Reality: Homosexual Marriage

[charver]

Strawmen are the norm, the entire argument of "abnormal" is one huge straw man. There are many, many things humans do that are abnormal.

Exactly, Damo.

For those people who are quick to label things as "abnormal", consider this - we spend lots of time posting on an internets message board.

In the real world, we'd be pointed at in the street by small children and called oddballs of the highest order. Think on.

 

[WinterBorn]

Exactly, Damo.

For those people who are quick to label things as "abnormal", consider this - we spend lots of time posting on an internets message board.

In the real world, we'd be pointed at in the street by small children and called oddballs of the highest order. Think on.

What makes you think most of our people HAVEN'T been pointed at and called oddballs of the highest order?

 

[charver]

What makes you think most of our people HAVEN'T been pointed at and called oddballs of the highest order?

I suppose it depends how adept an individual is at disguising their posting habits. I prefer to disguise my posting habits by suggesting to people i am trawling the internets for vulnerable women in suicide chat-rooms, as this is much less embarrassing than the ugly truth.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

There is no "playing" and my position is still the law, so YOU are the loser.... sorry!

Marriage is the union of a male and female for the purpose of procreation. That is what it is, and what it always has been in America and in the Church. It is only within the past decade or so, we have been entertained by morons who think they can "redefine" what marriage is, to legitimize homosexual relationships. Since that isn't what marriage is, or ever has been, and since it is an important foundational and fundamental part of religious custom, you've been met with fierce opposition to the willy-nilly notion of just changing the definition. Since that has happened, you have sought to go on a rampage of insulting people, accusing them of being homophobic bigots, likening them to racists, and telling them they are "afraid" of change. It has done you no good whatsoever, nearly 80% of the country still opposes Gay Marriage.

You are the one with a "narrow thought process" here, not me. You mistakenly think that your viewpoint will be accepted, if only you can brow-beat enough people, if only you can insult them enough to come around to your way of thinking, and it hasn't worked. But you still continue, the same conversations, the same arguments, the same false claims and insults... never changes, you'll be back to start a new thread tomorrow to repeat it all again... like the narrow-minded fool you are.

If your concerns were legitimately regarding what benefits homosexual couples obtained, you would stop trying to cram Gay Marriage down people's throats, and you would realize how futile that effort is, but being a narrow-minded twit, you can't possibly bring yourself to think of anything else to do! So you'll repeat yourself over and over again, to people who are never going to change their opinions or views, because they have legitimate reasons to hold those views. In the process of you acting like a narrow-minded idiot, you push people even further away from the viewpoint you want them to have, because that is how people react to those who insult them.

Comprehensive Civil Unions legislation would accomplish everything you and the homosexual couples wish to accomplish, without denigrating religious traditions or upsetting religious people, or "redefining" the meaning of traditional marriage. It could be established, not only as a mechanism to assist gay couples with 'married' benefits, but spinster sisters, a son or daughter with an aging parent to care for, or just two platonic friends who wanted to share a household together. It's actually a BETTER solution than the narrow-minded solution you refuse to abandon... but being you are a narrow-minded twit, who is incapable of change, and unwilling to compromise, we will rehash this same stupid Gay Marriage debate all over again tomorrow, and the next day, and the day after that... but you will never get what you want, it isn't going to happen.

So when the law changes, and it will, your position is then going to be based on what??

By the way; that was real Christian of you to refer to those who don't agree with your stance, as morons..
Not only do you get to promote your views; but you have the added plus of denigrating and dehuminizing anyone who thinks differently.
Good job.

You seem to forget that it hasn't really been that long ago, that "marriage" was considered to be a man and a woman who decided to call themselves married. Preachers weren't real abundant back then.

What this entire thing seems to boil down to and which you seem to be fixated on, is the word "MARRIAGE" and for some reason it seems that you feel this will lessen your marriage somehow; because while you rail against gays "marrying", you want everyone to change and have "civil unions".
It would seem that you are one of the ones that want to change what things are.

Your "civil unions" solutino is why I continue to throw out the mixed race marriage card; becasue it harkens back to the days of "EQUAL BUT SEPERATE".

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Strawmen are the norm, the entire argument of "abnormal" is one huge straw man. There are many, many things humans do that are abnormal.

Spending all of our fucking free time, arguing various social issues, would at one time appeared to be "ABNORMAL"; but now it's considered to be "NORMAL", which is really abnormal.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Because sometimes people withhold consent for biggoted reasons. Until 1964 in most states an employer could refuse to hire a black person because they didn't like them. The federal government changed that. I am sure you were or are opposed to that as well. As I pointed out in another place, we in america do not believe in tyranny of the majority. Mills spoke quite eloquently about it. You on the other hand DO believe in the tyranny of the majority. You are an authoritarian just like SM and exactly the kind of person Mills taked about. You believe that because a majority of americans don't like a minority of americans they can discriminated against them. Plain and simple. Gay marriage would not force you to accept homosexual behavior any more than Loving v. Virginia forced people to accept interracial marriage. You can go on the rest of your life believing it is not a valid marriage just like racists believe that interracial marriages are not true marriages. But you can't discriminate against a black man married to a white woman and you should not be allowed to discriminate against two women married to eachother.

