Reality: Homosexual Marriage

Threedee said:
Marriage has a specific meaning. Perhaps "it shouldn't" evolve, in the same way we shouldn't evolve the words "yes" and "no" to mean the opposite. Change for the sake of change is nonsense and illogical.
Click to expand...
Really 3d this is your best argument, that the word marriage is as narrow and unchanged as the word yes and no?
 
Socrtease said:
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.)
Click to expand...

I haven't ignored this SocTeaser. My position is to not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Traditional, life-long marriage has been attacked for centuries by progressives and have been denigrated because of it. That's not a reason to denigrate it further.

The issue here is not my marriage, but the institution of marriage. Again your lib-tard brain ignores this and attempts a straw man.

I use the image of male on male sex because it is inherently disgusting to put your manhood up another's bowels. Yet they do it. In fact you do it to your wife, and have gleefully admitted that. You are a testament of what happens to a society that ignores traditional values.
 
Yurt said:
dog-wedding.jpg
Click to expand...
:lol:
 
Dixie said:
No one is trying to marry dogs YET! The "ISSUE" is you trashing a religious tradition because you are a godless piece of human garbage who doesn't have any respect for the beliefs of others. Otherwise, you would embrace a solution which satisfies ALL SIDES and gives everyone what they want. If you ever managed to cajole the majority of Americans into agreeing with your idiocy of Gay Marriage, the next step would indeed be dogs, horses, multiple partners, etc. Because the focus of the "ISSUE" for you, is not, and has never been, the equality of benefits to homosexual couples. It has, and always will be, the destruction of a religious tradition, and ANYTHING that advances that cause, you will support.
Click to expand...
Relgious people are on the side of gay marriage your fucking backward ass hillbilly! Yet to try to gain points you claim that the ONLY people that wnat to change it are godless pieces of human garbage. Your entire credibilty on this issue is shot. You can't even believe that religious people can have differing views of this issue. You are an intollerant bigoted fuck who is so myopic in his view of this that anyone that disagrees is a godless piece of garbage. Ignorant bigotted fuck!
 
Socrtease said:
Relgious people are on the side of gay marriage your fucking backward ass hillbilly! Yet to try to gain points you claim that the ONLY people that wnat to change it are godless pieces of human garbage. Your entire credibilty on this issue is shot. You can't even believe that religious people can have differing views of this issue. You are an intollerant bigoted fuck who is so myopic in his view of this that anyone that disagrees is a godless piece of garbage. Ignorant bigotted fuck!
Click to expand...
This post wins the prize for the most ironic of the week so far. :)
 
Dixie said:
Wow... Excuse me, but when did we start examining the "brain capacity" of homosexuals, or questioning whether they understood the consequences of homosexuality? It seems to me, you want to pick and choose where to apply your standards and deny people the right to do what makes them happy!

Spot? Bark twice to say "I do!" Ruff! Ruff!
Spot? Do you consent to this marriage? Bark twice for "Yes!" Ruff! Ruff!
Spot? Do you understand the consequences? Ruff! Ruff!
Spot? Do you promise to love this person til death do you part? Ruff! Ruff!

Trigger? Stomp your hoof twice if you want to marry this woman! Stomp-Stomp!

See how easy that was Damo? Animals can (and do) consent! So who are YOU to deny a consenting dog or horse, and consenting adult, to enjoy their love how they wish? It's not hurting YOU Damo! It's not effecting YOUR marriage, Damo! Why are you being an intolerant bigot, Damo?
Click to expand...
This is so fucking stupid. What I want is for Dixie to get on a televised debate and make this very argument. Dixie have you ever trained a horse or a dog? They don't consent to sitting and staying and they don't consent to being ridden. We call it breaking a horse for a reason. The same is true for training dogs. They don't do the thing you want them to do because they have consented, they do it through repetition and discipline. No dog naturally heals, it has to be pulled and dragged into healing at first. This argument fails immediately.
 
Socrtease said:
This is so fucking stupid. What I want is for Dixie to get on a televised debate and make this very argument. Dixie have you ever trained a horse or a dog? They don't consent to sitting and staying and they don't consent to being ridden. We call it breaking a horse for a reason. The same is true for training dogs. They don't do the thing you want them to do because they have consented, they do it through repetition and discipline. No dog naturally heals, it has to be pulled and dragged into healing at first. This argument fails immediately.
Click to expand...

