By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Player1x3 on 08 November 2011
Edit Thread
sapphi_snake said:
Player1x3 said:
sapphi_snake said:

Marriage is a right, not a tradition. It's a legal contract between 2 individuals. And you should know that from a historical POV marriage isn't a tradition between a man and a woman. Historically, polygamy is the most common form of marriage.

And are you actually suggesting that Europeans are persecuted in Australia?! ... Are you by chance confusing Australia with some other country?

As for your last paragraph, do you know what a logical fallacy is? 'Cause you just commited one. Either infirm what I said, using your vast (inexistent) knowledge of history, or put a cork in it.


Ha, you may want to try and spin it however you want, marriage has always between males and females, THERE WAS NEVER A MAN AND A MAN or WOMEN AND A WOMAN . Hows that for a historical POV? ''Between 2 individuals'' means anyone can marry. A pig and an elephant, spider and a gorilla, cat and a parrot. Why not? if ur gonna ruin the tradition, might as well let anyone do anything.Nah, im sorry, but marriage is a tradition when male and female create a bond, not just any 2 individuals. Every tradition has its specific participants and rules. And by definition of tradition, marriage is one. the one with specific participants and specific rules.

Nah, i was just sayin what countries have european / american minorities. The countries in which christians and whites are persecuted would be middle north african countries such as Sudan, or some cases, even Egypt, Somalia and the others.

What's the point? Your hatred towards anything white, christian or european is so deeply rooted, anyone try to teach you something else thn that would be pointless

No, marriage has not always been between males and females. Cases of same sex marriage have been observed historically in certain parts of the world.There weren't actually.The ones that were, werent actual marriages, as they didn't have a real concept of marriage, and it wasn't anything like marriage we see today.And the 'tradition' argument is simply nonsensical. Up 'till a century ago, voting was something by tradition that only men could do. Are you trying to say that women shouldn't have recieved the right to vote, because tradition dictated that only men could do that?No, because voting isn't a ceremonial tradition like marriage is, no where in democracy (which is where voting comes from) says that only one group of people should vote. Also, there were bad traditions that kept society back, and there are tons of good ones that help preserve national, cultural and historic identity, cherrypicking traditions isnt gonna get you anywhere   (and FTR, the crowd against women voting actually did use that argument, and they obviously failed) Ultimately marriage is a legal contract, and things like 'tradition' are irrelevant regarding it.Legal contract between 2 different genders, if the term contract will make u happy.

The whole 'anyone can marry' argument is also nonsensical. 'Between 2 individuals' doesn't imply that a pig can marry an elephant, because legally/philosophically/etc. a pig and an elephant aren't considered to be individuals.Legally? If you want stuff to stay ''legally'' gay marriage wouldn't be even brought up to any court in the world. Philosophically? Well, now, that's ironic, isn't it. Taking about putting your own foot in your mouth. Only human beings are considered to be individuals/persons, and this is due to our mental capabilitiesOh, but animals are capable of love too! Your a bigot and a zoophobe and thus my opinion is superior (I tried using far left tactic by judging extremely quick and calling you names if you disagree with me) . This is why a human being can do things like own a house, apply for a loan at a bank, rent a car or get married, while a pig cannot. If a pig were an individual, then pig farmers would be slave owners, and eating pork would be considered not much different than cannibalism. If a pigs and elephants were individuals (i.e. have the mental capabilities of a human being, and all that comes with that), then I'd have no problem with them marrying. But they're not.Being individual has nothing to do with how intelligent you are, do you even know a definition for a word ''individual''?