nobody is denying anybody of their rights. Any male has the right to wed any woman who he is in love with. (that loves him back of course.) And vice versa.

Getting married was originally meant for male/female relationships. If you want to be homosexual that's fine by me but why get married?

You only want it because you can't have it, it wont change you life in the slightest.

Marriage carries many legal rights that are denied homosexuals. It's not just a title for two people who decided to bond the rest of their life (till they get divorced), it provides great tax benefits, legal recognition, and allows for other financial ways to raise children.

Imagine someone said that you can no longer use the internet ever. You can live without it, but would it not piss you off? I'm going to assume you answer is yes. It's morally wrong to deny certain people rights. Gay marriage will happen eventually, people just want it soon.

> it provides great tax benefits, legal recognition

Go have a civil union or some shit, why do you try to change the way language works?

Marriage is a bonding between a man and a woman, no matter what.

Civil unions don't provide the same benefits. The worth of a rebuttal is the strength of the argument, attacking my language usage is unnecessary to further your argument and only works to disrupt what was intended to be a civil discussion.
Why is it simply between a man and a woman? What reasoning do you have to support your claim?

> Why is it simply between a man and a woman?

Because that's. The fucking. Definition. Of marriage.

It has been soo for hundreds upon hundreds of years, not to mention the fact that the idea of marriage itself is religious both historically and in spirit.

the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
That's from the Merriam-Webster's online dictionary.

Long before the Christian church existed the Vikings had marriage ceremonies. They existed with both male/female, and male/male bonds (not sure about female/female). It was also not unknown for captured prisoners engaged in marriage with each other to be taken by a warrior to be both his spouses.

Do you have a response to the difference between a civil union and marriage?

Vikings did not really have a religion.

Siðr is not religion, and what you know about Thor and Odin and whatnot is pretty much made up.

Does our civilization look Vikingish to you?

> They existed with both male/female, and male/male bonds

Yeah, and in Ancient Greece a relationship between a man and a woman was looked upon as disgusting, let's try that.

You say that the Norse Gods are "pretty much made up" yet the are likely just as real as the modern god of society. There is no more proof of them than there is of any other god.

Let's insult someone's religion because that's really hip and cool!


I am glad to know words are a concept too hard for you to understand, because that says a lot about you and the validity of your point. But what I actually said is that vikings likely did not believe in Thor, Odin and whatnot, our views on their religion are made up - hell, Snorri Sturluson himself said that they were just heroes, like Heracles.

Yes the vikings did believe in Thor and Odin and there are still people out there that do. So, you insulted them. I merely pointed out there is no more proof for them than there is for any other god.

"Snorri Sturluson himself said that they were just heroes, like Heracles."
That is how the church few Jesus until the end of the 2nd century when they were rising to power and declared his deeds to be fact . "The deification of Jesus progressed while the Catholic church rose to power as the state religion after the second century. In this process, the church proclaimed as solid fact stories that were not present in the earliest written accounts. Such as: the virgin birth, the performance of miracles, sacrificial murder, and subsequent resurrection. All of these are typical events, which can be recognized in descriptions of the lives of many deified heroes (e.g. Hercules, Osiris, Wodan, Odoacer) but the church fathers insisted on absolute literalism in the understanding of their stories -- Jesus was in the process of being deified, and a power structure needed to be built..."

> Yes the vikings did believe in Thor and Odin
What part of "Snorri Sturluson said they were just heroes" do you fail to understand?

"Jesus was in the process of being deified"

There is no such thing as deification of Jesus. Jesus was always believed to be a God. Always. There are tons of various kinds of proof.

Shut up. You are not hardcore, you are neither cool nor hip, your education just reeks of incompleteness, and you should probably just give up.

You obviously do not know your history. You are blindly arguing with out the knowledge to do so, and are becoming upset that facts you do not know are being used. Yes Jesus WAS deified by the church at the end of the 2nd century. before that he was only seen to be a prophet of god. Your "proof" as you call it are the ones set into place after the deification. You are mainly upset by the fact that I pointed out that there is no more proof of one gods existence than there is of another's. Also, Snorri may have been speaking for part of their faith, but many Vikings view Thor and Odin, yes as heroes but also as gods. Studying history and mythology will help you understand this subject better.

