Reality: Homosexual Marriage

[USFREEDOM911]

No I didn't. I used examples of people who can't marry the "one they love" just like you did!

But in your stupidity, which everone seems to be willing to accept that it's a willful stupidity, you keep leaving out that part that it must be consentual and that the other person must also be in love with you.

 

[apple0154]

Well gee, what age would you ascribe to a boy reaching adult age??
Unless you've just been lying to those young boys you've been with and telling them that they're now a man!!

 

[WinterBorn]

I guess you have a reading comprehension problem to go along with your mental retardation.... poor guy!

No one has proposed "banning" anything. The Constitutional amendment would be to recognize "marriage" as between a man and woman in America. It wouldn't have to be done with a majority of Americans voting like they do for the president, it is a state ratification process. 3/4 of the states need to ratify it for the amendment to become part of the Constitution. Now... think about that for a moment... California, Missouri, Washington, Oregon, New Jersey... all REJECTED Gay Marriage by 70% or more... but just 3/4 of the states (not all states) need to pass ratification by a majority vote... you don't think that is possible? ....Okay, we'll see! Say goodbye to Civil Unions though, that will be off the table forever as well. We'll live with the new Constitution, and you can go pound sand! (no sexual reference there, apple!)

5 states rejected it with fairly lower voter turnouts, and you think this should tell me something?

If just 13 states refuse to ratify the amendment to make marriage only between a man and a woman (which is effectively a ban on gay marriage), your amendment would fail.

Gay marriage is currently granted by Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont. And in New York, Rhode Island and Maryland, gay marriage is recognized but not performed, so they are leaning more towards the right side than to your side. At least its very doubtful that they would ratify your amendment. So there are already 8 states gone from the 50. 5 more and your marriage amendment is dead. So your attempt to make it seem doomed is laughable.

And acceptance of gay marriage is at an all time high. Each year more and more people realize that it will not harm anything to allow gay marriage.

 

[WinterBorn]

No I didn't. I used examples of people who can't marry the "one they love" just like you did!

And conventiently avoided the reason WHY they can't.

 

[DamnYankee]

Obviously you did no research and never had anything to support your assertion that Rome and Greese had no gay marriages.

While it is a relatively new practice that same-sex couples are being granted the same form of legal marital recognition as commonly used by mixed-sexed couples, there is a long history of recorded same-sex unions around the world.[2] Various types of same-sex unions have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions. It is believed that same-sex union was a socially recognized institution at times in Ancient Greece and Rome,[2] some regions of China, such as Fujian, and at certain times in ancient European history.[3] These gay marriages continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans. This law prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were so married were to be executed.

SAY WHAT, WHAT!!

Anyone can write a wiki article. Sorry.

 

[WinterBorn]

Oh, sure. Throw your praise around.

At 8:00, post #552, you referred to me as a "goddamn moron". Less than an hour later, at 8:58, you refer to Winter Born as a "fucking moronic idiot".

Not even one hour before you cheapen my title, rain on my parade. Well, thanks for nothing.

How's the blood pressure doing?

Can't you just picture him screaming at the monitor? lol Little flecks of spit flying as he tries to type what he just screamed?


As far as titles, how about this. You can be the "goddamn moron" and I'll just be a "fucking idiot"?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Anyone can write a wiki article. Sorry.

And of course NO ONE would ever find the time to edit and make the corrections.

HEY, there's a new occupation for you.
You could rewrite history, just like you're trying to do now.

 

[apple0154]

Can't you just picture him screaming at the monitor? lol Little flecks of spit flying as he tries to type what he just screamed?

I'm sure his face is beet red. I don't understand why he aggravates himself. It can't be good for his health.

As far as titles, how about this. You can be the "goddamn moron" and I'll just be a "fucking idiot"?

Thanks! I appreciate your empathy.

 

[DamnYankee]

And of course NO ONE would ever find the time to edit and make the corrections.

HEY, there's a new occupation for you.
You could rewrite history, just like you're trying to do now.

Wiki is useful only if what is written there has linkable references. The first paragraph of that article mentions gay marriage, obviously biased, and references footnote 1, which goes nowhere.

 

[Southern Woman]

"The most common form of same-sex relationships between males in Greece was "paiderastia" meaning "boy love". To love a boy below the age of twelve was considered inappropriate, but no evidence exists of any legal penalties attached to this sort of practice. Traditionally, a pederastic relationship could continue until the widespread growth of the boy's body hair, considered to be extremely unattractive."

For some reason, the gay-tards want to call this 'normal'.

It's sick.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

But in your stupidity, which everone seems to be willing to accept that it's a willful stupidity, you keep leaving out that part that it must be consentual and that the other person must also be in love with you.

Me and my Uncle love each other very much, we can't marry even if we consent. A child may love an adult very much and may consent to marrying them, but we don't allow that. I might love a thousand women and they might love me, but we can't all be married to each other! We have all kinds of restrictions and limitations on marriage because of what it is. You want to REDEFINE what it is, that is the problem here. I am telling you, we can't just redefine things to fit what YOU want! Can't be done, because as soon as society starts doing that, ANYTHING can be redefined to suit our whim! The restriction on age of consent is something WE established, it's not written in stone that we can't "redefine" that the same way!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

5 states rejected it with fairly lower voter turnouts, and you think this should tell me something?

If just 13 states refuse to ratify the amendment to make marriage only between a man and a woman (which is effectively a ban on gay marriage), your amendment would fail.

