Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by XcitingStuart)
    Yes, unlike some of the trolls on here... :giggle:
    Mainly yourself and others who've decided to start an argument with me in this thread. Didn't you say you had a life, wouldn't want to disturb you know, how about you get back to your important business then.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Imperion)
    You missed my point, literally. :lol:
    I honestly don't care what your point is or what you choose to laugh at or if you reply lol to each one of my comments.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    I honestly don't care what your point is or what you choose to laugh at or if you reply lol to each one of my comments.
    Lol
    Spoiler:
    Show
    I understand it's your opinion but they're awfully misinformed.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Imperion)
    Lol
    Spoiler:
    Show
    I understand it's your opinion but they're awfully misinformed.
    I don't care what you believe to be an informed opinion, to me Marriage is and will always be between one man and one woman period. You can believe in whatever you want to believe. If you believe a man could be married to a dog then that's your opinion, whether you think you're informed or not is irrelevant.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    I don't care what you believe to be an informed opinion, to me Marriage is and will always be between one man and one woman period. You can believe in whatever you want to believe. If you believe a man could be married to a dog then that's your opinion, whether you think you're informed or not is irrelevant.
    I don't know why you keep bringing up beastiality, have I missed something?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    We are a democracy indeed yet there was no vote on gay marriage in England? The majority is heterosexual, not gay.
    Yes, that'd be because we're a representative democracy, not a direct one. You'll notice you don't actually get to vote on most things that affect your life profoundly, let alone whether other people can get married or not. All polls have shown a solid majority in support of same-sex marriage anyway.
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    But thanks to the media and hollywood we have come to think of homosexuality as the new normal. First people were against it, then they were indifferent then finally in support of it.
    Popular opinion changes over time. What a shocked. And you meed to learn the difference between something being abnormal, and something being simply an expected but relatively less common occurence than the alternative.
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    The reality is you can't escape homosexuality it's everywhere, people are so frequently exposed to this that they stop reacting to it, kind of like how kids stop reacting to violence on tv or video games.
    Or kind of like, you know, non-straight people have put up with heterosexualtiy being everywhere for the last few millenia with virtually no queer representation
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    The gay agenda has started to divide the heterosexual community and cause arguments and friction. At the end of the day they end up benefiting when we argue.
    Yes, we do. Every time the anti-gay lobby opens its mouth, another person realises how bigoted and stupid they are and gives up being homophobic!
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    If anything you should be supporting me and prevent the gay community from hijacking the word marriage for their own benefit. This isn't an issue about rights this is an issue about the use of the word marriage.
    It's very much an issue, because you think we should have less rights because of who we love. Marriage like most terms has evolved over time. This is just another step in that. And nobodies religious conception of marriage is under attack - you still have the right to preach and practice it in your religious communities. Just not to force your interpretation on the state and the entire population. You do not own marriage - it is a millenia old concept that can be owned by nobody.


    (Original post by Ali1302)
    The legality of it isn't what concerns me what concerns me is enforcing this false definition of marriage or the attempt of changing the definition of marriage. I don't care what they call their relationships but it isn't a marriage. I'm in no way against people having rights but no one gets to change the definition of marriage. Be it the gays or the people who believe in bestiality they don't get to change the definition.
    If you don't care, then don't make such a fuss about it. Legal definitions change all the time, every time we pass a law in fact. And whatever a religion says should be of no consequence to what the state does.

    (Original post by Ali1302)
    You final comment is not only insulting but it's also stupid. Interracial marriage is still considered a marriage between a man and a woman, this doesn't change or violate the definition of marriage. Can you idiots stop using this false example again and again because your logic here is flawed.
    How is it flawed? A marriage was once considered to be between a man and a woman of the same race. Now it is to considered to be between two people of the same or opposite sexes. Hopefully the next step will be to allow it to include partnerships involving more than two people, and bring the legal system (and marriage with it) up to date to recognise those who don't identify within the gender binary - or alternatively to take marriage out of the legal system completely.



    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    As a tory? Unless he's changed party in the last few hours he's a kipper

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Apologies, must have got him mixed up with one of your recent intake.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    I don't know why you keep bringing up beastiality, have I missed something?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Same category in terms of changing the definition of marriage, I remember reading an article about a man that claimed he was married to a cat. It's basically in the same category and helps enforce my point.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    Yes, that'd be because we're a representative democracy, not a direct one. You'll notice you don't actually get to vote on most things that affect your life profoundly, let alone whether other people can get married or not. All polls have shown a solid majority in support of same-sex marriage anyway. Popular opinion changes over time. What a shocked. And you meed to learn the difference between something being abnormal, and something being simply an expected but relatively less common occurence than the alternative. Or kind of like, you know, non-straight people have put up with heterosexualtiy being everywhere for the last few millenia with virtually no queer representation Yes, we do. Every time the anti-gay lobby opens its mouth, another person realises how bigoted and stupid they are and gives up being homophobic! It's very much an issue, because you think we should have less rights because of who we love. Marriage like most terms has evolved over time. This is just another step in that. And nobodies religious conception of marriage is under attack - you still have the right to preach and practice it in your religious communities. Just not to force your interpretation on the state and the entire population. You do not own marriage - it is a millenia old concept that can be owned by nobody.


