Because marrige has always been a man and a woman, you keep asking these questions but never address....where doe it end for you? Are u ok with marrying animals? How about children? Why are gays carved out for special treatment?
How I know that the recent gay civil rights issues are manufactured
- Thread starter Dawg to the Bone
- Start date
This would be the best solution. If it's important to have some kind of a legal relationship defined by the gov't (for estate purposes, medical decision-making, etc.), then it should create legal unions that any two adults can enter into.
Satan makes em gay, welfare makes them subservient and lazy!
decline of the nuclear family (man married to woman) and government social programs produce people that like to riot and loot.
Marriage has not always been between a man and a woman. There are plenty of examples of polygamy throughout history. Regardless, why exactly shouldn't marriage be between any two consenting adults? Where's the slippery slope there? That definition excludes polygamy, bestiality, and pedophilia. Why must it be between a man and a woman other than that is how the Bible defines it?
Horse shit. We legislate morality and have from the beginning of time. You have the weak minded argument because you simply dismiss out of hand that marrying animals or children or groups are a bad Idea? How convient. What else would you like to change the defination of to fit your agenda? How about we change the defination of Pedophilia to "the love of a child" so pedophils feel accepted. Or maybe we could change the defination of anything we feel might give some special folks hurty feelings??
Last edited:
I think my point is we shouldn't legislate morality. I know it is done, but it is always a train wreck. See prohibition!!!
But you're making up the defination. The defination is between a MAN and a WOMAN. But now you want to be all intollerat and exclude other deviants in your special privilages rules, if you're going to change the defination, then change it. Marriage is what ever the fck anyone wants it to be!!! Tollerance for everyone!
So then killing would be ok? Stealing? that's the ultimate end to not legislating morality. Our laws are based in religios beliefs. Once again you're picking and choosing the ones you like. Why do you get to chose?
Really religion and morality have nothing to do with one another. Many of the most immoral people I know are Christians. Laws should be written based on the representative group they serve. Gay marriage is eventually going to be the law of the land as a more intelligent and evolved group of young people move into power, and the old guard dies off. My number one point is why don't we just put this to bed so our government can focus on solving REAL problems...
Rolo, you are ignoring the fact that pedophilia, murder, etc are illegal because there is harm to an (often innocent and even if not) party never mind the fact that they are immoral. Who is harmed when Fred and Ted get married?
Rational people understand that neither children nor animals are fully capable of understanding what marriage entails, so it's the irrational people who try to use the slippery slope argument, just like liberals do when talking about, well, just about everything. Rational people also understand that there are victims involved in pedophilia. Who is the victim if two gay people get married?
Because you're giving special rights to someone based on sexual behavior. Rational ppl can see the slippery slope. Gay lifestyle is destructive and deadly. They are victims of their own devancy. Pedophiles will tell you a 12 yr old can make decissions, but our legislating of morality tells us they can't. So if you don't want us doing that, then you can't reasonabley or intellectually argue that the other deviants are too deviant to accept. If we can't make those moral decissions then why is it bad that they have sex with children? You and I both know that answer, and probably agree. But where does it start? Special treatment for deviants you approve of.
>Marrying animals ok with you<
Good Lord! How did we go from talking about HUMAN BEINGS having the same rights as other HUMAN BEINGS to marrying animals?
We all have opinions. We all have rights to those opinions. You believe what you believe and I'll believe what I believe. The courts will rule with what they believe and use similar "rights" cases as precedence. They won't all agree because all have different interpretations of the law.
The Bible will continue to be interpreted by nobody that was there, when written, thousands of years ago.
Good Lord! How did we go from talking about HUMAN BEINGS having the same rights as other HUMAN BEINGS to marrying animals?
We all have opinions. We all have rights to those opinions. You believe what you believe and I'll believe what I believe. The courts will rule with what they believe and use similar "rights" cases as precedence. They won't all agree because all have different interpretations of the law.
The Bible will continue to be interpreted by nobody that was there, when written, thousands of years ago.
Society. Again, you're picking and choosing the deviants you like vs deviants you don't. And Fred and Ted are harmed. The lifestyle is destructive, both are likely to die early because of it.
How about an Adult father and an adult daughter having sex? Would that be acceptable? Doesn't affect you or me, but it does society. Slippery slope.
