Why homosexuality should be banned

  • Thread starter Thread starter WinterBorn
  • Start date Start date
WinterBorn said:
Then you missed the point of my post.

You are saying that marriage has been refined (meaning that things have changed) but has not been changed.

Regardless of what you try and say, to refine something is to change it from its original form.
Click to expand...
So you don't understand the definitions of these two words? Is that your position?
 
Socrtease said:
Wow did you really say this? Do you know anything about the Church of Satan or other Satanic churches? Rhetorical, the short answer is no, you don't, just as you know very little about homosexuals. Satanic Homosexuals would probably cause you to stare and drool, but I digress. The definition of marriage has change over time and you refuse to see those changes for what they were. Marriage in Virginia and other southern states was recognized as one man and one woman as long they were not mixed race ( In Loving, actually Virginia was fine with a Mexican Man and Black woman marrying but a white could not marry outside of their race). That changed. The change was a revocation of bigotry, and the resistence to homosexual marriage is nothing but bigotry. The argument about the US and States recognizing marriages performed in the Wiccan Church, Marriages that were arranged in Hindu and other religious traditions carries a great deal of weight. You talk about religious freedoms and I agree. If Hinduism says you don't have know and like your spouse before you get married it's no skin off my back. But lets say that Unitarian Universalists decide, and they have, that same sex marriage fits their religious views as a valid form of marriage? Well then you want to forbid them from performing a legally recognizable marriage. So you are not foursquare in favor of religious freedom.

The other issue is Adult Child marriages, which the US tells states they must recognize IF the marriage was performed in a state our country where the union was legal. In my part of the world we from time to time get child sex cases which get dismissed when the parties produce a marriage licence or other accepted proof that a marriage was legally recognized in Mexico. Not long ago we had a 23 year old man prosecuted for rape of a 13 year old until he provided proof that they had been married in Mexico. That was a valid licence and MUST be recognized in all 50 US states. Didn't change my marriage, and I am certain that now that you know about it, it hasn't changed yours.

The truth is, you fundie marriage nazis are terrified of gay marriage being accepted, because when it is you will be be proven wrong. The world will not end, the American Society will not degenerate any faster than it already is, the incidence of people BECOMING gay will not rise significantly, though I think more people will come out of the closet. Recognition of gay marriage will only strengthen american families. There will be no worrying about what happens to the kids if the bio mom or dad dies. The nonbio parent won't have to worry about being ripped from their children and the children will not have to suffer the trauma of not only losing one parent to death but then have the state come in and rip them from the only remaining parent. Gay marriage is going to happen, it is inevitable, and you will find yourself once again on the losing side of history.
Click to expand...

:hand: :hand: :hand: :hand: :hand:
 
Socrtease said:
If it is a choice one way then it is a choice BOTH ways. So....tell us about the day you chose to sexually terrify women rather than men. Did you weigh the pros and cons? Did you decide you preferred rounder hairless asses to the more muscular and hairy? Did you decide that a labia was preferable to balls on your chin? Vaginal fluids better than semen? I am currious, because as far back as I can remember, I liked girls. My first real verifiable memory is from the age of 4 and being on a plane flying to L.A. with my grandparents and seeing this lovely 4 or 5 year old creature with beautiful blue eyes and an enchanting smile. I was smitten though I didn't know what smitten was at the time. Now, I have a gay friend who recalls sitting at the window of his house at the age of 6 and watching the teenage boy across the street mow his parents yard, and feeling that same smitten feeling. He knew at 6 he preferred balls and semen to labias and vaginal fluid. Most gay men you talk to will tell you that they KNEW at a young age that they liked boys. Most lesbians will tell you they knew they like girls from a young age. But like you and me, they can't tell you when they CHOSE to be attracted to the same sex, only when they CHOSE to come out of the closet.
Click to expand...

SM considers oral sex (sodomy) as un-natural, so he would prefer neither on his chin.
Just wanted to bring you up to speed.

As to the rest of your post, GOOD JOB.:good4u:
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
And that's what this is about.
Tradition will be "REFINED" and all States will recognize gay marriages.

There, are you happy now? :cof1:
Click to expand...
That doesn't meet the definition of refinement, but it does meet the definition of change, and of the type that Barack Obama advocates for lots of things.
 
Southern Man said:
That doesn't meet the definition of refinement, but it does meet the definition of change, and of the type that Barack Obama advocates for lots of things.
Click to expand...

So earlier when you said someone else didn't understand the definition of refinement, it was really you who was confused!! :good4u:

You could clear this up, by posting your definition (not an example) of what you FEEL the word refinment means.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
So earlier when you said someone else didn't understand the definition of refinement, it was really you who was confused!! :good4u:

You could clear this up, by posting your definition (not an example) of what you FEEL the word refinment means.
Click to expand...

I haven't been confused at all. In in fact have already posted the definitions of both words here: [ame="http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=544716&postcount=945"]Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - Why homosexuality should be banned[/ame]
 
if marriage has been refined, it is not the same as it was before....

PMP aka pampers:

your own link said there was no codification on the ban of gay marriage before 1977.....so, the law was in fact changed....you're being completely dishonest, further you are still running away from the fact that CA has changed their constitution, you should be against that....if you were intellectually honest

you also, for the 8th time now, have ignored my question on the laws that banned gay marriage....how did that work out for them?
 
Yurt said:
if marriage has been refined, it is not the same as it was before....

