But same sex marriage would destroy the institution

Socrtease

Socrtease

Verified User
Larry King is getting his 8th divorce, Elizabeth Taylor is possibly getting married for a 9th time, Jesse James and Tiger Woods are screwing EVERYTHING, John and Kate have 8 kids then split, yet the idea of same-sex marriage is what is going to destroy the institution of marriage?? REALLY??
 
Socrtease said:
Larry King is getting his 8th divorce, Elizabeth Taylor is possibly getting married for a 9th time, Jesse James and Tiger Woods are screwing EVERYTHING, John and Kate have 8 kids then split, yet the idea of same-sex marriage is what is going to destroy the institution of marriage?? REALLY??
Click to expand...

well put.... time to let gay couples enjoy the 'pleasures' of marriage. :)
 
Socrtease said:
Larry King is getting his 8th divorce, Elizabeth Taylor is possibly getting married for a 9th time, Jesse James and Tiger Woods are screwing EVERYTHING, John and Kate have 8 kids then split, yet the idea of same-sex marriage is what is going to destroy the institution of marriage?? REALLY??
Click to expand...

exactly
 
Socrtease said:
Larry King is getting his 8th divorce, Elizabeth Taylor is possibly getting married for a 9th time, Jesse James and Tiger Woods are screwing EVERYTHING, John and Kate have 8 kids then split, yet the idea of same-sex marriage is what is going to destroy the institution of marriage?? REALLY??
Click to expand...

So, by your logic... If no one ever got divorced and no one was ever unfaithful, you would completely understand why gay people can't marry? It would make more sense to you, and you could comprehend how it might destroy the institution, if that were the case? Is that what you are saying?

We could apply your same logic to driver's licenses. People drive recklessly all the time, causing accidents, even killing people with their careless driving... so why not do away with driver's exams, and just allow anyone who is old enough to reach the pedal do it?

Got another one... this whole 'democracy' thing has become so nasty and partisan, why don't we just allow the strongest man to fight his way to the White House, and rule as our King instead? If someone doesn't like what he is doing, they could go challenge him to a fight, and if they beat him, they would take over the throne. I mean, the 'institution' has already been corrupted, politicians taking bribes, not representing their constituents, what difference would it make if we just changed the rules? May as well give that a shot, couldn't be much worse, right?
 
Dixie said:
So, by your logic... If no one ever got divorced and no one was ever unfaithful, you would completely understand why gay people can't marry? It would make more sense to you, and you could comprehend how it might destroy the institution, if that were the case? Is that what you are saying?

We could apply your same logic to driver's licenses. People drive recklessly all the time, causing accidents, even killing people with their careless driving... so why not do away with driver's exams, and just allow anyone who is old enough to reach the pedal do it?

Got another one... this whole 'democracy' thing has become so nasty and partisan, why don't we just allow the strongest man to fight his way to the White House, and rule as our King instead? If someone doesn't like what he is doing, they could go challenge him to a fight, and if they beat him, they would take over the throne. I mean, the 'institution' has already been corrupted, politicians taking bribes, not representing their constituents, what difference would it make if we just changed the rules? May as well give that a shot, couldn't be much worse, right?
Click to expand...

Dixie, I think Soc posted this with his tongue firmly in his cheek.

It is hilarious that people claim that gay marriage would destroy the institution, when the straights have already done more harm than the gays could possibly do.

The truth is that allowing gays to marry will have no effect at all on my marriage, Soc's marriage, or even SM's marriage. None whatsoever.
 
Dixie said:
So, by your logic... If no one ever got divorced and no one was ever unfaithful, you would completely understand why gay people can't marry? It would make more sense to you, and you could comprehend how it might destroy the institution, if that were the case? Is that what you are saying?

We could apply your same logic to driver's licenses. People drive recklessly all the time, causing accidents, even killing people with their careless driving... so why not do away with driver's exams, and just allow anyone who is old enough to reach the pedal do it?

Got another one... this whole 'democracy' thing has become so nasty and partisan, why don't we just allow the strongest man to fight his way to the White House, and rule as our King instead? If someone doesn't like what he is doing, they could go challenge him to a fight, and if they beat him, they would take over the throne. I mean, the 'institution' has already been corrupted, politicians taking bribes, not representing their constituents, what difference would it make if we just changed the rules? May as well give that a shot, couldn't be much worse, right?
Click to expand...
Surprise Surprise, Dixie doesn't get it. I wrote this because it shows how stupid the logic is. I KNOW that peoples marriages don't work, people cheat, they fight, they divorce and remarry multiple times. The damage that straights have done the institution is huge. But it has not affected my marriage in the least. The fact that Larry King can't stay married and Tiger can't remain faithfull, have not hurt my marriage in the least. So it is just a ludicrous to say that allowing two men to marry will be the destruction of the institution of marriage when people vilolate their own marriage vows every single day. But I might as well be throwing grains of rice at the great wall of china to bring it down, because those who oppose gay marriage will NEVER see the analogy. Actually, you do see the analogy, you just pretend not to, or that it's not the same.
 
Dixie said:
So, by your logic... If no one ever got divorced and no one was ever unfaithful, you would completely understand why gay people can't marry? It would make more sense to you, and you could comprehend how it might destroy the institution, if that were the case? Is that what you are saying?

We could apply your same logic to driver's licenses. People drive recklessly all the time, causing accidents, even killing people with their careless driving... so why not do away with driver's exams, and just allow anyone who is old enough to reach the pedal do it?

Got another one... this whole 'democracy' thing has become so nasty and partisan, why don't we just allow the strongest man to fight his way to the White House, and rule as our King instead? If someone doesn't like what he is doing, they could go challenge him to a fight, and if they beat him, they would take over the throne. I mean, the 'institution' has already been corrupted, politicians taking bribes, not representing their constituents, what difference would it make if we just changed the rules? May as well give that a shot, couldn't be much worse, right?
Click to expand...

