Reality: Homosexual Marriage

Southern Man said:
You've misread my intentions. They are not to win over lib-tards like you, but to make their lives as miserable as possible, and to remind them of the vicious hell that awaits them upon their death. :)
Click to expand...


People are not going to hell for their lack of hatred. And if your church is teaching you that you need to find a new church.

And what of the hypocrite that insists it is his duty to lie (in order to save few dollars)? Perhaps your should reopen your bible and work on your own life first.



The point of all of this is not a religious one. It is an issue of equality under the gov't, and the removal of bias from gov't benefits.

Anything else is just smoke & mirrors to try and hide hatred.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
obviously, if I can't ignore it, then I am being compelled to agree, neh?
Click to expand...

No. That's completely stupid. You can't purposefully interfere with billions of contracts which you are not compelled to agree with. If your neighbor sells his house you are not compelled to agree with the deal. You simply cannot interfere with the transaction or the transfer of property rights.

What you don't seem to get is nobody fucking cares what you think.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
obviously, if I can't ignore it, then I am being compelled to agree, neh?
Click to expand...

OH; so you agree with marriages where:
1. Husbands cheat on their wives
2. Wives cheat on their husbands
3. They have "swinger parties"
5. One spouse is verbally abusive to the other one
6. One spouse is physically abusive to the other one
7. Children are neglected
8. Children are abused
9. Children are molested
10. Someone keeps getting divoreced and then remarried
11. etc.
 
RStringfield said:
If your neighbor sells his house you are not compelled to agree with the deal.
Click to expand...

and if a proposal is made to redefine "sell" to include "paint" and the law passes, am I not compelled to believe that any one who paints a house for me now owns it?.......if a law is passed saying that a person in a relationship with someone of the same sex is "married", am I not compelled to provide spousal benefits to any employee engaged in a same sex relationship?.......

the question is whether a change from a normal understanding to an abnormal understanding can compel me to act....obviously, it can.....
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
OH; so you agree with marriages where:
1. Husbands cheat on their wives
2. Wives cheat on their husbands
3. They have "swinger parties"
5. One spouse is verbally abusive to the other one
6. One spouse is physically abusive to the other one
7. Children are neglected
8. Children are abused
9. Children are molested
10. Someone keeps getting divoreced and then remarried
11. etc.
Click to expand...

what is the relevance.....is someone proposing a change to consider those things "normal"?.......I was not aware of it.....I have never heard of anyone getting a license from the government to cheat on their spouse or to abuse their children.....
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Not when the facts back the accusation up; because then it's just applying a label to something that has been made public.
Click to expand...

and are you claiming you have facts to back up your claim that I am a racist?.....it was that original claim that made me post you were a fucking idiot....as far as I am concerned, you have just provided the facts that back up that particular accusation.....you on the other hand could reread my posts here for days and find nothing at all to support your lies.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
what is the relevance.....is someone proposing a change to consider those things "normal"?.......I was not aware of it.....I have never heard of anyone getting a license from the government to cheat on their spouse or to abuse their children.....
Click to expand...

No licence is necessary.

But your contention that making gay marriages legal forces you to "accept" those marriages is the question.

None of the things he listed are illegal, and yet you don't accept them.

My grandfather refused to accept that anyone was married unless they were married in a church. I just didn't accept it and didn't consider them married. But it didn't change a thing, and he didn't fight to make secular marriages illegal.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
what is the relevance.....is someone proposing a change to consider those things "normal"?.......I was not aware of it.....I have never heard of anyone getting a license from the government to cheat on their spouse or to abuse their children.....
Click to expand...

My fault.
I keep forgetting about how your short term memory problem affects you being able to stay with the subject matter at hand.

This was about you "AGREEING" with the situations that I posted.
 
this whole debate still comes down to one thing.....liberals find it intolerable that anyone consider something unacceptable which they have blessed as acceptable.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
and are you claiming you have facts to back up your claim that I am a racist?.....it was that original claim that made me post you were a fucking idiot....as far as I am concerned, you have just provided the facts that back up that particular accusation.....you on the other hand could reread my posts here for days and find nothing at all to support your lies.....
Click to expand...

I"m sorry.
I wasn't aware that you were making a reference to you, regarding the racist label.
It appeared that you were just asking a question.

Now that you've clarified what you felt the problem was; I can reply, by saying that I never called you a racist.
At least that I remember in this thread.