PMP aka pampers:

your own link said there was no codification on the ban of gay marriage before 1977.....so, the law was in fact changed....you're being completely dishonest, further you are still running away from the fact that CA has changed their constitution, you should be against that....if you were intellectually honest

you also, for the 8th time now, have ignored my question on the laws that banned gay marriage....how did that work out for them?
Click to expand...

I thought my last post answered the question you were whining about....what is it you want answered now?

my link does not say there was no codification of the ban on gay marriage before 1977......according the the California Supreme Court decision (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF), California statutes had never permitted gay marriage.

What California did do was create a "domestic partnership" which was similar in all respects except name to marriage....they held that that was a violation of the equal protection clause of the state constitution....

you seem fixated on some pipestem argument that the issue of gay marriage can only be dealt with in constitutions.....every state in the country spells out it's laws regarding marriage in it's statutes....

now, I am curious why all the liberal arguments regarding gay marriage in California quote Article 301 as proof that California did no prohibit gay marriage...

interestingly, that law still remains the same today..
An unmarried male of the age of 18 years or older, and an
unmarried female of the age of 18 years or older, and not otherwise
disqualified, are capable of consenting to and consummating marriage.
Click to expand...

the article you need to refer to, and one that I cannot find history on, is article 300...
(a) Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil
contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the
parties capable of making that contract is necessary. Consent alone
does not constitute marriage. Consent must be followed by the
issuance of a license and solemnization as authorized by this
division, except as provided by Section 425 and Part 4 (commencing
with Section 500).
(b) For purposes of this part, the document issued by the county
clerk is a marriage license until it is registered with the county
recorder, at which time the license becomes a marriage certificate.
Click to expand...

I have found no indication of what that article read like prior to 1977, do you?.....
 
I did find this...

Prior to 1977, California Civil Code section 4100 (predecessor to what is now codified at California Family Code section 300) defined marriage as: "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract, to which consent of the parties making that contract is necessary."[4]

While related sections made references to gender, a state assembly committee that was debating adding gender-specific terms to this section in 1977 noted: "Under existing law it is not clear whether partners of the same sex can get married."[5] That year, the legislature amended the definition of marriage to remove any ambiguity.
Click to expand...

is that the basis of your claim that California permitted gay marriage before 1977?
 
for the 9th time:

the laws that banned interracial marriage....how did that work out for them?

your link proves that the law had to change due to ambiguity....as i said, prior to 1977 there was no ban on gay marriage, marriage was not defined as between a man and a womanyour own research proves that....that law was in fact changed...

how you ignore constitutions is beyond me...how you ignore the fact that CA had to amend its constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman is beyond me....how you ignore the fact that approximately 26 states have had to amend their constitutions to define marriage as between a man and a woman is beyond me....

if the constitution didn't matter, pray tell why CA and the other states had to CHANGE/AMEND their laws in order to ban gay marriage? why are you not against that change? it is intellectually dishonest for you to support that change while arguing that you are against changing the definition to allow homosexual marriage....

and maybe when you finally address the interracial marriage ban, you will see why i keep bringing it up....so i ask again....how did those statutes fair on the ban of interracial marriages? trust me, the scotus will strike down the ban on statutes that define interracial marriages and i believe they will also strike down the constitutional amendments/changes that have altered the definition of marriage to only between a man and a woman....
 
Yurt said:
for the 9th time:

the laws that banned interracial marriage....how did that work out for them?

your link proves that the law had to change due to ambiguity....as i said, prior to 1977 there was no ban on gay marriage, marriage was not defined as between a man and a womanyour own research proves that....that law was in fact changed...

how you ignore constitutions is beyond me...how you ignore the fact that CA had to amend its constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman is beyond me....how you ignore the fact that approximately 26 states have had to amend their constitutions to define marriage as between a man and a woman is beyond me....

if the constitution didn't matter, pray tell why CA and the other states had to CHANGE/AMEND their laws in order to ban gay marriage? why are you not against that change? it is intellectually dishonest for you to support that change while arguing that you are against changing the definition to allow homosexual marriage....

and maybe when you finally address the interracial marriage ban, you will see why i keep bringing it up....so i ask again....how did those statutes fair on the ban of interracial marriages? trust me, the scotus will strike down the ban on statutes that define interracial marriages and i believe they will also strike down the constitutional amendments/changes that have altered the definition of marriage to only between a man and a woman....
Click to expand...

dude....you're wasting your time bringing up interracial marriage....I've answered that question and explained why it isn't relevant....so I won't "finally" discuss the interracial ban.....get over it....
 
Yurt said:
further, you should also be against DOMA, as that law CHANGED the definition of marriage to only between a man and woman....
Click to expand...

off the top of my head I don't know what "DOMA" refers to....but if it says marriage is only between a man and a woman it didn't change the definition of marriage....
 
Southern Man said:
You seem to be confused on the definition of refine.
Click to expand...

When something is refined, it is no longer the same as it was before. In other words, it is changed.

Refining usually means removing something (impurities in metal ect). So we will refine the definition of marriage by removing references to gender completely.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
dude....you're wasting your time bringing up interracial marriage....I've answered that question and explained why it isn't relevant....so I won't "finally" discuss the interracial ban.....get over it....
Click to expand...

because you know it destroys your argument, it is cowardly to "claim" you've already answered it....you haven't, thats a fact

i noticed you once again cowardly ignored the bulk of my post....it is getting annoying debating someone who continually ignores the debates

:rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top