The gay lifestyle is destructive and deadly? To whom and how? Is it destructive like having kids out of wedlock and divorce, because I don't see a lot of people fulminating about outlawing either of those things. At least you seem to have realized the ridiculousness of the "marrying animals" argument.
So you think the government should save Fred and Ted from themselves? Isn't that a classic liberal argument?
You just won't accept that there lines that rational people aren't willing to cross. By your logic, we never should have given 18 year olds the right to vote, because, of course, that would have led to 5 year olds getting that right. The standard is and should be reasonableness, and except for religious objections, there really is no reasonable objection to gay marriage.
We love to pat ourselves on the back about our acceptance and inclusiveness. Good. But all things have limits. Having a drink is fine, drunk isn't. Point being there is a limit to how much of something to add till its destructive. In many, many ways or culture is going in that direction. History seems to say most great nations crash from within by erosion of key instuitions. I've sort of tended most of my adult life, since loosing my liberal views as a youth, to go with this; Alexander Solzhenitsyn's idea that for every "right" there is a corresponding personal responsibility. Instead, these days we seem to be stuck on the benchmark of the '60's: if it feels good, do it.
No, I was just responding to the question asked. I don't think the Federal Gov has any busines in what marriage is. There is no such thing as Gay marriage, there is no such thing as straight marriage. Get it?
Huh? who's talking about outlawing anything? And no, I haven't abandoned the argument. Its quite on point. You have put up arguments against it based on morality and reason. The problem you have is you believe you get to decide what is moral and reasonable. You don't.
You've already started, my guess is you simply don't know how to finish?? You honestly have no argument. There is no such thing as gay marriage, there is no Constitutional or federal right to make it so. End of story.
But I do get to decide. We all do as part of society. And just as society decided that slavery is wrong (even though some absolutely used the Bible to justify it), society is deciding that there is nothing wrong with two gay people getting the same legal benefits from marriage that straight couples do.
Your argument basically boils down to, you don't like homosexuality and you don't want gays to have the same rights you do. Hell, I don't *like* homosexuality either. But I realize the hypocrisy of deciding that their "immoral" behavior must be legislated when plenty of "immoral" behaviors that I and other straight people either might want to or have engaged in (pre-marital sex, sodomy, divorce) have been de-criminalized. If you don't have a problem with those behaviors' being legal, when those things are practiced far more widely than homosexuality, then you are really just paying lip service to the whole concept of protecting morality.
Society as a whole is harmed by the ever so slight deviations of God's laws. Look at all the "children" in Baltimore rioting and looting (10-50+ years old) there more than likely is no father in the home to teach them right from wrong. They are on the governments free cheese wagon, and it does not seem to be working. Every little step takes us further from God's grace. This ha s been the plan of big government for years, to do away with religion except for the state sanctioned religion they are trying to insert.
Society has decided several times. Every single time gay marriage is on the ballot it is overwhelmingly defeated. But ppl who think like you can't take the will of the ppl who DECIDED, so you take it to liberal courts to have unelected judges change the will of the ppl. As to your point, those things haven't be de-criminalized, they're still on the books......and no one is running around asking courts to give them special consideration. As to not liking gays. IDGAS about them one way or the other, they're free to bang who they want to. But they aren't free to change the definations of things they don't like. They have every single right you and I have, not a single thing we can do they can't
Not a judgement, they just can't marry. Or sould we change the definition of a dog to a cat. or maybe say we can marry our horse? How about if 6 ppl want to marry eachother? Whats next, civil rights for dawgy style?[/QUOTE]
The issue in these recent cases has been forcing people to participate in the union of gays, not acknowledging them or even serving them. There is a distinction. I understand the point about letting God be the judge, but at the same time there is a difference between acknowledging and sanctioning such behavior.
In reality and politically, I am in agreement with you, but I can't speak for other religious beliefs. That is the problem for me. I can't speak for others who may feel stronger (more fundamental) about their religious beliefs than I do. Who am I or the government to make these people conform to rules against their sacred religious beliefs?
Here's my .02 ... It's long but bear with it.
