Reality: Homosexual Marriage

Dixie said:
That's not going to happen. You can wish and dream and pretend you live in a Fairy Tale Land where things you wish for come true, but Gay Marriage will never be made legal in America. Sorry!!
Click to expand...

According to one Gallup poll, more than 50% of the population is comfortable with homosexuality. Compare that with polls taken 20 or 30 years ago.


It will happen, Dixie. Its just a matter of time.
 
WinterBorn said:
Dixie, you know as well as I do why gays want this. It is about being able to join with the one they love in a committed relationship, and some consideration may be given to the benefits bestowed by the gov't.

And some of those gays, in committed relationships, are involved in churches or other religious groups that have no problem marrying gays.



I have no problem with the CU for all the benefits, and a religious marriage for the religious ceremony and tie. I also have no problem with any religious group who wants to marry two men or two women.



In fact, I fail to see any harm in allowing gays to marry, kicking the gov't out of marriage altogether, or with having two rituals to get to where folks get today with one.


But please don't pretend that allowing a gay man to marry a woman is somehow equal treatment.
Click to expand...

Well, I am sorry, but the marriage license office doesn't deny marriage licenses to people who are gay. That is what you keep arguing is the case, and it's just not. The same rules apply regardless of what you are! Now I am sorry it's not what some people want... the rules don't allow you to marry children or dogs either, it doesn't mean they are discriminatory!
 
WinterBorn said:
According to one Gallup poll, more than 50% of the population is comfortable with homosexuality. Compare that with polls taken 20 or 30 years ago.


It will happen, Dixie. Its just a matter of time.
Click to expand...

The Gallup poll is full of shit. The issue has been put on the ballot in 37 states, and has failed every time, by margins of 70% or more... in the MOST liberal states! You can cling to hope, but you will remain disappointed, because America will continue to reject this idea, and if you continue to push it on them by judicial force, they will adopt a Constitutional amendment and end the debate forever. If I were you, I'd stop trying to brow beat the opposition into accepting your stupidity, and try something else... like CIVIL UNIONS!
 
RStringfield said:
As far as I know, it is still abnormal. Acknoweldging that does not make one a racist. Abnormal does not mean immoral. It means something is rare.
Click to expand...

umm.....not exactly precise....a red headed person is rare, but it is not something you would consider abnormal.....alcoholics are not rare but the biological reaction they have to alcohol is certainly abnormal.....a better understanding of "abnormal" might be "that which differs from what you reasonably would expect"......
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
But once again, this was about you and your acceptance of the scenarios that I presented.

Of couirse; it now seems that you support any marriage, even terrible ones, as long as it's not between two gays who love each other.
Click to expand...

of course....it's all about me and my hateful racist ways.....it has nothing at all to do with you forcing society to conform to your beliefs......just as you did when liberals told us it was a good thing to kill our unborn children......
 
Dixie said:
The Gallup poll is full of shit. The issue has been put on the ballot in 37 states, and has failed every time, by margins of 70% or more... in the MOST liberal states! You can cling to hope, but you will remain disappointed, because America will continue to reject this idea, and if you continue to push it on them by judicial force, they will adopt a Constitutional amendment and end the debate forever. If I were you, I'd stop trying to brow beat the opposition into accepting your stupidity, and try something else... like CIVIL UNIONS!
Click to expand...

"The same May 3-6 Gallup poll finds the slight majority of Americans still against legalizing gay marriage; however, at 53%, the extent of that opposition is down slightly this year."


The fact that it lost at the polls only shows the results of the votes by people who turned out. Considering that a 50% voter turnout would be heralded as a huge election, it doesn't mean much.

Its coming Dixie. The hatred of gays has been dropping steadily for several decades.




Oh, and just in case you misse my posting it the last dozen or so times I AM IN FAVOR OF CIVIL UNIONS FOR EVERYONE YOU OBNOXIOUS, INBRED, PIECE OF SHIT!!!!


I'm so glad we have the chance to continue this debate. If it disturbs you, feel free to avoid it.
 
WinterBorn said:
I AM IN FAVOR OF CIVIL UNIONS FOR EVERYONE YOU OBNOXIOUS, INBRED, PIECE OF SHIT!!!!
Click to expand...

/shrugs....and I am in favor of everyone believing in God.....carries a lot of weight, doesn't it.....look, you're engaged in a debate defending the legalization of gay marriage.....you can't avoid responsibility for carrying the argument by simply saying "oh, I'm not really in favor of gay marriage, I only want civil unions" and expect us to let you off the hook......if civil unions were acceptable, there would BE no debate about gay marriage.....
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
/shrugs....and I am in favor of everyone believing in God.....carries a lot of weight, doesn't it.....look, you're engaged in a debate defending the legalization of gay marriage.....you can't avoid responsibility for carrying the argument by simply saying "oh, I'm not really in favor of gay marriage, I only want civil unions" and expect us to let you off the hook......if civil unions were acceptable, there would BE no debate about gay marriage.....
Click to expand...

I am arguing in favor of equality for gays. (not the "they can marry someone of the opposite sex just like everyone else" equality Dixie keeps pressing)



I think the gov't should not be involved in marriages at all. But if that cannot be accomplished, I am in favor of gay marriage.

I believe in God and have a very strong faith. Nothing about Gay Marriage or Gay Civil Unions, or Straight Civil Unions, or whatever, can change that.
 
I AM IN FAVOR OF CIVIL UNIONS FOR EVERYONE YOU OBNOXIOUS, INBRED, PIECE OF SHIT!!!!
Click to expand...

