Reality: Homosexual Marriage

Dixie said:
YES, YOUR argument is indeed a strawman! There are all kinds of restrictions and criteria on who and what can marry, when, why, and how... I listed several of them! We simply DO NOT have the unfettered "right" to marry whomever we please! NO ONE DOES!
Click to expand...

That's really a nice attempt to try and divert attention from your behavior; but you've failed again. :palm:

You keep resorting to "whomever", when you know that this has always been specifically about adults who care for each other; but then you have to do this; because you have nothing else to support your insanity. :cof1:
 
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...
And blacks weren't kept from riding the same trains as whites, they just couldn't ride in the same cars. They weren't forbidded from going to schools, just couldn't go to the same schools with whites. You want seperate but equal, and the spirit of our law abhors that, even when the majority of you don't care a bit for the spirit of our law.
 
Dixie said:
Well WB, what you keep arguing is false! No one can marry someone of the same sex, it doesn't matter if they are gay or not gay! I can't argue that nudists are being denied their right to roam around in public naked! It's a stupid argument to claim they are being denied a right, because they are nudists who want to run around in public naked and can't! It's stupid for me to argue they are being discriminated against, when NO ONE is allowed to run around naked in public!
Click to expand...

Ahhh, but woman are prohibited from running around topless in public. That is blatant discrimination. The only people opposed to topless women are perverts who associate a body part used for the natural furnishing of ones offspring with nourishment as something sexually deviant.
 
Socrtease said:
And blacks weren't kept from riding the same trains as whites, they just couldn't ride in the same cars. They weren't forbidded from going to schools, just couldn't go to the same schools with whites. You want seperate but equal, and the spirit of our law abhors that, even when the majority of you don't care a bit for the spirit of our law.
Click to expand...
Equating homosexuals with blacks is a failed strategy.
 
Southern Man said:
Obviously you've combed the internet and found nothing to support your assertion that they were allowed.:)
Click to expand...

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!! :cof1:
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
That's really a nice attempt to try and divert attention from your behavior; but you've failed again. :palm:

You keep resorting to "whomever", when you know that this has always been specifically about adults who care for each other; but then you have to do this; because you have nothing else to support your insanity. :cof1:
Click to expand...

Well... There are any number of situations where "adults who care about one another" can't be MARRIED! I listed a few of them, and you called it a strawman! It's not a strawman, it's a complete and total refutation of your shallow and untenable point.

MY viewpoint is NOT insane, unless you now want to argue that 80% of the country is insane! YOUR viewpoint IS insane, and you can't support it with logic or reason. I presented a tenable solution which gives ALL SIDES what they claim to want, and all you want to do is continue arguing with people who will NEVER change their minds! That's INSANE!

Let me clue your dumb ass in here... You keep this up, and eventually, you might happen to get the Supreme Court stacked with Liberals enough to uphold Gay Marriage... but then, what will happen is, the overwhelming majority of religious people in America, will band together and ratify a Constitutional amendment recognizing marriage as being between a man and woman, and that will cause you to be in the position of having to repeal a Constitutional amendment, which you'll likely never be able to do. At that point in time, all bets are off with regard to any Civil Unions idea, I won't support it, and neither will those who had to pass a Constitutional amendment. You're being offered a solution now, and you'd be WISE to accept it, rather than continuing this push for something you will never obtain. That's my advice... stop pushing for Gay Marriage, and see if you can get enough people on board with an idea for Civil Unions like I recommended, because if you don't, you will ultimately seal your fate.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
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......
Click to expand...

Liberals never said it was a good thing to kill unborn children because there are no children until a birth takes place. Using the term "unborn child" makes as much sense as saying "an undead corpse". There are no such things. There is no corpse until a death has taken place and there is no child until a birth has taken place, semantics notwithstanding.
 
Socrtease said:
And blacks weren't kept from riding the same trains as whites, they just couldn't ride in the same cars. They weren't forbidded from going to schools, just couldn't go to the same schools with whites. You want seperate but equal, and the spirit of our law abhors that, even when the majority of you don't care a bit for the spirit of our law.
Click to expand...

STRAWMAN!

Whites weren't restricted from riding in the same cars or going to the same schools... There WAS a discrimination and it was based on race. With this, there is NO discrimination, gays and straights are not allowed to marry same sex, neither is being disallowed something the other is not, and there is no provision anywhere that prohibits gay people from marrying someone of the opposite sex. You can keep trying to make this connection, but what you are doing is pissing off a lot of black people who KNOW the difference.
 
Dixie said:
Well... There are any number of situations where "adults who care about one another" can't be MARRIED! I listed a few of them, and you called it a strawman! It's not a strawman, it's a complete and total refutation of your shallow and untenable point.

MY viewpoint is NOT insane, unless you now want to argue that 80% of the country is insane! YOUR viewpoint IS insane, and you can't support it with logic or reason. I presented a tenable solution which gives ALL SIDES what they claim to want, and all you want to do is continue arguing with people who will NEVER change their minds! That's INSANE!

Let me clue your dumb ass in here... You keep this up, and eventually, you might happen to get the Supreme Court stacked with Liberals enough to uphold Gay Marriage... but then, what will happen is, the overwhelming majority of religious people in America, will band together and ratify a Constitutional amendment recognizing marriage as being between a man and woman, and that will cause you to be in the position of having to repeal a Constitutional amendment, which you'll likely never be able to do. At that point in time, all bets are off with regard to any Civil Unions idea, I won't support it, and neither will those who had to pass a Constitutional amendment. You're being offered a solution now, and you'd be WISE to accept it, rather than continuing this push for something you will never obtain. That's my advice... stop pushing for Gay Marriage, and see if you can get enough people on board with an idea for Civil Unions like I recommended, because if you don't, you will ultimately seal your fate.
Click to expand...

