How To Explain Gay Rights To An Idiot

Onceler said:
It's not. I don't link for a reason, which I explained. You think it's because of you, which is pretty narcissistic. Dano used to be like that.

I've been pretty consistent on it since I got that virus. It crashed everyting I had for days. I don't see a real need to link when the info is available to everyone on the internet with a quick search.
Click to expand...

you're such a liar. lmao. pretty much the only time i call you out on links are for links to something on this site. i rarely call you out for links to external sites. it is almost always about bs you claim i said or whatnot. and you ADMITTED that you have linked to me internally on this site. but you don't anymore because i kept embarrassing you by pointing out how when you know you're wrong, you don't link to the post, but when you think you're right you do.

ooooops
 
Onceler said:
I don't think the origins of marriage are relevant, because we rarely use the origins of anything as a gauge for how the current model should be. Like I said, most early civilizations were characterized by brutality, oppression & superstition - hardly a good starting point for American law in the 21st century.

I addressed it because YOU brought it up, and kept asking. I actually asked you why you thought the origins were relevant, and you said we'd "get to the relevancy later."

So...can we get to the relevancy now?
Click to expand...


And when you acknowledge the reasons we KNOW or logically SUSPECT, for the creation of marriage we and get on with the debate.....and more importantly.....WHO performed the rites that acknowledged a marriage was entered into....you don't have to go back 2000 years or more for answers.....
 
WinterBorn said:
With the sole exception of procreation without assistance, gay marriage serves the exact same benefits to society that straight marriage does.
Click to expand...

Doesnt serve the the intended benefit for society. It does serve the same benefits as far as tax breaks and governmental entitlements for the couple. Doesnt encourage mothers and fathers to raise their children together. Doesnt reduce the #s of children born to single mothers with higher rates of poverty, juvenile delinquincy, teen pregnancy hs dropouts and criminal convictions as an adult. Whatbenefits were you referring to?
 
Before recorded history, we can guess that men and women got together by agreement and had children.....what we are talking about is 'marriage' as a formal event, not just men and women doing what comes naturally..........
 
Onceler said:
I don't think the origins of marriage are relevant, because we rarely use the origins of anything as a gauge for how the current model should be. Like I said, most early civilizations were characterized by brutality, oppression & superstition - hardly a good starting point for American law in the 21st century.

I addressed it because YOU brought it up, and kept asking. I actually asked you why you thought the origins were relevant, and you said we'd "get to the relevancy later."

So...can we get to the relevancy now?
Click to expand...


If you want to talk about marriage, you must first understand what it is and where it came from and why it was created....otherwise you'll just remain the stupid ass you're showing us you are....all of those things are relevant to understanding the phase "sanctity of marriage"....and thats where this discussion started....
 
bravo said:
If you want to talk about marriage, you must first understand what it is and where it came from and why it was created....otherwise you'll just remain the stupid ass you're showing us you are....all of those things are relevant to understanding the phase "sanctity of marriage"....and thats where this discussion started....
Click to expand...

And you understand what it is, where it came from and why it was created? Even when experts in the field don't?

You're taking "sanctity of marriage" way too far. The people who use it aren't talking about the earliest civilizations. They're talking about what they see as American tradition & family values.

The origins of marriage are utterly irrelevant.
 
Eye said:
:palm:

in a dissolution of marriage, if there are minor children, custody issues are involved. one huge issue, once the custody is resolved, is visitation. should a gay couple disolve their relationship, there are no rights to visit any minor children from that relationship. .
Click to expand...

???? Thats because marriage between two people of the same sex doesnt create any parental rights, silly. Only a heterosexual marriage creates parental rights and obligations. Homosexuals cant make babies. They demand all the tax breaks and governmental entitlements of heterosexual marriage, with none of the parental obligations.
 
Onceler said:
And you understand what it is, where it came from and why it was created? Even when experts in the field don't?

