3/29/2013 11:31 AM
Posted by burnsy483 on 3/29/2013 11:26:00 AM (view original):
Last time I checked, pre-teens, farm animals and oak trees can't join consensual relationships with adults.  

Tec, why does it bother you if the definition of something changes over time?  
Exactly. Kids and animals can't enter into legal contracts.

And the definition of marriage has changed over time already. 
3/29/2013 11:32 AM
Posted by tecwrg on 3/29/2013 11:12:00 AM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 3/29/2013 10:37:00 AM (view original):
I guess I'll ask - Why do heterosexuals care if homosexuals want to be married?

It offends me because we are being forced to change the definition of marriage from something that it has always been since the dawn of human history, culture and tradition (one man and one woman) to something "new" just to placate a special interest group, all in the name of "political correctness".

As I said earlier, I'm all in favor of equal rights for same-sex couples with regard to taxes, benefits, etc.  Just don't call it marriage.  That's a bastardization of tradition and the institution.
Hasn't the definition of marriage changed throughout the course of history?  As an example, it is now defined as a (more or less) equal partnership, whereas it used to simply be a way for a man to insure that the children borne by the woman he had sex with were actually his.  Does that change offend you as well?
3/29/2013 11:33 AM
Posted by bistiza on 3/29/2013 10:42:00 AM (view original):
Could they have just been straight? I wasn't aware of people choosing to be gay.

Wait - how are you in this topic if you aren't even aware gay people exist? That makes no sense.

Obviously people choose who they become romantically involved with and/or who they participate in sexual activities with.

For example, I am a man who is married to a woman and I only participate in romantic and sexual activities with that woman. I have never had a romantic or sexual encounter of any kind with another man. By definition, that makes me straight.

However, if I were to choose to go out and have a romantic and/or sexual encounter with a man, I would then become bisexual. If I also choose to stop having romantic and/or sexual encounters with women, I would become homosexual.

I can't believe you don't understand this simple concept.

Or do you fall into the camp of insisting people aren't responsible for their own choices and have no say in the matter whatsoever? Because I don't buy that BS. Using the same logic you could also argue those who have unprotected sex with hundreds of people and end up with diseases and other problems aren't also responsible for those choices because of the same reasons you insist people don't choose the gender of their romantic or sexual partners.
I'm attracted to women. I didn't choose to be attracted to women. That's just the way I'm wired. Since the gay people that I know have told me that it's the same for them and that if given a choice they'd be straight, I assume that being gay isn't a choice.

Just like being straight isn't a choice.
3/29/2013 11:34 AM
NEWT, O'REILLY AND RUSH HAVE DAMAGED THE SACRED INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE MORE THAN 100 GAY COUPLES COULD
3/29/2013 11:38 AM
Posted by burnsy483 on 3/29/2013 11:26:00 AM (view original):
Last time I checked, pre-teens, farm animals and oak trees can't join consensual relationships with adults.  

Tec, why does it bother you if the definition of something changes over time?  
It hasn't been a gradual change.  It was one thing for tens of thousands of years, and that was unquestioned and unchallenged.  Now, over the past 25-30 years or so, ever since the whole "political correctness" movement started, there's a demand to make it something else.

In the big picture, 25 years as opposed to tens of thousands of years makes it "impulsive".  Doing things impulsively is often not a good idea.
3/29/2013 11:43 AM
Posted by tecwrg2 on 3/29/2013 11:38:00 AM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 3/29/2013 11:26:00 AM (view original):
Last time I checked, pre-teens, farm animals and oak trees can't join consensual relationships with adults.  

Tec, why does it bother you if the definition of something changes over time?  
It hasn't been a gradual change.  It was one thing for tens of thousands of years, and that was unquestioned and unchallenged.  Now, over the past 25-30 years or so, ever since the whole "political correctness" movement started, there's a demand to make it something else.

In the big picture, 25 years as opposed to tens of thousands of years makes it "impulsive".  Doing things impulsively is often not a good idea.
You mean like allowing interracial marriage?
3/29/2013 11:44 AM
Posted by burnsy483 on 3/29/2013 11:26:00 AM (view original):
Last time I checked, pre-teens, farm animals and oak trees can't join consensual relationships with adults.  

Tec, why does it bother you if the definition of something changes over time?  
"Consensual" is based on a government definition.   

