APP - Homosexuality Now, Pedophilia Next

[DamnYankee]

I finally figured it out.
You're scared shitless!!

By the way, are you suggesting that people with a mental disablity aren't allowed to be married??

Again you are off base. What I'm suggesting is that it is unethical to for a adult male with all his facilities to marry a woman with the mental capacity of a ten year old.

 

[DamnYankee]

lol...irrelevent....

perhaps you want slavery legal again too

hypocritical for you want the goverment out of private business affairs, yet you want the government into one of the most private sanctuary's this country has....the bedroom and marriage

As a conservative and republican, I would have been against slavery from the outset.

Again, I don't care what two consenting adults do in their bedrooms.

 

[Damocles]

As a conservative and republican, I would have been against slavery from the outset.

Again, I don't care what two consenting adults do in their bedrooms.

You just care what contract they sign and what they do in their churches, if it is against your religion you want the government to support that dogma with the force of secular law.

 

[DamnYankee]

Except they are not solely set by religious dogma and there is clear and direct victimization. ....

Same with marriage. It is the tradition of many cultures, not just Judaism and Christianity, and since it attributes greatly to society, its bastardization will be a detriment to society.

 

[DamnYankee]

You just care what contract they sign and what they do in their churches, if it is against your religion you want the government to support that dogma with the force of secular law.

I care if the government grants them a license that they are unqualified for.

 

[WinterBorn]

Same with marriage. It is the tradition of many cultures, not just Judaism and Christianity, and since it attributes greatly to society, its bastardization will be a detriment to society.

You have said that before, and yet you have never explained HOW it will be a detriment to society.

A gay couple can provide society every benefit that a straight couple can provide.

 

[WinterBorn]

I care if the government grants them a license that they are unqualified for.

And you care if the qualifications are changed.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

This would do exactly what I have been saying throughout the thread. I agree with it.

Your "argument" against me was that suddenly animals would be consenting to marriages. Simply inane.

Not true, that wasn't my argument at all. IF we alter the definition of marriage, and base it on a sexual behavior, then we MUST, by the Constitution, allow the same consideration for any other sexual behavior. You can't say, this particular sexual behavior is allowed to marry, but that one isn't, because of 'equal protection' aspects of the Constitution. I know you all like to use the interracial marriage analogy, but it would be like lifting the ban on black and white marriage, but other interracial mixes don't qualify. You couldn't do that, the other races would raise hell and demand their constitutional right to equal protection, and rightly so. Same situation here, except instead of race, we are dealing with sexual behavior. Once you have established that a criteria for marriage can be sexual behavior, that becomes a standard you have to accept for ANY sexual behavior to follow.

Currently, it is not legal to fuck animals, but I am sure people do it. Well, if all the animal fuckers decided to form a coalition, and lobby for their rights, who is to say that one day, cross-species marriage won't be on the table? And when it gets put on the table, what are you going to say to prevent it, when you've already established that marriage CAN be based on sexual behavior? You've established a precedent, and you can't go back and undo what you've done. The argument you would face, would be very similar to homosexuals argument, the animal fuckers can't help they were born that way, and who are you to deny them the right to be with who they love? Especially when you have already allowed that right based on another sexual behavior?

Now, you can presume this won't ever happen because of animal rights advocates, but what about incestuous relations? What about this arbitrary age restriction? What about polygamists? All of these can be brought to the table, when we have established that marriage can be based on a sexual preference, instead of how it is currently defined. I just feel like, Gay Marriage would open a whole can of worms you don't want to open. You can believe this would never happen, but once was a time, we would have NEVER imagined homosexuals wanting to marry. If you had asked someone 50 years ago about this, they would have laughed you out of the room.

Every action has a consequence. Liberals are really good at not seeing these consequences, then we all have to deal with them after the fact. There are too many potentially bad consequences to redefining marriage based on sexual behavior, and I don't think some people have considered them at all.

