Why homosexuality should be banned

  • Thread starter Thread starter WinterBorn
  • Start date Start date
PostmodernProphet said:
true....we still need to sort out the mess created by the application of "full faith and credit" to that decision.....
Click to expand...

that would require a constitutional amendment and a few years

and the nation is leaning in the direction of recognizing homosexual marriage
 
Last edited:
WinterBorn said:
And??? So what if a generation (or the rest of the generations) thinks that gay marriage is ok?

What will happen then? Will they turn gay? You have already said that you believe its something you are born with.

So what will happen then? Will they grow up thinking that the fact that two people love each other is more important than what genitalia they have?

What is wrong with people thinking gay marriage is normal?
Click to expand...

what's wrong with it is forcing government involvement to bring it about.....liberal manipulation of society.....promoting the liberal agenda through mind control.....if you want to surrender to an abnormal lifestyle so be it....don't drag the rest of society down with you......
 
Southern Man said:
So what's with you champions of queer marriage? Is there something that y'all want to tell us about?
Click to expand...

yes, we believe in equal rights under the law

also, my adoptive father molested my brother an me and it took years to get over it

what put the finishing touch on it was when i worked in sf for and with homosexuals and discovered that they were not really different as a group - just decent people trying to get on with their lives

ps, there is not enough love in the world as you demonstrate
 
PostmodernProphet said:
/shrugs....I tore it apart the first time someone raised it....I don't need to repeat it each time it raises it's feeble head.....
Click to expand...

we DO NOT have to change the definition of marriage to allow homosexuals to marry....it is not defined in the constitution and when an amendment to try and define it in the constitution (FMA) came up for vote.....it FAILED....

they did in fact change the definition of schools.....instead of white schools and black schools, they became simply schools....


^facts^ undisputed facts...you didn't tear anything apart...:)
 
Southern Man said:
So what's with you champions of queer marriage? Is there something that y'all want to tell us about?
Click to expand...

ep......if you going to accept as "normal" britney spears one day marriage, being married by a elvis in vegas, a 50% divorce rate....then worrying that homosexual marriage is going to somehow weaken marriage is a very weak argument....hetros have weakened already
 
Yurt said:
we DO NOT have to change the definition of marriage to allow homosexuals to marry....it is not defined in the constitution and when an amendment to try and define it in the constitution (FMA) came up for vote.....it FAILED....
Click to expand...

obviously we have to change the definition of marriage, or gays would already be marrying.....there are places besides the constitution where things are defined.....dictionaries come to mind......
 
Yurt said:
ep......if you going to accept as "normal" britney spears one day marriage, being married by a elvis in vegas, a 50% divorce rate....then worrying that homosexual marriage is going to somehow weaken marriage is a very weak argument....hetros have weakened already
Click to expand...

are you speculating that the only bad thing that can happen in the world is gay marriage?.....we have to permit gay marriage because Brittany Spears is a fuckup?..........we have to permit gay marriage because the war in Iraq is worse?.....we have to permit gay marriage because there is global warming?....love your new logic.....did you borrow it from a liberal?......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
obviously we have to change the definition of marriage, or gays would already be marrying.....there are places besides the constitution where things are defined.....dictionaries come to mind......
Click to expand...

then why was FMA needed genius....to define marriage in the constitution of the united states where it is not defined....

edit:

and that is why CA had to amend its constitution....because it was not defined as between a man and woman and the CA SC agreed....hence why they tried to get FMA...but it failed and the scotus will rule it violates the EP just like the cali court did.....
 
Last edited:
Yurt said:
ep......if you going to accept as "normal" britney spears one day marriage, being married by a elvis in vegas, a 50% divorce rate....then worrying that homosexual marriage is going to somehow weaken marriage is a very weak argument....hetros have weakened already
Click to expand...
The marriages that you described, like queer marriage, degrade traditional marriage and are far from normal.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
are you speculating that the only bad thing that can happen in the world is gay marriage?.....we have to permit gay marriage because Brittany Spears is a fuckup?..........we have to permit gay marriage because the war in Iraq is worse?.....we have to permit gay marriage because there is global warming?....love your new logic.....did you borrow it from a liberal?......
Click to expand...

what you don't realize is how stupid it is to claim homosexual marriage is somehow going to harm marriage when hetro's have already harmed marriage to the point where it is not even religious....so if it has nothing to do with religion, wtf do you care if to adults of the same sex get married?

you want to permit britney type marriages, marriage by elvis, 50% divorce rate....but oh no, watch out because the homos are going to ruin our marriages....lol
 
DonQuixote said:
yes, we believe in equal rights under the law

also, my adoptive father molested my brother an me and it took years to get over it

what put the finishing touch on it was when i worked in sf for and with homosexuals and discovered that they were not really different as a group - just decent people trying to get on with their lives

ps, there is not enough love in the world as you demonstrate
Click to expand...

Are you confessing to me that you're queer?
 
Yurt said:
yet you allow them, thanks for admitting that you are for some non normal marraiges but not others....thats might bigot of you SM :)
Click to expand...
I don't get to allow or disallow Yurt. I don't support either type of sham marriage that you described.
 
Southern Man said:
I don't get to allow or disallow Yurt. I don't support either type of sham marriage that you described.
Click to expand...

why aren't you out there asking your political leaders to ban or outlaw those types of marriages? why only do you voraciously speak out against homosexual marraige? why do you feel you get to disallow gay marriage with yoru vote?

SM...as you can see....allowing homosexual marriages isn't really going to anything to hetrosexual marriage....nor are they goign to damage it any more than has been done....

the government needs to get out of marriage and call it a union for everyone
 
PostmodernProphet said:
true, they can't "marry".....they can't be a "cup of tea" either.....should we change the definition of a "cup of tea" so they can be a "cup of tea"?......
Click to expand...

You seem to have nothing left, in your bag of complaints, except to keep talking about things that have nothing to do with what was being discussed.

The marriage definition will be changed and you will have to accept it. :cof1:
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I choose to conclude you are no better at understanding my arguments than you were on the previous page....I am not a bigot, there is no correlation between this issue and interracial marriage....choosing to try to "marry" and choosing to be gay are obviously not the same thing and could have conflicting conclusions.....
Click to expand...

The "choosing" to be gay is not my definition, it's yours; so be proud of your bigotry.
Own up to it and wear it like the tarnished medallion is it. :good4u:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top