Reality: Homosexual Marriage

Dixie said:
Right, and it's also not the reason we prohibit same sex couples from marrying, so why do you continue to raise that as an argument? Glad you got that point, I was afraid it had flown over your pinhead!
Click to expand...

Dumbfuck. PMP was arguing that gay marriage adversely impacts and is an imposition on the haters.

You can't actually point to any reason why gay marriage should be prohibited. It is certainly not for the same reason that we prohibit marriages involving children. You first were arguing that tradition was the basis for prohibiting both. Once it was pointed out to you that tradition was okay with child marriages, you ran to majority will. But majority will is no more of an actual reason for banning gay marriage than tradition. It's an attempt to shortcut the argument.
 
Damocles said:
I am pointing out, in reality, gay marriage will happen across the land in our lifetime, unless we promote a solution that is different. I prefer to work towards less government power, to get them out of defining what is essentially a religious institution. If that means working with some idiot who thinks that gays don't get married in churches then so be it, let's just get started.
Click to expand...

Well Dumo, no that is not a "reality" ....perhaps you need to consult your dictionary over the definition of "reality" because what you are pointing out is a "speculation" based on your wrongheaded opinion. The "reality" is, over 70% of Americans do not support or favor Gay Marriage, and have rejected it at the ballot box in 37 (mostly very liberal) states.

I'll say it again, IF gay marriage is ever enabled by SCOTUS ruling, there will be an immediate ratification of a Constitutional amendment... you may not support it, and your gay libertarian butt buddies here may not support it, and you all may writhe in the floor in outrage and agony over it, but it will pass overwhelmingly in most states. I don't really care if you don't believe me, or if you disagree with me on that, I know this will happen because every poll that is taken, shows an overwhelming number of people oppose Gay Marriage and they would ratify such an amendment.
 
RStringfield said:
Dumbfuck. PMP was arguing that gay marriage adversely impacts and is an imposition on the haters.

You can't actually point to any reason why gay marriage should be prohibited. It is certainly not for the same reason that we prohibit marriages involving children. You first were arguing that tradition was the basis for prohibiting both. Once it was pointed out to you that tradition was okay with child marriages, you ran to majority will. But majority will is no more of an actual reason for banning gay marriage than tradition. It's an attempt to shortcut the argument.
Click to expand...

I didn't argue "tradition" as the basis for anything. You ascertained that from my comments, but it's not what I stated or meant. I have stated NUMEROUS times what my objections are, and you apparently never comprehended them, so I fail to see the purpose in repeating them. There certainly ARE valid and legitimate reasons to oppose Gay Marriage, whether you agree with them or not.
 
Dixie said:
Dumo... Try really hard to let this penetrate your impenetrable empty head... I support Civil Unions... I do NOT support Gay Marriage! Got it???

I have no problem with adopting a comprehensive CU initiative, removing government from the "marriage license" business altogether, and allowing any two legal adults to enter into a partnership agreement together for the purpose of tax liabilities, and other benefits currently available to "traditional married couples." BUT.... I am staunchly, vehemently and firmly opposed, (and always will be), to any legal redefinition of traditional marriage. Whether that computes in your head, whether that makes sense to you, or not...whether that conforms to your logic.... is NOT my problem, that IS my position, and it has been my position for as long as I can recall. It didn't come about several years ago, I didn't 'come around' to your way of thinking, and it is not something I only recently began to advocate.

Now..... what might possibly change my mind about supporting CU's, would be if America were forced to ratify a Constitutional amendment recognizing marriage as being between one man and one woman.... IF that were to happen, I might be inclined to say... Ya know what? You guys had your chance to adopt CU and you refused to do so, you pushed and pushed this Gay Marriage idiocy until we had to pass an amendment to the freaking Constitution, so at this point, I really don't give two shits about what you want or finding a way to satisfy your side and you can kiss my ass!
Click to expand...

But if they have civil unions and then a Church marries them, won't they still be married; ie: A MARRIAGE??

And if everyone goes to a civil union; are we then going to see Breach's of Contract, instead of Divorces??

But there is going to be no amendment; because more and more States are going to fall into line and quietly allow same sex marriages, so you better get used to the idea.

You really should see someone, maybe a Priest or a Pastor, over what appears to be a steady increase in your anger and the negative affect it's likely to have on your health.
Maybe you could enroll in some anger management classes, Yoga, or someother kind of stress relief. :good4u:
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
But if they have civil unions and then a Church marries them, won't they still be married; ie: A MARRIAGE??
Click to expand...

Sure they will be! My opposition to Gay Marriage is not because I don't want gay people to get married! If I opposed that, I probably wouldn't have attended a gay wedding in 1986. My opposition is to establishing laws based on sexuality or sexual lifestyle, and government recognition of something that denigrates the religious beliefs of many Americans, who I feel have the right to freedom of religious expression, of which traditional marriage is a part. I don't think the government has the right to do that, churches can do anything they want to do!

And if everyone goes to a civil union; are we then going to see Breach's of Contract, instead of Divorces??
Click to expand...

Perhaps, what difference does that make?