If we went by what some people consider "normal", my wife and I would have been looked down on; because we are different races that are married.

The new rallying cry of the anti Gay Marriage group can be stated as being nothing more then "EQUAL BUT SEPERATE".

 

[DamnYankee]

Strawmen are the norm, the entire argument of "abnormal" is one huge straw man. There are many, many things humans do that are abnormal.

My argument is that folks lie and say its normal when its not.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

So when the law changes, and it will, your position is then going to be based on what??

By the way; that was real Christian of you to refer to those who don't agree with your stance, as morons..
Not only do you get to promote your views; but you have the added plus of denigrating and dehuminizing anyone who thinks differently.
Good job.

You seem to forget that it hasn't really been that long ago, that "marriage" was considered to be a man and a woman who decided to call themselves married. Preachers weren't real abundant back then.

What this entire thing seems to boil down to and which you seem to be fixated on, is the word "MARRIAGE" and for some reason it seems that you feel this will lessen your marriage somehow; because while you rail against gays "marrying", you want everyone to change and have "civil unions".
It would seem that you are one of the ones that want to change what things are.

Your "civil unions" solutino is why I continue to throw out the mixed race marriage card; becasue it harkens back to the days of "EQUAL BUT SEPERATE".

I am not married, so it doesn't "effect" my marriage one way or the other, and YES, I am focused on the word "marriage" because that's what the fuck the conversation is about, moron! If it were about something else, I probably would focus on that instead, but it's not.

My civil unions SOLUTION is nothing remotely similar to "separate but equal" because I have never suggested civil unions for the gays while straights keep marriage! IF that were my suggestion, you would have a valid point, but I have NEVER suggested it. I did offer a viable SOLUTION to the stated problem, and it isn't accepted because it doesn't really accomplish what you wish to accomplish, which is destroying a religiously respected institution. You can't give me ANY valid reason for why you would oppose what I have suggested, because there isn't a valid reason, other than what I have stated.

As for the law changing, it's not going to happen. You can keep dreaming, you can keep hoping, and you can continue to further polarize everyone by insulting them and denigrating what they believe in, but it's just not something you are ever going to see made law of the land. It can't be made law, for the reason's I have stated before. Once you establish a law based on what kind of sex someone is having, then you MUST (according to the Constitution) offer the same consideration for ANY sex someone is having! That's not paranoia, it's written in plain English, in the Constitution. If homosexuals can "marry" then so can necrophiliacs, polygamists, bigamists, people who fuck animals, and everything else under the sun, you've established the LAW based on this criteria, and you've opened that can of worms. This is why it must NEVER be made the law of the land, regardless of how much you whine, moan, and belittle others.

Now, Civil Unions? Totally different thing... it could certainly be made law of the land, and it would completely solve every problem and issue of every gay couple, as well as many other 'couples' who would benefit from such a contract. It's a viable solution, one that could and would be accepted by most of America. But what you are going to do, is polarize people so much, they will even oppose Civil Unions, just to be spiteful.

 

[DamnYankee]

Whining? I'm laughing at your whining. :lol:

 

[Damocles]

My argument is that folks lie and say its normal when its not.

I don't give a whit if it's "normal", couldn't care any less about it really.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Strawmen are the norm, the entire argument of "abnormal" is one huge straw man. There are many, many things humans do that are abnormal.

You need to keep up with the conversation. The "abnormal/normal" issue came about when a pinhead chimed in to challenge the definition of "normal." It wasn't presented as an argument for or against something. Homosexual behavior is an abnormal human behavior, not because I say so, but because that is how science has defined a behavior which occurs infrequently in a species. That isn't an argument against making a law, but if such a law is made, we must also consider all other abnormal human behavior, and we have to give them equal protection under the law, because the Constitution demands we do so.

 

[WinterBorn]

You need to keep up with the conversation. The "abnormal/normal" issue came about when a pinhead chimed in to challenge the definition of "normal." It wasn't presented as an argument for or against something. Homosexual behavior is an abnormal human behavior, not because I say so, but because that is how science has defined a behavior which occurs infrequently in a species. That isn't an argument against making a law, but if such a law is made, we must also consider all other abnormal human behavior, and we have to give them equal protection under the law, because the Constitution demands we do so.

And you need to keep up with the ENTIRE conversation, not just the parts that suit what you want.

The subject of what is normal came up because "abnormal" was used as a reason to deny the benefits to gay couples.

It didn't float then and doesn't now.

