Illinois to become 15th state to recognize marriage equality

[Doubting Thomas]

It was introduced as a means to restrict the sexuality of individuals, so that people wouldn't be able to go and fornicate with everyone in sight

Yeah, so how did that work out?

---

When it comes to marriage, homosexual couples are not on the same level with heterosexual couples, and they can never be, due to the fact that they cannot form families on the basis of natural reproduction.

So are you then in favor of refusing marriage licenses to heterosexual couples unless they can prove that they're fertile?

If you think that marriage is only for reproduction then I have some news for you.

[Psykhronic]

Equality is only amongst equals. When it comes to marriage, homosexual couples are not on the same level with heterosexual couples, and they can never be, due to the fact that they cannot form families on the basis of natural reproduction. And this is what family and therefore marriage is actually all about.
So, since they can't, what kind of an equality are we speaking of here?

Yeah I reject your argument entirely. But I know better than to try explaining why, you'll just deny that marriage has changed over the years, etc, etc, and I encourage everyone to stop bothering with you.

Peace guys, have fun!

[kılıç_mehmet]

Equality is only amongst equals. When it comes to marriage, homosexual couples are not on the same level with heterosexual couples, and they can never be, due to the fact that they cannot form families on the basis of natural reproduction. And this is what family and therefore marriage is actually all about.
So, since they can't, what kind of an equality are we speaking of here?

Yeah I reject your argument entirely. But I know better than to try explaining why, you'll just deny that marriage has changed over the years, etc, etc, and I encourage everyone to stop bothering with you.

Peace guys, have fun!

Oh, that's how you deal with people that oppose your anti-social crap, then. You're a special kind of whom I deem to be the "weepers". You weep with your friends and tell them of the social injustice brought upon the world by people who support values of decency and family and society, and claim that marriage has changed to accomodate the thousand other gender types you claim that exist.
Marriage has not changed, it is still between a man and a woman, and its purpose remains the same. You just can't accept it.

[Psykhronic]

Just have to say - I told you all; now I'm really peacing. I'll be sure to cry extra just for you, Mehmet.

[Doubting Thomas]

Marriage has not changed, it is still between a man and a woman

Oh you mean it's not between a man and his many wives and concubines, a woman and her rapist, a woman and an invading soldier who just helped conquer the land she lives in, a man and his dead brother's wife...

[kılıç_mehmet]

Marriage has not changed, it is still between a man and a woman

Oh you mean it's not between a man and his many wives and concubines, a woman and her rapist, a woman and an invading soldier who just helped conquer the land she lives in, a man and his dead brother's wife...

The wives are not married to eachother, the "marriage" itself is still between the man and the woman.
Besides, the other examples really serve to assist my point. It's between a man and a woman.

[Doubting Thomas]

You're really hung up on this "between a man and a woman" thing, aren't you? Even to the point you're justifying polygamy and forced marriages?

[Ryantology]

Oh, that's how you deal with people that oppose your anti-social crap, then. You're a special kind of whom I deem to be the "weepers". You weep with your friends and tell them of the social injustice brought upon the world by people who support values of decency and family and society, and claim that marriage has changed to accomodate the thousand other gender types you claim that exist.
Marriage has not changed, it is still between a man and a woman, and its purpose remains the same. You just can't accept it.

Hate to break it to you, Hitler Jr., but all the pants-wetting in the world isn't going to turn the clock back to the 11th century.

Marriage has not changed. It is still between a man and a woman. Men and women will still be able to marry just like always. You have nothing to bitch about. So, stop.

[kılıç_mehmet]

Oh, that's how you deal with people that oppose your anti-social crap, then. You're a special kind of whom I deem to be the "weepers". You weep with your friends and tell them of the social injustice brought upon the world by people who support values of decency and family and society, and claim that marriage has changed to accomodate the thousand other gender types you claim that exist.
Marriage has not changed, it is still between a man and a woman, and its purpose remains the same. You just can't accept it.

Hate to break it to you, Hitler Jr., but all the pants-wetting in the world isn't going to turn the clock back to the 11th century.

Marriage has not changed. It is still between a man and a woman. Men and women will still be able to marry just like always. You have nothing to bitch about. So, stop.

I don't want to go back to the 11th century. But you want the world to go back to the times of ancient Greece and Rome where sodomy was deemed somewhat "acceptable".
So do not accuse me of living in the past.

You're really hung up on this "between a man and a woman" thing, aren't you? Even to the point you're justifying polygamy and forced marriages?

Did I say anything that glorified polygamy or forced marriages? I simply said, what you said. Marriage, forced or not, monogamous or not, was always between a man and a woman, because that is the whole point of marriage. Creating a socially acceptable platform for procreation and child raising. Perpetrating society through the institution of the family.
This is what its all about. Homosexuals were never considered to be a part of the said institutions anywhere in any culture on earth. So what gives them the right to mould marriage and the family to fit their own views on how society should function?

[Ryantology]

I don't want to go back to the 11th century. But you want the world to go back to the times of ancient Greece and Rome where sodomy was deemed somewhat "acceptable".
So do not accuse me of living in the past.

I did not think I would get to use this line twice in one thread, but it takes someone as uniquely retarded as you to take that away from what I said.

Why do you even care? This isn't happening in whatever superstitious throwback shithole you live in.