The proposal I laid out, is a way to resolve this issue and give every side what they want. I'll tell ya, it's rare that such a solution ever exists for any problem. But we see here in this thread, some people want to ignore my suggestion, and continue calling me names and denigrating my position. To them, I am not convinced this is even about finding a solution, it's not about helping homosexual couples realize the benefits of traditional marriage, it's about ideology, social reform, political agendas, and attacking religion.

 

[Damocles]

Same with marriage. It is the tradition of many cultures, not just Judaism and Christianity, and since it attributes greatly to society, its bastardization will be a detriment to society.

The rules you want set on marriage are solely set by religious dogma.

 

[Damocles]

Not true, that wasn't my argument at all. IF we alter the definition of marriage, and base it on a sexual behavior, then we MUST, by the Constitution, allow the same consideration for any other sexual behavior. You can't say, this particular sexual behavior is allowed to marry, but that one isn't, because of 'equal protection' aspects of the Constitution. I know you all like to use the interracial marriage analogy, but it would be like lifting the ban on black and white marriage, but other interracial mixes don't qualify. You couldn't do that, the other races would raise hell and demand their constitutional right to equal protection, and rightly so. Same situation here, except instead of race, we are dealing with sexual behavior. Once you have established that a criteria for marriage can be sexual behavior, that becomes a standard you have to accept for ANY sexual behavior to follow.

Currently, it is not legal to fuck animals, but I am sure people do it. Well, if all the animal fuckers decided to form a coalition, and lobby for their rights, who is to say that one day, cross-species marriage won't be on the table? And when it gets put on the table, what are you going to say to prevent it, when you've already established that marriage CAN be based on sexual behavior? You've established a precedent, and you can't go back and undo what you've done. The argument you would face, would be very similar to homosexuals argument, the animal fuckers can't help they were born that way, and who are you to deny them the right to be with who they love? Especially when you have already allowed that right based on another sexual behavior?

Now, you can presume this won't ever happen because of animal rights advocates, but what about incestuous relations? What about this arbitrary age restriction? What about polygamists? All of these can be brought to the table, when we have established that marriage can be based on a sexual preference, instead of how it is currently defined. I just feel like, Gay Marriage would open a whole can of worms you don't want to open. You can believe this would never happen, but once was a time, we would have NEVER imagined homosexuals wanting to marry. If you had asked someone 50 years ago about this, they would have laughed you out of the room.

Every action has a consequence. Liberals are really good at not seeing these consequences, then we all have to deal with them after the fact. There are too many potentially bad consequences to redefining marriage based on sexual behavior, and I don't think some people have considered them at all.

The proposal I laid out, is a way to resolve this issue and give every side what they want. I'll tell ya, it's rare that such a solution ever exists for any problem. But we see here in this thread, some people want to ignore my suggestion, and continue calling me names and denigrating my position. To them, I am not convinced this is even about finding a solution, it's not about helping homosexual couples realize the benefits of traditional marriage, it's about ideology, social reform, political agendas, and attacking religion.

Again. We wouldn't be "defining" marriage at all, it isn't the government's place to do that. You promote exactly what I said, get government out of marriage, let the churches do that, and set the normal contract rules on the personal contract of the union. Cows cannot enter a contract, because they don't have the capacity to do so, children as well.

You start off from the false premise of a straw man, and then continue to get more into illogical tangents as you go.

Either you believe what you say you do and we agree and you are just arguing inanity because you can't help yourself, or you really do want the government to start defining and regulating the religious ceremony of marriage. Which is it?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Again. We wouldn't be "defining" marriage at all, it isn't the government's place to do that. You promote exactly what I said, get government out of marriage, let the churches do that, and set rules on the personal contract of the union.

You start off from the false premise of a straw man, and then continue to get more illogical as you go.

Either you believe what you say you do and we agree and you are just arguing inanity because you can't help yourself, or you really do want the government to start defining and regulating the religious ceremony of marriage. Which is it?

