I'm sick of you guys using those weird posts with 3 or 4 colors and bolded and non-bolded areas. I don't want to bother scrolling up forever to find the original posts to see who said what. Can't you guys just quote like normal people? You can use separate quote boxes to quote separate points one at a time. It's easier on the eyes.

Like this.

And this.

Ok I am having quoting issues for some reason.

Rubang you are constantly looking to the imperfections of some marriages as though they are in some way negating the belief and importance the majority of human beings place on the sanctity of the male-female marriage.

You're also attempting to paint me as arguing the 'marriage as marriage because religion says so' card, something I havent done at all. I fully understand that you like attacking organised religion, especially on this issue. But all I have said is that religion has the right to a say, just as any other group does, and the only response anyone from the gay marriage movement seems to be able to make is the simple assertion that the religions are intolerant.

It's like the movement has gotten so incredibly caught up in it's unswerving belief that it's opinion is right and beyond reproach, that it simply never stopped to consider the possibility it is wrong.

Again you make the argument that based on historical wrongs such as racism and sexism opposition to gay marriage is equivalent. Ignoring the massive presumption you're making, here are two points to consider. On both of those issues, it is highly unlikely that anything approaching a majority of humans agreed with the principle, unlike in this situation. Secondly, whatever other people might say, I am not arguing for the denial of rights to homosexuals. Quite the opposite. I joined campaigns at my university arguing for gay rights. But what you are arguing for, as incapable as you are of seeing it, is a diminishing of the rights of those who feel marriage would be demeaned if altered to include same sex marriages. Many believe the distortion is such that marriage would no longer have meaning. So firmly infused in that meaning is the notion of dual sex.

I dont really want to validate the antisemitism stuff by engaging it. Suffice is to say there is a difference between a long-standing tradition ideologically based on love, dualism and birth, and an enshrined policy of hatred.

I cant find where I said "like any reasonable person," but I believe I said it with the implication that people that deny gays economic and social rights are unreasonable. I apologise if it was taken otherwise.

As for wesslewoggle. You're the one that wants to change status quo. Propose an argument why the beliefs of many many billions founded on millenia of precedent, love and feeling are wrong. Propose a reason why they should be changed so that in addition to completely equal rights, a minority can feel they have won a tokenistic victory over the religious right at the expense of everyone else.

If someone has something new to bring up I will engage with it tomorrow.

But I think it is plain we are arguing for the sake of those who may be reading, clearly we are not going to sway oneanother.

So if there is nothing new, lets leave it here.

My argument for changing the status quo is, the status quo sucks. It's not fair, and it should be made as fair as possible. Do you think it's fair for straight people to be able to marry someone they're attracted to, when gay people cannot?

Why do you think the government should not legalize gay marriage? Just because of the fact that some people will get offended? That's less of a problem with legalizing gay marriage, and more of a problem with their own personal hang ups.

Anyways goodnight I guess.

I am not attacking religions. I am attacking the idea that religious ideas should be involved in secular law in any way. I think atheist or agnostic people who oppose the legality of same-sex marriage are just as intolerant as religious people who oppose the legality of same-sex marriage.

I think now the burden is on you to define "sanctity of marriage" and to define "a threat to the sanctity of marriage." The main arguments I see and argue against are either based on religion (so I don't think they should have anything to do with the law) or based on the idea that it's the only way marriage has ever been (which is just not true).

It is my belief that gay marriage is a victimless crime, so it shouldn't be illegal. I don't see how my marriage will affect your marriage in any way. The idea is completely foreign to me. If you get married in a church that doesn't recognize same-sex marriages, and I go get a same-sex marriage somewhere else, how do they affect each other at all? Your church wouldn't recognize my marriage, and I wouldn't care. Right now I can easily say that as an atheist I will not recognize any religious marriages. That's my right too. But our government should have to recognize both. I don't care what religions do at all. But I do care about the government. I pay my taxes to the government and not to the church. They even let me vote.

Ultimately, as I am not arguing that we restrict any gay rights, all you're saying is that we should allow gays to marry because some will be offended if we do not.

In that context, there will be offense on at least one side.  So it is best to offend only a few instead of many, not to mention that billions of people are already married, and many would feel their committment is lessened.

But yeah, goodnight mate.

No hard feelings.

Marriage shouldn't be exclusively between man and woman. Why should it? It hurts no-one if a gay couple gets married. Gay people want to get married because of love too.

Fix'd lol :3

j/k

Well she stuffed up lol. She must of sounded like a bigot.
Gay marriage - FTW. Gay relationships are the next in thing and hopefully USA soon allows gay marriage in all states.