Conservatives and War

[DamnYankee]

For someone that thinks the constitution should be followed to the letter, you are really talking out your ass. Where in the Constitution does it mention christianity even once?

I never said it did, just that it is based on Christian principles. *shrug*

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Are you standing on your head? It is you who wants to specify a sexual lifestyle. It is you who insists it be between a man and a woman.

I don't "insist" marriage is bettween a man and woman any more than I "insist" that water is wet, marriage IS what it IS! I din't insist on it being what it is, that's what it has always been. It is in fact, YOU who inists on changing what it has traditionally meant.

Marriage already has sexual parameters. Do the words "forsaking all others" ring a bell? To what do you think "forsaking all others" refers? When you get married you can't play pool anymore with your buddies? Playing a round of golf with your friend is forbidden? You can't have Thanksgiving dinner with your family?

Oh, I know marriage has sexual significance, after all, it was originally conceived by Martin Luther, as a means for males and females to procreate and raise families. (I'm sure some pinhead will parse that statement, but basically, that is what marriage is for.) It is, by definition and function, a union which can't be between anything other than a man and woman, lest it stop being 'marriage' and become something else. It is you who seeks to redefine marriage, and base it on sexual lifestyle preference, instead of being the union of a man and woman. It's currently not about sexual lifestyle preference, it is about union of man and woman for purpose of procreation and family. Does it involve sex? SURE!... never claimed it didn't! That's just not the basis or fundamental function and purpose of marriage, it is the UNION of MAN and WOMAN, in order for them to PROCREATE (which involves sex), in order to produce a FAMILY.

This is all irrelevant, because what marriage is NOT, is something involving same sex partners. As I pointed out earlier, you wouldn't advocate changing the definition of "mentoring" to include adults "teaching" young boys and girls how to have sex, would you? Well? Answer the damn question!

[apple0154]

I don't "insist" marriage is bettween a man and woman any more than I "insist" that water is wet, marriage IS what it IS! I din't insist on it being what it is, that's what it has always been. It is in fact, YOU who inists on changing what it has traditionally meant.



Oh, I know marriage has sexual significance, after all, it was originally conceived by Martin Luther, as a means for males and females to procreate and raise families. (I'm sure some pinhead will parse that statement, but basically, that is what marriage is for.) It is, by definition and function, a union which can't be between anything other than a man and woman, lest it stop being 'marriage' and become something else. It is you who seeks to redefine marriage, and base it on sexual lifestyle preference, instead of being the union of a man and woman. It's currently not about sexual lifestyle preference, it is about union of man and woman for purpose of procreation and family. Does it involve sex? SURE!... never claimed it didn't! That's just not the basis or fundamental function and purpose of marriage, it is the UNION of MAN and WOMAN, in order for them to PROCREATE (which involves sex), in order to produce a FAMILY.

This is all irrelevant, because what marriage is NOT, is something involving same sex partners. As I pointed out earlier, you wouldn't advocate changing the definition of "mentoring" to include adults "teaching" young boys and girls how to have sex, would you? Well? Answer the damn question!

OK. Let's try and unscramble your thoughts.

Let's think about how the world operated at the time of M. Luther. Marriage was intended as a way to have a family. It was two people producing and taking care of children. Children often died in infancy so a support unit was necessary. Also, marriage was a way of limiting ones sexual partners and, thus, disease.

Fast forward a few centuries and now we have a considerable number of children in the world. In fact, hundreds are dying every day due to illness and malnutrition which means the problem is not procreation but a lack of a support system.

When gays marry they can provide a support system for children who, otherwise, would not have one. Also, married gays tend to be monogamous.

You wrote, "Does it involve sex? SURE!... never claimed it didn't! That's just not the basis or fundamental function and purpose of marriage..."

I agree completely! Sex isn't the basis or fundamental purpose so it begs the question, "What difference does it make if a man and a woman are married and having sex or if two men or two women are married and having sex?"

Well, the logical answer is it doesn't make any difference. It doesn't matter. Why doesn't it matter? It doesn't matter because sex isn't the basis or fundamental purpose of marriage just as you correctly stated.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

OK. Let's try and unscramble your thoughts.

Let's think about how the world operated at the time of M. Luther. Marriage was intended as a way to have a family. It was two people producing and taking care of children. Children often died in infancy so a support unit was necessary. Also, marriage was a way of limiting ones sexual partners and, thus, disease.

Fast forward a few centuries and now we have a considerable number of children in the world. In fact, hundreds are dying every day due to illness and malnutrition which means the problem is not procreation but a lack of a support system.

When gays marry they can provide a support system for children who, otherwise, would not have one. Also, married gays tend to be monogamous.

You wrote, "Does it involve sex? SURE!... never claimed it didn't! That's just not the basis or fundamental function and purpose of marriage..."

I agree completely! Sex isn't the basis or fundamental purpose so it begs the question, "What difference does it make if a man and a woman are married and having sex or if two men or two women are married and having sex?"

Well, the logical answer is it doesn't make any difference. It doesn't matter. Why doesn't it matter? It doesn't matter because sex isn't the basis or fundamental purpose of marriage just as you correctly stated.

Currently sex is not the fundamental basis, it's only when you redefine marriage to include homosexuals, that it becomes defined based on a sexual lifestyle choice, and not what it traditionally means.

You also failed to answer my question.

[Whomever]

You know more and more evidence surfaces that dixie is one of those religious right conservatives.

You know? the Ted Haggard types.