But there is going to be no amendment; because more and more States are going to fall into line and quietly allow same sex marriages, so you better get used to the idea.
Click to expand...

Dream on, Dorothy... keep tapping those heels together! You've not changed anyone's mind here, in all the time you've been yammering... and this is a sympathetic crowd compared to the Bible Belt! You have a lot of work to do.

You really should see someone, maybe a Priest or a Pastor, over what appears to be a steady increase in your anger and the negative affect it's likely to have on your health.
Maybe you could enroll in some anger management classes, Yoga, or someother kind of stress relief. :good4u:
Click to expand...

My health and anger are fine. Thanks for your concerns.
 
Dixie said:
Sure they will be! My opposition to Gay Marriage is not because I don't want gay people to get married! If I opposed that, I probably wouldn't have attended a gay wedding in 1986. My opposition is to establishing laws based on sexuality or sexual lifestyle, and government recognition of something that denigrates the religious beliefs of many Americans, who I feel have the right to freedom of religious expression, of which traditional marriage is a part. I don't think the government has the right to do that, churches can do anything they want to do!
Click to expand...

But doesn't the reverse of that mean that you want to use religious beliefs to denigrate the civil rights of others!!
I can see it now.
Congregations leaving the Church, marching down to a home, and burning a rainbow on the lawn.

Dixie said:
Perhaps, what difference does that make?
Click to expand...

Wouldn't breaches of contracts be even more difficult to prove?

Dixie said:
Dream on, Dorothy... keep tapping those heels together! You've not changed anyone's mind here, in all the time you've been yammering... and this is a sympathetic crowd compared to the Bible Belt! You have a lot of work to do.
Click to expand...

Care to show who's mind you've changed, on here??

Dixie said:
My health and anger are fine. Thanks for your concerns.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure about that Dixie.
You have been exhibiting, as of late, symptoms of someone who is suffering from a self-esteem issue.
 
RStringfield said:
And my point, is that PMP is not affected by gay marriage in any significant way, as she claims. That should have been obvious.
Click to expand...

what should be obvious, is that I'm not a she......beyond that, it should be obvious that if we weren't affected by gay marriage in a significant way, gay's wouldn't be pushing for gay marriage.....they wouldn't need it......
 
RStringfield said:
Dumbfuck. PMP was arguing that gay marriage adversely impacts and is an imposition on the haters.
Click to expand...

no, dumbfuck......I was arguing that gay marriage has an impact on everyone, and that the law should not impose that impact for an abnormal relationship as if it were the same as a normal relationship.....beside, I thought your side was the "haters".....I'm the side that just wants to go back to being "ignorers"......
 
Dixie said:
Let me ask you this... How many people's minds have you changed here? How many people have you seen change their opinion on this board through the years? We've debated this about as much as any other subject, we have a robust representation of advocates for Gay Marriage, all the time posting threads and making their case, presenting the idea over and over again... How many have you swayed? 10%? 20%? 30% To be honest, I don't know of ANYONE who has changed his or her opinion on this... EVER!

So you just keep wishing and hoping.... click your heels together and keep repeating it, Dorothy! I'm sure one of these days you will make it come true, just like in the Wizard of Oz!
Click to expand...

If you consider these forums to be representative of the population, you really must get out more.
 
let's be honest, WB, not even California would have a popular vote in favor of gay marriage......in fact, they voted just the opposite.....Damo was right that it will never happen, but it's because it will never pass the Senate....I don't doubt for a minute that it would pass in 3/4 of the states.....I would predict closer to 48/50......
 
Dixie said:
And someone marrying a child effects you no more than any other marriage. Your point?
Click to expand...

This same bullshit?

No one is suggesting we marry children below the age of consent. No one is suggesting we lower the age of consent except a very, very tiny group of pedophiles.

There is harm done to a child in your situation. No harm done to anyone in a gay marriage.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
let's be honest, WB, not even California would have a popular vote in favor of gay marriage......in fact, they voted just the opposite.....Damo was right that it will never happen, but it's because it will never pass the Senate....I don't doubt for a minute that it would pass in 3/4 of the states.....I would predict closer to 48/50......
Click to expand...

No, I seriously doubt whether or not a constitutional amendment would pass.

They tried to get one to affirm that women & men have equal rights under the law. The ERA was passed out of Congress in 1972, and is still 3 states short of the 3/4 majority necessary to make it official.

No one in their right mind would oppose that, and yet it has been in the process of being ratified for 38 years.

No, the amendment you and Dixie favor is a pipedream, and the politicians know it.
 
Dixie said:
Dumo... Try really hard to let this penetrate your impenetrable empty head... I support Civil Unions... I do NOT support Gay Marriage! Got it???

I have no problem with adopting a comprehensive CU initiative, removing government from the "marriage license" business altogether, and allowing any two legal adults to enter into a partnership agreement together for the purpose of tax liabilities, and other benefits currently available to "traditional married couples." BUT.... I am staunchly, vehemently and firmly opposed, (and always will be), to any legal redefinition of traditional marriage. Whether that computes in your head, whether that makes sense to you, or not...whether that conforms to your logic.... is NOT my problem, that IS my position, and it has been my position for as long as I can recall. It didn't come about several years ago, I didn't 'come around' to your way of thinking, and it is not something I only recently began to advocate.