I will preface this all by saying I am not a Christian. I'm not an atheist either, but I have absolutely no qualms about homosexuality based on religious factors ... None of those factors exist to me personally. My disdain, contempt and dislike for homosexuality has nothing to do with what a book tells me. It has everything to do with it being an affront to human evolution and biology. Weiners are purpose built to enter vaginas, skeet skeet skeet, and make little human babies ... Man Cubs if you will. Therefore the species can perpetuate, good genes get passed on ... bad are supposed to die off ... We evolve into even more awesome alpha predators than we are.
Therefore, any human male who does not have the need or desire to breed with a human female (or vice versa) is an abheration in terms of evolutionary biology ... At least that's what all the scientists say in regards to other animals ... Which all The big brains agree humans are ... Cuz you know ... Darwin and all.
However...
I would also have to consider myself a libertarian. I say that because I don't give a sh@t about what any of you people do ... As long as it in no way affects me. That's because I don't want some busy body trying to control what I can and cannot do. If you're a dude and you want to tongue kiss dongs ... Awesome bro. I don't agree with it at all ... But you do you my man. In the same way I don't want your whiny @ss to get all gun grabby on me because you don't like or agree with evil boom sticks (you primitive screw heads).
In other words, just because I have misgivings about, or dislike for, something DOES NOT MEAN I want the state to ban or outlaw it. I can simply choose to disassociate myself from something. For example, I do not agree with abortions (in the vast majority of cases - not including mothers health, rape, incest etc). Again not on religious grounds but on the grounds that a baby is going to have its brains sucked out of its head, because in the vast majority of cases, people do not want to deal with the consequences of their irresponsible actions. But I in no way would ever approve of or support any legislation which would make abortion illegal.
But here's what may blow your mind ... Just because a STATE or
government entity is bound by something does not mean individual citizens or businesses are necessarily bound by something. Just because gays can get married does not mean that an individual or business can be FORCED into honoring it. If a Christian disagrees with homosexuality on the basis of religious beliefs so effing what? That individual or business is not the state, they make nor enforce no statutes therefore any discriminations or prejudices against anyone is their right under the first amendment of the constitution of the United States of America.
A Christian clergyman refusing to perform a gay wedding IS NOT ILLEGAL. That is his choice due to the inalienable right of Americans to utilize thier first amendment rights. The same for a private business which refuses to do business or serve people or groups with which they disagree with. ITS THEIR SH@t.. They can do with it whatever they choose to do. Laws forcing said clergyman to perform said ceremonies in contrast and in direct conflict with his religious beliefs, and any Anti-discrimination laws which force private companies into doing business with anyone ... For any reason ... are in my opinion unjust and unconstitutional.
Continuing to call any of this marriage equality is really just Orwellian newspeak. If it was really about marriage equality these people would be pounding the drum just as hard for other types of marriages ... Polygamy as far as I know is illegal in nearly every state except Utah. But you don't see roving bands of vigilante Mormons forcing individuals, businesses and government entities to cower to their demands do you.
This is solely because teh gheyz ... And pop culture ... And most of the media ... Are trying to make this into the civil rights movement redux. This ain't the new Selma you ass hats. This is all about hip, over privileged, mostly white people with worthless liberal arts educations, having a "cause" to bitch and moan about. Get over yourselves you petulant children.
Homos make up roughly 3% of the population ... 3 effing percent. Given our current population of roughly 330 million that's about ... What 9-10 million people (and that counts all who claimed to be gay, bi and trannies ... Numbers taken from the largest and most comprehensive study ever done on the matter with over 100k participants over all 50 states ... Will post link if you'd like to read)
Hell I would have thought it would be closer to 30 or so seeing as I can't watch tv or listen to the radio without some type of ******ry being foisted upon me. I'm almost positive there are more than 9 million Mormons in the U.S. Yet I am not constantly inundated with Latter Day Saints propaganda ... Hmmm that's weird.
I will preface this all by saying I am not a Christian. I'm not an atheist either, but I have absolutely no qualms about homosexuality based on religious factors ... None of those factors exist to me personally. My disdain, contempt and dislike for homosexuality has nothing to do with what a book tells me. It has everything to do with it being an affront to human evolution and biology. Weiners are purpose built to enter vaginas, skeet skeet skeet, and make little human babies ... Man Cubs if you will. Therefore the species can perpetuate, good genes get passed on ... bad are supposed to die off ... We evolve into even more awesome alpha predators than we are.