When this eventually is argued before the Supreme Court, it's going to be found that banning gays from marrying is unconstitutional.
There will be no amendment.

You're just gong to have to accept the fact that gays will be able to legally marry; but you won't have to like it.

It might just be your apparent attitude that has resulted in you being unmarried. :good4u:
 
apple0154 said:
Liberals never said it was a good thing to kill unborn children because there are no children until a birth takes place. Using the term "unborn child" makes as much sense as saying "an undead corpse". There are no such things. There is no corpse until a death has taken place and there is no child until a birth has taken place, semantics notwithstanding.
Click to expand...

Shut the fuck up you goddamn moron!
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
When this eventually is argued before the Supreme Court, it's going to be found that banning gays from marrying is unconstitutional.
There will be no amendment.

You're just gong to have to accept the fact that gays will be able to legally marry; but you won't have to like it.

It might just be your apparent attitude that has resulted in you being unmarried. :good4u:
Click to expand...

Gays are not banned from marriage!
 
You're just gong to have to accept the fact that gays will be able to legally marry; but you won't have to like it.
Click to expand...

No, I won't "have to accept it" and neither will 200 million religious people in America who WILL RATIFY a Constitutional amendment so fast it'll make your little pinhead swim. And that is EXACTLY what will happen, should the SCOTUS make such a ruling. And like I said, WHEN that happens, you can forget Civil Unions, you can forget gay couples EVER getting the same benefits as married couples, it's ALL off the table then, and the ball will be in your court to repeal a Constitutional amendment! (You'll need 3/4 of the states to do that.)
 
Dixie said:
And if I were in love with my Dad, I couldn't marry him! If I were in love with another man, I couldn't marry him! If I am in love with Rosamund Pike, I can't marry her! If I am in love with my dog or my mailbox, I can't marry them! If I am in love with a 10-year-old boy OR girl, I can't marry them, If I am in love and below the age of 18, I can't marry ANYONE!

You are presenting a FALSE ARGUMENT!
Click to expand...

The right to marry is the right to enter an agreement with another, or the right to contract. You can marry Rosamund so long as she consents. You can't marry a 10yo (like you could before we redefined marriage), your dog or a mailbox because they cannot consent.

I can't see any legitimate state interest in barring you from marrying your father or another man. In incest the only legitimate state interest would be in preventing birth defects in a potential child, but since that's not possible, have at it.
 
Dixie said:
No, I won't "have to accept it" and neither will 200 million religious people in America who WILL RATIFY a Constitutional amendment so fast it'll make your little pinhead swim. And that is EXACTLY what will happen, should the SCOTUS make such a ruling. And like I said, WHEN that happens, you can forget Civil Unions, you can forget gay couples EVER getting the same benefits as married couples, it's ALL off the table then, and the ball will be in your court to repeal a Constitutional amendment! (You'll need 3/4 of the states to do that.)
Click to expand...

The court won't act until a consitutional amendment is highly unlikely. I doubt you could get one passed now.
 
WinterBorn said:
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.
Click to expand...

so go ahead and be in favor of it.....why is it so important that the rest of us have to be in favor of it too.....why can't I just ignore it....or even hate it if I choose to.....but no, I have to have laws forcing me to treat it the same way you do.....why?......that isn't a right of privacy, that's a right to force your privacy into our lives....
 
RStringfield said:
The court won't act until a consitutional amendment is highly unlikely. I doubt you could get one passed now.
Click to expand...

???? Where do you get that the court only acts when it knows there is not a likelihood of a Constitutional amendment? The SCOTUS hears cases brought before it, and it doesn't generally decide what cases to hear on the basis of how popular or unpopular an idea is, rather, the legal and constitutional merits of the case.

Ratification of a Constitutional amendment, takes 3/4 of the states approving it... With California, Oregon, Washington, New Jersey, Ohio, New York, and whoever else I forgot (37 in all) states, already defeating ballot initiatives for Gay Marriage, by margins of 70% or more, I don't think it is out of the question that 3/4 of the states would ratify such an amendment. BUT.... IF you want to take that chance, go for it! We'll see what happens.

The way I see it, this is like a lawsuit you've brought against a Big Corporation... You are suing for $5 million, the Corporation has offered you a settlement (Civil Unions) but you are stubbornly pressing ahead with the case... When it is decided in favor of the Corporation, you can't go back and say, we'll take that settlement now! That deal is off the table, just as CU's will be, if you force this issue and make us have to adopt a Constitutional amendment to protect marriage. Again, my advice is, grow the fuck up and realize, people don't agree with your idea, they will not accept it today, tomorrow, next year, or next decade... it's not going to fly in America! If you are genuinely concerned about gay couples obtaining benefits etc. (which I am), then work toward a comprehensive Civil Union reform instead! You might actually be surprised how possible that is, and how much support such an idea would garner. If the objective is benefits and perks for gay couples, what difference does it make whether you destroy a religious tradition? I don't get that! I never have gotten that!
 
No queer marriage in ancient Greece, but plenty of perverted child molestation:


"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."

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece"]Homosexuality in ancient Greece - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Pederastic_erotic_scene_Louvre_F85bis.jpg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7a/Pederastic_erotic_scene_Louvre_F85bis.jpg/220px-Pederastic_erotic_scene_Louvre_F85bis.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/7/7a/Pederastic_erotic_scene_Louvre_F85bis.jpg/220px-Pederastic_erotic_scene_Louvre_F85bis.jpg[/ame]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top