# Glitch City Laboratories Archives

Glitch City Laboratories closed on 1 September 2020 (announcement). This is an archived copy of a thread from Glitch City Laboratories Forums.

You can join Glitch City Research Institute to ask questions or discuss current developments.

You may also download the archive of this forum in .tar.gz, .sql.gz, or .sqlite.gz formats.

## Debate Wars

### Same-sex Marriage - Page 3

Previous Page

- 1
- 2
- 3

Next Page

#### Re: Same-sex Marriage

Posted by: LedZeplin2
Date: 2007-11-05 15:17:52
Exactly, but I don't think the government should do that. I'd really hope they wouldn't…

#### Re: Same-sex Marriage

Posted by: shaggs
Date: 2007-11-05 16:37:30
FUCK THE GOVERNMENT
Anyway, I in no way am against lesbian, gay, homosexuality etc.
I have changed my mind, if two people love eachother, then
they could get married if they want, the law is to keep society together
and so is government, I don't see why they should be able to decide if
homosexuality is right or not, and if they can get married or not, so I'll
leave this with a FUCK GOVERNMENT, have a nice day =D.

#### Re: Same-sex Marriage

Posted by: LedZeplin2
Date: 2007-11-05 16:39:31
Good point, except without government we'd be anarchists, which isn't good.

#### Re: Same-sex Marriage

Posted by: shaggs
Date: 2007-11-05 16:52:37

> Good point, except without government we'd be anarchists, which isn't good.

I know, that's just my view on government though kk.

#### Re: Same-sex Marriage

Posted by: Zach the Glitch Buster
Date: 2007-11-06 20:03:20
Um, ya I'm all for it. The reason you would want to get married is because of the legal benefits. If your married then you get legal perks.

> > Back on topic….
> > I mean why would it care to the people against gay marriage if it were legal or whatever?
> > They could just ignore those ppl
> > And curse at them but..
> > THEY
> > WOULD
> > NOT
> > f**kING
> > CARE
> > My god you whores get a life!FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND THE s**t IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT! D:

> that has nothing to do with the first amendment whatsoever.

Actually, that's quite wrong. This, from a legal perspective, has everything to do the First Amendment. SCared_Fir3 said

> AND THE s**t IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT!

If you passed American History, you would remember that included in the First Amendment is the separation of Church and State.

> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

So the American government can't make a law on the basis of religion. So with that established please give me a legal reason why gay marriage, in the full legal sense of the term, should not be allowed. Denying people a basic legal right due to gender or orientation is just as bad as denying people due to race or religion. Oh, before you point the "it's just wrong!" debate out of you ass remember this. Back around 200 to 150 years ago, a black man could not marry a white woman and vice versa. Why? because people said that it was wrong and not meant to be. In todays world, where that is fine, almost no one looks down on it. So go and pick out the minor flaws in by post, the main point stays the same.

#### Re: Same-sex Marriage

Posted by: Bent`
Date: 2007-11-06 21:04:39

> Um, ya I'm all for it. The reason you would want to get married is because of the legal benefits. If your married then you get legal perks.

Ah, okay. That does make sense.
On the topic of the first amendment: while this isn't totally relevant to the topic at hand, let's not forget that the First Amendment actually states

> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

A lot of people like to leave out that second part. The First Amendment does not state that no law can be made on the basis of religion; what it actually states is that the government cannot establish a national religion (e.g., the Anglican church or Roman Church). And that idea is one that I heartily agree with.
As for the homo debate, I'll just point again to my previous post and ask: Are you saying that it's okay for persons to get sexual satisfaction through any preference or fetish imaginable (BTW I'm not talking about legally, but morally)?

> Oh, before you point the "it's just wrong!" debate out of you ass remember this. Back around 200 to 150 years ago, a black man could not marry a white woman and vice versa. Why? because people said that it was wrong and not meant to be. In todays world, where that is fine, almost no one looks down on it.

#### Re: Same-sex Marriage

Posted by: xparasite9
Date: 2007-11-06 21:37:23
Yes, if someone wants to get married unofficially (and they do anyway), then whatever. But they should get no special financial benefits from the government that are enjoyed by heterosexual spouses. (The reason being, they can't produce any children, and can't raise children as well as a heterosexual couple. A child raised by lesbian "parents" is most likely to develop a "Daddy complex". Then again, the same can happen for families with divorced parents, and I feel the same way for this.)
I shall re-iterate. What does marriage offer for them that can't be done as shack-ups?