My wife trained me. I use to have long hair, smoke cigs and pot, and wore flannel shirts in the summer.
 
Dixie said:
Damo, Gay people have been "getting hitched" for years! I attended a Gay Wedding in 1986 IN ALABAMA!!!! I am not opposed to this, never have been, never will be, it's not an issue for me! I have numerous friends who are gay, even some who support Gay Marriage! So I already realize my solution would allow something that has already been going on for the past 25 years or more! That isn't something I need to realize!

This argument is about whether or not we should codify into law, a provision which allows homosexual couples the right to obtain state sponsored marriage licenses, and I am opposed to that! I've explained in exhausting detail, exactly WHY I am opposed to that! I have offered a solution, (which you agree with) to settle this issue for ALL sides, and give everyone what they want. But you want to "side" with those who aren't interested in embracing my idea, and argue in favor of changing the definition of marriage! You want to be part of the anti-religious activism, because it makes you feel "cool" or something, I suppose.

And now, you have started this stupid pandering shit about how long you've known me, and you've had this same position all these years, and I didn't used to have this viewpoint, I've only recently come around to YOUR way of thinking! Fuck you and the horse you rode in on, Damo... You don't know me, you don't know my position on the issues and we're not friends or buddies. You run a half-assed message board, that frankly likes a LOT to be desired, your nose is firmly up the ass of Grind or any other half-wit punk you think shares your Libertarian idiot philosophy, and you strut around here acting like you are the only person on the board with the intellect to formulate a valid and worthwhile opinion. It's things like this that make wonder why the fuck I didn't stay GONE!
Click to expand...
Again, I am for changing the laws of the States so that all people get licenses for "unions" rather than "Marriage Licenses"... We've agreed on this since you suddenly jumped on that bandwagon about 2 years ago.

Now, let's work towards that rather than having 'argument' where you just ignore what I say and pretend that it means I am for changing the law in some other way that I have never said I was for.

Thanks,

Damocles.
 
Damocles said:
You are flat wrong about what I am in favor of, and by this time it is deliberately so. Our first "disagreement" in this thread was when I said that I would support these unions even with more than two partners so long as all involved were fully informed and were consenting adults...

I have stated forever and a day that government should not be involved in marriage.
Click to expand...
Here is what neither Dicksie or SouthernMoron gets. I think most of us here want the government out of the marriage business, but when you hear the appeals to relgious belief and normality you can help but point out the flaws in their argument. For Dixie anyone that favors marriage for same sex couples is a godless piece of shit. SM and NonProphet make arguments about normal and abnormal not realizing that in the scientific world those terms are not judgements about right and wrong but about what is and is not within the norm. The arguments are stupid and bigoted, even Dicksie's, which seems rational until he starts assume ALL religious people oppose gay marriage and only godless pieces of shit support the concept.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
if no one is forcing me, why do they want to change the law?......they want to change the law because the law compels......
Click to expand...
The law currently "compels" rules placed arbitrarily according to the Judeo-Christian tradition. There is nothing in the constitution that gives any government the power to set rules based on your specific religious concepts based in "morality" defined by dogma.

Government shouldn't be in the religious ceremony business, if they are given at all licenses should be more clearly secular and not mention that religious institution.

You can believe as you will, nobody will force you to change or compel you to "accept", but you have no right to compel us all to follow your dogma. There is no reason for everybody else to be forced to accept your religious dogma, there is no power for our governments to even start on that path.
 
Socrtease said:
Here is what neither Dicksie or SouthernMoron gets. I think most of us here want the government out of the marriage business, but when you hear the appeals to relgious belief and normality you can help but point out the flaws in their argument. For Dixie anyone that favors marriage for same sex couples is a godless piece of shit. SM and NonProphet make arguments about normal and abnormal not realizing that in the scientific world those terms are not judgements about right and wrong but about what is and is not within the norm. The arguments are stupid and bigoted, even Dicksie's, which seems rational until he starts assume ALL religious people oppose gay marriage and only godless pieces of shit support the concept.
Click to expand...
I never said abnormal was bad SocTeaser, just that you can harm children by lying to them by saying that queer is normal. I have been consistent in this point since first making it yet you continue to mis-characterize my argument, obviously due to the weakness of your argument. :)
 
Damocles said:
The law currently "compels" rules placed arbitrarily according to the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Click to expand...

make up your mind....is it arbitrary or is it based on centuries of tradition?....for that matter, I think the pagans had a habit of being sexually attracted to the opposite sex, as did the Hind and Buddhists.....it isn't "arbitrary", it's simply "normal".....

