Ban the consumption of Pork!

Dixie said:
There is a very distinct different between "banning" something and not allowing it in the first place. Marriage is traditionally the (largely religious) ceremonial union between a man and a woman. You are seeking to ALLOW something, not to BAN something.

As I said in the other thread, the more appropriate example would be, advocating government mandate that all kosher food include pork or pork byproducts. Allowing such a regulation, would be a direct contradiction of religious practice and exercise. Now, anyone can legally consume kosher food, you don't have to be Jewish, but you can't mandate kosher food include pork, because that violates the 'religious sanctity' of kosher food. It doesn't matter how many people would like to eat kosher pork ribs, it's an oxymoron! Just like "gay marriage" is an oxymoron. MORON!
Click to expand...


Again you are wrong, because noone is trying to say that all marriage should include a gay person.

In Connectuct and other places you would be seeking to ban it.

Marriage has traditionally been an ownership agreement for men to have ownership over a woman and/or several women, that is traditional biblical marriage.
 
Your idiotic example would require that all Kosher food include pork, and thus when a Jew went to eat Kosher food he/she would be eating pork. Allowing Gay Marriage would not require a stright person to marry a gay person, just because he wanted to get married. Banning Gay Marriage would however not allow a gay unitarian the right to fully practice his religous belifes, that he should get married before living with a lover.
 
AssHatZombie said:
But the issue of gay marriage is also about BANNING gay marriage.

I can't believe you tried to get away with this. You are a hack. A slightly inventive and amusing hack.
Click to expand...

To BAN something, it would have to be legal and accepted to begin with. If, for the last 500 years, men had married men and women had married women, and this was what normal traditional marriage was, then you could argue that BANNING same-sex marriage was the issue, but that's not the case here.

I'm not "trying to get away" with anything, just stating the truth. I have already said, I support gay couples being given every right of traditional married couples, and I have proposed a viable solution to the issue, which Jarhead even agrees with! This is ALL ABOUT bashing and trashing religious customs and practices, and nothing more. You are not interested in finding a viable solution to the problem, you want to use the problem to continue your attacks on religion.
 
Dixie said:
To BAN something, it would have to be legal and accepted to begin with. If, for the last 500 years, men had married men and women had married women, and this was what normal traditional marriage was, then you could argue that BANNING same-sex marriage was the issue, but that's not the case here.

I'm not "trying to get away" with anything, just stating the truth. I have already said, I support gay couples being given every right of traditional married couples, and I have proposed a viable solution to the issue, which Jarhead even agrees with! This is ALL ABOUT bashing and trashing religious customs and practices, and nothing more. You are not interested in finding a viable solution to the problem, you want to use the problem to continue your attacks on religion.
Click to expand...

What about the Gay Unitarian who wants to get married?
 
Jarod said:
Your idiotic example would require that all Kosher food include pork, and thus when a Jew went to eat Kosher food he/she would be eating pork. Allowing Gay Marriage would not require a stright person to marry a gay person, just because he wanted to get married. Banning Gay Marriage would however not allow a gay unitarian the right to fully practice his religous belifes, that he should get married before living with a lover.
Click to expand...

Okay, let's change my example to.... The government mandates it is legal to label pork as "kosher" food.

The issue here is not BANNING gay marriage... you can't BAN something that doesn't presently exist!
 
Jarod said:
What about the Gay Unitarian who wants to get married?
Click to expand...

With my solution (CIVIL UNIONS) that would be acceptable. Again, you want to paint me as some homophobic bigot who doesn't want gay people to wed, and that is absurd. I have refuted that all the way down the line, and still, you feel compelled to illustrate me as having this view. Why?

I have NO problem with gay couples having a wedding ceremony, or calling it "marriage" if that is what they want to do! My problem is with official state sanctioning of such a thing, and I have stated my reason's for that. I have presented a valid and reasonable solution to the legal problems, tax benefits, and even adoption requirements, which would enable any "civilly unionized" couple to retain the exact same rights as a traditional married couple has now, and you continue to try and twist my position into something it's not. WHY?

Is it not because you just want something to bash and trash religion and religious customs with? Is it not because you want "the issue" more than you want "the solution" in this case? Who the fuck is standing in the way of progress then? Who the fuck is denying gay couples the rights they deserve? It sure as hell isn't ME!
 
Dixie said:
To BAN something, it would have to be legal and accepted to begin with.
Click to expand...
Or it could be of ambiguous legal status or somewhat socially marginal.
If, for the last 500 years, men had married men and women had married women, and this was what normal traditional marriage was, then you could argue that BANNING same-sex marriage was the issue, but that's not the case here.
Click to expand...
We can argue about banning it now. And we are.
I'm not "trying to get away" with anything, just stating the truth. I have already said, I support gay couples being given every right of traditional married couples, and I have proposed a viable solution to the issue, which Jarhead even agrees with! This is ALL ABOUT bashing and trashing religious customs and practices, and nothing more. You are not interested in finding a viable solution to the problem, you want to use the problem to continue your attacks on religion.
Click to expand...


Your stupid word tricks are laughable. You're a fucking idiotic hack.
 
AssHatZombie said:
But it has been suggested that it not be allowed. This is a state of legal prohibition whether it existed prior or not, and regardless of whether we frame as a ban or a "failure to allow".
Click to expand...
They haven't. You are not being precise in your comprehension.

They said that they would leave marriage to the religions, not ban it.
 
Damocles said:
They haven't. You are not being precise in your comprehension.

They said that they would leave marriage to the religions, not ban it.
Click to expand...

First of all, gay marriage did exist in California. Then they banned it. They didn't leave it up to the religions. They made a constitutional amendment prohibiting homosexuals to marry, effectively banning a practice and stripping religions from being able to have their unions recognized by the state.
 
ib1yysguy said:
First of all, gay marriage did exist in California. Then they banned it. They didn't leave it up to the religions. They made a constitutional amendment prohibiting homosexuals to marry, effectively banning a practice and stripping religions from being able to have their unions recognized by the state.
Click to expand...
Which isn't what this thread is about.

It's a spoof on DQ's post that says that religion should be the arbiter of marriage and that society should simply accept contracts between consenting adults.

You jump to conclusions and misrepresent as well.

Nobody has suggested that we ban marriage altogether as the thread suggests, have they?

Tell me who thinks that we should "ban all marriage (pork)", then we'll begin to talk because then you'd have shown an understanding for the topic at hand and how the failed analogy works.
 
I've got no idea what is going on in this thread either.

Could someone just summarise briefly which poster is wanting to marry a pork chop?

Thanks.
 
charver said:
I've got no idea what is going on in this thread either.

Could someone just summarise briefly which poster is wanting to marry a pork chop?

Thanks.
Click to expand...
Well, since alexxx wanted to marry a pork chop, he wanted to make it so you can't ever eat them.
 
sorry all, I'm not breaking up with my girlfriend even if the govt. bans pork. She's the other white meat. yummy
 
Damocles said:
Well, since alexxx wanted to marry a pork chop, he wanted to make it so you can't ever eat them.
Click to expand...

Ah that makes sense.

Although i imagine Mrs Alexxx-Porkchop wouldn't be quite so keen on the no eating rule come the honeymoon, eh? Eh? Eh? You know what i'm saying?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top