 

[WinterBorn]

Whining? I'm laughing at your whining. :lol:

And I see you still did asnwer the question I have asked you at least twice.

Do you advocate the gov't not giving benefits to married people?

 

[Southern Woman]

The Southern Man is not accountable to you. It's not his fault that you lack basic morality.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

And you need to keep up with the ENTIRE conversation, not just the parts that suit what you want.

The subject of what is normal came up because "abnormal" was used as a reason to deny the benefits to gay couples.

It didn't float then and doesn't now.

I just know that some pinhead (maybe you), challenged what "normal" was. As if, we have proclaimed gay people 'abnormal' because they are different.

And I don't know of ANY law which denies gay people benefits because they are homosexual. Can you point that out to me, please?

 

[DamnYankee]

I don't give a whit if it's "normal", couldn't care any less about it really.

Same here. I just don't think folks should lie and say it is when it ain't.

 

[DamnYankee]

What makes you think I'm talking to you?

 

[Southern Chicken]

I am not married, so it doesn't "effect" my marriage one way or the other, and YES, I am focused on the word "marriage" because that's what the fuck the conversation is about, moron! If it were about something else, I probably would focus on that instead, but it's not.

My civil unions SOLUTION is nothing remotely similar to "separate but equal" because I have never suggested civil unions for the gays while straights keep marriage! IF that were my suggestion, you would have a valid point, but I have NEVER suggested it. I did offer a viable SOLUTION to the stated problem, and it isn't accepted because it doesn't really accomplish what you wish to accomplish, which is destroying a religiously respected institution. You can't give me ANY valid reason for why you would oppose what I have suggested, because there isn't a valid reason, other than what I have stated.

As for the law changing, it's not going to happen. You can keep dreaming, you can keep hoping, and you can continue to further polarize everyone by insulting them and denigrating what they believe in, but it's just not something you are ever going to see made law of the land. It can't be made law, for the reason's I have stated before. Once you establish a law based on what kind of sex someone is having, then you MUST (according to the Constitution) offer the same consideration for ANY sex someone is having! That's not paranoia, it's written in plain English, in the Constitution. If homosexuals can "marry" then so can necrophiliacs, polygamists, bigamists, people who fuck animals, and everything else under the sun, you've established the LAW based on this criteria, and you've opened that can of worms. This is why it must NEVER be made the law of the land, regardless of how much you whine, moan, and belittle others.

Now, Civil Unions? Totally different thing... it could certainly be made law of the land, and it would completely solve every problem and issue of every gay couple, as well as many other 'couples' who would benefit from such a contract. It's a viable solution, one that could and would be accepted by most of America. But what you are going to do, is polarize people so much, they will even oppose Civil Unions, just to be spiteful.

Dixie, I believe you are basing your arguement on the slippery slope philosophy, however not only are your comparisons unjust, they are hugely insulting.
In the instance of gay marriage we are speaking about two consenting 'live' adults who love each other and desire to make that union public and lawful. Comparing gay adults to pedophiles and necrophiliacs is below the belt. Simply because YOU do not understand what it is to love someone of the same sex does not make it a perversion.
We do have polygamous clans in the US where uncles marry (spiritually) their 11 year old nieces ( I started a thread on this), we do have incestuous marriages, although not legal, there is little opposition from the public. In the state of Alabama I believe you CAN marry someone who is 14. However this has nothing to do with adult gay marriages on the whole.

Deviation from what has always been percieved as the 'norm' is part of our evolution. If not , women and minorities would have no rights today, a long fought for ideal. Certainley the sane and thinking human can differentiate between two adults who love one another in the spectrum of a working society or a sick relationship with the dead or children or goats for that matter.

 

[Southern Chicken]

You need to keep up with the conversation. The "abnormal/normal" issue came about when a pinhead chimed in to challenge the definition of "normal." It wasn't presented as an argument for or against something. Homosexual behavior is an abnormal human behavior, not because I say so, but because that is how science has defined a behavior which occurs infrequently in a species. That isn't an argument against making a law, but if such a law is made, we must also consider all other abnormal human behavior, and we have to give them equal protection under the law, because the Constitution demands we do so.

At various times in history, there have been marriage restrictions involving the abnormal(i.e class, race, ethnicity, nationality.) Unless you see broadening "marriage" to include each of those as a necessarily bad thing (and I don't imagine that you do), why would including homosexuals be the sudden start of a downward slide? There can only be a few reasons to think this, and all of them are bad.

 

[DamnYankee]

At various times in history, there have been marriage restrictions involving the abnormal(i.e class, race, ethnicity, nationality.) Unless you see broadening "marriage" to include each of those as a necessarily bad thing (and I don't imagine that you do), why would including homosexuals be the sudden start of a downward slide? There can only be a few reasons to think this, and all of them are bad.

By your logic a guy should be able to marry his dog, or marry two women.