There is nothing in the constitution that gives any government the power to set rules based on your specific religious concepts based in "morality" defined by dogma.
Click to expand...
and it hasn't......they've simply established rules for licensing marriage that reflect what everyone has known as marriage since time began......it has nothing to do with my religion or yours.......

Government shouldn't be in the religious ceremony business
Click to expand...

they aren't.....there are no rules that say you need to stomp on a glass to symbolize the breaking of ties with parents......there is no rule saying you need to light a unity candle......there's no requirement of communion.....they don't even say you need a church, synagogue or mosque.....all they say is you need a spouse of opposite sex.....

You can believe as you will, nobody will force you to change or compel you to "accept", but you have no right to compel us all to follow your dogma.
Click to expand...
lol...so if we keep the law the way it is we are compelling you to follow our dogma, but if you change it, nobody is compelling us to accept yours?.......

the solution is simple.....people can engage in whatever relationship they desire and call it whatever they want, but no one is required to take any action based upon their choice.....
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
there are still some who will pretend there is a parallel in this between racism.....I merely pity their inability to see the truth.....beyond that I will ignore your attempts to derail the debate....

{by the way, you should try to avoid raising your pet arguments when you're wearing your troll suits}
Click to expand...

Somewhere in there you have a well thought provoking point to debate or discuss :readit:

Unless your point is that homosexuals should not have human rights
 
Last edited:
Southern Man said:
I never said abnormal was bad SocTeaser, just that you can harm children by lying to them by saying that queer is normal. I have been consistent in this point since first making it yet you continue to mis-characterize my argument, obviously due to the weakness of your argument. :)
Click to expand...

Last time I checked there are no laws that stop people from lying to children about their personal relationships
 
Beefy said:
Marrying the person they love.

Shut up with your flagrant homophobia. Straight people have the right to marry the person they love, and you don't want gays to have the same right.

Its pretty simple.
Click to expand...

What he said!
 
Dixie said:
This argument is about whether or not we should codify into law, a provision which allows homosexual couples the right to obtain state sponsored marriage licenses, and I am opposed to that!
Click to expand...

You say this here, and earlier you vehemently insisted that you didn't want to tell religions what they could do as far as 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...

Again, you previously said you didn't want to tell religions what they can or can't do. But then you want to call it "pretend" because it doesn't fit your idea of what marriage is or isn't.
 
Southern Man said:
I haven't ignored this SocTeaser. My position is to not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Traditional, life-long marriage has been attacked for centuries by progressives and have been denigrated because of it. That's not a reason to denigrate it further.

The issue here is not my marriage, but the institution of marriage. Again your lib-tard brain ignores this and attempts a straw man.

I use the image of male on male sex because it is inherently disgusting to put your manhood up another's bowels. Yet they do it. In fact you do it to your wife, and have gleefully admitted that. You are a testament of what happens to a society that ignores traditional values.
Click to expand...

SM, I hate to break it to you, but the damage done to the institutionof marriage is already there. You cannot make the claim that gay marriage would damage the institution, and then claim that only liberals have denigrated marriage.

Newt Gingrich left his wife when she was on her deathbed. The rates of domestic abuse have not changed signififcantly. The fact that they are reported to the authorities and prosecuted is what has changed.

You use the image of man on man sex because it is what disgusts you. The image of two women shoots down the whole "its nasty & disgusting" argument.


And traditional values are all well and good. But plenty of traditional values involved bigotry and prejudice. Traditional values had the woman subservient to the man. Traditional values had white men in charge of everything, rgardless of qualifications. Traditional values were what led to many states allowing a male to have a vasectomy on his own, but a wife had to have her husband's signature to have her tubes tied.

Your "traditional" values may sound all "Ozzie & Harriet". But Ozzie & Harriet was a work of fiction. And what you value is one thing. Live that way if you choose. But when you start trying to legislate these values is when you cross the line and start tearing down the freedoms of this great nation, and going against the US Constitution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top