Prop 8 Losers In Denial

Solitary said:
And while we are on the subject, if your plan went thru, and Civil Unions became the only wany the government was involved, let me ask a couple of questions.

1) Religious marriages would have to be accompanied by a Civil Union in order to get the government benefits, is that correct?

2) Since the government would not be involved in marriages, if a particular religion decided to perform gay marriages, they would be allowed? (The Civil Union would still be needed to gain gov't benefits)
Click to expand...

The above is exactly how it should be. The government should not be involved in marriage at all.
 
Dixie said:
I think "Gay Marriage" is destined for the same fate as the 70's ERA. Yes, times are changing, they always have and always will. Marriage is a religious institution and a social institution which has been understood for 500 years, to be the union of one man and one woman. It is the foundation of "family" in America, and I don't think Americans are ready to give that up.




Please stop making this irrelevant point. No one I know of, has EVER argued that "gay marriage" would effect traditional marriages. That is not the point, and the more you try to incorporate it as a valid point to counter, the more ignorant and foolish you seem to be.



YES! ...I know it is a shocker, isn't it? I mean, being that I am such a 'religious reactionary extremist right wing bigoted homophobe who hates gays!' You'd think my position would be different, wouldn't you?



If they wanted to, sure... Freedom of Religion!



Good! Then we can drop this whole "Gay Marriage" silliness, and work toward a comprehensive and benign Civil Unions initiative, which would get the government out of the 'marriage' business and not redefine 'marriage' to include sexual behavior or preferences! I'm glad we agree!!
Click to expand...


"No one I know of, has EVER argued that "gay marriage" would effect traditional marriages."

What?

Posted by Dixie on 11/10/2008, responding to "But the sad part is that you are willing to go to such lengths to stop something that will not effect straight marriages. " "Oh, but it will effect every fundamentally-based religious marriage, by making a complete mockery of them and destroying the institution entirely. "




Talk about intellectually dishonesty....lol


I am sure there are more instances, but this
 
Dixie said:
:hand: BRAVO! Yet another Dixie comment taken completely out of context!
Click to expand...

Ok, here is the entire post you made addressing the statement:

"Oh, but it will effect every fundamentally-based religious marriage, by making a complete mockery of them and destroying the institution entirely. What is SAD is, I have proposed a perfectly viable and legitimate answer and solution to the problems you've laid out, and you are too anti-religious to accept it... you want to attack religious sanctity and freedom, that's what you are about! You've exposed yourself now, and you can't hide it anymore. "

But please tell me in what context "Oh, but it will effect every fundamentally-based religious marriage, by making a complete mockery of them and destroying the institution entirely" would NOT make you a liar when you said "No one I know of, has EVER argued that "gay marriage" would effect traditional marriages."??
 
You have been shown to be lying, Dixie.

Any attempt to dance around it now will just make it worse.
 
Dixie said:
It doesn't really bother me to be called names, but it does tend to effect how I personally feel about those who call me names with no basis. In other words, you can call me "racist" because you judge me by an avatar and not my character, and I can deal with that... no problem! But don't call me a 'religious wacko' because I support traditional marriage. The term "pinhead" is used to describe a certain type of person whom I often find disagreement with, but not always. I have disagreed with many people who are not pinheads, and I have been in agreement with some pinheads on some issues.



See here is where I think you have a fundamental disconnect. I don't think the issue of 'gay marriage' has a damn thing to do with acceptance of homosexuality, and you obviously do. Is it 'bigotry' that causes you to think like that? I mean, I realize there are a certain percentage of people who 'don't want them queers gettin together' and that's why they oppose gay marriage, but I think the vast majority of people who oppose it, are speaking more to the protection of traditional values in society. I think you tend to really offend people by calling them 'homophobes' when they aren't. Yet, as a liberal, you think this is an effective way to 'guilt' them into accepting your views.



Probably the same as it was to The Graduate, Carnal Knowledge, Bob, Carol, Ted, and Alice... any number of other socially challenging plots coming from Hollywood over the years.



The change of how marriage is defined, is not coming. It continues to be soundly rejected by the people. The radical right-wing religious wacko president Clinton, signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law, which prevented a serious movement to push for a Constitutional amendment, otherwise, we would now be ratifying it.



1) yes 2) yes
ooooo... I am such a rightwing religious wacko extremist, aren't I?
Click to expand...


You nailed it! The idea that persons of religious faith and or traditional values have any rights in this country is what is being challenged. As California demonstrated, the rights of marriage is not what the homosexual community has been after. It is the ability to prevent anyone in society from disagreeing with their lifestyle. Already there are lawsuits in places like vermont where private business owners are being sued. A family owned bed and breakfast business refused to allow a marriage ceremony performed at their establishment because it went against their convictions to do so. Now they are being tageted as haters, homophobes and being sued. The homosexual activists will not be satisfied until it is unlawful to openly disagree with their lifestyle.
 
Damocles said:
The reality is, it was not "conservatives" who voted for this in California. Once you get that idea through your head you may be able to start introducing gay people to the people who actually did vote against it and test your theory out.
Click to expand...