The OP was a spoof, man.

You social conservatives don’t have any tangible, and plausible reasons to be against gay marriage. So you come up with some half-baked logic about how it will destroy “traditional marriage”, or whatever.

We all know what this is code for. You find 1) gay sex to be icky, and 2) you have some deep-seated fear that if gays are accepted as normal and equal members of society you or some of your fellow conservatives might be tempted by “the dark side”. Therefore, you continue to blather about gayness being a mental illness, or a perversion.

I can relate to the first part, I personally find the thought of male gay sex to be icky. But I find a lot of things icky, and I don’t spend my time thinking about gay sex like you and southernman; and I would never use my personal preferences to deny equality under the law to anyone. The second part is unfathomable to me. Most of us normal people know we were born with our sexuality and can’t change it. We don’t live in fear of being secretly attracted to gay sex, like some rightwingers do.

Larry_Craig.jpg
 
OK, I'll wade in these treacherous waters again. People are saying stupid stuff like GM will "destroy the institution of marriage" and whatever else they can come up with. The real reason they don't want to allow GM is that they don't want something that is considered by a large portion of people in this country to be vile and debased behavior to be legitimized by our government. Whether they say it or not this is what most of them think.

You guys are so right that these people (Larry King, Liz Taylor, Tiger, etc.) have definitely screwed up the [biblical] idea of marriage but so have a lot of people in this country that are not so famous. I have a personal friend who is now married for his 5th time....and he's not 50 yet. For religious people like me to make the claim that GM "will destroy the sanctity" of marriage is just plain dishonest and stupid. That's my 2 cents.
 
leaningright said:
OK, I'll wade in these treacherous waters again. People are saying stupid stuff like GM will "destroy the institution of marriage" and whatever else they can come up with. The real reason they don't want to allow GM is that they don't want something that is considered by a large portion of people in this country to be vile and debased behavior to be legitimized by our government. Whether they say it or not this is what most of them think.

You guys are so right that these people (Larry King, Liz Taylor, Tiger, etc.) have definitely screwed up the [biblical] idea of marriage but so have a lot of people in this country that are not so famous. I have a personal friend who is now married for his 5th time....and he's not 50 yet. For religious people like me to make the claim that GM "will destroy the sanctity" of marriage is just plain dishonest and stupid. That's my 2 cents.
Click to expand...

That is what I have the most trouble with. These people think not allowing gay marriage will accomplish anything except to deny benefits that these couples are due.
 
leaningright said:
OK, I'll wade in these treacherous waters again. People are saying stupid stuff like GM will "destroy the institution of marriage" and whatever else they can come up with. The real reason they don't want to allow GM is that they don't want something that is considered by a large portion of people in this country to be vile and debased behavior to be legitimized by our government. Whether they say it or not this is what most of them think.

You guys are so right that these people (Larry King, Liz Taylor, Tiger, etc.) have definitely screwed up the [biblical] idea of marriage but so have a lot of people in this country that are not so famous. I have a personal friend who is now married for his 5th time....and he's not 50 yet. For religious people like me to make the claim that GM "will destroy the sanctity" of marriage is just plain dishonest and stupid. That's my 2 cents.
Click to expand...

I believe in God but will say you won't see me at church every Sunday (or very few Sundays). Yet I still believe a marriage should be between a man and a woman for the purpose of having children. I mention I have a gay aunt who lives with her partner and I love them both dearly. I believe gay couples should have every right that married couples do, from financial to visiting rights at hospitals etc. If they want to get married I just believe it should be called something else. That probably doesn't sound all that logical but it's where I stand.

And yes I got the tounge-in-cheek humor of the OP.
 
cawacko said:
I believe in God but will say you won't see me at church every Sunday (or very few Sundays). Yet I still believe a marriage should be between a man and a woman for the purpose of having children. I mention I have a gay aunt who lives with her partner and I love them both dearly. I believe gay couples should have every right that married couples do, from financial to visiting rights at hospitals etc. If they want to get married I just believe it should be called something else. That probably doesn't sound all that logical but it's where I stand.

And yes I got the tounge-in-cheek humor of the OP.
Click to expand...

Ok, I get where you are coming from and can respect your beliefs.

What about the straight couples who marry in a civil ceremony, with no religious connection whatsoever? Civil unions for them?
 
WinterBorn said:
Ok, I get where you are coming from and can respect your beliefs.

What about the straight couples who marry in a civil ceremony, with no religious connection whatsoever? Civil unions for them?
Click to expand...

Hmmm, good question. Can't really say I've given that much thought. I understand the argument people make about wanting the state out of marriage and that makes sense to me. However the way the system is currently set up at the end of the day I guess (edit: I shouldn't say I guess, I know) my position holds a definite double standard.

I guess I also don't consider it much difference if a couple gets married in a church, at a court or wherever.
 
Last edited:
cawacko said:
I believe in God but will say you won't see me at church every Sunday (or very few Sundays). Yet I still believe a marriage should be between a man and a woman for the purpose of having children. I mention I have a gay aunt who lives with her partner and I love them both dearly. I believe gay couples should have every right that married couples do, from financial to visiting rights at hospitals etc. If they want to get married I just believe it should be called something else. That probably doesn't sound all that logical but it's where I stand.

And yes I got the tounge-in-cheek humor of the OP.
Click to expand...

Cawacko, this is where I stand as well, except I am in church every Sunday morning, Sunday night and Wednesday night ;). As noted in my post I just think that for "conservatives" to say that they are against GM because it will "destroy the sanctity" of marriage is illogical at best and dishonest at worst. For most of them the reason they give has nothing at all to do with the way they really feel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top