Reality: Homosexual Marriage

Dixie said:
Here's the Dirty Little Secret... THEY DON'T CARE! The same nitwits who are now arguing for Gay Marriage, really do not give a shit if people marry dogs, cats, horses, or numerous women, men, tranny's... doesn't fucking matter to them! They have no morals, no ethics, no boundaries to civilization! It would suit them just fine if the laws ordained any and all sexually deviant behavior, because they are pond scum.
Click to expand...

Dixie, this is just another bullshit rant that you wish were true so you could feel better about yourself.

No one is trying to marry dogs, cats or whatever. The issue has always been about consenting adult people.


What I find amusing is that you preach like you are defending a religious institution, but you refuse to allow religions to make their own choices. You demand that they follow the few major beliefs.
 
Southern Man said:
Bullshit. Marriages between men and women of different races has occurred throughout human history. It is moral normal healthy and natural results in normal children. None of this is true with queer marriage.
Click to expand...

And there have been immoral, abnormal, unhealthy people marry. And some of those marriages produced abnormal and unhealthy children or produced no children at all.

These are still worthless reasons for denying gay marriage. And they have been shot down every time you have used them.
 
Dixie said:
No, actually, I am the open minded one in this debate. I have proposed a solution which would give ALL SIDES what they claim to want, and it is summarily rejected by those who are too closed-minded to compromise any at all on their views.
Click to expand...

Dixie, its funny that you rant against those who want gay marriage AND those who have said civil unions would be good. But I haven't seen you say a single word against those who wish to deny gay either marriage OR civil unions.

If you are going to claim your compromise is the solution, at least have the courage to blast both sides who disagree with you.
 
Southern Chicken said:
e·volve (-vlv)
v. e·volved, e·volv·ing, e·volves
v.tr.
1.
a. To develop or achieve gradually: evolve a style of one's own.
b. To work (something) out; devise: "the schemes he evolved to line his purse" (S.J. Perelman).
2. Biology To develop (a characteristic) by evolutionary processes.
3. To give off; emit.
v.intr.
1. To undergo gradual change; develop: an amateur acting group that evolved into a theatrical company.
2. Biology To develop or arise through evolutionary processes.


Just because it "has never" doesnt mean that "it shouldnt". If to you tradition is such a concern, then one must ask: How much dowry did your wife's family pay you when you got married? Furthermore, after being married for 1 year, assuming no prodgeny are forthcoming, I assume you annulled the marriage? Those are both very long standing traditions of marriage that have been altered in modern times. Tradition is and has to be a reflection of cultural norms. The fact that Things have been like this for a long time is in itself not an argument at all.

I find people who oppose gay marriages to be somewhat irrational. Think about this for a second: What possible effect could it have on your life/ culture/ society is gay marriages are allowed? There are no negative impacts. Will fewer heterosexual people get married becaue of it? Of course not. In fact, if there was no media coverage, this law could be passed and you would likely never even know about it.

I am heterosexual, and to be brutally honest, I find the concept of homosexual sex to be somewhat distasteful. But that distaste does not affect the logic of the situation.

I must also apologize to Southern Woman for my earlier comment
Click to expand...

Marriage has a specific meaning. Perhaps "it shouldn't" evolve, in the same way we shouldn't evolve the words "yes" and "no" to mean the opposite. Change for the sake of change is nonsense and illogical.
 
Threedee said:
Marriage has a specific meaning. Perhaps "it shouldn't" evolve, in the same way we shouldn't evolve the words "yes" and "no" to mean the opposite. Change for the sake of change is nonsense and illogical.
Click to expand...

If it were change for the sake of change it would be nonsense.

But it is change to include a portion of the population (some studies say 10% or so) in the benefits the gov't gives to couples who commit to each other.
 
WinterBorn said:
If it were change for the sake of change it would be nonsense.

But it is change to include a portion of the population (some studies say 10% or so) in the benefits the gov't gives to couples who commit to each other.
Click to expand...

Its closer to 2%, and I accept the benefits and privileges argument to be valid. This is why we need civil unions for all, and leave marriage to be defined outside of government.
 
WinterBorn said:
Dixie, this is just another bullshit rant that you wish were true so you could feel better about yourself.

No one is trying to marry dogs, cats or whatever. The issue has always been about consenting adult people.


What I find amusing is that you preach like you are defending a religious institution, but you refuse to allow religions to make their own choices. You demand that they follow the few major beliefs.
Click to expand...

No one is trying to marry dogs YET! The "ISSUE" is you trashing a religious tradition because you are a godless piece of human garbage who doesn't have any respect for the beliefs of others. Otherwise, you would embrace a solution which satisfies ALL SIDES and gives everyone what they want. If you ever managed to cajole the majority of Americans into agreeing with your idiocy of Gay Marriage, the next step would indeed be dogs, horses, multiple partners, etc. Because the focus of the "ISSUE" for you, is not, and has never been, the equality of benefits to homosexual couples. It has, and always will be, the destruction of a religious tradition, and ANYTHING that advances that cause, you will support.
 
Dixie said:
No one is trying to marry dogs YET! The "ISSUE" is you trashing a religious tradition because you are a godless piece of human garbage who doesn't have any respect for the beliefs of others. Otherwise, you would embrace a solution which satisfies ALL SIDES and gives everyone what they want. If you ever managed to cajole the majority of Americans into agreeing with your idiocy of Gay Marriage, the next step would indeed be dogs, horses, multiple partners, etc. Because the focus of the "ISSUE" for you, is not, and has never been, the equality of benefits to homosexual couples. It has, and always will be, the destruction of a religious tradition, and ANYTHING that advances that cause, you will support.
Click to expand...


Children, animals and corpses cannot consent. We can find logical reasons to be opposed to pedophilia and bestiality- consent and physical harm. Can you find a logical reason to oppose same sex marriage?
 
WinterBorn said:
Dixie, its funny that you rant against those who want gay marriage AND those who have said civil unions would be good. But I haven't seen you say a single word against those who wish to deny gay either marriage OR civil unions.

If you are going to claim your compromise is the solution, at least have the courage to blast both sides who disagree with you.
Click to expand...

Dont hold your breath
 
Southern Chicken said:
Can you find a logical reason to oppose same sex marriage?
Click to expand...

you mean besides the fact it's abnormal?.....I would consider it logical to oppose same sex marriage on the grounds that marriage means the union of a man and a woman and a gay couple isn't.......you can't get much more logical than that....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
you mean besides the fact it's abnormal?.....I would consider it logical to oppose same sex marriage on the grounds that marriage means the union of a man and a woman and a gay couple isn't.......you can't get much more logical than that....
Click to expand...

Interracial Marriage was considered abnormal as well-Hell, women voters were even considered abnormal-whats your point
 
Southern Chicken said:
Interracial Marriage was considered abnormal as well-Hell, women voters were even considered abnormal-whats your point
Click to expand...
By trying to normalize something that is abnormal society will then be required to lie to children and tell them that their parents are normal, when clearly they ain't.
 
Southern Man said:
By your logic a guy should be able to marry his dog, or marry two women.
Click to expand...
A dog has no capacity for consent, not an option. Two women, so long as they are all consenting and fully understand what they are getting into... Yes. That's just "Nunya".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top