Took the words right out of my mouth. Well, I might add that Democrats can most certainly be social conservatives on certain issues. Sadly, most people believe that government has the right to run people's lives. Oh wait, I was talking about Democrats, wasn't I?
 
Solitary said:
Ok, here is the entire post you made addressing the statement:

"Oh, but it will effect every fundamentally-based religious marriage, by making a complete mockery of them and destroying the institution entirely. What is SAD is, I have proposed a perfectly viable and legitimate answer and solution to the problems you've laid out, and you are too anti-religious to accept it... you want to attack religious sanctity and freedom, that's what you are about! You've exposed yourself now, and you can't hide it anymore. "

But please tell me in what context "Oh, but it will effect every fundamentally-based religious marriage, by making a complete mockery of them and destroying the institution entirely" would NOT make you a liar when you said "No one I know of, has EVER argued that "gay marriage" would effect traditional marriages."??
Click to expand...

Well because, you incompetent hack, "FUNDAMENTALLY-BASED RELIGIOUS MARRIAGE" does not EQUAL "TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE" ...We already had a whole page worth of argument on just that one point, and I thought it was pretty much universally understood... now you want to pretend that debate didn't happen? Weren't you the one who kept yapping about how a marriage didn't have to be "religious"? Now, suddenly, "traditional" and "fundamentally religious" are equal?

So, no man... I am not the LIAR here, YOU ARE!
 
Dixie said:
Well because, you incompetent hack, "FUNDAMENTALLY-BASED RELIGIOUS MARRIAGE" does not EQUAL "TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE" ...We already had a whole page worth of argument on just that one point, and I thought it was pretty much universally understood... now you want to pretend that debate didn't happen? Weren't you the one who kept yapping about how a marriage didn't have to be "religious"? Now, suddenly, "traditional" and "fundamentally religious" are equal?

So, no man... I am not the LIAR here, YOU ARE!
Click to expand...

LMAO!!

Nice try at dancing, Dix. But you know you got busted. Now smile for the camera and then give me a profile shot.
 
Solitary said:
LMAO!!

Nice try at dancing, Dix. But you know you got busted. Now smile for the camera and then give me a profile shot.
Click to expand...

Nope, you got busted. I made a true statement, no one has argued that Gay Marriage will effect traditional marriage. You've failed to show where I have said it, or anyone else has said it. You attempted to link "fundamentally religious marriage" to "traditional marriage" but you can't do this, because you've already argued against that point. You're starting to look absurd, I would shut up and move along if I were you, but thank God, I'm not!
 
I have sense enough to know when you've been burned. You do not, apparently. You believe, it would appear, that people buy your bullshit. At this point, the only person you're fooling is yourself.
 
ib1yysguy said:
I have sense enough to know when you've been burned. You do not, apparently. You believe, it would appear, that people buy your bullshit. At this point, the only person you're fooling is yourself.
Click to expand...

I sometimes forget I am dealing with the lowest common denominator here, so let me break this down for you, so that you might be able to grasp it better....

Traditional Marriage -- The union of a MAN and WOMAN.

Gay Marriage -- Either a.) an oxymoron, because same sexes can't 'marry' or b.) perfectly legal practice, as a gay man can marry a gay woman.

Fundamental Religiously-based Marriage --a Traditional Marriage done in accordance to religious values and customs and ordained by the Church.

Homosexual Same-sex Marriage --- Illegal in the US.

It is possible for a gay man and gay woman to have a "traditional marriage" to each other. It is not an automatic conclusion that all "traditional marriages" are also "fundamental religiously-based marriage" and that was what I said would be effected by allowing "homosexual same-sex marriages."

So, we have what I said, and what Solitary claims I said, which as we can easily see, are two completely different things. If you want to pretend that he "burned" me, that's fine, but he didn't... didn't even come close to it, in my opinion. In fact, he was the one who originally made the point that "traditional marriage" did not have to be "religious" in nature.

School's Out! :D
 
ib1yysguy said:
You're making a fool of yourself now.
Click to expand...

Really? How so? Looks to me like, you and Solitary have been made the fools of, by your lame assumptions and conclusions. I have never argued, and no one else that I know of has argued, that Gay Marriage would effect Traditional Marriages. Homosexual Same-sex Marriage, would indeed effect Fundamental Religiously-based Marriages, by making a complete mockery of the institution.
 
The forces that stood against Prop 8 have taken their fight to the right place .. the pocketbooks of those who supported it .. exactly where it should be taken.

One thing that is unquestionably true is that gays will be allowed to marry in the United States .. everywhere in the United States .. because rights in America are ONLY determined by what you can demand. They are not determined by what is just, fair, humane, civil, or what Jesus would do.

Gays ain't going anywhere and their political and social power continues to grow. They will inevitably be in a position to demand marriage and there is nothing any religious force can do to stop them.

Oh yeah .. black people and gays.

It's that religion thing .. sometimes makes us stupid.
 
their political and social power continues to grow.
Click to expand...

Not completely true with homosexuality. There is no way to "breed" them, and it apparently happens randomly, and that percentage is probably not going to change as a percentage of the population with time, as have other minority activist groups. In 100 years, we will still have a relatively small homosexual community, and hopefully we will have come to an age where we realize we can't redefine traditions to accommodate them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top