Then you should abandon your stupid and futile attempt to obtain legalized Gay Marriage, and support a more pragmatic and realistic approach, that could potentially be realized one day. I support Civil Unions, but I will always oppose changing our laws to accommodate a sexual lifestyle. I've given my very valid and justified reason for this, the Constitution's "equal protection" clause. Once you've established a "right" based on some group's sexual preference, you MUST allow the same consideration for ANY and ALL such preferences, and that is something our society is not going to want to do.
 
WinterBorn said:
I am arguing in favor of equality for gays. (not the "they can marry someone of the opposite sex just like everyone else" equality Dixie keeps pressing)

I think the gov't should not be involved in marriages at all. But if that cannot be accomplished, I am in favor of gay marriage.

I believe in God and have a very strong faith. Nothing about Gay Marriage or Gay Civil Unions, or Straight Civil Unions, or whatever, can change that.
Click to expand...

EQUALITY is currently being realized by Gays, Straights, Bi's... doesn't matter! We ALL get to do the same exact thing... We are all prohibited from doing the same exact thing! This is EQUAL!
 
Dixie said:
Then you should abandon your stupid and futile attempt to obtain legalized Gay Marriage, and support a more pragmatic and realistic approach, that could potentially be realized one day. I support Civil Unions, but I will always oppose changing our laws to accommodate a sexual lifestyle. I've given my very valid and justified reason for this, the Constitution's "equal protection" clause. Once you've established a "right" based on some group's sexual preference, you MUST allow the same consideration for ANY and ALL such preferences, and that is something our society is not going to want to do.
Click to expand...

Why should I abandon all options but one?

YOu have already made the remark that we have been discussing this for a long time and nothing has changed.

YOu rant against thos who want gay marriage and call them names because they won't join the CU Brigade. But you don't say shit to the ones who maintain that gays shouldn't have either.


I say lets keep discussing all the options.

That way, more and more people will become more and more comfortable with the idea of both Gay Marriage and Civil Unions.

Then we can make the decision when we join with our spouse (be it the opposite or same gender), whether we want a marriage or a union.
 
Dixie said:
EQUALITY is currently being realized by Gays, Straights, Bi's... doesn't matter! We ALL get to do the same exact thing... We are all prohibited from doing the same exact thing! This is EQUAL!
Click to expand...

Gays to not get to marry the person with whom they are in love. YOu do, I do, and the rest of the straight folk do. I get to marry the person with whom I am in love, for whom I care, with whom I wish to have wild sex, and of the gender my mind and body tell me is right for me.

Gays don't have that option.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
it was unavoidable in dealing with your ridiculous attempt to create a parallel...

simply that your parallel was stupid....no one is proposing redefining society's understanding of the meaning of "selling" a house....
Click to expand...

You are dropping context, in a obvious attempt to evade the point. I never mentioned anyone redefining definitions of selling a house. It has nothing to do with that.

You claim that you are compelled to agree with homosexual marriage by not being allowed to ignore their contractual arrangement. You are not able to ignore anyone's contractual arrangements nor are you compelled to agree with them.

PostmodernProphet said:
the simple fact is, there is no logical basis for redefining "marriage" at all.....
Click to expand...

Sure there is. Everyone has the right to choose who they wish to marry. It's an extremely personal and private matter and the state should not interfere with it any further than ensuring that both have the capacity to consent (i.e., no 12 year olds, as was allowed before we "redefined" marriage)


no one has ever proposed to deny those rights.....
Click to expand...

Of course, they have.


the definition of "marriage" is not a religious definition.....it's a societal one....
Click to expand...

This line of argument which religious nuts use to pretend their demands for theocratic laws is actually secular, is just bullshit. Obviously, our culture has been shaped by Christianity. Traditions concerning marriage are heavily influenced by religion. But just because something is does not mean it should be. We should question the basis of our traditions. What other basis is their for denying homosexuals fully equal rights in choosing a spouse/partner?


obviously, they would be compelled to provide spousal benefits for a homosexual couple if they did for a heterosexual couple, regardless of their beliefs regarding the normality of the "marriage".....
Click to expand...

Just as they are compelled to provide spousal benefits for quickie marriages, open marriages, interracial marriages or any other form of marriage they might not agree with.


are you blind to the fact that it is the exact opposite?......a man and a man can have contractual arrangements between themselves already, and nothing in the law changes that.....what's involved, is that the gay couple wishes to have their contractual arrangement effect (interfere) with the government
Click to expand...

With what legitimate state action does marriage interfere with?

given the fact we've been talking about a concrete example of just that for nearly two pages, it is pointless for you to try to deny it.....
Click to expand...

You have no example of that. Laws that require benefits for married couples are a separate issue. Again, I don't like the government interfering between an employer and an employee, but, obviously, that relationship is much less intimate and private than one between a married couple. Therefore, it is not deserving of the same sort of high level of protections from government interference. Or, at least, I am more willing to suffer the interference in the employee-employer relationship than interference in a romantic relationship.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
umm.....not exactly precise....a red headed person is rare, but it is not something you would consider abnormal.....alcoholics are not rare but the biological reaction they have to alcohol is certainly abnormal.....a better understanding of "abnormal" might be "that which differs from what you reasonably would expect"...... .
Click to expand...

No, that would be unexpected. Abnormal simply means not typical, usual or regular. Rare.

A red headed person is abnormal. So is a lefty.
 
Dixie said:
Right, and that's the ONLY way this idea has EVER flown! Judicial Fiat doesn't work, it never has worked in all the history of mankind, and it won't work with this. People aren't going to change their minds, they will continue to support whichever side their belief system leads them to, and we can debate it for centuries and still not have resolve. So why do we continue to do that? It's the equivalent of beating ones head against a brick wall. You will never convince people who are pro-gay marriage to oppose it, and they will never convince you to support it. Yet, another day--another thread--no resolve! Over and over again, in an exercise of futility.
Click to expand...
Its how lib-tards get their way. Its analogous to societal rape.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top