definition of everyone who has married so far to include a new legal phenomenon when it can be given its own identity definition such as civil union etc.

As much as you liken it to calling apples oranges, you have yet to specify a reason that SSM is different from marriage. I cited vitamin C content in oranges making them different. You've given no examples of how the two types of relationship differ.

 

[rxlea]

Its not legal thus far. As for moral. I don't see how trying to alter the definition of marriage thus far is moral or immoral. Its a question of whether those of us who earned this title want to share it or not. I just personally think they should get a new title, I like mine the way it is.

The truth comes out. You think you are somehow better than us gay people-- that you "earned" the title of marriage. Give me a break. Your arguments against gay marriage are nothing more than thinly veiled bigotry.

Time for this thread to be dumped in the lounge. It's bad enough I have to read all that crap on the internet and hear arguments on the news about how I'm inferior and how being gay is a choice and how I'm immoral and going to hell. Now it's creeping into our pharmacy forum where I enjoy talking about pharmacy, not defending my rights.

 

[eagles22]

The truth comes out. You think you are somehow better than us gay people-- that you "earned" the title of marriage. Give me a break. Your arguments against gay marriage are nothing more than thinly veiled bigotry.

Time for this thread to be dumped in the lounge. It's bad enough I have to read all that crap on the internet and hear arguments on the news about how I'm inferior and how being gay is a choice and how I'm immoral and going to hell. Now it's creeping into our pharmacy forum where I enjoy talking about pharmacy, not defending my rights.

I fully support that idea. This thread has run its course.

 

[npage148]

I fully support that idea. This thread has run its course.

It was never more than a thinly veiled attempt to get an pro-bigotry echo chamber going. Surprised it made it past the first page

 

[FlavyFlav]

I fully support that idea. This thread has run its course.

Agree, arguing with one person that is obviously dead set on baseless claims about semantics is losing its appeal.

 

[xiphoid2010]

You can be straight and be married or gay and be married just like you can be a woman and vote or be a man and vote. Why did we have to change the definition of voter to include a new legal phenomenon? I guess we could have called men voters still and women "legally enabled ballot casters". Seems logical.

It didn't change the definition of voting. It's still going to the polls and casting a ballot. Extending a right to a previously excluded class did not redefine the classes previously granted the right or the right granted itself. Women were still women. Men were still men. Voting was still voting.

Finally a good coherent argument out of all of the illogical calling. You are arguing the definition as an action, same as voting, rather than a definition of of a noun defining a legal identity.

I agree with and support the rights for the same action, but differ with you on the identity. So is marriage an action or an identity definition? It's both I think. While I can see your point of interpreting strictly as an act, I think you can see that it also involves the equal but different in identity of man and woman.

 

[xiphoid2010]

Agree, arguing with one person that is obviously dead set on baseless claims about semantics is losing its appeal.

Hardly one man, since the debate is raging in the entire country and all over the news. Baseless claims and semantics? The supreme court doesn't think so, since they are taking it on.

 

[spacecowgirl]

Go to courthouse, pay money, get license = married. Whew, some seriously hard-earned benefits there. Give me a break.

 

[Digsbe]

Go to courthouse, pay money, get license = married. Whew, some seriously hard-earned benefits there. Give me a break.

I just don't understand the "sanctity" of marriage argument. Sure, people can believe that homosexuality is a sin and that's perfectly fine and within someone's rights to do so. I just don't see how allowing SSM would undermine the "sanctity" of marriage when a random man and woman can go to the courthouse and get married with the full intent of divorcing later (like with Las Vegas marriages), marry for money or for any other reason. If "sanctity" is so important why not reform divorce laws? I think if someone cares about the sanctity of marriage that's up to them to uphold as a couple, not to push it upon everyone else.

I also don't think that marriage is something that is "earned."

 

[npage148]

[YOUTUBE]E4oYQvi8VZM[/YOUTUBE]

This highlights the farce that is "earning" a marriage. It gets good at 5:00 ish

 

[FlavyFlav]

Thanks for posting that, NPage. Haven't seen it before, that was beautiful and incredibly relevant.

 

[All4MyDaughter]

I just don't understand the "sanctity" of marriage argument. Sure, people can believe that homosexuality is a sin and that's perfectly fine and within someone's rights to do so. I just don't see how allowing SSM would undermine the "sanctity" of marriage when a random man and woman can go to the courthouse and get married with the full intent of divorcing later (like with Las Vegas marriages), marry for money or for any other reason. If "sanctity" is so important why not reform divorce laws? I think if someone cares about the sanctity of marriage that's up to them to uphold as a couple, not to push it upon everyone else.

I also don't think that marriage is something that is "earned."

Both arguments are dumb. I didn't "earn" the right to get married. I was born with a vagina and happened to fall in love with someone who has a penis, so we can get married. That's it. I'm not sure how allowing two men or two women to get married has any impact at all on the "sanctity" of my marriage. A long term, committed relationship between two men or two women surely has a higher "sanctity" factor than Kim Kardashian's 20 minute marriage, or Britney Spears Las Vegas marriage, or the marriage that took place on "Who Wants to Marry a Multi-Millionaire."

 

[Digsbe]

Both arguments are dumb. I didn't "earn" the right to get married. I was born with a vagina and happened to fall in love with someone who has a penis, so we can get married. That's it. I'm not sure how allowing two men or two women to get married has any impact at all on the "sanctity" of my marriage. A long term, committed relationship between two men or two women surely has a higher "sanctity" factor than Kim Kardashian's 20 minute marriage, or Britney Spears Las Vegas marriage, or the marriage that took place on "Who Wants to Marry a Multi-Millionaire."

I agree. It just baffles me. I also don't see anyone that is against SSM pushing for stricter conditions on divorce. If two men or two women love each other enough to make a lifetime commitment and have legal ties with each other I don't see why they shouldn't be able to do so just like opposite sex couples can do. The marriage commitment is made to another person, I don't think that person's gender should have an impact on whether or not their commitment should be legally recognized or not.

 

[All4MyDaughter]

 

[xiphoid2010]

Go to courthouse, pay money, get license = married. Whew, some seriously hard-earned benefits there. Give me a break.

Irrelevant to the argument. Amount of effort is not tied to the benefit received. Eg. Buying a lottery ticket in minimal effort, but the benefit gained is fully valid.

Besides this is not relevant to the national debate on legal definitions of marriage.

 

[npage148]

Irrelevant to the argument. Amount of effort is not tied to the benefit received. Eg. Buying a lottery ticket in minimal effort, but the benefit gained is fully valid.

Besides this is not relevant to the national debate on legal definitions of marriage.

Yes it it, the loudest bigots talk about how marriage is some sacred thing that can't be tainted by SSM yet they refuse to address the ease of the marriage process (40$, a judge and 2 witnesses is all it takes) and how it's exploited by people like the kardashians and platonic relationships using it as a mechanisms to share benefits otherwise not accessible. The 50% divorce rate is also largely ignored because marriage is only unbreakable bond until the couple decide to break it and can do it with relative easy

 

[xiphoid2010]

I support equal rights.

The constitution provide equal protection under law. It does not say identical naming. I say leave the traditional definition the same, and provide equal protection under law to civil union.

 

[xiphoid2010]

Yes it it, the loudest bigots talk about how marriage is some sacred thing that can't be tainted by SSM yet they refuse to address the ease of the marriage process (40$, a judge and 2 witnesses is all it takes) and how it's exploited by people like the kardashians and platonic relationships using it as a mechanisms to share benefits otherwise not accessible. The 50% divorce rate is also largely ignored because marriage is only unbreakable bond until the couple decide to break it and can do it with relative easy

Wow, so traditions must be bigotry. Can you even come up with a rational argument or just more name calling?

 

[zelman]

Irrelevant to the argument. Amount of effort is not tied to the benefit received. Eg. Buying a lottery ticket in minimal effort, but the benefit gained is fully valid.

Totally relevant to your claim that you had earned your right to marriage.

 

[npage148]

Wow, so traditions must be bigotry. Can you even come up with a rational argument or just more name calling?

"Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with hatred, contempt, and intolerance on the basis of a person's race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion, language, socioeconomic status, or other status"

Just calling it like I see it and yes, lots of traditions are nothing more than socially acceptable bigotry

 

[All4MyDaughter]

I support equal rights.

The constitution provide equal protection under law. It does not say identical naming. I say leave the traditional definition the same, and provide equal protection under law to civil union.

We already got rid of the separate but equal thing in this country. Check out Plessy v. Ferguson and then Brown v. Board of Education. It's inherently unequal.

Besides, you've yet to articulate one singe, solitary benefit to using a different name. Does it save money? Prevent confusion? Is it a safety issue? Will all heterosexuals have to get divorced if homosexuals can marry? Will straight men be forced to marry a dude?

Honestly, you are coming off very badly here. It's as if you are a child who doesn't want to share his toys, and doesn't even want another child to have the same toy, even if it's a new one bought especially for that child. Your statement about people having to ask if you are married to a women or a man is telling, I think.

 

[zelman]

Wow, so traditions must be bigotry. Can you even come up with a rational argument or just more name calling?

Do you read other people's posts, or just quote random ones?

 

[eagles22]

Irrelevant to the argument. Amount of effort is not tied to the benefit received. Eg. Buying a lottery ticket in minimal effort, but the benefit gained is fully valid.

Besides this is not relevant to the national debate on legal definitions of marriage.

Benefit gained does not earned. That person stumbled into millions of dollars by luck. He did not work for years to attain the wealth. He does not go boasting about how he worked so hard to get the money.

We've already established that "same rights, just different place" is unconstitutional. You've yet to prove how this is not a separate but equal argument you're making.

 

[y0ssarian87]

The truth comes out. You think you are somehow better than us gay people-- that you "earned" the title of marriage. Give me a break. Your arguments against gay marriage are nothing more than thinly veiled bigotry.

Time for this thread to be dumped in the lounge. It's bad enough I have to read all that crap on the internet and hear arguments on the news about how I'm inferior and how being gay is a choice and how I'm immoral and going to hell. Now it's creeping into our pharmacy forum where I enjoy talking about pharmacy, not defending my rights.

+1

If it's not apparent how offensive the comments against gay marriage are, then you need to step back, take a little break in commenting, and reflect. Separate but equal doesn't work for the obvious reason that it creates an Otherness that institutionalizes second-class citizenship.

 

[spacecowgirl]

Totally relevant to your claim that you had earned your right to marriage.

Um yeah. If you can't remember what you wrote a page ago, xiphoid, that's on you, bub.

Tell me how to get married to your wife you had to walk to and from the courthouse barefoot through the snow uphill both ways.