Explain the problem with gay marriage

[Marlowe01]

explain how, in any way, allowing "fags" to get married interferes with ANYthing.

[bueno bob]

For me, it doesn't. That's my whole basis of argument on this topic. It doesn't affect my world in the slightest.

[Catfish]

The problem is that marriage is between a man and a woman. That’s what marriage is.

I have no problem with your ‘fags’ getting married or whatever. Just call it something else because it ain’t marriage.

Marriage means something to people who embrase it and they're not in a rush to bastardize its meaning.

[pete]

Originally posted by Catfish


Marriage means something to people who embrase it and they're not in a rush to bastardize its meaning.

That says it all.

It's really a religious institution. Many religions embrace the practice. What's the big deal? Wiccans marry and Christians marry. The conservatives aren't bitching about Budhists marrying.

They're not bitching about DaveIsKing and his WIFE inviting extra female partners into the mix.

That's just as much a perversion of the traditional term.

Why Fags?

(DIK - just using you as example of non-traditional use of a religious based tradition)

We have to allow them they're freedom. DIK and his lovely wife could be next.

This could set a precedent that allows conservative law-makers a foothold in YOUR household.

[twonabomber]

what's more damaging-gays getting married or straights getting married three or even four times?

[Marlowe01]

I really don't get how it interferes with anything. Uh-OH! The queers are getting married! Let's panic!

[Switch84]

Originally posted by twonabomber
what's more damaging-gays getting married or straights getting married three or even four times?


;) :p What, you're not intrigued by J-Lo's revolving door marriages?


BUWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!

[bueno bob]

Just as long as she marries me next and gives me a fat fuckin settlement after 2-3 months, I'm game :)

[jhale667]

Originally posted by bueno bob
Just as long as she marries me next and gives me a fat fuckin settlement after 2-3 months, I'm game :)

No shit! I'll be hubby #5! :D

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by Catfish


Marriage means something to people who embrase it and they're not in a rush to bastardize its meaning.

what, that half of all marriages end in divorce doesn't bastardize its meaning?

there are plenty of (heterosexual) people out there for whom marriage has little meaning beyond, "i want to be with this person today."

did britney spears' 1st marriage cheapen anybody else's marriage?



in America, marriage is a CIVIL deal. various religions can assign whatever they want to marriage. great. but before the justice of the peace, it's just a legal union between 2 people. (till divorce do them part...)

i see no reason why saying that any 2 consenting adults can enter into a legal union could cause the downfall of either marriage or society.



now, wasting our time passing amendments (semantically) "saving" the institution of marriage may or may not contribute to downfall...

[jhale667]

I guess we can look forward to Bush F*ing with the constitution now...what's next, the Arnold amendment?

[pete]

NICE knuckleboner!

[Catfish]

Yeah, a good point. Marriage certainly ain't perfect in this world...

[DaveIsKing]

Speaking of J-Lo, as long as she gave me that nice, plump ass to rub my face in, I'd be happy for a month or two.

Goddamn what a beautiful masterpiece--that ass... MMMMMMMmmmm

[bueno bob]

Originally posted by jhale667
I guess we can look forward to Bush F*ing with the constitution now...what's next, the Arnold amendment?

That's already been proposed, hasn't it? I think I remember reading something about that months back...

[Cathedral]

It's not natural, it's an abomination and i refuse to accept it. that is that, as they say.

[FORD]

Fine, if it's abomination for you, then don't marry a guy. Simple as that.

But to throw the entire country away on a single issue like that is simply MORONIC.

[bueno bob]

Originally posted by Cathedral
It's not natural, it's an abomination and i refuse to accept it.

What, Austrians? :)

[LadyTudor2711]

Originally posted by Marlowe01
explain how, in any way, allowing "fags" to get married interferes with ANYthing.

Hey Marlowe:

It really does not interfere with anything it is just another issue for the ultra conservatives to carry-on about.

Let them get married, pay the taxes and deal with the same issues as married people.

To me, what is silly is that certain states like Vermont recognizes gay marriage, while other states do not. So you are considered married in VT, but not in Connecticut or Illinois?

If it's going to be legal it should be across the board, but this will never happen, well, not at least for another 30 years or so.. Pot will become legal in all states before gay marriage.

If gay marriages are to be recognized they should be on a statewide level, not just certain states, otherwise it is totally pointless.

People can commit to each other without having to be married. Unmarried people can have children and live normal, happy and productive lives. So why does a piece of paper validate that commitment?


However, gay men have difficulty adopting children, (which is usually the evolution of a marriage) but gay women can go to a sperm bank or ask a trusted friend and have a child of their very own. Parental rights are another issue.

I can see how that would be difficult thing for a gay male couple who really does want children. The ironic part of this is that some gay men would actually be better parents than some hetero couples.

Many are certainly in the higher income bracket and have the money is takes to care for child/children. This is a topic for another thread.

I am not even sure what the values of our age really are, but I know what is important to me.

I like variety in people and men in my life, after a while the same one can get tiresome and when that happens it is no fun for anyone, the game playing... all the rest .. Because when it is over and you can never really get it back.