You have no problem with the govt defining "consensual" but are annoyed by the definition of "marriage"?
3/29/2013 11:45 AM
OK - WHY isn't it a good idea?
3/29/2013 11:48 AM
Posted by examinerebb on 3/29/2013 11:32:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 3/29/2013 11:12:00 AM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 3/29/2013 10:37:00 AM (view original):
I guess I'll ask - Why do heterosexuals care if homosexuals want to be married?

It offends me because we are being forced to change the definition of marriage from something that it has always been since the dawn of human history, culture and tradition (one man and one woman) to something "new" just to placate a special interest group, all in the name of "political correctness".

As I said earlier, I'm all in favor of equal rights for same-sex couples with regard to taxes, benefits, etc.  Just don't call it marriage.  That's a bastardization of tradition and the institution.
Hasn't the definition of marriage changed throughout the course of history?  As an example, it is now defined as a (more or less) equal partnership, whereas it used to simply be a way for a man to insure that the children borne by the woman he had sex with were actually his.  Does that change offend you as well?
I don't believe that was what the definition of marriage used to be.  Marriage has always been a traditionally recognized bond between a man and a woman to define a family.  The "equality" that you are referring to falls under a totally separate umbrella of equal rights for women, which goes way beyond marriage.
3/29/2013 11:48 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/29/2013 11:44:00 AM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 3/29/2013 11:26:00 AM (view original):
Last time I checked, pre-teens, farm animals and oak trees can't join consensual relationships with adults.  

Tec, why does it bother you if the definition of something changes over time?  
"Consensual" is based on a government definition.   

You have no problem with the govt defining "consensual" but are annoyed by the definition of "marriage"?
Are you suggesting that gay adults getting married is anything close to someone marrying a child or an oak tree?
3/29/2013 11:49 AM
Posted by bad_luck on 3/29/2013 11:43:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg2 on 3/29/2013 11:38:00 AM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 3/29/2013 11:26:00 AM (view original):
Last time I checked, pre-teens, farm animals and oak trees can't join consensual relationships with adults.  

Tec, why does it bother you if the definition of something changes over time?  
It hasn't been a gradual change.  It was one thing for tens of thousands of years, and that was unquestioned and unchallenged.  Now, over the past 25-30 years or so, ever since the whole "political correctness" movement started, there's a demand to make it something else.

In the big picture, 25 years as opposed to tens of thousands of years makes it "impulsive".  Doing things impulsively is often not a good idea.
You mean like allowing interracial marriage?
Interracial marriage has been around for tens of thousands of years.  It's nothing new.
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
3/29/2013 11:53 AM
tec-

"I don't believe that was what the definition of marriage used to be.  Marriage has always been a traditionally recognized bond between a man and a woman to define a family."

OK.  It looks like it's changing.  Why is that a big deal to you?
3/29/2013 11:55 AM
Posted by burnsy483 on 3/29/2013 11:48:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/29/2013 11:44:00 AM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 3/29/2013 11:26:00 AM (view original):
Last time I checked, pre-teens, farm animals and oak trees can't join consensual relationships with adults.  

Tec, why does it bother you if the definition of something changes over time?  
"Consensual" is based on a government definition.   

You have no problem with the govt defining "consensual" but are annoyed by the definition of "marriage"?
Are you suggesting that gay adults getting married is anything close to someone marrying a child or an oak tree?

The heart wants what the heart wants. 

3/29/2013 11:55 AM
Posted by tecwrg2 on 3/29/2013 11:49:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 3/29/2013 11:43:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg2 on 3/29/2013 11:38:00 AM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 3/29/2013 11:26:00 AM (view original):
Last time I checked, pre-teens, farm animals and oak trees can't join consensual relationships with adults.  

Tec, why does it bother you if the definition of something changes over time?  
It hasn't been a gradual change.  It was one thing for tens of thousands of years, and that was unquestioned and unchallenged.  Now, over the past 25-30 years or so, ever since the whole "political correctness" movement started, there's a demand to make it something else.

In the big picture, 25 years as opposed to tens of thousands of years makes it "impulsive".  Doing things impulsively is often not a good idea.
You mean like allowing interracial marriage?
Interracial marriage has been around for tens of thousands of years.  It's nothing new.
It is in the US.

And anyway, "that's the way it's always been" is not a good reason to avoid change.


of 358

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.