By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Tamron on 08 May 2015
Mr.Playstation said:

You publically said you will ban people against same-sex marriage in your post. That is enticing a lot of other people ( the majority of the thread ) to do the same as they share your beliefs.

Also I'm not stating they I would ban you, I'm staying that you can't see past others opinions and if given the right you would ban all those which have gone against you.

I don't know you much but I hope that Ka-Pi whom I'm very good friends with ( or at least I think so ) and who shared your belief can see past this argument and still see me as a friend, no matter what my beliefs and opinions are in this matter.

blocking isnt banning.
also, why do you assume i would block you?, are you homophobic? are you willing to admit to that right now, publicly?, i stated, clearly, that there were many people i would add to ignore, or that were homophobic, because having an opinion about gay marriage doesn't instantly make you homophobic, perhaps you should look up what the word homophobic actually means.



Around the Network
reggin_bolas on 08 May 2015

Here's the human rights article in question

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

There is no reference to same-sex unions for a reason. It's simply not intended which is backed by historical practice.

What's also revealing is sub point 3 which states that the family is natural. They are intentionally excluding anomalous family units such as gangs, unions between a man and animal, man and inanimate object, for the reason of a conceptual definition that is universal.

The problem with this article is that it opens the floodgate for scores of litigants. This doesn't stop with just same-sex unions. It also stretches to incestuous relations and polygamy. Therefore I caution using the term marriage as a right. It's essentially and practically not. Because it's so heavily regulated it really is more of a privilege.




Neodegenerate on 08 May 2015
reggin_bolas said:
Here's the human rights article in question

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

There is no reference to same-sex unions for a reason. It's simply not intended which is backed by historical practice.

What's also revealing is sub point 3 which states that the family is natural. They are intentionally excluding anomalous family units such as gangs, unions between a man and animal, man and inanimate object, for the reason of a conceptual definition that is universal.

The problem with this article is that it opens the floodgate for scores of litigants. This doesn't stop with just same-sex unions. It also stretches to incestuous relations and polygamy. Therefore I caution using the term marriage as a right. It's essentially and practically not. Because it's so heavily regulated it really is more of a privilege.


There is also, conveniently, no explicit reference to opposite sex unions either.  Men and women is an ambiguous statement.  You may read it as "A man and a woman" where I read it as "both genders of our species".



TruckOSaurus on 08 May 2015
HollyGamer said:
TruckOSaurus said:

You might want to look up the definition of some words in here. Like adults and consent for starters. 

Like i said who can define what is adult, and what is comsent?????? Do You????? or the one who make this you call "LAW"

Alright, please explain to me how a dead person can give consent?



Signature goes here!

Mr.Playstation on 08 May 2015
Tamron said:
Mr.Playstation said:

You publically said you will ban people against same-sex marriage in your post. That is enticing a lot of other people ( the majority of the thread ) to do the same as they share your beliefs.

Also I'm not stating they I would ban you, I'm staying that you can't see past others opinions and if given the right you would ban all those which have gone against you.

I don't know you much but I hope that Ka-Pi whom I'm very good friends with ( or at least I think so ) and who shared your belief can see past this argument and still see me as a friend, no matter what my beliefs and opinions are in this matter.

blocking isnt banning.
also, why do you assume i would block you?, are you homophobic? are you willing to admit to that right now, publicly?, i stated, clearly, that there were many people i would add to ignore, or that were homophobic, because having an opinion about gay marriage doesn't instantly make you homophobic, perhaps you should look up what the word homophobic actually means.

You said you would block people in this thread, when in fact no one is actually being homophobic according to your definition. No one is saying "Fuck...", no one is saying " (The specific group of people) are ( insert insult )".

 

Everyone hear is stating whether that are against or with gay marriage. Yet you still would block people according to that. You were wrong to say that comment and you know that.

 

Also you quoted quite a whole lot of what I though of repercussions which same-sex marriage can lead to. So that's why I thought that you would block me.



Send a Friend Request On PSN :P

Around the Network
Neodegenerate on 08 May 2015
TruckOSaurus said:
HollyGamer said:
TruckOSaurus said:

You might want to look up the definition of some words in here. Like adults and consent for starters. 

Like i said who can define what is adult, and what is comsent?????? Do You????? or the one who make this you call "LAW"

Alright, please explain to me how a dead person can give consent?

First you are gonna have to explain what consent is.  HollyGamer clearly doesn't understand the term based on the question there.



Panther111 on 08 May 2015

Sme of the arguments in this thread against gay marriage are so tired and boring it probably causes most of us to yawn. So im out.

Wish the gay haters on this thread to be happy with the hate and discrimination they cultivate, hatred and disdain must surely be a good feeling to hold for the mind and body for the rest of their lives.

Some of the commenters are obviously still at a child like state when it comes to mental capacity, because they clearly yet still cnt see the difference between and apple and an elephant, and believe them to be the same exact things. Or that a tree and a person must also be the same thing, because they cant tell the difference. 