If you can find where I did, please show me.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
My fault.
I keep forgetting about how your short term memory problem affects you being able to stay with the subject matter at hand.

This was about you "AGREEING" with the situations that I posted.
Click to expand...

then use an example of something which is abnormal which is changing to normal.....I don't consider abuse or neglect to be normal and wouldn't either before or after a change in laws.....

here's a valid parallel for you....once upon a time it was considered abnormal to kill your unborn children.......
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
I"m sorry.
I wasn't aware that you were making a reference to you, regarding the racist label.
It appeared that you were just asking a question.

Now that you've clarified what you felt the problem was; I can reply, by saying that I never called you a racist.
At least that I remember in this thread.

If you can find where I did, please show me.
Click to expand...
sure you do....you "translated" my post to depict me as saying
Originally Posted by USFREEDOM911 View Post
[TRANSLATION]
so what?....I'm not saying they can't love anyone they want.....I'm just saying I reject the law telling me what I must consider to be normal.....marriage between two people of the same race is normal, marriage between two people of different races is not......I don't care if two people of different races consider themselves married, I just care whether the law requires me to agree with them......
[/TRANSLATION]
Click to expand...

are you saying you wouldn't consider me "racist" if I believed a mixed race marriage was abnormal?.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
then use an example of something which is abnormal which is changing to normal.....I don't consider abuse or neglect to be normal and wouldn't either before or after a change in laws.....

here's a valid parallel for you....once upon a time it was considered abnormal to kill your unborn children.......
Click to expand...

You seem to have no problem in people who engage in the behvior I listed, in getting a marriage license.
That was where this was headed, before you attempted to derail it.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
and if a proposal is made to redefine "sell" to include "paint" and the law passes, am I not compelled to believe that any one who paints a house for me now owns it?
Click to expand...

This is just non sequitur, gibberish. Your logic is that of a child. I think what you meant to say is if "buy" is redefined to include "painting." But you could certainly sell your house now for a paint job. Your neighbor could do it and no one would have compelled you to agree with his choice.

I really don't know what point you were trying to make other than something about changing definitions. But, it is still a stupid point. Allowing more people to act on their right to contract is not comparable to changing how property is acquired.

There is no valid reason to deny homosexuals the right to share their property, liabilities and responsibility for each other with the person of their choice. Your argument demands that we adhere to an old tradition based solely on religious biases and intolerance.

The traditions of how one justly acquires property have valid reasons, they are fairly obvious and can be logically supported.

PostmodernProphet said:
.......if a law is passed saying that a person in a relationship with someone of the same sex is "married", am I not compelled to provide spousal benefits to any employee engaged in a same sex relationship?.......
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily believe an employer should be compelled to offer spousal benefits. But they would be no more compelled to provide spousal benefits for homosexuals than they are for any other couple.

But you are just using government interference in the contractual arrangements between an employer and an employee as justification for interference in the contractual arrangements between couples. I don’t support interference in either, but it’s obvious that marriages deserve greater protection from interference.

the question is whether a change from a normal understanding to an abnormal understanding can compel me to act....obviously, it can.....
Click to expand...

You are not compelled to act in anyway as a result of two people marrying.
 
This thread was started on 6/20... 4 days ago... 4 more days that gay couples have not been able to obtain the benefits of married couples. Have you helped their situation? Are you making any progress in that effort? How many years have we been talking about this, how long has this debate raged on? Ten, fifteen, twenty years? Have you made any progress? Are gay couples any closer to realizing benefits? Are we any closer to resolving the problem? Will another ten or twenty years help? Will it change the minds of those who vehemently oppose Gay Marriage? If you post another ten thousands threads about this, and repeat the same arguments over and over a million more times, will it make a difference to those who remain opposed to Gay Marriage?

While you idiots remain mired in this fruitless and silly debate, gay couples are living out their lives, the time passes by, they still don't have the benefits of married couples, they are no closer to that now than they were 20 years ago. At some point, don't you have to examine what the reality is? Or are you not as concerned with what benefits gay couples can obtain, and more concerned with having a divisive hot-button issue to bash and trash your opponent with?

I'm telling you.... Civil Unions, it's the answer to this problem. It resolves this issue to the satisfaction of all parties, and ends this stupid debate forever, but most importantly, it gives gay couples the benefits they have always wanted to have, and are living their lives without, while we bicker back and forth over something we will never agree on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top