    If you don't care, then don't make such a fuss about it. Legal definitions change all the time, every time we pass a law in fact. And whatever a religion says should be of no consequence to what the state does.


    How is it flawed? A marriage was once considered to be between a man and a woman of the same race. Now it is to considered to be between two people of the same or opposite sexes. Hopefully the next step will be to allow it to include partnerships involving more than two people, and bring the legal system (and marriage with it) up to date to recognise those who don't identify within the gender binary - or alternatively to take marriage out of the legal system completely.





    Apologies, must have got him mixed up with one of your recent intake.
    Your obviously out to try and change the definition of marriage. First, polls have shown that 42% to 45% of the public were against gay marriage.. Were they "homophobes" such a stupid term used by the gay community to avoid criticism an attempt to demonize others.

    The change in attitudes is due to the media promoting homosexuality and constantly shoving homosexuality in everyones face in order for people to become desensitized to homosexuality. Once desensitized they are less of a threat and homosexuals will try to slowly groom everyone to their cause.

    I could honestly care less what straight propaganda non-straight people who represent at best 2% of the population had to put up with. This a straight majority country and homosexuals should hardly be represented at all.

    Also you've exposed yourself by stating that it is the objective of the gay community to cause friction and divide heterosexuals. This has nothing to do with a non-existant anti-gay lobby but the fact that people hold on to their values and beliefs about marriage which you wish to destroy.

    Again, marriage is between one man and one woman, homosexuals don't get to change the definition. They should get their own word. Also the tax cuts and benefits shouldn't apply to homosexual couples since they do not produce offspring naturally and create families which these policies incentivise.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    Your obviously out to try and change the definition of marriage. First, polls have shown that 42% to 45% of the public were against gay marriage.. Were they "homophobes" such a stupid term used by the gay community to avoid criticism an attempt to demonize others.

    The change in attitudes is sue to the media promoting homosexuality and constantly shoving homosexuality in everyones face.

    I could honestly care less with what straight propaganda non-straight people who represent at best 2% of the population had to put up with. This a straight majority country and homosexuals should hardly be represented at all.

    Also you've exposed yourself by stating that it is the objective of the gay community to cause friction and divide heterosexuals. This has nothing to do with a non-existant anti-gay lobby but the fact that people hold on to their values and beliefs about marriage which you wish to destroy.

    Again, marriage is between one man and one woman, homosexuals don't get to change the definition. They should get their own word. Also the tax cuts and benefits shouldn't apply to homosexual couples since they do not produce offspring naturally and create families which these policies incentivise.
    Actually, the figure is around 26% or 28%. And how about this one: Nearly HALF of young people are NOT entirely straight. It's those who are entirely straight and close-minded to the possibility of same-sex relations, and especially those with bigoted opinions on it, who are quickly becoming the minority

    And I said that the anti-gay lobby speaking was good for us, not that we seek to divide you. We actually just want to be able to go about our lives with equal rights and respect.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    Same category in terms of changing the definition of marriage, I remember reading an article about a man that claimed he was married to a cat. It's basically in the same category and helps enforce my point.
    I disagree. A human is a human. No matter who they are or what they have done, we are all still human. Surely all humans should have the equal opportunity to marry.

    The Oxford dictionary of marriage is something along the lines of: between man and women, and in some jurisdictions, people of the same sex.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Aye, for an equal and fair society our legislation must be changed accordingly.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    I disagree. A human is a human. No matter who they are or what they have done, we are all still human. Surely all humans should have the equal opportunity to marry.

    The Oxford dictionary of marriage is something along the lines of: between man and women, and in some jurisdictions, people of the same sex.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Humans are not special, all humans have equal opportunity to have relationships and union but marriage only applies to a union between one man and one woman. A marriage for thousand of years has always been between one man and one woman. Neither gays nor people who believe in bestiality get to change the definition. Also, I disagree that "marriage" is an opportunity, a civil partnership/union basically had a similar status without the taxs cuts and benefits, the gay community wants the word marriage not the simply the rights associated with it.

    The Oxford dictionary defines this perfectly but with the exclusion of same sex which I do not recognize as a marriage.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    Humans are not special, all humans have equal opportunity to have relationships and union but marriage only applies to a union between on man and on woman. A marriage for thousand of years has always been between one man and on woman. Neither gays nor people who believe in bestiality get to change the definition. Also, I disagree that "marriage" is an opportunity, a civil partnership and union basically had a similar status without the taxs cuts and benefits.

    The Oxford dictionary defines this perfectly but with the exclusion of same sex which I do not recognize as a marriage.
    The fact is, definitions change all the time, based on law or just a natural change. The definition of marriage has changed whether you like it or not.

    Are all humans equal? If so, all humans should be able to marry. It is as simple as that.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    The fact is, definitions change all the time, based on law or just a natural change. The definition of marriage has changed whether you like it or not.

