Define a 'Liberal' or a 'Conservative'

poet said:
Originally Posted by DamnYankee


Ain't that about some bullshit? Traditional marriage? Please. With all the cheating, adultery, domestic violence, sexual abuse going on in "traditional families", nowadays, that would be a slap in the face to the institution, making a mockery of it, and providing much cynicism. Society doesn't take care of its' veterans, the elderly, the infirmed, children and women, and you have the audacity to cite marriage as society's obligation to protect. Such hypocrisy has forced me to make a cocktail, before 3:30 pm.
Click to expand...

DamnYankee said:
That's a reason to make marriage stronger, not weaker.
Click to expand...
.
 
Superfreak said:
Ok, then explain to us. HOW does allowing gay marriage affect the traditional marriage? Does two gay guys getting married somehow deteriorate your family? Does it break the bond between you and your wife? Does it prevent you from raising your kids as you see fit, teaching them your values?

Does a gay couple who is willing to commit to each other with a bond of marriage not strengthen THEIR relationship? Thus making society as a whole stronger?
Click to expand...

That's not the point. The point is that the state has a vested interest in promoting traditional marriage. It has no vested interest in promoting deviant lifestyles and behaviors.
 
poet said:
please. There are more divorces than there are marriages....apparently, when they were saying their vows, they were only playing. I've been in my "marriage" for 10 years, come Oct.
I bet that beats more than half the righties' track records , 'round here.
Click to expand...

First, congrats on the 10 years.

Second, I agree that divorce is going to do far more to 'weaken marriage' than allowing two gay people to marry will. While I personally don't think the government should be involved in marriage at all, IF they are going to remain involved, they should not be able to discriminate based on sexual preference. Any two non-related (sorry ditzie) consenting adults should be allowed to enter into a marriage contract and receive the benefits provided by the government.
 
DamnYankee said:
That's not the point. The point is that the state has a vested interest in promoting traditional marriage. It has no vested interest in promoting deviant lifestyles and behaviors.
Click to expand...

Refusing to answer the questions that most certainly ARE related to the point just shows that you have NO rational reason for your position.

Again.... Does a gay couple who is willing to commit to each other with a bond of marriage not strengthen THEIR relationship? Thus making society as a whole stronger?

You call it a 'deviant' lifestyle which again goes back to my original point. You inject YOUR religious beliefs and pretend that everyone must therefore accept YOUR religious beliefs as the law.

The government has no vested interest in promoting 'traditional marriage'. They do have a vested interest in promoting FAMILY. Your problem is that you think it only applies to what YOU want family to be defined as. But again, you have NO rational reason for your position. You just trot out the same old tired 'they be deviants' line of crap.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
But you've ALREADY stopped changing posts...what's wrong coward?

Someone get a PM from one of the MODS?

OR...

did that already tiny mind run out of what little juice it had to begin with?
Click to expand...

OR he was asked by others on this board to stop because the nonsense is annoying as hell. He chose to be the better man and stop first. Now you taunt him for it?

That shows us clearly who the weaker man is.
 
Superfreak said:
Refusing to answer the questions that most certainly ARE related to the point just shows that you have NO rational reason for your position.

Again.... Does a gay couple who is willing to commit to each other with a bond of marriage not strengthen THEIR relationship? Thus making society as a whole stronger?

You call it a 'deviant' lifestyle which again goes back to my original point. You inject YOUR religious beliefs and pretend that everyone must therefore accept YOUR religious beliefs as the law.

The government has no vested interest in promoting 'traditional marriage'. They do have a vested interest in promoting FAMILY. Your problem is that you think it only applies to what YOU want family to be defined as. But again, you have NO rational reason for your position. You just trot out the same old tired 'they be deviants' line of crap.
Click to expand...

LOL You're having a hissy fit now. I've answered your question, just not in the manner that you want.

I call it deviant because it is deviant. Look up the definition in your high school statistics book.

The state has a vested interest in promoting traditional families, not two deviants who adopt kids or squirt semen up themselves with turkey basters.
 
I wonder if we made it standard to change the "originally posted by" portion of quotes when you are doing a "translation" if it might be mo' betta...

Maybe change it to "Translation of post by" rather than "originally posted by"...
 
DamnYankee said:
That's not the point. The point is that the state has a vested interest in promoting traditional marriage. It has no vested interest in promoting deviant lifestyles and behaviors.
Click to expand...

Why does the state have a vested interest in promoting traditional marriage? Unless you can show how a gay marriage provides less benefit to the state, the inclusion of the word "traditional" renders your claim inaccurate (at best).
 
DamnYankee said:
LOL You're having a hissy fit now. I've answered your question, just not in the manner that you want.

I call it deviant because it is deviant. Look up the definition in your high school statistics book.

The state has a vested interest in promoting traditional families, not two deviants who adopt kids or squirt semen up themselves with turkey basters.
Click to expand...


But you want only certain deviants prohibited from marriage. If a straight couple uses a turkey baster to get pregnant, they are fine. If a straight couple enjoys sodomy, they are fine. Its only when it comes to gay couples that you want "deviants" prohibited from marrying.

And, in past threads, you have been fine with them having the benefits enjoyed by married couples, so long as they called it something besides "marriage".
 
DamnYankee said:
No, I just didn't answer in the way that you wanted. :)
Click to expand...

No, you didn't answer the question. You may have offered an answer, but it was not an answer to the question.

You were asked how gay marriages would affect traditional marriage. You were asked that in a variety of ways. And your answer did not answer any of them.
 
DamnYankee said:
What did I say that wasn't truthful? :)
Click to expand...

You didn't answer the question.

You claim that the state has a vest interest in promoting traditional marriage. What benefit does traditional marriage offer the state that gay marriage does not? Unless you can answer that simple question, your claim is bogus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top