Put it this way, if is is meant to be it will happen. Why does getting married make it better? Does it really?

I just hate to see women/men who are always on the prowl for that special guy/gal. Thinking that getting married will solve their problems.

If you are gay and feel the need to commit find a lawyer and share your property, accounts, the plane and whatever else divorced people fight about. The dog.., the beach house, your Tiffany Lamps, whatever....

That is the piece of paper you'll need, that will validate your commitment to each other. Wearing a ring and sharing the same last name does not make for a happy marriage or relationship.

So if gay couples can be married be prepared to deal with the same and pitfalls as the heterosexuals do.

It is just sad that we the people and the government have to take time to define or redefine what a marriage is and that it can only occur between a man and woman. blah, blah.

If people spent less time worrying about what other people are doing and spent more time on their own lives people would probably be much happier.

Another great vent, a bit long, thanks.

Best,
LT

[twonabomber]

Originally posted by LadyTudor2711

If people spent less time worrying about what other people are doing and spent more time on their own lives people would probably be much happier.



that applies to half the arguments in this forum...

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by FORD
Fine, if it's abomination for you, then don't marry a guy. Simple as that.

But to throw the entire country away on a single issue like that is simply MORONIC.

I'm not throwing anything away becuase i have no control over what the government does with this issue.
I vote against it and the Supreme Court renders the votes unconstitutional.
But i am on record as not supporting it, and that is what is important to me.
Truth is, I don't have a voice on the matter.
But i will not support it and/or recognize their unions as a "marriage" in my presence.
And unless i am asked my opinion on it, it never becomes a topic of disussion.

If that pisses people off then fine, that is what i believe and what i'll continue to believe becuase it is my right to do so.

[kentuckyklira]

Originally posted by Catfish
The problem is that marriage is between a man and a woman. That’s what marriage is.

I have no problem with your ‘fags’ getting married or whatever. Just call it something else because it ain’t marriage.

Marriage means something to people who embrase it and they're not in a rush to bastardize its meaning. Music used to be about rythm, harmony and melody. Then came hip hop and (rap and all of a sudden that noise is also considered music.

A word´s definition may evolve and people have to live with it!

[kentuckyklira]

Originally posted by DaveIsKing
Speaking of J-Lo, as long as she gave me that nice, plump ass to rub my face in, I'd be happy for a month or two.

Goddamn what a beautiful masterpiece--that ass... MMMMMMMmmmm That ass is fat!

Why do people like fat asses??

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by kentuckyklira
That ass is fat!

Why do people like fat asses??

I once heard on American "shock (disc) Jockey" Howard Stern's radio show that one of his staff-members dates J-Lo's sister. Stern said she was MUCH hotter than J-Lo is. All the body without the big ass thing going on.

[academic punk]

Originally posted by kentuckyklira
That ass is fat!

Why do people like fat asses??

The bigger the cushion
The sweeter the pushin'!!!

Or so I have read!!!

[academic punk]

The politics of gay marriage is being lost in the base, fundamental argument against it.

Gay men and gay women do nothing to further populate the planet. It's the same premise as the pro-life platform, the anti-masturbation and anti-condom stance of the church, and a host of other examples.

Sperm should never be wasted.

Especially - PARTICULARLY! - at this time in the world where the planet is severly over-populated and ever increasing.

MORE PEOPLE!!! MORE CANON_FODDER!!! MORE FACTORY SLAVES!!! MORE, I SAY, MORE!!!!!

[kentuckyklira]

Originally posted by academic punk
The bigger the cushion
The sweeter the pushin'!!!

Or so I have read!!! I read that a too hard matress was bad for your back!

[kentuckyklira]

Small minds find comfort in opposing anything they can´t understand!

[Hollywood Jesus]

I honestly believe that gay marriage lessens the sanctity of the bond. I believe it weakens a building block of society. I'm not questioning a homosexual's right to have sex with another consenting adult, live with a partner and/or work wherever they can find and keep gainful employment.

My arguments are for what's best for society as a whole; not what's best for my homosexual friends.

1) Homosexual marriages have absolutely no potential to naturally procreate or even represent procreation. ALL hetero couples have/had the potential to procreate. Even at its most sterile level, a hetero couple represents procreation. Promoting procreation is BEST FOR SOCIETY. Society cannot survive without it. Procreation is the most basic building block of society.

2) Same-sex marriages authorize a weakening of society by condoning a non-growth relationship. I argue that there is a distinctive human maturity that is only possible through living with a member of the opposite sex. A same-sex relationship is narcissistic, self-serving and relatively stagnant because the other person is so similar. Is it harmful to accept less? I don't know. What I do know is that it's not BEST FOR SOCIETY to endorse the false maturity of a homosexual relationship by making it equal to a hetero marriage.

3) Presumably, soem married homosexuals will want to have adopted children. There are countless studies showing the importance of both a mother and father in child rearing. We know this from the damage divorce and single-parenthood have done. A biological father and mother are best for a well-developed and behaved child. Children raised by loving biological parents are BEST FOR SOCIETY. Society loses its best hope when parents are single or of the same sex. To argue in opposition would demean either a father or mother's value to child rearing. Yes, I expect some homosexual couples might make fine parents. They're simply not what's best for society and should never be endorsed as such.