You're taking "sanctity of marriage" way too far. The people who use it aren't talking about the earliest civilizations. They're talking about what they see as American tradition & family values.

The origins of marriage are utterly irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with American tradition and family values. They've been brought here from civilized people. Why would you want to take civilization backwards?
 
dixon76710 said:
???? Thats because marriage between two people of the same sex doesnt create any parental rights, silly. Only a heterosexual marriage creates parental rights and obligations. Homosexuals cant make babies. They demand all the tax breaks and governmental entitlements of heterosexual marriage, with none of the parental obligations.
Click to expand...

Should heterosexual parents of adopted children have fewer rights?
 
Alias said:
Nothing wrong with American tradition and family values. They've been brought here from civilized people. Why would you want to take civilization backwards?
Click to expand...

There are a lot of varying interpretations of traditions & history. For much of American history, women didn't have the right to vote. African Americans weren't free, allowed to own land or vote. We had to destroy a whole culture to populate the country. Children were allowed to work for long hours in factories.

We shouldn't live by someone's subjective interpretation of "tradition." Liberty for all should be the guiding principle.
 
Onceler said:
Should heterosexual parents of adopted children have fewer rights?
Click to expand...

Why would you propose that? Your premise is still wrong. You're still stating homosexuals don't have the same rights everyone else does. You're still not getting it. That happens quite often to people who are brainwashed (indoctrinated". You repeated the lie so often that you believe it to be true. Everyone in the USA has the same rights thanks to civil rights laws. Gay marriage has nothing to do with civil rights and until you accept that, you're gonna keep going in circles.
 
Last edited:
bravo said:
Before recorded history, we can guess that men and women got together by agreement and had children.....what we are talking about is 'marriage' as a formal event, not just men and women doing what comes naturally..........
Click to expand...

I bet it was fathers of young, pregnant daughters who came up with the idea.
 
Onceler said:
We shouldn't live by someone's subjective interpretation of "tradition." Liberty for all should be the guiding principle.
Click to expand...

Tax breaks and governmental entitlements arent liberty and you dont need them to exercise your liberty. Little bit hypocritical to talk about "liberty" when the homosexuals are demanding licensing and regulation of their personal relationships that have never been licensed and regulated before.

And "liberty for all" would in this context require marriage for any two consenting adults who desire marriage, hypocritical to then call for special treatment for the homosexuals.
 
Onceler said:
There are a lot of varying interpretations of traditions & history. For much of American history, women didn't have the right to vote. African Americans weren't free, allowed to own land or vote. We had to destroy a whole culture to populate the country. Children were allowed to work for long hours in factories.

We shouldn't live by someone's subjective interpretation of "tradition." Liberty for all should be the guiding principle.
Click to expand...

Civil rights. No one can choose what sex they are or the color of their skin. Choosing to marry someone of the same sex is not a civil right. You're not getting it. As long as you keep believing or trying to find a way to make this a civil rights issue then you're not gonna make it.
 
Alias said:
Civil rights. No one can choose what sex they are or the color of their skin. Choosing to marry someone of the same sex is not a civil right. You're not getting it. As long as you keep believing or trying to find a way to make this a civil rights issue then you're not gonna make it.
Click to expand...

yes it is. their relationship is not illegal, nor any sexual acts they may engage in. denying the the SAME RIGHT as others is in fact denying them their equal protection and rights under the 14th amendment.

don't like it, amend the federal constitution. but stop spreading meadowmuffins as if your opinion is fact.
 
dixon76710 said:
???? Thats because marriage between two people of the same sex doesnt create any parental rights, silly. Only a heterosexual marriage creates parental rights and obligations. Homosexuals cant make babies. They demand all the tax breaks and governmental entitlements of heterosexual marriage, with none of the parental obligations.
Click to expand...

this is perhaps the 2nd dumbest post of the year.

following your logic to its sad conclusion, women or men how cannot procreate should not be allowed to marry.

:palm:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top