No culture existed without a religion until the Greeks. At all. I'm aware the mythology was rewritten by Christians, I kept the religious aspect out for that very reason.

I'm stating that the tradition of marriage exists far before what people like to harken back to when they describe "traditional" marriage.

>It has been soo for hundreds upon hundreds of years, not to mention the fact that the idea of marriage itself is religious both historically and in spirit.

This was the point I was debating. I don't want to end this discussion on a weak note, but I don't believe either of us is going to convince the other to out side of the fence. This issue is held too closely for people to switch their opinion on, and we lack the structure to hold a fair discussion. I respect you views, I just don't agree with them.

> No culture existed without a religion until the Greeks.

What do you mean "until the Greeks"? Greeks had a pretty non-secular society.
Babylonians had me, vikings had siðr, neither of which are really religions.

> I'm stating that the tradition of marriage exists far before what people like to harken back to when they describe "traditional" marriage.
Should have mentioned "in cultures in any way relevant to ours".

There are so many things wrong with that....
First of all, yes, rights are being denied. The problem being that a homosexual man is INCAPABLE of falling in love with a woman. The fundamental issue here (that only heterosexuals have trouble believing) is that sexuality is not a choice.
Secondly, THAT fact removes the right to marry by default, as no homosexual man will ever love a woman. Therefore, by definition, homosexual men cannot marry. That is a basic HUMAN (not just hetero) right that is being denied.
Thirdly, being married and having it recognized by the state grants over 1,100 rights that even legally married homosexual couples don't receive. Yes. It WOULD change my life. And it's ignorant bigots like you who are standing in the way of a more tolerant, loving world.

Don't fix something that isn't broken.

Yes, because denying people basic human rights due to religious reasons isn't 'broken' at all.

nobody is denying anybody of their rights. Any male has the right to wed any woman who he is in love with. (that loves him back of course.) And vice versa.

Getting married was originally meant for male/female relationships. If you want to be homosexual that's fine by me but why get married?

You only want it because you can't have it, it wont change you life in the slightest.

Marriage carries many legal rights that are denied homosexuals. It's not just a title for two people who decided to bond the rest of their life (till they get divorced), it provides great tax benefits, legal recognition, and allows for other financial ways to raise children.

Imagine someone said that you can no longer use the internet ever. You can live without it, but would it not piss you off? I'm going to assume you answer is yes. It's morally wrong to deny certain people rights. Gay marriage will happen eventually, people just want it soon.

> it provides great tax benefits, legal recognition

Go have a civil union or some shit, why do you try to change the way language works?

Marriage is a bonding between a man and a woman, no matter what.

Civil unions don't provide the same benefits. The worth of a rebuttal is the strength of the argument, attacking my language usage is unnecessary to further your argument and only works to disrupt what was intended to be a civil discussion.
Why is it simply between a man and a woman? What reasoning do you have to support your claim?

> Why is it simply between a man and a woman?

Because that's. The fucking. Definition. Of marriage.

It has been soo for hundreds upon hundreds of years, not to mention the fact that the idea of marriage itself is religious both historically and in spirit.

the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
That's from the Merriam-Webster's online dictionary.

Long before the Christian church existed the Vikings had marriage ceremonies. They existed with both male/female, and male/male bonds (not sure about female/female). It was also not unknown for captured prisoners engaged in marriage with each other to be taken by a warrior to be both his spouses.

Do you have a response to the difference between a civil union and marriage?

Vikings did not really have a religion.

Siðr is not religion, and what you know about Thor and Odin and whatnot is pretty much made up.

Does our civilization look Vikingish to you?

> They existed with both male/female, and male/male bonds

Yeah, and in Ancient Greece a relationship between a man and a woman was looked upon as disgusting, let's try that.

You say that the Norse Gods are "pretty much made up" yet the are likely just as real as the modern god of society. There is no more proof of them than there is of any other god.

Let's insult someone's religion because that's really hip and cool!