In summary, because homosexual marriage offers so much less to society, that union also deserves much less in return. Certainly not equality.

[Hollywood Jesus]

Originally posted by kentuckyklira
Small minds find comfort in opposing anything they can´t understand!

I guess that's why you have a tough time understanding my view.


Some things you oppose precisely because you understand...like Sammy singing with VH.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Hollywood Jesus
I honestly believe that gay marriage lessens the sanctity of the bond. I believe it weakens a building block of society. I'm not questioning a homosexual's right to have sex with another consenting adult, live with a partner and/or work wherever they can find and keep gainful employment.

My arguments are for what's best for society as a whole; not what's best for my homosexual friends.

1) Homosexual marriages have absolutely no potential to naturally procreate or even represent procreation. ALL hetero couples have/had the potential to procreate. Even at its most sterile level, a hetero couple represents procreation. Promoting procreation is BEST FOR SOCIETY. Society cannot survive without it. Procreation is the most basic building block of society.

Your argument is weak and historically false. The ancient Greeks emphasized, or at least tacitly permitted homosexuality, yet they still had a large problem with feeding their overpopulated city-states. The idea that everyone will turn gay is laughable bunch of Christian Right fear-mongering, and makes you wonder how many of these hate-preachers (Falwell, Robertson) are themselves latently gay or obsessed with homos! BTW, gays do not contribute to the number of abortions performed in this country, they merely adopt unwanted children in most cases.


2) Same-sex marriages authorize a weakening of society by condoning a non-growth relationship. I argue that there is a distinctive human maturity that is only possible through living with a member of the opposite sex. A same-sex relationship is narcissistic, self-serving and relatively stagnant because the other person is so similar. Is it harmful to accept less? I don't know. What I do know is that it's not BEST FOR SOCIETY to endorse the false maturity of a homosexual relationship by making it equal to a hetero marriage.

Not allowing consenting adults to make their own decisions and to have the same legal protections of heterosexual adults is an attack on fundamental personal liberties! you cannot tell people what to do. "Let the market decide!"


3) Presumably, soem married homosexuals will want to have adopted children. There are countless studies showing the importance of both a mother and father in child rearing. We know this from the damage divorce and single-parenthood have done. A biological father and mother are best for a well-developed and behaved child. Children raised by loving biological parents are BEST FOR SOCIETY. Society loses its best hope when parents are single or of the same sex. To argue in opposition would demean either a father or mother's value to child rearing. Yes, I expect some homosexual couples might make fine parents. They're simply not what's best for society and should never be endorsed as such.

I've read "studies" that show gays have a higher income level than comparative hetersexuals. You can cite many "studies" to prove a point. I agree with you that children should come from ideally: straight, two-parent households. But I would rather have children adopted by a caring, loving gay couple than have them live in foster care for the rest of their lives and have no real parents at all.


In summary, because homosexual marriage offers so much less to society, that union also deserves much less in return. Certainly not equality. [/B]

In summary, gays should have the same legal protections and liberties as straight couples. If you don't want to call it marriage, fine; just don't fuck with the Constitution!

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
laughable bunch of Christian Right

Is there a Christian Left?

[academic punk]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Is there a Christian Left?

Yes. And to some degree, BBB, you espouse the views: quality envorironment, better schools, higher accountability.

Now if we could just get you to the point of view that hgher taxes can help achieve these things, and that even with lower income taxes the mney is going to come from somewhere anyway (such as a consumption tax)...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Is there a Christian Left?

Yes.

Obituary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Dellinger

Pacifist elder statesman of the anti-Vietnam Chicago Eight

Michael Carlson
Friday May 28, 2004
The Guardian

As a radical pacifist, the American-born David Dellinger, who has died aged 88, spent his life involved in non-violent action against war and oppression. But his most prominent role was as elder statesman of the Chicago Eight, the disparate group of radicals who were charged with conspiring to incite riots around the 1968 US Democratic party convention which endorsed Hubert Humphrey's nomination as presidential candidate after President Lyndon Johnson withdrew from the race at the height of the Vietnam war.

Dellinger's principled stand and commitment to non-violence belied Washington's accusations against him, and, for many involved in the anti-Vietnam movement, served as an inspiration.

In February 1970, as Dellinger began his statement to the court before being sentenced on massive contempt of court charges, Judge Julius Hoffman ordered him silenced. As US federal marshals dragged him away, his teenage daughters screamed, "Leave my daddy alone." When more marshals grabbed the girls, Dellinger broke free, sprang through the crowd and interposed himself between his children and the officials.

Twenty years older than any of the other defendants, Dellinger always looked out of place in the Chicago Eight group. It included Abbie Hoffman (obituary, April 14 1989) and Jerry Rubin, leaders of the Yippies (the Youth International party), the National Mobilisation Committee organiser Rennie Davis, the former Students For A Democratic Society activist Tom Hayden and Bobby Seale, the Black Panther leader. One journalist described Dellinger, in his professorial tweed and corduroy, as resembling "an off-duty scoutmaster".

