Reality: Homosexual Marriage

Dixie said:
Gays are not banned from marriage!
Click to expand...

Strawman presentation.
You have failed, again.

facepalm.jpg
 
RStringfield said:
I never mentioned anyone redefining definitions of selling a house. It has nothing to do with that.
Click to expand...
which is why it fails as a parallel....because gay marriage DOES require redefining....

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.
Click to expand...
again you fail to see the importance of the fact that nobody is interfering with anyone's contractual agreements.....


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)
Click to expand...
no they don't....everyone has the right to choose who they want to have a relationship with, but unless they are of opposite sex they simply can't 'marry' them.....not unless you pass a law saying "marriage" means something it doesn't currently mean....
 
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...

You can continue to hope that Alice falls down that rabbit hole of yours; but it's not going to happen. :cof1:

You need to start preparing yourself to accept the fact that gay marriages are going to occur.
 
No queer marriage in ancient Rome, either.

"In the early Roman Republic, pederasty with freeborn boys was considered a degenerate Greek practice and as such was generally condemned. Conservative thinkers condemned it — along with other forms of indulgence. Tacitus attacks the Greek customs of "gymnasia et otia et turpes amores" (palaestrae, idleness, and shameful loves). In the mid Republic homosexual acts were widely accepted, if the active partner was a Roman, and the passive partner a slave or non-Roman. Deviations from this pattern were morally condemned, but apparently had few legal consequences. Martial and Plautus describe a wide range of homosexual behaviors, in part to poke fun at them like other minor standard deviations, but without too much moralizing. On the other hand, there is also from the year 108 an indictment against C. Vibius Maximus, a Roman officer in Egypt who had a sexual relationship with a young nobleman. Public speeches usually condemned all forms of homosexuality. Negative attitudes towards same-sex relations continued following the adoption of Christianity and in 390, laws were re-enacted, making such relations punishable by death."

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome"]Homosexuality in ancient Rome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Warren_Cup_BM_GR_1999.4-26.1_n1.jpg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ee/Warren_Cup_BM_GR_1999.4-26.1_n1.jpg/220px-Warren_Cup_BM_GR_1999.4-26.1_n1.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/e/ee/Warren_Cup_BM_GR_1999.4-26.1_n1.jpg/220px-Warren_Cup_BM_GR_1999.4-26.1_n1.jpg[/ame]

So beyond betraying a fondness for young, hairless boys, the gay-tards have failed again.
 
Dixie said:
Shut the fuck up you goddamn moron!
Click to expand...

Awww, Dixie. Getting upset is bad for the blood pressure and God forbid something should happen to you. As you well know you're the comical relief many folks look forward to hearing from.

If not for your own sake don't let down your "fans". Look after your health.
 
RStringfield said:
Of course, they have.

are you going to pretend a gay man can't leave his estate to any one he chooses?......your lying.....

This line of argument which religious nuts use to pretend their demands for theocratic laws is actually secular, is just bullshit.
Click to expand...
no, your arguments are bullshit, and I'm getting very tired of them.....

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?
Click to expand...
nobody is preventing them from choosing a partner and it's absolutely ridiculous for you to claim they have....the only issue is whether they can change the law to force their choices on us as the equivalent of marriage.....
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
RStringfield said:
No, that would be unexpected. Abnormal simply means not typical, usual or regular. Rare.

A red headed person is abnormal. So is a lefty.
Click to expand...

suit yourself, I don't agree.....I think it is reasonable to expect a person could be either right or left handed, I would consider both to be normal.....however, it is biologically abnormal for a man to be sexually stimulated by someone of the same sex, just as it is abnormal for cancer cells to develop instead of normal cells....
 
Southern Woman said:
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."

Homosexuality in ancient Greece - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

When you decide to refer to an article, it would be in your best interests to read the entire thing.
It might stop you from allowing everyone else to see how stupid you are.

The roots of Greek pederasty lie in the tribal past of Greece, before the rise of the city-state as a unit of political organization. These tribal communities were organized according to age groups. When it came time for a boy to embrace the age group of the adult and to "become a man," he would leave the tribe in the company of an older man for a period of time that constituted a rite of passage. This older man would educate the youth in the ways of Greek life and the responsibilities of adulthood, and he would also take the boy as his lover.

[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]
 
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...

"and the ball will be in your court"

Is that a veiled sexual reference? :D
 
PostmodernProphet said:
sorry, but I don't care to be called 'racist' by some fucked up little pissant..... my conversation with you is over....
Click to expand...

But see I never called you a racist, so your angst is your own self-delusion.

Your inablity to admit that your attempt to make it appear that I did, is a lie, makes you a coward.
 
Last edited:
apple0154 said:
It was only considered abnormal to kill ones unborn child if there wasn't a reason or until a relatively safe method could be found. Civilizations left genetically damaged children to die because they could not determine genetic defects before birth. Also, children were left to die if the bearer of the child knew they could not look after it. Food shortage, lack of other resources, etc.

Talk of souls entering male fetuses before female fetuses, arguments about souls entering fetuses at "quickening" and, my favorite, the deal made between Napoleon of France and the Pope in 1869, where Napoleon declared the Pope infallible in exchange for the Pope telling his flock it was a crime against God to abort because the population of France was declining and Napoleon wanted to make sure there were enough new bodies to send to the slaughter of war.

Outlawing abortion, for reasons based on everything from the absurd to the vile, is an example of the normal becoming the abnormal. We can be thankful for the prevailing sense of the SCOTUS and other intelligent leaders of various countries.
Click to expand...

there you go pretending all abortions are of genetically deformed children again......what about the other 99%?.....
 
Dixie said:
???? 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.
Click to expand...

Do you think a judge would welcome being overturned?

Dixie said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's a tall hurdle. I think if it were likely it would have been done already. It's quite different to oppose gay marriage at the state level and support a ban on it via a federal constitutional amendment.

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!
Click to expand...

Your threats are empty and laughable. Your team has lost every one of these battles and you will lose this one. Time is not on your side.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
When you decide to refer to an article, it would be in your best interests to read the entire thing.
It might stop you from allowing everyone else to see how stupid you are.

The roots of Greek pederasty lie in the tribal past of Greece, before the rise of the city-state as a unit of political organization. These tribal communities were organized according to age groups. When it came time for a boy to embrace the age group of the adult and to "become a man," he would leave the tribe in the company of an older man for a period of time that constituted a rite of passage. This older man would educate the youth in the ways of Greek life and the responsibilities of adulthood, and he would also take the boy as his lover.

Homosexuality in ancient Greece - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

You think that child molestation = queer marriage?

Maybe you've spent too much time on the NAMBLA website.
 
Southern Man said:
Marriage between one man and one woman has always been part of the 5000 year history. Queer marriage has never been.
Click to expand...

Marriage has not been exclusively between one man and one woman for any appreciable period of history. Unless you are going to name specific geographic areas or cultures, you are absolutely wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top