I am glad to know words are a concept too hard for you to understand, because that says a lot about you and the validity of your point. But what I actually said is that vikings likely did not believe in Thor, Odin and whatnot, our views on their religion are made up - hell, Snorri Sturluson himself said that they were just heroes, like Heracles.

Yes the vikings did believe in Thor and Odin and there are still people out there that do. So, you insulted them. I merely pointed out there is no more proof for them than there is for any other god.

"Snorri Sturluson himself said that they were just heroes, like Heracles."
That is how the church few Jesus until the end of the 2nd century when they were rising to power and declared his deeds to be fact . "The deification of Jesus progressed while the Catholic church rose to power as the state religion after the second century. In this process, the church proclaimed as solid fact stories that were not present in the earliest written accounts. Such as: the virgin birth, the performance of miracles, sacrificial murder, and subsequent resurrection. All of these are typical events, which can be recognized in descriptions of the lives of many deified heroes (e.g. Hercules, Osiris, Wodan, Odoacer) but the church fathers insisted on absolute literalism in the understanding of their stories -- Jesus was in the process of being deified, and a power structure needed to be built..."

> Yes the vikings did believe in Thor and Odin
What part of "Snorri Sturluson said they were just heroes" do you fail to understand?

"Jesus was in the process of being deified"

There is no such thing as deification of Jesus. Jesus was always believed to be a God. Always. There are tons of various kinds of proof.

Shut up. You are not hardcore, you are neither cool nor hip, your education just reeks of incompleteness, and you should probably just give up.

You obviously do not know your history. You are blindly arguing with out the knowledge to do so, and are becoming upset that facts you do not know are being used. Yes Jesus WAS deified by the church at the end of the 2nd century. before that he was only seen to be a prophet of god. Your "proof" as you call it are the ones set into place after the deification. You are mainly upset by the fact that I pointed out that there is no more proof of one gods existence than there is of another's. Also, Snorri may have been speaking for part of their faith, but many Vikings view Thor and Odin, yes as heroes but also as gods. Studying history and mythology will help you understand this subject better.

No culture existed without a religion until the Greeks. At all. I'm aware the mythology was rewritten by Christians, I kept the religious aspect out for that very reason.

I'm stating that the tradition of marriage exists far before what people like to harken back to when they describe "traditional" marriage.

>It has been soo for hundreds upon hundreds of years, not to mention the fact that the idea of marriage itself is religious both historically and in spirit.

This was the point I was debating. I don't want to end this discussion on a weak note, but I don't believe either of us is going to convince the other to out side of the fence. This issue is held too closely for people to switch their opinion on, and we lack the structure to hold a fair discussion. I respect you views, I just don't agree with them.

> No culture existed without a religion until the Greeks.

What do you mean "until the Greeks"? Greeks had a pretty non-secular society.
Babylonians had me, vikings had siðr, neither of which are really religions.

> I'm stating that the tradition of marriage exists far before what people like to harken back to when they describe "traditional" marriage.
Should have mentioned "in cultures in any way relevant to ours".

There are so many things wrong with that....
First of all, yes, rights are being denied. The problem being that a homosexual man is INCAPABLE of falling in love with a woman. The fundamental issue here (that only heterosexuals have trouble believing) is that sexuality is not a choice.
Secondly, THAT fact removes the right to marry by default, as no homosexual man will ever love a woman. Therefore, by definition, homosexual men cannot marry. That is a basic HUMAN (not just hetero) right that is being denied.
Thirdly, being married and having it recognized by the state grants over 1,100 rights that even legally married homosexual couples don't receive. Yes. It WOULD change my life. And it's ignorant bigots like you who are standing in the way of a more tolerant, loving world.

Insulting people over their opinions is childish.

Think before you speak, young one.

Don't steal comments, dick.

it's a pretty obvious joke, he probably just didn't bother to read the rest of the comments

Didn't read any of them. xD
Oh, well. -39 thumbs is what I get for posting without reading previous comments.

thats what i expect it to say :|

haha I'd ask him but that'd sound weird. i think his porn name is something-bubbles...

I'm glad that you're gay, that means that you'll find another gay dude, giving me the chance on 2 more girls. They might not like me but at least I get better odds

don't rub it in....