    Are all humans equal? If so, all humans should be able to marry. It is as simple as that.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    This definition should never change and has never changed for thousands of years. No one gets to hijack or change the definition of marriage. You will not enforce any definition on me, and how dare you even suggest that. You're an insult to your ancestors for not defending the institution of marriage and allowing it to be hijacked by the homosexual community.

    Civil union/partnerships had the same status as marriage but that wasn't good enough for the gay community. They do not get to change the definition of marriage period. Call it whatever you want but it's not a marriage! and I'm through debating with leftist scum who have no values.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    This definition should never change and has never changed for thousands of years. No one gets to hijack or change the definition of marriage. You will not enforce any definition on me, and how dare you even suggest that. You're an insult to your ancestors for not defending the institution of marriage and allowing it to be hijacked by the homosexual community.

    Civil union/partnerships had the same status as marriage but that wasn't good enough for the gay community. They do not get to change the definition of marriage period. Call it whatever you want but it's not a marriage! and I'm through debating with leftists scum who have no values.
    I don't know why you're so aggressive. I'm only stating facts. The definition of marriage has changed. Definitions change over time. Change is inevitable. I don't know why marriage is of such value to people. As long as I am with someone I love, and loves me, I couldn't give a rats arse who else gets married.

    Furthermore, what the hell does it have to do with you if two gay men or women wish to get married? It doesnt effect you.

    Civil partnerships do not have the same status as marriage.

    I am neither left-wing nor scum, though you're entitled to your thoroughly misinformed, old-fashioned and just incorrecr opinions. I am simply Liberal.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    This definition should never change and has never changed for thousands of years. No one gets to hijack or change the definition of marriage. You will not enforce any definition on me, and how dare you even suggest that. You're an insult to your ancestors for not defending the institution of marriage and allowing it to be hijacked by the homosexual community.

    Civil union/partnerships had the same status as marriage but that wasn't good enough for the gay community. They do not get to change the definition of marriage period. Call it whatever you want but it's not a marriage! and I'm through debating with leftist scum who have no values.
    You're an insult to your ancestors by not hunting/gathering and doing a bit of pillaging.

    The definition is changed in RL, your head must have exploded.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    Humans are not special, all humans have equal opportunity to have relationships and union but marriage only applies to a union between one man and one woman. A marriage for thousand of years has always been between one man and one woman. Neither gays nor people who believe in bestiality get to change the definition. Also, I disagree that "marriage" is an opportunity, a civil partnership/union basically had a similar status without the taxs cuts and benefits, the gay community wants the word marriage not the simply the rights associated with it.

    The Oxford dictionary defines this perfectly but with the exclusion of same sex which I do not recognize as a marriage.
    And hang on, why do you defend the sanctity of marriage but support divorce?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    I don't know why you're so aggressive. I'm only stating facts. The definition of marriage has changed. Definitions change over time. Change is inevitable. I don't know why marriage is of such value to people. As long as I am with someone I love, and loves me, I couldn't give a rats ass who else gets married.

    Furthermore, what the hell does it have to do with you if two gay men or women wish to get married? It doesnt effect you.

    Civil partnerships do not have the same status as marriage.

    I am neither left-wing nor scum, though you're entitled to your thoroughly misinformed, old-fashioned and just incorrecr opinions. I am simply Liberal.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Marriage is not something that changes, it is an institution that has been fro thousands of years between one man and one woman. You obviously have no values and would let other hijack and change the definition for their own benefit. The definition of marriage should never change and will never change whether you like it or not.

    Using the word "marriage" has everything to do with me, Homosexual unions are not and should not represent a marriage.

    Your entitled to you ignorant views and there is no "old" fashion or new "fashion" when it comes to marriage. Keep fighting the homosexuals battles and spreading their propaganda. Your an insult to your ancestors and have no values. This argument is exactly what the homosexual community wants to cause division among people.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    You're an insult to your ancestors by not hunting/gathering and doing a bit of pillaging.

    The definition is changed in RL, your head must have exploded.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The definition will never change and should never change. Marriage is between one man and one woman period. Plus your stupid argument doesn't apply to me because I'm vegan. No one gets to hijack or change the definition be it the homosexuals or those that believe in bestiality. Marriage will always remain between a man and a woman.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    Marriage is not something that changes, it is an institution that has been fro thousands of years between one man and one woman. You obviously have no values and would let other hijack and change the definition for their own benefit. The definition of marriage should never change and will never change whether you like it or not.

    Using the word "marriage" has everything to do with me, Homosexual unions are not and should not represent a marriage.

    Your entitled to you ignorant views and there is no "old" fashion or new "fashion" when it comes to marriage. Keep fighting the homosexuals battles and spreading their propaganda. Your an insult to your ancestors and have no values. This argument is exactly what the homosexual community wants to cause division among people.
    Legally, the definition has changed, so ummm....get over it.

    No, it does not have anything to do with you. Why should some people be allowed to marry but not others?

    I honestly cannot take you seriously when you can't tell the difference between your and you're. Never the less, if we are always looking to the past, we will never progress in the future.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: November 11, 2015
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.