The group, which became the Chicago Seven when Seale's case was stopped in November 1969 - after he was dragged bound and gagged from the courtroom - were unlikely conspirators. "We couldn't agree on lunch," said Hoffman. But they did agree to create a show trial, punctuated by Yippie street theatre. In the end, the seven were acquitted on conspiracy charges, though all except the student leaders John Froines and Lee Weiner were convicted on individual charges.

Judge Hoffman's handling of the trial, along with the FBI's bugging of the defence lawyers, resulted in the convictions being overturned on appeal in 1972. Although the contempt citations were upheld, the appeal court refused to sentence anyone.

Dellinger described his role in the anti-Vietnam war movement as that of "the older brother siding with the rebellious younger child against his parents". This fondness for familial rebellion came naturally to him. He was born in Wakefield, Massachusetts, the son of a prominent Republican lawyer and friend of the former US president, Calvin Coolidge. The young Dellinger over-nighted in the White House.

By the time he graduated from Yale University in 1936, with honours in economics and as captain of the cross-country team, Dellinger was already being radicalised. He had been arrested while marching to support unionisation at Yale; he spent a summer working in a factory in Maine, and another travelling with hoboes. His friends included the young Walt Rostow (obituary, February 17 2003), who then argued the virtues of communism, which Dellinger found lacked a "spiritual dimension". Rostow went on to become an architect of Vietnam policy under US presidents Kennedy and Johnson.


Dellinger discovered his pacifism when, during a brawl at a Yale football game, he punched a New Haven "townie". As his victim fell, stunned, he later wrote, "the lesson I learned was as simple, direct and unarguable as the lesson a child learns the first time it puts its hand on a red-hot stove. Don't ever do it again!"

He won a fellowship to Oxford University, using his time in Europe to see Nazi Germany at first-hand, and to drive an ambulance during the Spanish civil war, where his experience convinced him that "whoever won the armed struggle, it would not be the people". Back in America, he spent three years travelling before enrolling at the Union Theological Seminary, New York.

When conscription was instituted in America in 1940, Dellinger was eligible for deferment, but refused to register at all. Sentenced to a year at the federal Danbury prison, New England, he refused to recognise the segregated seating arrangements in the jail. His resulting time in solitary confinement convinced him "how little it matters what anyone does to you".

When the US entered the second world war in December 1941, Dellinger again refused to join the military, and spent another two years in prison. He had already met his future wife Elizabeth, a student journalist assigned to interview him at a student Christian conference. He broke off a standing engagement, and they were married a month later.

After the war, Dellinger co-founded Direct Action magazine with two other Christian pacifists, AJ Muste and Dorothy Day. His first editorial criticised the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He edited or published a number of magazines, most notably Liberation, which ran for 20 years.

As the Vietnam war gained momentum through the 1960s, Dellinger joined two Roman Catholic priests, Philip and Daniel Berrigan, in producing a declaration of conscience for draft resisters. He organised the 1967 protest march that encircled the Pentagon, an event recalled in Norman Mailer's book, Armies Of The Night. He made trips to China and what was then North Vietnam, securing the release of captured American servicemen, and acting as a go-between for the North Vietnamese leader Ho Chi Minh. One of the things to emerge from his visits was how fondly Ho remembered his own time in New York.

After the Chicago trial, Dellinger was less in the public eye, though he remained active, even when dissent became less acceptable and many radicals turned to more profitable careers. He moved to Vermont, to concentrate on writing and teaching. His autobiography, From Yale To Jail, was his sixth book and, on its publication in 1996, he declared that the "evils in society today are greater than they were in 1968".

Five years later, by now aged 85, he rose at 3am and hitchhiked to Quebec City to demonstrate against the North American Free Trade Agreement. As he had said at the Chicago trial, "People are no longer going to be quiet. People are going to speak up."

He is survived by his wife, three sons and two daughters.

· David Dellinger, campaigner, born August 22 1915; died May 25 2004

[scorpioboy33]

I have no problem with Gay marriage or gay couples adopting children.
The only issue I have is that I do not thinkg that churches should have to be FORCED to perform the services.

[FORD]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Is there a Christian Left?

Yes there is. And here's a few of its past members....

http://img.infoplease.com/images/mlking.jpg

http://www.wehaitians.com/jimmy_carter_11.jpg

http://www.shjolg.com/images/living%20jesus%20christ.jpg

I'll take those three over Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and George Bush Jr. :)

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by FORD

http://www.shjolg.com/images/living%20jesus%20christ.jpg



Uh...no...... Jesus is not a Democrat. Jesus is not a Republican. Jesus is apolitical.

[scorpioboy33]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Uh...no...... Jesus is not a Democrat. Jesus is not a Republican. Jesus is apolitical.

ahmen to that!

[FORD]

The Sermon on The Mount is a list of Liberal Principles :)

Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.

Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.

Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.

Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.

Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

[VanJay011379]

I don't have a problem with homosexuals at all and I'm a conservative. I love Coors Light. Others hate it. Nothing wrong with it.

However, I do have a problem with gay marriage. Marriage is defined between a man and a woman.

If it can be a man and man or woman and woman, then why not three men, three men and a donkey, two men and two women? Where would it end? It basically is a legal form of dating at that point.

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Hollywood Jesus
I honestly believe that gay marriage lessens the sanctity of the bond. I believe it weakens a building block of society. I'm not questioning a homosexual's right to have sex with another consenting adult, live with a partner and/or work wherever they can find and keep gainful employment.

My arguments are for what's best for society as a whole; not what's best for my homosexual friends.

1) Homosexual marriages have absolutely no potential to naturally procreate or even represent procreation. ALL hetero couples have/had the potential to procreate. Even at its most sterile level, a hetero couple represents procreation. Promoting procreation is BEST FOR SOCIETY. Society cannot survive without it. Procreation is the most basic building block of society.

2) Same-sex marriages authorize a weakening of society by condoning a non-growth relationship. I argue that there is a distinctive human maturity that is only possible through living with a member of the opposite sex. A same-sex relationship is narcissistic, self-serving and relatively stagnant because the other person is so similar. Is it harmful to accept less? I don't know. What I do know is that it's not BEST FOR SOCIETY to endorse the false maturity of a homosexual relationship by making it equal to a hetero marriage.

3) Presumably, soem married homosexuals will want to have adopted children. There are countless studies showing the importance of both a mother and father in child rearing. We know this from the damage divorce and single-parenthood have done. A biological father and mother are best for a well-developed and behaved child. Children raised by loving biological parents are BEST FOR SOCIETY. Society loses its best hope when parents are single or of the same sex. To argue in opposition would demean either a father or mother's value to child rearing. Yes, I expect some homosexual couples might make fine parents. They're simply not what's best for society and should never be endorsed as such.

In summary, because homosexual marriage offers so much less to society, that union also deserves much less in return. Certainly not equality.

1) Do you advocate a maximum age for marriage then? Say 45 for women? Also last time I looked there was plenty of fucking procreation going on outwith marriage. Wow 1950s internet...:)

2) This point confuses me. You are saying that gays fucking anything that moves is good for society. You are against gay monogamy and pro sexual disease?

3) This is an argument against hetero divorce and having kids within wedlock not one against homo marriage. Who says that all your common sense shit about a stable man and a woman being the best parents for a kid would be affected by gay marriage?

Cheers!

:gulp:

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by VanJay011379
I don't have a problem with homosexuals at all and I'm a conservative. I love Coors Light. Others hate it. Nothing wrong with it.

However, I do have a problem with gay marriage. Marriage is defined between a man and a woman.

If it can be a man and man or woman and woman, then why not three men, three men and a donkey, two men and two women? Where would it end? It basically is a legal form of dating at that point.

Marriage is basically a financial contract between two adults saying we're gonna stick with shit unless it gets impossible in which case we agree to cover each other financially.

Animals can't give legal consent.

As far as more than two people entering into it then my gut instinct is that it wouldn't work very often in practice because of jealousy but again I couldn't give a shit and I don't see how it affects you or me.

If you feel that your marriage is in some way cheapened or less likely to succeed because homos or mormans do a version of it too then you are probably in danger of falling into the category of the majority of hetero marriages that end up in divorce. Maybe you could wear a big fancy hat or do a 5 hour marriage service to distinguish your attempt at happiness from them or something.

Cheers!

:gulp:

[UGS]

Dogs are animals, but not all animals are dogs.

just as. . .

Democrats lean left, but not all left-leaners are Democrats. The question specifically asked if there is a Christian Left, not if there are Christian Democrats.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Marlowe01
explain how, in any way, allowing "fags" to get married interferes with ANYthing.

Not at all.

In fact, you SHOULD go ahead and marry the guy with OUR blessings.

We'll even throw a shower for you.

Where will you register? Target? Kmart?

[FORD]

Originally posted by VanJay011379
I don't have a problem with homosexuals at all and I'm a conservative. I love Coors Light. Others hate it. Nothing wrong with it.

Nothing wrong with Coors Light? If you could smell the stench that comes out of the Coors Brewery, you would never drink anything that came from there again!

However, I do have a problem with gay marriage. Marriage is defined between a man and a woman.

Actually, it's not. It's not really defined as anything. That's why the right wing extremists are trying to change the constitution, because they want that definition written into the law.

However the tradition of marriage previously has been that of a man and a woman. It also was once a tradition to own slaves, travel by horseback, and believe the earth was flat. Society survived the passing of those traditions just fine, it will survive this one too, since as I write this, ABC News is reporting that a California Superior Court judge has ruled marriage bans unconstitutional under the 14th Ammendment.

If it can be a man and man or woman and woman, then why not three men, three men and a donkey, two men and two women? Where would it end? It basically is a legal form of dating at that point.

Ridiculous strawman argument. The simple fact is that millions of long term gay partnerships do and will continue to exist. These people hold jobs and pay taxes just like the rest of us, and therefore deserve all the same legal rights as the rest of us. They should be able to include their partners on their health insurance, to be recognized as next of kin in legal & medical matters, etc.

