Michael Irvin is on the cover of Out magazine

while I'm for gay rights, this issue is not worth the importance it gets.
One we can't afford the extra cost
two we are still jailing poor people for herb
 
David St. Hubbins said:
Again, you're conflating two separate concepts. If you want to have three different women that you call your "wives," go right ahead, but it doesn't mean the state will recognize the legality of your "marriages."
Click to expand...

Nor should they. However, you are incorrect. Dude on "Sister Wives" was arrested and is under investigation for calling more than one woman "wife"... It's stupid to say this and ignore the famous example given.


The government only interferes if you ask it to. If you go get married in a church and don't file paperwork with the state the government doesn't have anything to do with your "marriage." If you want to structure your relationship in some other manner go right ahead. Draw up whatever contracts you want to define the terms and conditions of your relationship.
Click to expand...
Again, utter rubbish. The government interferes without request. They do this by associating the "benefits" solely on "right action" and punishing others in order to get you to act in the way they deem appropriate.

Basically, you want to decide for everyone else whether they can sign up for the bundle of rights, benefits and obligations that are secular marriage. Why should you get to make that determination for everyone else?
Click to expand...

Incorrect, I believe that teh "benefits" they extend are government force used incorrectly. In order to gain these benefits you must act in the manner the government wishes. They do this regardless of victimization and in order to "guide" you to the way they want you to act. The reality is, you can be thrown in jail for "polygamy" or "polyandry", and you get benefits if you act rightly. At this time most state governments don't bless homosexual marriage with the "secular blessings" (named benefits). Instead of demanding government GTFO we instead beg them to "secularly bless" each individual instance that we may wish. It wasn't their business to begin with, yet instead of thinking... "Let's make them stop this nonsense and let people act as they will so long as they aren't victimizing another" we act as sheep and beg for their approval.
 
Damocles said:
Nor should they. However, you are incorrect. Dude on "Sister Wives" was arrested and is under investigation for calling more than one woman "wife"... It's stupid to say this and ignore the famous example given.
Click to expand...

To my knowledge, he was not arrested. Do you have a source for it? And I simply said that the state will not recognize your multiple marriages, not that the state would not prosecute you for violating the laws of the state.


Damocles said:
Again, utter rubbish. The government interferes without request. They do this by associating the "benefits" solely on "right action" and punishing others in order to get you to act in the way they deem appropriate.
Click to expand...

That's nonsense. If you don't want to be married, the state won't force it on you. And I think it's hilarious that you claim that state is "punishing" non-married people by not conferring rights, benefits and obligations on them that are associated with marriage when your preferred policy is for no one to enjoy the rights, benefits and obligations of marriage. How does that make any sense at all? You want everyone to be "punished."

Damocles said:
Incorrect, I believe that teh "benefits" they extend are government force used incorrectly. In order to gain these benefits you must act in the manner the government wishes. They do this regardless of victimization and in order to "guide" you to the way they want you to act. The reality is, you can be thrown in jail for "polygamy" or "polyandry", and you get benefits if you act rightly. At this time most state governments don't bless homosexual marriage with the "secular blessings" (named benefits). Instead of demanding government GTFO we instead beg them to "secularly bless" each individual instance that we may wish. It wasn't their business to begin with, yet instead of thinking... "Let's make them stop this nonsense and let people act as they will so long as they aren't victimizing another" we act as sheep and beg for their approval.
Click to expand...

You solution for inequitable availability of the rights, benefits and obligations of marriage developed over the centuries is for everyone to be denied them. That's fucking stupid.
 
Damn Yankee said:
No. These are standard rules of debate. You made an assertion, so back it up or shut the fuck up.
Click to expand...

And if I don't shut the fuck up? lol

Look, you made a comment mocking what people have said to you. But they didn't say that to you because you discussed homosexuals. They said it because of your constant crude remarks involving gay sex, and your over-the-top hostility towards homosexuality in general. Much different from the situation in this thread.
 
Damn Yankee said:
I'm not hostile to gays. Now you're making shit up.
Click to expand...

No, not you. Just because you call them perverts who have a disease or are sick, thats not hostile. Just because you accuse them of being child molesters, I cannot imagine why I would think you are hostile to gays. And that whole "don't let them be parents or they will recruit more kids to be gay" was meant in the nicest way I'm sure.

Yeah, calling them unnatural, unhealthy, immoral and abnormal doesn't mean you are hostile towards them. :thup:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top