Now..... what might possibly change my mind about supporting CU's, would be if America were forced to ratify a Constitutional amendment recognizing marriage as being between one man and one woman.... IF that were to happen, I might be inclined to say... Ya know what? You guys had your chance to adopt CU and you refused to do so, you pushed and pushed this Gay Marriage idiocy until we had to pass an amendment to the freaking Constitution, so at this point, I really don't give two shits about what you want or finding a way to satisfy your side and you can kiss my ass!
Click to expand...
Nah, you don't really support civil unions, you've berated and tried to "insult" people who do continuously on this thread and will do nothing to try to actually get them passed. Your inaction belies your true sentiment, and with it your "prediction" of how you'll celebrate your schadenfruede...
 
Southern Chicken said:
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.
Click to expand...

The APA is militantly pro-gay. Nothing that they publish on the issue is relevant.
 
Dixie said:
Well Dumo, no that is not a "reality" ....perhaps you need to consult your dictionary over the definition of "reality" because what you are pointing out is a "speculation" based on your wrongheaded opinion. The "reality" is, over 70% of Americans do not support or favor Gay Marriage, and have rejected it at the ballot box in 37 (mostly very liberal) states.

I'll say it again, IF gay marriage is ever enabled by SCOTUS ruling, there will be an immediate ratification of a Constitutional amendment... you may not support it, and your gay libertarian butt buddies here may not support it, and you all may writhe in the floor in outrage and agony over it, but it will pass overwhelmingly in most states. I don't really care if you don't believe me, or if you disagree with me on that, I know this will happen because every poll that is taken, shows an overwhelming number of people oppose Gay Marriage and they would ratify such an amendment.
Click to expand...

support for gay marriage, poll April 2010:
image4971567.gif


Only a small minority are actively and emotionally invested in denying gays marriage equality. Oddly enough the percentage that actively opposes gay marriage is about the same as the percentage that though Shrub was doing a great job his last few months in office.

The largest plurality supports gay marriage. I suspect most of the "civil unions" crowd don't care that much about it one way or the other.

The support for gay marriage has skyrocketed in just a few years from a tiny minority of the country, to almost half the country.

Bottom line: you ain't getting your constitutional ban on gay marriage. Gay marriage is going to happen whether you like it or not. It's not going to require a vote by a legislature. Legislatures are not empowered to uphold our rights. Courts are. And as one country after another recognized gay marriage - Spain, Canada, Netherlands, UK, the scandinavians, et al. - its eventually going to happen here. Deal with it. Two gay people being married are going to have zero affect on your life.

As for your "negotiating" scheme on civil unions, I doubt gay americans and their supporters are in the mood to "negotiate" on something with you social conservatives which, in my view, is based on bad faith or your part. Your trying to throw out a speed bump. There aren't more than a handful of republicans at the national and state level who've ever actively worked to promote or enhance equality for gays. The overwhelming majority of them proactively work against gay equality. And guess what? They get your vote 100% of the time. These GOP politicians are obviously not worried about you, or their base, pressuring them into accepting significant accomodations, or equality, for gays. So why should norrmal and enlightened people take your "bargaining" position seriously? You, and the politicos you vote for, have never actually lifted a finger to promote equality. In fact, your voting record and the legislative record of the hacks you vote for point to quite the opposite: you've either enabled, or been a willing participant in blocking progress on equality.

History is going to judge you harshly, my George Bush-worshipping rube.

In my view, the majority of gays, and their supporters, are going to tell you to f*ck off with your "bargaining" position. It's not credible, and the history of you and your Party, do not indicate you are interested in promoting accomodations or equality for gays. The obvious conclusion is that you're terrified of gay marriage becoming a reality, and flailing around for road blocks and distractions to stop it.
 
Dixie said:
I didn't argue "tradition" as the basis for anything. You ascertained that from my comments, but it's not what I stated or meant. I have stated NUMEROUS times what my objections are, and you apparently never comprehended them, so I fail to see the purpose in repeating them. There certainly ARE valid and legitimate reasons to oppose Gay Marriage, whether you agree with them or not.
Click to expand...

Yeah you did. You claimed these marriages were disallowed "because that is how we established things" and then argued that we could not change these things because then anything everything could be changed. You implied the thin entering wedge of homosexual marriage would lead to changes allowing child marriages or marriages to your dog. But we recently changed marriage in accordance with our views on childhood. Nobody has married their mailbox yet.

You don't have any legitimate resons for banning homosexual marriage. If you did you would not be falling back on, "that's the way it has always been" and/or it is the will of the majoirty.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
you mean, they want to make it affect me as IF it were a marriage.....that's the whole point, isn't it?.....they want the law to make it affect me even though it ISN'T a marriage....
Click to expand...

No more than any other marriage, none of which you are compelled to agree with. Some of which I am sure you would not agree with.

The point of gay marriage is not the about you, you self centered idiot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top