I do believe that religious institutions should be able to determine their own ceremonies, but that's a side issue. They do that now. Catholic churches won't marry heterosexuals either, if one or both aren't Catholics. Mormon temples won't even let family members witness the ceremony unless they are "sealed" Mormons themselves, and you can forget about marrying one if you ain't. (Been there, done that, didn't take the holy t-shirt)

Anyway the legal equivalency is the responsibility of government, under the 14th Ammendment as the CA judge said. The Massachussettes court previously decided on similar grounds, and I believe the Vermont court did as well. This being the case, it's beginning to look as though this will eventually pass, state by state.

And when the world fails to mysteriously stop turning because of it, then the Pat Robertson types will be at a loss for something else to whine about. That's never stopped them for long, unfortunately.

[Seshmeister]

The teaching of Jesus is far too left wing for me.

I don't think communism works in real life.

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by FORD
Nothing wrong with Coors Light? If you could smell the stench that comes out of the Coors Brewery, you would never drink anything that came from there again!

All breweries stink...

[FORD]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
All breweries stink...

Not like the Coors brewery!

I live about a mile from the old Olympia Brewery, which is now out of business. When it was operational, the beer itself was shit, but the smell was never that bad. Actually there were times it was so strong that it made me want a beer - which isn't a good thing to think about at 8:00 in the morning. Not during the week anyway. Besides beer & toothpaste really don't mix well (found that one out in my juvenile delinquent days in high school)

But that Coors brewery in Golden Colorado.... it smells like rotten sewage coming out of that place. Which would be fitting considering Pete Coors has shit for brains.

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by FORD
Besides beer & toothpaste really don't mix well (found that one out in my juvenile delinquent days in high school)


It's all about the order.

Beer THEN toothpaste...:)

[academic punk]

I was waiting for FORD to fess up and admit his disdain for Coors stems from Pete Coors political associations...

BTW: it is NOT a slippery slope from a gay couple getting married and someone wanting to marry their dog.

And if we're going to get into realms of "Gay sex is much more dangerous than heterosexual", than we should be encouraging more than ever lesbian sex, which is safer than heterosexual cohabitation.

And also hotter.

[kentuckyklira]

Originally posted by FORD
These people hold jobs and pay taxes just like the rest of us, and therefore deserve all the same legal rights as the rest of us. Wasn´r denying people that kind of thing what finally triggered off the American revolution?

"No taxation without representation" and all that!

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by VanJay011379
I don't have a problem with homosexuals at all and I'm a conservative. I love Coors Light. Others hate it. Nothing wrong with it.

However, I do have a problem with gay marriage. Marriage is defined between a man and a woman.

If it can be a man and man or woman and woman, then why not three men, three men and a donkey, two men and two women? Where would it end? It basically is a legal form of dating at that point.

I noticed you didn't mention two women. Bet you don't have a problem with that?;) :eatit:

[Hollywood Jesus]

Here's the real argument: I don't believe that homosexuality is in any way normal. And it's a chosen lifestyle; not a birthright.

Now, as a dysfunction (or sin), are homosexuals closer to smokers or to pedophiles?

I say closer smokers and get bashed from both sides. Not judging harshly enough for my goofy conservative friends. And judging too harshly for the snobby liberal buddies.

THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT APPLY to gay marriage in the least. Homosexuality is a choice. Homosexuals have the exact same right to marry as anyone else does--find someone of the opposite sex. You don't change the rules of nature just because a few--homos are roughly 2-5% of the population--have distorted those rules.

To say that homosexual rights are in any way similar to civil rights is a slap in the face to any Black person. Homosexuality is recreation. Being Black is human.

I am the Christian Left. We champion conservative family values and radical social changes.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Hollywood Jesus


To say that homosexual rights are in any way similar to civil rights is a slap in the face to any Black person. Homosexuality is recreation. Being Black is human.



:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

[Warham]

Jesus is far from a liberal.

Jesus is and always will be against gay marriage.

You can look in the scriptures for that.

[academic punk]

Homosexuality is recreation???

You apparently don't spend a lot of time anywhere near the gay community. Have you ever been near two gay guys when they commence discussing fashion or music or the stud they both saw in the locker room at the gym?

This is who these guys are, PERIOD. They were to born to be as flaming, fabulous, and fruity as they are, and will continue to be.

Best case scenario in your presentation: they repress their sexuality, attempt a loveless marriage, never have sex with their partner because the sight and smell of a vagina just DOES NOT interest them, and eventually they lose their shit and blow away a bunch of friends and loved ones at a Wisconsin church.

Are you interested in cock? No? Why? BECAUSE YOU'RE JUST NOT BUILT THAT WAY.

One minute the argument against gays is that they're afraid of commitment, refuse to settle down and be productive, then when it's shown that a large numebr of them do want that commitment and ALL THE RIGHTS that come with it, the argument is changed yet again.

Every gay guy should marry a lesbian, to display what a mockery this all is, and just continue to live their lives as they have been.

