Reality: Homosexual Marriage

Dixie said:
Marriage is the holy union of a man and woman. In that respect, yes. If you want to try and change what marriage is, and make it something else, NOPE, we shouldn't bestow that right on people and sanction it through our government. If gay people want to have a "wedding" and pretend they are married, it's not my business, but the state shouldn't sponsor that or license it, because that isn't what marriage is.
Click to expand...

But then, wouldn't hetrosexual people be pretending that they were married also??
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
But you seem to have forgotten all the lawsuits that will probably tie this up for years and eventually end up at the Supreme Court level.

Or do you think that Obama or a Federal Judge is just going to enact this and that's the way it's going to be.

Nice how you first equate homosexuals with animals and now try to make it appear that anyone who doesn't agree with your stupidiy, has a mental problem.

You're nothing more then a whiny brat that needs to be spanked and sent to bed.
Click to expand...


It absolutely think MY IDEA is far more likely to become a reality than YOUR IDEA!

Probably won't happen with Obama, he would never actually do something to resolve such a divisive and controversial issue, especially when Democrats get so much mileage out of it, pandering to the Gay vote! It might happen under President Palin!! :)

I don't care if there are legal challenges, there will be legal challenges regardless of what we do, will there not? That doesn't seem to be a very valid reason for not moving forward with a solution that satisfies ALL SIDES of this issue.

I never equated homosexuals with animals, and I am not a whiny brat who needs spanked, so you'll forgive me for not addressing that portion of your comments.
 
Dixie said:
It absolutely think MY IDEA is far more likely to become a reality than YOUR IDEA!

Probably won't happen with Obama, he would never actually do something to resolve such a divisive and controversial issue, especially when Democrats get so much mileage out of it, pandering to the Gay vote! It might happen under President Palin!! :)

I don't care if there are legal challenges, there will be legal challenges regardless of what we do, will there not? That doesn't seem to be a very valid reason for not moving forward with a solution that satisfies ALL SIDES of this issue.

I never equated homosexuals with animals, and I am not a whiny brat who needs spanked, so you'll forgive me for not addressing that portion of your comments.
Click to expand...

Then if Obama or a Federal Judge made the following law, you would have no problem with it.

Whereas, we the Congress have established that Marriage is an institution between two people who care about each other and have the ability to make such a decision.
and whereas, we the Congress have determined it is not under purview of the government to forbid or not allow consenting adults the right to marry each other, pursuant to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, hereby establish the following:

Be it enacted, on this day, (date), the year of our Lord, the Marriage Act of 2010.

Heretofore be it recognized by law of the land and appropriate authorities of the many states, all state recognized and sanction marriages shall effectively allow homosexuals to marry, the same as heterosexuals are now allowed, and to have the same rights that have previously only been allowed to said heterosexual couples, shall heretofore be covered under this law from this day forward. Be it enacted, that if a law pertains to "marriage" it will henceforth be recognized as pertaining to all consenting adults.

Also, any person or persons who are too ignorant or incapable of understanding this simple transition, shall be confined to a mental institution to be determined by appropriate authorities.

And YES, you are nothing more then a whiny brat.
 
Damocles said:
Nobody would be forcing you to "accept" anything, there would be no action to force your church or your beliefs to coincide with such unions.
Click to expand...

if no one is forcing me, why do they want to change the law?......they want to change the law because the law compels......
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
In addressing your last diatribe, you try to make it appear that you are above what you are complaining about.

Unfortunetly; your short term memory has affected your ability to remember things that you've posted earlier.

When you find the time to climb down from your hypocritical high horse; maybe you can see that before you decide to point fingers at others, you might want to remove the beam from thine own eye first.
Please refer to the areas in bold print.

Once you accomplish that small detail, you might be able to find a way to pull your own thumb out of your ass. :good4u:
Click to expand...

If you want to debate an issue with me, you're going to have to argue with what I say........your post claimed I said something I have never said.....thus, I see no reason to try to defend the argument I didn't raise......why the fuck should I answer your question attacking something I don't believe in.....am I required to defend a position you mistakenly believe I hold, just because you question it?.......
 
Beefy said:
Should two consenting adults, that love each other, have the right to marry or not?
Click to expand...

obviously not unless they meet the criteria required, being of opposite sex.....otherwise, what they engage in is something other than a marriage....the problem here is that the left pretends this is about the right to engage in a relationship...it isn't.......this isn't even about money, since in both the states that law suits were engaged to seek gay marriage, gays were already receiving equal benefits under the civil union laws......this is about a demand for legitimacy, backed by the force of law....and the left intentionally ignores this fact and tries to misrepresent the entire issue.....
 
Last edited:
Here is the thing I get least of all. When anyone talks the way David Brooks does about the institution of marriage as it REALLY exists today, Dixie, SM and people of their ilk IGNORE the fact that heterosexuals have fucked up marriage beyond traditional recognition. Long before queers started asking for equal rights, rather than separate but equal, infidelity, divorce, domestic violence have been on the increase. If anything could denegrate marriages already in existence this would be it. SM is your marriage denegrated because of the divorce rate, the rate of infidelity. Is your marriage somehow less valued or important because of this? Yet you and Dixie want to pretend that if marriage is opened up to same sex couples it will be. The other thing I find very interesting is that ANYTIME SM wants to denegrate gay relationships he uses imagery of male on male sex. Never evokes images of two women have sex. Why is that? (the question is rhetorical so you don't have to answer SM.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top