3/29/2013 11:57 AM
Posted by tecwrg2 on 3/29/2013 11:48:00 AM (view original):
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.
If you don't believe it, look it up.  Marriage started as a way to legitimize offspring and establish rights of exclusive sexual access for the man.  Historically, the definition of marriage has evolved greatly over the years in Western society.  So, that being the case, does the evolution of marriage from that to "a traditionally recognized bond between a man and a woman to define a family" offend you as well?
3/29/2013 12:01 PM
Posted by The Taint on 3/29/2013 11:52:00 AM (view original):
Was illegal in parts of the US before 1967.
Has the U.S. been around for tens of thousands of years?

I'm talking about human history, not U.S. history.
3/29/2013 12:03 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/29/2013 11:55:00 AM (view original):
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. 

So, yes?

You're a moron.
3/29/2013 12:05 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 3/29/2013 12:01:00 PM (view original):
Posted by The Taint on 3/29/2013 11:52:00 AM (view original):
Was illegal in parts of the US before 1967.
Has the U.S. been around for tens of thousands of years?

I'm talking about human history, not U.S. history.
Is that really relevant, though? And does it matter that the definition of marriage will change? It won't change for your marriage. Or mine. Or any other heterosexuals. The only people this change will affect are homosexuals.
3/29/2013 12:05 PM
Posted by examinerebb on 3/29/2013 11:57:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg2 on 3/29/2013 11:48:00 AM (view original):
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.
If you don't believe it, look it up.  Marriage started as a way to legitimize offspring and establish rights of exclusive sexual access for the man.  Historically, the definition of marriage has evolved greatly over the years in Western society.  So, that being the case, does the evolution of marriage from that to "a traditionally recognized bond between a man and a woman to define a family" offend you as well?
Any traditional definition of marriage from 25 years or so back has always been between a man and a woman.  That has been the foundation of any and every definition since the beginning of human culture, and has been a universally accepted aspect of marriage.  Anything else, such as what you are suggesting above, was not universal.
3/29/2013 12:09 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 3/29/2013 12:05:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 3/29/2013 12:01:00 PM (view original):
Posted by The Taint on 3/29/2013 11:52:00 AM (view original):
Was illegal in parts of the US before 1967.
Has the U.S. been around for tens of thousands of years?

I'm talking about human history, not U.S. history.
Is that really relevant, though? And does it matter that the definition of marriage will change? It won't change for your marriage. Or mine. Or any other heterosexuals. The only people this change will affect are homosexuals.
It doesn't affect me personally, no.  Does that mean that I cannot have or express an opinion?  if it doesn't affect you, they should you be expressing your opinion?

Abortion doesn't affect me either.  Should I not have an opinion on that?

Am I only allowed to have opinions on things that affect me personally?
3/29/2013 12:11 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 3/29/2013 12:05:00 PM (view original):
Posted by examinerebb on 3/29/2013 11:57:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg2 on 3/29/2013 11:48:00 AM (view original):
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.
If you don't believe it, look it up.  Marriage started as a way to legitimize offspring and establish rights of exclusive sexual access for the man.  Historically, the definition of marriage has evolved greatly over the years in Western society.  So, that being the case, does the evolution of marriage from that to "a traditionally recognized bond between a man and a woman to define a family" offend you as well?
Any traditional definition of marriage from 25 years or so back has always been between a man and a woman.  That has been the foundation of any and every definition since the beginning of human culture, and has been a universally accepted aspect of marriage.  Anything else, such as what you are suggesting above, was not universal.
That is factually incorrect.  Universally (as you use the term), it used to be that a man could take more than one woman as a wife.  Does the evolution to only one woman for every one man offend you as well?
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
3/29/2013 12:13 PM
I didn't say you couldn't have an opinion. I'm wondering why you care if it doesn't affect you.

If we live 1000 miles apart, do you care what color I paint my house?
3/29/2013 12:15 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 3/29/2013 12:03:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/29/2013 11:55:00 AM (view original):
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. 

So, yes?

You're a moron.
I'm consistent.

You, on the other hand, are not.

You're fine with the govt determining consensual acts but not with the current definition of marriage.  

Hypocritical dumbass.
3/29/2013 12:16 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 3/29/2013 12:12:00 PM (view original):
Getting married makes people happy.  Why do you want to keep people from being happy?  If it doesn't affect you, or any heterosexual personally, what does it matter?
I'm happy as **** when I chug Jack Daniels and drive 100 MPH down a deserted highway.

Why can't I?
3/29/2013 12:19 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/29/2013 12:16:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 3/29/2013 12:12:00 PM (view original):
Getting married makes people happy.  Why do you want to keep people from being happy?  If it doesn't affect you, or any heterosexual personally, what does it matter?
I'm happy as **** when I chug Jack Daniels and drive 100 MPH down a deserted highway.

Why can't I?
Because you could kill someone. Let me know when a couple getting married leads to the death of a third party.
3/29/2013 12:19 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/29/2013 12:16:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 3/29/2013 12:12:00 PM (view original):
Getting married makes people happy.  Why do you want to keep people from being happy?  If it doesn't affect you, or any heterosexual personally, what does it matter?
I'm happy as **** when I chug Jack Daniels and drive 100 MPH down a deserted highway.

Why can't I?
You're consistent in being a moron, yes.

If it's truly deserted, and nobody's around, and you can't hurt yourself or anyone else, go nuts.  I don't care.
3/29/2013 12:21 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 3/29/2013 12:12:00 PM (view original):
Getting married makes people happy.  Why do you want to keep people from being happy?  If it doesn't affect you, or any heterosexual personally, what does it matter?
Marriage doesn't keep people happy.  Being in love with somebody makes people happy.  A legal certificate does not enhance that.
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
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.