[Hollywood Jesus]

Originally posted by academic punk
Homosexuality is recreation???

You apparently don't spend a lot of time anywhere near the gay community. Have you ever been near two gay guys when they commence discussing fashion or music or the stud they both saw in the locker room at the gym?


All recreational activities mentioned.


This is who these guys are, PERIOD. They were to born to be as flaming, fabulous, and fruity as they are, and will continue to be.

...

Are you interested in cock? No? Why? BECAUSE YOU'RE JUST NOT BUILT THAT WAY.

No one is BUILT that way. It's a dysfunctional choice. Hope that helps.



One minute the argument against gays is that they're afraid of commitment, refuse to settle down and be productive, then when it's shown that a large numebr of them do want that commitment and ALL THE RIGHTS that come with it, the argument is changed yet again.

Never changed my argument. Homosexuality is a recreational choice . Doesn't deserve any more rights than people who play poker together. Certainly not marital rights.

Legal, personal and insurance rights are already available to homosexual couples if you know where to look. One wonders why they are pushing so hard to be "normal." Could it be that deep down they know they're not?

Move on to something a little more meaningful like poverty, education, sexism, violence...

[academic punk]

Originally posted by Hollywood Jesus

Move on to something a little more meaningful like poverty, education, sexism, violence...

Yes, like educating you for your viewpoints, and the violence that has taken place against gays in the last year alone. (whcih amounts to a form of sexism in and of itself).

Why are you so afriad of gay marriage? Would it affirm the way you feel deep down and cause you to question every decision you've made in your life?

I find the comparison to people playing poker together and two people deciding to build the rest of their lives together - as well as their wishes for their estate after death and how they'd like to be remembered - absolutely ignorant.

Thanks for proving your duncehood without making me put any effort into it.

[Warham]

If you allow gay marriage, then you'll have to allow polygamy, etc, because that's protected under equal rights as well, right?

If that's so, then I should be able to get a 2nd and 3rd wife with no problem, otherwise my rights have been violated!

[academic punk]

Warham, were you watching FOX this morning too?

or was that msnbc?

[Warham]

Nope, didn't catch the TV this morning.

Allowing gay marriage WILL eventually allow everything short of marrying your pet.

[academic punk]

Ah. Two pundits were going back and forth at each other. One was making that very point.

The other was proving (well, making his case) that that would never happen.

Still, I can see an upsdie to having multiple partners, can't you?

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Warham
If you allow gay marriage, then you'll have to allow polygamy, etc, because that's protected under equal rights as well, right?

If that's so, then I should be able to get a 2nd and 3rd wife with no problem, otherwise my rights have been violated!

I would think so. That would be the next logical step. Just wait.

[Warham]

Originally posted by academic punk
Ah. Two pundits were going back and forth at each other. One was making that very point.

The other was proving (well, making his case) that that would never happen.

Still, I can see an upsdie to having multiple partners, can't you?

I'm sure folks thought that abortion and gay marriage would never happen either.

[Warham]

This only proves to me that anything created by man's hands, ie, the Constitution, will eventually be perverted and twisted until there's nothing meaningful left.

I'm sure the founding fathers never had this in mind.

[academic punk]

Originally posted by Warham

I'm sure the founding fathers never had this in mind.

They just may have! Ben Franklin, for one, WAS something of a ladies man, you know...

[academic punk]

In some circles he was known as "The Fondling Father"...
;)

[Warham]

arf arf!

:D

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
I would think so. That would be the next logical step. Just wait.

not necessarily, BBB. there are decent public policy reasons against polygamy. after all, a civil union/contractual marriage gives the partner certain rights, like tax implications, power of attorney, estate planning, parental rights, etc.

when there are multiple people involved, things get really murky. i would make the argument that allowing any 2 people to have a civil union changes nothing, but that allowing 3 people to do so makes it more complicated and is therefore not an arbitrary distinction.

[Hollywood Jesus]

Originally posted by academic punk
Yes, like educating you for your viewpoints, and the violence that has taken place against gays in the last year alone. (whcih amounts to a form of sexism in and of itself).

...

I find the comparison to people playing poker together and two people deciding to build the rest of their lives together - as well as their wishes for their estate after death and how they'd like to be remembered - absolutely ignorant.

Thanks for proving your duncehood without making me put any effort into it.

Violence against homosexuals is horrible. I would never condone it.

Comparing a homosexual relationship to a heterosexual one is JUST AS IGNORANT in my book. Maybe that will help you understand my stance.

[Warham]

Originally posted by knuckleboner
not necessarily, BBB. there are decent public policy reasons against polygamy. after all, a civil union/contractual marriage gives the partner certain rights, like tax implications, power of attorney, estate planning, parental rights, etc.

when there are multiple people involved, things get really murky. i would make the argument that allowing any 2 people to have a civil union changes nothing, but that allowing 3 people to do so makes it more complicated and is therefore not an arbitrary distinction.

It goes against my civil rights, Knuckle, and I'll go every judge in California and Massachusetts until I can get my way.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Hollywood Jesus
Violence against homosexuals is horrible. I would never condone it.