Gay marriage is currently granted by Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont. And in New York, Rhode Island and Maryland, gay marriage is recognized but not performed, so they are leaning more towards the right side than to your side. At least its very doubtful that they would ratify your amendment. So there are already 8 states gone from the 50. 5 more and your marriage amendment is dead. So your attempt to make it seem doomed is laughable.

And acceptance of gay marriage is at an all time high. Each year more and more people realize that it will not harm anything to allow gay marriage.

In NONE of the states you cite, was Gay Marriage voted on and approved by THE PEOPLE... that is who would vote on ratification, not some Liberal activist judge who wanted to further the gay rights agenda. If you were LUCKY, you MAY be able to sway California or New Jersey to not ratify such an amendment, the rest of the states would pass it easily.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Me and my Uncle love each other very much, we can't marry even if we consent. A child may love an adult very much and may consent to marrying them, but we don't allow that. I might love a thousand women and they might love me, but we can't all be married to each other! We have all kinds of restrictions and limitations on marriage because of what it is. You want to REDEFINE what it is, that is the problem here. I am telling you, we can't just redefine things to fit what YOU want! Can't be done, because as soon as society starts doing that, ANYTHING can be redefined to suit our whim! The restriction on age of consent is something WE established, it's not written in stone that we can't "redefine" that the same way!

Children can't give consent; but then without your strawman argument, you wouldn't have anything much else to say.
We have laws against incestual relationships; but if you want to marry your Uncle, show where he wants to marry you.

You're an idiot and as soon as you accept that, like the rest of us have done, you'll feel a lot less stress.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

So there are already 8 states gone from the 50. 5 more and your marriage amendment is dead...

Still LMFAO at this ignorance! You need to bone up on what the ratification process is. It doesn't matter how many states have had some liberal hack judge deem Gay Marriage legal! You don't get to automatically count those states as non-ratifying the amendment! The people would go to the polls and cast a VOTE on whether they want to ratify the amendment, and I would say in most all of those states, they are so pissed off at what the judge has done, they would GLADLY support ratification. Fucking MORON! Go study your Civics, and leave this debate for the NON retarded!

 

[WinterBorn]

In NONE of the states you cite, was Gay Marriage voted on and approved by THE PEOPLE... that is who would vote on ratification, not some Liberal activist judge who wanted to further the gay rights agenda. If you were LUCKY, you MAY be able to sway California or New Jersey to not ratify such an amendment, the rest of the states would pass it easily.

Keep telling yourswelf that, Dixie. The fact is that there are 8 states that recognize gay marriages, and their populations are not getting worked up about it.

In fact, the tourist business is up in New England due, in part, to gay couples flocking in to get married.

You keep quoting that 80% figure. But many polls show the opposition is much less than that.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Children can't give consent; but then without your strawman argument, you wouldn't have anything much else to say.
We have laws against incestual relationships; but if you want to marry your Uncle, show where he wants to marry you.

You're an idiot and as soon as you accept that, like the rest of us have done, you'll feel a lot less stress.

Children can't give consent and men can't marry men! WHY? Because that is how we established things! That is how we defined the parameters! If you can change one, you can certainly change the other! Now, do you HAVE a point to make?

 

[WinterBorn]

Still LMFAO at this ignorance! You need to bone up on what the ratification process is. It doesn't matter how many states have had some liberal hack judge deem Gay Marriage legal! You don't get to automatically count those states as non-ratifying the amendment! The people would go to the polls and cast a VOTE on whether they want to ratify the amendment, and I would say in most all of those states, they are so pissed off at what the judge has done, they would GLADLY support ratification. Fucking MORON! Go study your Civics, and leave this debate for the NON retarded!

If it were all hack judges, you might almost have a point. But no, the populations are not all fired up to defeat this. In fact, two of the states had no judicial interference at all, and it was done purely by legislation. And those legislators are, largely, still in office.

You over estimate the willingness of the public to push thru an amendment.


Look at the ERA. It was started in 1923, put forth from Congress in 1972, and still does not have the necessary votes to become an actual amendment to the US Constitution. And you think a "one man/one woman" defintion of marriage has a chance???

 

[Southern Chicken]

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.

This article disagree with your argument on the affects on children

http://http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting.aspx

QUOTE
...there is no evidence to suggest that lesbians and gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of gay men or lesbians is compromised in any respect relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Children can't give consent and men can't marry men! WHY? Because that is how we established things! That is how we defined the parameters! If you can change one, you can certainly change the other! Now, do you HAVE a point to make?

Now you want to marry a child; because two men love each other and want to be legally together.

Adults can give consent and same sex marriges are going to be recognized, nation wide, whether you agree with it or not; so you might as well get ready for it.
I suggest a padded cell and a combination of medication.

 

[Timshel]

Children can't give consent and men can't marry men! WHY? Because that is how we established things! That is how we defined the parameters! If you can change one, you can certainly change the other! Now, do you HAVE a point to make?

Uhh, you are a fucking idiot and either a liar or totally ignorant of history.

The reason children can't consent is not backed by tradition. They don't have the mental capacity to understand the consequences of these difficult issues and so we do not allow them to have any privacy in them. This principle is fairly recent. Not too long ago it was perfectly acceptable for an older man to marry a girl just entering puberty. We redefined marriage to exclude that practice, in spite of tradition not due to tradition.

There is no legitimate reason to continue to exclude homosexuals.