[apple0154]

Currently sex is not the fundamental basis, it's only when you redefine marriage to include homosexuals, that it becomes defined based on a sexual lifestyle choice, and not what it traditionally means.

Including homosexuals should not make any difference if we're not defining marriage based on sex. As you stated sex is not the fundamental basis for marriage so why are we discussing a person's sexual preference?

I'm afraid you're not making any sense, Dixie. You say sex isn't the fundamental basis for marriage yet you deny homosexuals the right to marry based on their sexual preference.

You also failed to answer my question.

Your question doesn't make sense. Other posters have commented on the irrelevance or outright stupidity of comparing sex with underage children to marriage.

From your objection to homosexuals marrying to adults teaching children about sex it appears you have a sexual fixation. I may be wrong but your continued going on about it is not making a good impression.

[apple0154]

You know more and more evidence surfaces that dixie is one of those religious right conservatives.

You know? the Ted Haggard types.

It certainly appears he has sexual issues. Maybe this thread will help him work through them.

[TuTu Monroe]

Including homosexuals should not make any difference if we're not defining marriage based on sex. As you stated sex is not the fundamental basis for marriage so why are we discussing a person's sexual preference?

I'm afraid you're not making any sense, Dixie. You say sex isn't the fundamental basis for marriage yet you deny homosexuals the right to marry based on their sexual preference.





Your question doesn't make sense. Other posters have commented on the irrelevance or outright stupidity of comparing sex with underage children to marriage.

From your objection to homosexuals marrying to adults teaching children about sex it appears you have a sexual fixation. I may be wrong but your continued going on about it is not making a good impression.

That's what he believes and he has the right to his own opinion. Logic tells me that nature built men for women and built women for men. That cannot be denied.

[uscitizen]

That's what he believes and he has the right to his own opinion. Logic tells me that nature built men for women and built women for men. That cannot be denied.

Nature also creates hermorphidites and homosexuals.

[Mott the Hoople]

Including homosexuals should not make any difference if we're not defining marriage based on sex. As you stated sex is not the fundamental basis for marriage so why are we discussing a person's sexual preference?

I'm afraid you're not making any sense, Dixie. You say sex isn't the fundamental basis for marriage yet you deny homosexuals the right to marry based on their sexual preference.



Your question doesn't make sense. Other posters have commented on the irrelevance or outright stupidity of comparing sex with underage children to marriage.

From your objection to homosexuals marrying to adults teaching children about sex it appears you have a sexual fixation. I may be wrong but your continued going on about it is not making a good impression.

You know they made the same exact arguments opposing interracial marriages.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Including homosexuals should not make any difference if we're not defining marriage based on sex. As you stated sex is not the fundamental basis for marriage so why are we discussing a person's sexual preference?

Don't know, you brought sexual preference into it, not me.

I'm afraid you're not making any sense, Dixie. You say sex isn't the fundamental basis for marriage yet you deny homosexuals the right to marry based on their sexual preference.

I deny that marriage can be between homosexuals, unless it's a homo male and homo female, because THAT is what marriage is.

Your question doesn't make sense. Other posters have commented on the irrelevance or outright stupidity of comparing sex with underage children to marriage.

I agree, absurd comparisons shouldn't have to be made. It should be obvious without them.

From your objection to homosexuals marrying to adults teaching children about sex it appears you have a sexual fixation. I may be wrong but your continued going on about it is not making a good impression.

Again, you introduced sexual lifestyles and deviant sexual behaviors, not me. I am in favor of leaving marriage the way it's been for 5,000 years.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Nature also creates hermorphidites and homosexuals.

...and pedophiles and necrophiliacs, etc. Your point???

[uscitizen]

I am in favor of leaving marriage the way it's been for 5,000 years.

You buy a wife? Or your parents arrange your marriage when you are children?
Or you have several wives?

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I am in favor of leaving marriage the way it's been for 5,000 years.

You buy a wife? Or your parents arrange your marriage when you are children?
Or you have several wives?

No, because those systems of marriage abridge the rights of others and are discriminatory. Yet, in every absurd example you gave, marriage remains between a man and woman, not between people of the same sex. That was what I meant, you fucking retard.


I'll throw it out there again, since no one has answered it...

If a group of Americans lobbied to have the meaning of "mentor" changed, to include old men who wanted to have sex with young boys, would you be okay with that? Or would you "deny them the right to live as they please?" Could they not convince you with their pragmatic arguments that young boys need the guidance and wisdom of older men in learning about sex, and how it fulfils these men to show emotional love and 'teach' the boys, or would you deny these men the "right to mentor and teach young boys?" Would you allow NAMBLA and these sexual deviants to have a redefining of traditional mentoring, or would you put up a fight? What if people called you names and ridiculed you for it?

My guess is, some of you would indeed go along with it, justifying such a thing by claiming it's not your business, and who are you to deny people happiness... the same idiotic arguments you are making now for 'gay marriage' because you are too cowardly to fight for anything. But most of us would object to such a 'redefining' of traditional mentoring. In fact, most of us would contend, it's not 'mentoring' at all... and it wouldn't matter how many times the point was raised, that this was precisely the view of Greeks a few centuries ago. It wouldn't matter how acceptable this had been in other cultures of the past, or how much distortion was being placed on it now. Those who favored it, could call it 'mentoring' in every breath and claim... You just oppose the robust mentoring of young boys, you must be a cretin!

[Onceler]

Dixie - gay marriage would be between 2 consenting adults.

It doesn't seem like you're aware of that.