Comparing a homosexual relationship to a heterosexual one is JUST AS IGNORANT in my book. Maybe that will help you understand my stance.

I doesn't matter what your personal feelings are, consenting adults are consenting adults! If gays want to be in a long-term monogamous relationship, who cares? But they certainly deserve the same legal protections as heterosexuals when it comes to their property/assets, self-determination, and family. That's The Bill of Rights!

[Warham]

Let me read the Bill of Rights to see if gay marriage is in there somewhere. I may have to read the fine print, or read between the lines, like liberals do, to find what I want to find.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Let me read the Bill of Rights to see if gay marriage is in there somewhere. I may have to read the fine print, or read between the lines, like liberals do, to find what I want to find.

It says nothing about marriage, that's not the point, whether it's gay or straight! But I think it does clearly state that people have the right to control their own hard-earned property, and to whom it goes after they die! Marriage is a legal compact involving inheritance, insurance, and medical/guardianship decisions. And do not the proposed "Gay Marriage" amendments have a big impact on heterosexuals that want to get divorced? :rolleyes: This clearly is NOT JUST ABOUT GAYS!

[Warham]

The Bill of Rights says nothing about inheritance, insurance, or guardianship. These are state issues, if anything. Gay marriage should be decided by the states, with amendments by each legislature to their respective state constitutions.

And it should be decided by a vote of the people, not by activist judges.

[DrMaddVibe]

Gay marriage? That's queer!

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
If you allow gay marriage, then you'll have to allow polygamy, etc, because that's protected under equal rights as well, right?

If that's so, then I should be able to get a 2nd and 3rd wife with no problem, otherwise my rights have been violated!

Only if you move to Utah.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham


And it should be decided by a vote of the people, not by activist judges.

So should elections, but that didn't stop the Felonious Florida Five BCE appointee activist judges on the Supreme Court.

[Warham]

Originally posted by FORD
Only if you move to Utah.

California and Massachusetts are next.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
The Bill of Rights says nothing about inheritance, insurance, or guardianship. These are state issues, if anything. Gay marriage should be decided by the states, with amendments by each legislature to their respective state constitutions.

Now you're talkin'!!


And it should be decided by a vote of the people, not by activist judges.

The "activist judge" term is highly overused. The vast majority of these judges must make tough calls and did not go to law school in order to "free marriage for queers." In fact, many are Republicans! And a majority of Americans in many regions may not favor all out marriage for gays, but do favor equivalent legal protections for gay couples in legally sanctioned relationships.

[Warham]

Originally posted by FORD
So should elections, but that didn't stop the Felonious Florida Five BCE appointee activist judges on the Supreme Court.

Yeah, the same judges who vote liberally on many issues?

The BCE failed on that one...that is, if the BCE actually existed.

[Warham]

I favor civil unions, but not marriage.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
I favor civil unions, but not marriage.

Well I am not that far from you then, I don't know if I want to call it gay "marriage" either.

[Warham]

The only reason I would allow civil unions is to deal with issues like the ones you mentioned above, not to give validation to the homosexual relationship.

That's why I'm for the unions, but against the marriages.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
The only reason I would allow civil unions is to deal with issues like the ones you mentioned above, not to give validation to the homosexual relationship.

That's why I'm for the unions, but against the marriages.

Why should YOUR view of whether or not a relationship is "valid" or not have any basis in the laws of a state that you don't even live in?

I don't believe Titney Spears' second marriage is valid, and God knows her first marriage definitely wasn't. Does that mean I should be able to change the laws in Louisiana?

[Nitro Express]

Marriage is a legal binding contract. Before effective birth control it was societies way of making someone publicly take a vow or an oath that they would take care of their spouse and kids. Society had learned that fucking in caos and bastard children only resulted in crime and poverty. To save society, the institution of marriage was enforced by both the church and by social pressure.

After the invention of the birth control pill, things loosened up. Men and women lived together openly and even had kids without marriage.

I've seen both sides. Kids are better off in a strong family with two loving parents of the opposite sex. Sure single parents can raise good kids but it's not the ideal situation. Two gay people raising kids is not good either in my oppinion.

What's ironic is nobody wants to get married anymore and people who do can stay married. Why even argue the point? LOL!

[Warham]

Originally posted by FORD
Why should YOUR view of whether or not a relationship is "valid" or not have any basis in the laws of a state that you don't even live in?

I don't believe Titney Spears' second marriage is valid, and God knows her first marriage definitely wasn't. Does that mean I should be able to change the laws in Louisiana?

Just my opinion on gay marriage, FORD.

My views are valid to me. I don't give two shits if you don't think they are valid or not.

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by Warham
The only reason I would allow civil unions is to deal with issues like the ones you mentioned above, not to give validation to the homosexual relationship.

That's why I'm for the unions, but against the marriages.

I agree 100%

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by Warham
Just my opinion on gay marriage, FORD.

My views are valid to me. I don't give two shits if you don't think they are valid or not.

Again, I agree 100%...:D


:elvis: