Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. Gameplay
      2. Missions
      3. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Arena War
      2. After Hours
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA Next

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Dingdongs

Marriage Equality

Should Same Sex Marriage be legal or illegal?  

509 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Same Sex Marriage be legal or illegal?

    • It should be legal
      364
    • It should be illegal
      124


Recommended Posts

Zapp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

:cry:

If that's going to be the most you'll contribute to D&D, kindly don't come back to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zapp

Nothing's going to change if I state my opinion on here, I'm not going to waste my time. So that post was the most I was going to contribute to this topic. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter

Congratulations, America! Fantastic news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Nothing's going to change if I state my opinion on here, I'm not going to waste my time. So that post was the most I was going to contribute to this topic. :)

In future, don't bother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zapp

My bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavingWithJesus

Following a historic Supreme Court ruling it's legalised across the whole United States now.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/26/us-usa-court-gaymarriage-idUSKBN0P61SW20150626

 

A huge win for civil rights. Absolutely wonderful.

 

Great news, glad to see this country finally giving everyone the right to marry the person they love. :^:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El Dildo

can we call /thread now? :beerhat:

 

as if this debate wasn't already won, it's become officially official.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

Lock the thread, debate over. srs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
UshaB

In b4 thread lock. I agree for same-sex marriage :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter

Congrats, guys, we did it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Reopened as the GC topic has now died of troll-induced sepsis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lead

Ah sh*t, here we go again....

 

Men and Women :

Thats how life was made

Thats the way of life

It was NEVER illegal

It has a RESULT

It's not disgusting

It was Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve (99.9% of facebook top comments)

Quran is in the side of Men and Women marriage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

If you aren't going to produce a response that meets the minimum standards of D&D, don't post. Also

 

 

That's how life was made

But thanks to the wonders of the modern age, not anymore. Besides, by the same idiotic logic, any marriage that involved one partner being infertile or otherwise unable to produce offspring would also be immoral. Are you really suggesting that?

 

 

Thats the way of life

Homosexuality in humans is as old as recorded society. Homosexuality in animals is probably even older. Homosexuality is, in the natural world, also a way of life.

 

 

It was NEVER illegal

This doesn't even begin to make sense. Women voting used to be illegal, does that mean it's morally repugnant? What about adultery? Owning humans as slaves used to be legal, does that mean it's fine?

 

 

It has a RESULT

Again, this doesn't even begin to make sense.

 

 

It's not disgusting

In your opinion. If this world was governed by the opinions of people like you, I'd come over all MTD and bring down your vile administration. Thankfully all we have to worry about are a few fringe whackjobs crying over the rights of other people to do something that's in no way any of their f*cking business.

 

 

It was Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve

I was going to say "actually, it was neither", but even that's not true. Because it was "Adam and Steve"- I.E homosexuality has been recorded as occurring in pre-biblical times, whereas the story of Adam and Eve is pure fiction. And if that's the kind of facile bullsh*t posted on the FaceBook pages of people you know, you sorely need to find some better friends.

 

 

Quran is in the side of Men and Women marriage.

Meanwhile, in the modern, developed world where governance is done and society formed on the principles of humanism rather than archaic scripture, no-one gives a sh*t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Killzone3265

Can we just call it "marriage" now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
X S

So I read through the entire court opinion. The decision and dissent is about 103 pages. I like to read them because I have more interest in understanding the rationale. Sure, it's easy to say you agree with the disposition of a case, but it's much harder to justify the rationale needed to support it.

 

Kennedy delivered the opinion, but Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito all wrote separate dissenting opinions.

 

Let me just say, Kennedy wrote one of the most beautiful opinions I've ever read. It's very heartfelt; like I can literally see parts of it being recited in a future film. No joke.

 

 

Marriage is sacred to those who live by their religions and offers unique fulfillment to those who find meaning in the secular realm. Its dynamic allows two people to find a life that could not be found alone, for a marriage becomes greater than just the two persons. Rising from the most basic human needs, marriage is essential to our most profound hopes and aspirations.

 

 

Marriage responds to the universal fear that a lonely person might call out only to find no one there. It offers the hope of companionship and understanding and assurance that while both still live there will be someone to care for the other.

 

However, I'll give you the TL;DR on Roberts' dissent: This is not a Constitutional question.

 

 

But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be.

 

Link: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

 

In summary, this case was basically a battle of judicial philosophies, and it came down to the originalists vs. activists. Here, the activists stood on the right side of history, and the originalists watched in fury because they felt that the court had stepped beyond its bounds.

 

Look, the system isn't perfect, but at the expense of denying basic human rights, which are beautifully described in the opinion, the majority did the right thing.

Edited by X S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Deadite

Wow, this was a sh*tty reply if there was one.

Edited by Midnight Hitman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kampret

Can we just call it "marriage" now?

 

It would be hard to change the definition of marriage all of a sudden. There's nothing wrong with the word "gay marriage", because, well, the one that is participating on it are, well, gays.

 

Anyway, while I can respect gays, don't expect me to see them as being normal. There's a reason why there is a male and a female. But hey, it's just my 2 cents.