I agree it isn't governments place to do that, my solution rectifies that. As I said, it provides a solution to all sides, all aspects of this issue. I don't understand how I am being illogical to explain the very good reasons why we can't just go along with the left-wing liberal notion of "gay marriage" and redefining traditional marriage against the overwhelming will of the people, as a pretext to my proposal. If you support "Gay Marriage" aren't you, in essence, supporting a view contrary to the one you just espoused? You are advocating for the homosexual community to be granted the right to marry by the government... Gay Marriage... that is what it is!

We agree on this, but instead of agreeing we agree, you want to try and take one last slap at religious tradition, by claiming the only reason marriage licenses exist, is because it was an antiquated way to prevent interracial marriage, and that is just a pointless point of no value to this debate. It's really academic why marriage is licensed by the government, the fact is, they are. We agree they shouldn't be, and religion should be solely responsible for defining marriage. Again, we agree, but you can't resist claiming "You start off from the false premise of a straw man, and then continue to get more illogical as you go." So, are you being illogical too?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

We wouldn't be "defining" marriage at all, it isn't the government's place to do that.

No, we wouldn't be... IF WE LIVED IN DAMOWORLD, WHERE KING DAMO HAD SET ALL THE RULES AND MADE ALL THE LAWS SINCE THE BEGINNING!

The fact is... We ARE debating Gay Marriage, and whether it should be the law.... here in the real world, where the rest of us live, Damo!

 

[Damocles]

I agree it isn't governments place to do that, my solution rectifies that. As I said, it provides a solution to all sides, all aspects of this issue. I don't understand how I am being illogical to explain the very good reasons why we can't just go along with the left-wing liberal notion of "gay marriage" and redefining traditional marriage against the overwhelming will of the people, as a pretext to my proposal. If you support "Gay Marriage" aren't you, in essence, supporting a view contrary to the one you just espoused? You are advocating for the homosexual community to be granted the right to marry by the government... Gay Marriage... that is what it is!

We agree on this, but instead of agreeing we agree, you want to try and take one last slap at religious tradition, by claiming the only reason marriage licenses exist, is because it was an antiquated way to prevent interracial marriage, and that is just a pointless point of no value to this debate. It's really academic why marriage is licensed by the government, the fact is, they are. We agree they shouldn't be, and religion should be solely responsible for defining marriage. Again, we agree, but you can't resist claiming "You start off from the false premise of a straw man, and then continue to get more illogical as you go." So, are you being illogical too?

You are being illogical in building the straw man of "allowing gay marriage"...

What we agree on:

1. Get the government out of the business of marriage.
2. Let any consenting adult enter into a contract with whomever they want.
3. Let the churches define what they consider to be marriage.

What you keep arguing about that nobody has talked about other than you with your straw man arguments:

1. Whether a cow can get married.
2. That somehow in agreement I have said that the government should define marriage.

Apparently, it is so hard for you to say, "Yup I agree" that you are willing to just make up stuff to argue against.

Your objections to pretty much exactly what you advocate from another is just the beginning of where your "logic" begins to fail.

 

[Damocles]

No, we wouldn't be... IF WE LIVED IN DAMOWORLD, WHERE KING DAMO HAD SET ALL THE RULES AND MADE ALL THE LAWS SINCE THE BEGINNING!

The fact is... We ARE debating Gay Marriage, and whether it should be the law.... here in the real world, where the rest of us live, Damo!

And in this real world that we all live in we can pass laws and get court rulings that force the government into line with the constitution.

So, to recap, what I am advocating is pretty much EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE ADVOCATING, yet you have inane objections and start into animals as soon as you read any of my posts.

It's plain idiocy.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

holy effing crap black people and white people can marry, next we'll be pedophilia legalized and people marrying horses....

 

[WinterBorn]

I support a measure to remove state and federal government from recognizing any "marriage" of any individuals in America. In place of the government recognizing marriages, which have an inherent foundational religious history and tradition, the "state" would only be involved in issuance of "civil union contracts." The specifications would be simple, any two individuals of contractual age, can obtain a "civil union contract" without regard for their gender, sexuality, religious belief, relationship, or personal reasons for the contract. It would be available to gay couples, traditional married couples, moms and sons, brothers and sisters, BFFS, roommates, monks, nuns, midgets, whatever! Any tax, insurance, property, health, or other issue which is currently available to 'married couples' will now be available to civil union partners. From the governmental perspective, this removes them from any moral, religious, or cultural endorsement of any kind, and allows people the freedom to utilize this contract to fit their personal circumstance. At the same time, it protects the sanctity of the religious institution of traditional marriage, churches can decide for themselves (freedom & liberty) whether to marry gay couples, and the homosexuals can acquire every single benefit of a current 'traditional married couple', with zero inequality, all the way down the line.

What part of that do you interpret as me wanting to decide what other adults can or can not do? Please explain???

I aksed this earlier and didn't see an answer. But with the above solution, would a religious organization be able to marry gay couples if they so chose?

I agree with this solution too. It would be the best answer all around.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You are being illogical in building the straw man of "allowing gay marriage"...

What we agree on:

1. Get the government out of the business of marriage.
2. Let any consenting adult enter into a contract with whomever they want.
3. Let the churches define what they consider to be marriage.

What you keep arguing about that nobody has talked about other than you with your straw man arguments:

1. Whether a cow can get married.
2. That somehow in agreement I have said that the government should define marriage.

Apparently, it is so hard for you to say, "Yup I agree" that you are willing to just make up stuff to argue against.

Your objections to pretty much exactly what you advocate from another is just the beginning of where your "logic" begins to fail.

Go back and read your response to my posts, you are the one wanting to argue stupid shit that has nothing to do with any of this. You are the one saying I am illogical, throwing out strawmen, whatever. I haven't disagreed with you on anything other than your incorrect assertions that marriage licenses *poof* just appeared in the mid-1800s, that was false. Furthermore, it was an insidious slap at traditional institutions, religion, and the people of America who adopted the policies we currently have. It was a prejudiced view, based on a largely false stereotype, and it was unnecessary to this debate. Only you know why you believe this, I can't say, but the fact that you felt compelled to "blame" marriage licenses on racists who wanted to prevent blacks and whites from marrying, is very telling.

I maintain, it was a long-standing religious custom, and indeed it was regulated by the church in Europe, but that is because the Church was the State, they controlled what the State did, they made the determination on what the State controlled, it was under their purview because they WERE the authority in charge! It's frustrating to be faced with your inane ability to comprehend a pre-American-democracy time, BEFORE we had a Constitution restricting the government from respecting an establishment of religion. Governments indeed respected the establishments of religion in 14th century Europe, including the licensing of marriage. To pretend that government and the state was not regulating marriage because it fell under purview of the Church, is failure to comprehend the power structure and how much influence the church had on government. The only point that you can ultimately take away from any of this, societies have always regulated marriage, and it has always been a religious tradition and union of man and woman.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I aksed this earlier and didn't see an answer. But with the above solution, would a religious organization be able to marry gay couples if they so chose?

I agree with this solution too. It would be the best answer all around.

...At the same time, it protects the sanctity of the religious institution of traditional marriage, churches can decide for themselves (freedom & liberty) whether to marry gay couples...

That IS what I said.

 

[WinterBorn]

...At the same time, it protects the sanctity of the religious institution of traditional marriage, churches can decide for themselves (freedom & liberty) whether to marry gay couples...

That IS what I said.

I was just double checking, because you seemed adamant about there not being gay marriages, and in this solution it is left up to the individual churches.

I agree that it should be left up to the churches.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

holy effing crap black people and white people can marry, next we'll be pedophilia legalized and people marrying horses....

Gosh, I didn't realize you felt that way about it, yurt!