HollyGamer on 08 May 2015
Panther111 said:
HollyGamer said:
Neodegenerate said:
HollyGamer said:

Like i said why you defending gay while you againts another kind of sexual activity, it doesnt make any sense. If your previous comment said that Phedophile, is bla bla, Poligamy is bla...bla, Incest is bla bla, it doesnt make gay marriege is even better. Becuase you just said "You are conveniently ignoring the fact that diseases aren't exclusively homosexual". THAT'S MEAN PEOPLE CAN MAKE THEIR OWN " RIGHT"

I never said I was against other kinds of sexual activty between two consenting adults who are mature enough to make their own decisions.  The fact that you have something like pedophila, or necrophilia in your examples actually weakens your stance since they are not in any way shape or form the same thing as gay marriage.

And what the hell does "that's mean people can make their own 'right'" even mean in the context of the fact that diseases are not exclusive to the gay community?

"I never said I was against other kinds of sexual activty between two consenting adults who are mature enough to make their own decisions." Yes in fact i  so tell me that's mean you allow Pedhopile, Pollygami, Necrophilia, Incest, also as a human right as well ?

So because pedophilia exist, incest and so forth. Does that mean heterosexuals should be denied marriage, because the majority of people who commit such acts are straight. And therefore to protect humans, no one should be allowed marriage because there are some straight individuals who are one of the things described above?   

Panther 111 : " And therefore to protect humans, no one should be allowed marriage "

ofcourse I will follow your advise if gay mariege is able to protect humanity.
I am asking you, are you born from gay marriage ??? Tell me,

If your parent is gay, i bet we would not able to discussing this matter in VGChart. and I bet you are grateful that you were born to this world isn't.



reggin_bolas on 08 May 2015
Neodegenerate said:
reggin_bolas said:


There is precedence for child marriage (what we would call pedophelia today) in history. You can't draw the line with same-sex marriage and argue that everyone else is a pervert and should be excluded. The line has to be drawn and done most easily with the basic instruction that marriage is between a man and a woman. Age of consent actually fluctuates from culture to culture as well. How do we know at what age a person is capable of consent? 18 is extremely arbitrary. 

The point of the above is that marriage ought to be narrowly-defined for reasons of protecting it against these inevitable slippery slopes. 

 

 

There is also precedence in history for rounding up groups of people and slaughtering them simply for being Jewish.  Should we limit the scope of humanity to not include the Jewish because someone at some point in the past did so?  Sounds to me like you can't accept that humans are capable of evolving and adjusting their stances and beliefs.

Your statement on age of consent doesn't change the concept of pedophilia.  In fact, it backs up my statement of "if they consent I don't care".

Faulty comparisson. You're meandering from the topic of marriage as a social institution to persecution and harm of ethnic groups. It does not follow that the right to be free from harm leads to the right marry. You can't show a logical connection between gay's right to be free from bodily harm and persecution to the right to marry. 



Panther111 on 08 May 2015
HollyGamer said:
Panther111 said:
HollyGamer said:
Neodegenerate said:
HollyGamer said:

Like i said why you defending gay while you againts another kind of sexual activity, it doesnt make any sense. If your previous comment said that Phedophile, is bla bla, Poligamy is bla...bla, Incest is bla bla, it doesnt make gay marriege is even better. Becuase you just said "You are conveniently ignoring the fact that diseases aren't exclusively homosexual". THAT'S MEAN PEOPLE CAN MAKE THEIR OWN " RIGHT"

I never said I was against other kinds of sexual activty between two consenting adults who are mature enough to make their own decisions.  The fact that you have something like pedophila, or necrophilia in your examples actually weakens your stance since they are not in any way shape or form the same thing as gay marriage.

And what the hell does "that's mean people can make their own 'right'" even mean in the context of the fact that diseases are not exclusive to the gay community?

"I never said I was against other kinds of sexual activty between two consenting adults who are mature enough to make their own decisions." Yes in fact i  so tell me that's mean you allow Pedhopile, Pollygami, Necrophilia, Incest, also as a human right as well ?

So because pedophilia exist, incest and so forth. Does that mean heterosexuals should be denied marriage, because the majority of people who commit such acts are straight. And therefore to protect humans, no one should be allowed marriage because there are some straight individuals who are one of the things described above?   

Panther 111 : " And therefore to protect humans, no one should be allowed marriage "

ofcourse I will follow your advise if gay mariege is able to protect humanity.
I am asking you, are you born from gay marriage ??? Tell me,

If your parent is gay, i bet we would not able to discussing this matter in VGChart. and I bet you are grateful that you were born to this world isn't.


You are seriously fucked up asking such questions. Have fun being an indonesian neo-nazi. 

 

User was moderated for this post, and others.

--Veknoid_Outcast