#### Re: Same-sex Marriage

Posted by: Zach the Glitch Buster
Date: 2007-11-07 17:53:28

> As for the homo debate, I'll just point again to my previous post and ask: Are you saying that it's okay for persons to get sexual satisfaction through any preference or fetish imaginable (BTW I'm not talking about legally, but morally)?

Marriage isn't, or at least shouldn't be, just about "sexual satisfaction". It's about two people who want to spend there lives together. So because you can't marry an animal or a corpse this shouldn't apply to the legal aspect of marriage. Even if people think that its immoral that shouldn't matter. Mainly because morals hardly matter anymore in todays government. If two humans want to get married, in a legal sence, then so be it; regardless of orientation, race, or religion.

> Yes, if someone wants to get married unofficially (and they do anyway), then whatever. But they should get no special financial benefits from the government that are enjoyed by heterosexual spouses. (The reason being, they can't produce any children, and can't raise children as well as a heterosexual couple. A child raised by lesbian "parents" is most likely to develop a "Daddy complex". Then again, the same can happen for families with divorced parents, and I feel the same way for this.)
> I shall re-iterate. What does marriage offer for them that can't be done as shack-ups?

First off, so what if they cant have kids? thousands of "heterosexual" people get married and never have kids. They get benefits, they don't have kids, so why shouldn't a homosexual couple get the benefits of marriage. If you propose that all legal marriages of homosexual couples should be banned on the basis that they cant have children, should we deny heterosexual couples that don't have kids the rights of marriage? Also how the hell do you know that a homosexual couple cant raise a child as well as a heterosexual one? Theres two parents of one gender, no problems there. and if there was, it wouldn't be up to YOU to say so. If something truly bad is happening, theres a thing called child services.

#### Re: Same-sex Marriage

Posted by: PichuUmbreon
Date: 2007-11-07 19:43:58
I usually disregard morals because they're very different, like opinions.
I mean, somebody could consider it immoral to marry a person of a different gender, and moral to marry a person of the same gender, and it'd be perfectly valid.

#### Re: Same-sex Marriage

Posted by: Abwayax
Date: 2007-11-08 06:45:53

> (The reason being, they can't produce any children

This would be a valid argument if married couples were required to produce children, but they're not. Furthermore, saying that two guys might be doing it "only for the legal benefits" doesn't take into account that a man and a woman could be doing it for those reasons as well.

> Oh, before you point the "it's just wrong!" debate out of you ass remember this. Back around 200 to 150 years ago, a black man could not marry a white woman and vice versa. Why? because people said that it was wrong and not meant to be. In todays world, where that is fine, almost no one looks down on it.

Which is ironic, because that's the argument your camp is basically using. And in 100 or to 150 years I predict gay marriage won't be controversial at all. Hell, even pedophilia might become acceptable in the future.

#### Re: Same-sex Marriage

Posted by: 007
Date: 2007-11-20 20:13:56
Marriage should be no concern of the state. The thing that I find most objectionable about this whole issue is the legal rights. Is it right that the way a person prefers to get their orgasms affects the extent of their standard deduction and homestead exemption? How do you justify that?

> Are you in favor of pedophilia? Are you in favor of bestiality? For consistency's sake, if you're in favor of homosexuality then you should support all forms of so-called "deviant" behavior.

Children and animals do not and should not have the same legal rights as adults, and the reasoning behind that has nothing to do with their sexual behaviors.

#### Re: Same-sex Marriage

Posted by: xparasite9
Date: 2007-11-22 15:19:15

> > (The reason being, they can't produce any children

> This would be a valid argument if married couples were required to produce children, but they're not. Furthermore, saying that two guys might be doing it "only for the legal benefits" doesn't take into account that a man and a woman could be doing it for those reasons as well.

That's what my point is. I am not defending our nation's current standpoint on marriage wholeheartedly. I feel that this is something that should be required. I shall reiterate. WTF do they need marriage for anyway?

#### Re: Same-sex Marriage

Posted by: Zach the Glitch Buster
Date: 2007-11-22 15:45:52
Legal benefits.

#### Re: Same-sex Marriage

Posted by: Wailmer Master
Date: 2007-11-24 16:43:55
*covers ears* Ok now that I dont hear the yelling all I got to say is if they want to live together why should you care, aaaand….. dont yell at me for saying this! *runs away*

#### Re: Same-sex Marriage

Posted by: LedZeplin2
Date: 2007-11-24 16:45:52
I'm not yelling.
Previous Page

- 1
- 2
- 3

Next Page