A Reasonable Solution To The Gay Marriage Debate

Discussion in 'Religion and Ethics' started by garyganu, May 4, 2012.

  1. garyganu
    Offline

    garyganu Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2012
    Messages:
    690
    Thanks Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +40
    The gay marriage issue has never been about equal rights, marriage nor religion. It is about gay activists’ desire to change society's basic institutions out of the frustration that they are not included.

    The proof is the term “gay marriage”. “Gay marriage” is an oxymoron. It is an attempt to “redefine” the word marriage. During all of recorded history, the word marriage (in every language) has been defined as the union between a man and a woman (or multiple women in some cases). Marriage has always been the foundation for families and it provides the means to care for the resulting children. Although there are some childless marriages, there would no necessity for the legal institution of marriage if not for the probability of raising children. Virtually every civilization in recorded history has instituted marriage to insure that both parents are legally responsible for raising their children.

    Most all Americans that I know, whether conservative or liberal, whether agnostic or religious, are not opposed to civil unions between consenting adults. Civil unions give gays all of the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage without re-defining the word “marriage”. Many states, including California, currently have civil unions available for gay couples. Unfortunately, gay activists reject civil unions for no logical reason what-so-ever. Their reason is emotional, not logical. Gay activists claim that only the word “marriage” would give them true equality. IMHO, this is absurd. The only objection that most Americans have to gay marriage is the redefinition of the WORD “marriage”.

    Therefore I suggest a reasonable compromise. Instead of re-defining the word marriage to include gays, we should create a new word to define gay marriage. I propose the word “garriage”. Gay couples can get “garried” while straight straight couples can get “married”. Many languages use different words for feminine and masculine genders. Some languages even assign genders for inanimate objects such as car or boat. In English we say him or her, he or she, count and countess, king and queen, etc. Since a gay union is technically different than straight union, there is no reason why we can’t use different words to define them.

    Unfortunately gay activists will not accept this compromise under the guise of equality because they are unwilling to accept the fact that they ARE different in significant ways when it comes to marriage. They will compare using different words to define different unions as “separate but equal” which was a term used for segregation of blacks. This excuse is a ridiculous as saying it is not fair to differentiate between apples and oranges, men and women, or whisky and rum. Traditional marriage, as it has been defined for 5,000 years, IS different than gay unions. A different word to define gay unions is appropriate and very reasonable.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 3
  2. JakeStarkey
    Offline

    JakeStarkey Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    137,399
    Thanks Received:
    12,351
    Trophy Points:
    2,165
    Ratings:
    +32,621
    Sigh.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. del
    Offline

    del BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2008
    Messages:
    45,052
    Thanks Received:
    9,830
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +9,885
    here's a word you define perfectly

    "idiot"
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. Ariux
    Offline

    Ariux BANNED

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2012
    Messages:
    2,727
    Thanks Received:
    184
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +184
    The California court overturned a voter-approved constitutional amendment that did nothing but define the word "marriage" according to the traditional meaning of the word - because the constitutional amendment violated some greater right of faggots themselves to define the word "marriage" for society. California already had civil unions that gave faggots legal EQUALITY with marriage (keep in mind that faggotry is not good for society while heterosexual relationships are vital). California law already gave faggots the tyrannical anti-discrimination laws they wanted, which hadn't existed previously for heterosexual marriage (nor should it).

    Faggots want your children and your freedom.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  5. JakeStarkey
    Offline

    JakeStarkey Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    137,399
    Thanks Received:
    12,351
    Trophy Points:
    2,165
    Ratings:
    +32,621
    You, Ariux, wish to be tyrannical to those you don't like, gays etc and minorities. I imagine you are just as hard on women and girls.

    You are a disgrace to America and American ideals.
     
  6. BDBoop
    Offline

    BDBoop BANNED

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2011
    Messages:
    35,385
    Thanks Received:
    4,996
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Don't harsh my zen, Jen!
    Ratings:
    +5,006
    I want to marry a girl.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. PredFan
    Offline

    PredFan Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2011
    Messages:
    29,222
    Thanks Received:
    4,428
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    In Liberal minds, rent free.
    Ratings:
    +11,652
    The sensible solution is to make civil unions legal and equal to marriage in every legal way. Let the religions keep the title "marriage" and let the gays have the privileges that married people enjoy.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. garyganu
    Offline

    garyganu Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2012
    Messages:
    690
    Thanks Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +40
    The use of the word Faggot is an unnecessary and highly offensive pejorative. You lose all of your credibility because the main point of you post is to insult people.

    People are a collection unique individuals that we must share the world with. I doesn't help anyone to make needless insults. It only turns people against you and shows that you are a cruel person.
     
  9. BDBoop
    Offline

    BDBoop BANNED

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2011
    Messages:
    35,385
    Thanks Received:
    4,996
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Don't harsh my zen, Jen!
    Ratings:
    +5,006


    And what will they say "We're unionized?"
     
  10. Ariux
    Offline

    Ariux BANNED

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2012
    Messages:
    2,727
    Thanks Received:
    184
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +184
    Credibility has nothing to do with what people believe.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

baker county sean gibson found begging for food