Edited by Kampret

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

don't expect me to see them as being normal.

The implication from this is that you consider it abnormal, which biologically speaking is simply false.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kampret

 

don't expect me to see them as being normal.

The implication from this is that you consider it abnormal, which biologically speaking is simply false.

 

 

Normal and abnormal is subjective. I consider them abnormal because it violates how nature made creatures in male and female.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Normal and abnormal is subjective.

Arguable, but let's say your right. Your justification, however...

 

 

I consider them abnormal because it violates how nature made creatures in male and female.

This is the exact opposite of the truth. If homosexuality violates nature, why is it practiced by quite literally thousands of species?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kampret

 

I consider them abnormal because it violates how nature made creatures in male and female.

This is the exact opposite of the truth. If homosexuality violates nature, why is it practiced by quite literally thousands of species?

 

 

Animals don't do homosexuals. They do bi-sexual. Human homosexuals however would refuse to do sexual activity with another gender.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Animals don't do homosexuals.

Yes they do. Very few of them are monogamously homosexual but that's not really the point, unless you're arguing that being gay is fine as long as you pork a woman every now and then; the point is the statement "it violates how nature made creatures" is factually wrong.

 

 

Human homosexuals however would refuse to do sexual activity with another gender

Both humans and animals also refuse sexual activity with other members of their species for a myriad of arbitrary and frankly ridiculous (from a reproductive perspective) reasons. The very notion that reproduction is the sole and explicit purpose in sexual behaviour is empirically false, and any argument from the perspective of homosexual behaviour failing to perform a reproductive purpose must by default also be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

It would be hard to change the definition of marriage all of a sudden. There's nothing wrong with the word "gay marriage", because, well, the one that is participating on it are, well, gays.

 

You don't have to change the definition. Marriage is a legal union between two people. Any legal definition saying it is specified to a certain gender combination is void because it violates the equality guaranteed under the constitution. 'Gay marriage' and 'straight marriage' are both equally 'marriage', the bigots lost.

I consider them abnormal because it violates how nature made creatures in male and female.

 

So you still believe in Aristotelian teleology? Belief in an inherent purpose of nature has been discredited since Francis Bacon.. Do you also believe the sun revolves around earth because god made us the center of the universe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kampret

 

It would be hard to change the definition of marriage all of a sudden. There's nothing wrong with the word "gay marriage", because, well, the one that is participating on it are, well, gays.

 

You don't have to change the definition. Marriage is a legal union between two people. Any legal definition saying it is specified to a certain gender combination is void because it violates the equality guaranteed under the constitution. 'Gay marriage' and 'straight marriage' are both equally 'marriage', the bigots lost.

 

Probably in some countries. Most of the world still held by the definition of marriage as "legal union between a man and a woman".

 

I consider them abnormal because it violates how nature made creatures in male and female.

 

So you still believe in Aristotelian teleology? Belief in an inherent purpose of nature has been discredited since Francis Bacon.. Do you also believe the sun revolves around earth because god made us the center of the universe?

 

 

That's what I've been taught since the start, but no, the "sun revolves around the earth" thing is just purely retarded. We muslims doesn't follow that retarded statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

I was talking about the US Supreme Court Ruling, not about the world in general..

 

On the topic of teleology: you cant use your religious belief that there is an intrinsic purpose in nature and that this purpose is documented in a holy book, considering such teleology is in contradiction with the foundations of modern science and based on unfalsifiable existential claims, as an argument in a discussion. I might as well use as an argument that last night god told me he gave no purpose to nature whatsoever. When you base your argument on unfalsifiable claims, the discussion ends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
X S

Krampet, the court's opinion addresses every point you've made.

 

Reproduction or procreation is merely a part, not a requirement, of marriage. And any "legal" definition you've attempted to ascribe to it is merely one of many that have been developed over thousands of years. When a black man and a white woman get married, we don't call it an interracial marriage, we call it a marriage. It's not 'gay marriage', it's marriage.

 

Would you also prefer the laws that governed marriage over 60 years ago? Those laws placed women under a man's household and domain because women had no rights. It also meant that a man was probably allowed to beat his wife without repercussion.

 

You're free to believe whatever you want, but quite frankly, you're fighting an uphill battle, Krampet.

Edited by X S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavingWithJesus

 

Can we just call it "marriage" now?

 

It would be hard to change the definition of marriage all of a sudden. There's nothing wrong with the word "gay marriage", because, well, the one that is participating on it are, well, gays.

 

Anyway, while I can respect gays, don't expect me to see them as being normal. There's a reason why there is a male and a female. But hey, it's just my 2 cents.

 

 

I get that you were raised to think that this is abnormal and all, but homosexuality is just as normal as heterosexuality. And as for the not seeing this as normal sh*t, go back not too long ago in our history and people said the same thing about interracial couples. I like to think that in the near future, or in a few generations from now, homosexuality will not seem "abnormal" to people, just like interracial couples don't phase people (except bigots...but those will always exist, unfortunately) at all anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 2 Users Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 2 Guests

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.