Therefore, any human male who does not have the need or desire to breed with a human female (or vice versa) is an abheration in terms of evolutionary biology ... At least that's what all the scientists say in regards to other animals ... Which all The big brains agree humans are ... Cuz you know ... Darwin and all.
However...
I would also have to consider myself a libertarian. I say that because I don't give a sh@t about what any of you people do ... As long as it in no way affects me. That's because I don't want some busy body trying to control what I can and cannot do. If you're a dude and you want to tongue kiss dongs ... Awesome bro. I don't agree with it at all ... But you do you my man. In the same way I don't want your whiny @ss to get all gun grabby on me because you don't like or agree with evil boom sticks (you primitive screw heads).
In other words, just because I have misgivings about, or dislike for, something DOES NOT MEAN I want the state to ban or outlaw it. I can simply choose to disassociate myself from something. For example, I do not agree with abortions (in the vast majority of cases - not including mothers health, rape, incest etc). Again not on religious grounds but on the grounds that a baby is going to have its brains sucked out of its head, because in the vast majority of cases, people do not want to deal with the consequences of their irresponsible actions. But I in no way would ever approve of or support any legislation which would make abortion illegal.
But here's what may blow your mind ... Just because a STATE or
government entity is bound by something does not mean individual citizens or businesses are necessarily bound by something. Just because gays can get married does not mean that an individual or business can be FORCED into honoring it. If a Christian disagrees with homosexuality on the basis of religious beliefs so effing what? That individual or business is not the state, they make nor enforce no statutes therefore any discriminations or prejudices against anyone is their right under the first amendment of the constitution of the United States of America.
A Christian clergyman refusing to perform a gay wedding IS NOT ILLEGAL. That is his choice due to the inalienable right of Americans to utilize thier first amendment rights. The same for a private business which refuses to do business or serve people or groups with which they disagree with. ITS THEIR SH@t.. They can do with it whatever they choose to do. Laws forcing said clergyman to perform said ceremonies in contrast and in direct conflict with his religious beliefs, and any Anti-discrimination laws which force private companies into doing business with anyone ... For any reason ... are in my opinion unjust and unconstitutional.
Continuing to call any of this marriage equality is really just Orwellian newspeak. If it was really about marriage equality these people would be pounding the drum just as hard for other types of marriages ... Polygamy as far as I know is illegal in nearly every state except Utah. But you don't see roving bands of vigilante Mormons forcing individuals, businesses and government entities to cower to their demands do you.
This is solely because teh gheyz ... And pop culture ... And most of the media ... Are trying to make this into the civil rights movement redux. This ain't the new Selma you ass hats. This is all about hip, over privileged, mostly white people with worthless liberal arts educations, having a "cause" to bitch and moan about. Get over yourselves you petulant children.
Homos make up roughly 3% of the population ... 3 effing percent. Given our current population of roughly 330 million that's about ... What 9-10 million people (and that counts all who claimed to be gay, bi and trannies ... Numbers taken from the largest and most comprehensive study ever done on the matter with over 100k participants over all 50 states ... Will post link if you'd like to read)
Hell I would have thought it would be closer to 30 or so seeing as I can't watch tv or listen to the radio without some type of ******ry being foisted upon me. I'm almost positive there are more than 9 million Mormons in the U.S. Yet I am not constantly inundated with Latter Day Saints propaganda ... Hmmm that's weird.
So much that is factually wrong in this post. As of 2012, six states had legalized gay marriage through legislative or ballot process. As of 2010, adultery was criminalized in maybe half the states. As of last year, only about 12 states had anti-sodomy laws. I never said you didn't like gays. Gays aren't changing laws. Gays don't have the right to marry whomever they love.
So you can't claim that denying gays the right to marry is a morality issue because you don't really care about hetero activity which is immoral being legislated, only the behavior of gays.
and more no... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...al_amendments_banning_same-sex_unions_by_type Only through unelect liberal judges...
How about we redefine those issues? its not adultery, its consenting sex between two adults? Its not a BJ, its the use of ones adult mouth by another consenting adult?? Work for you?
It's true, some states which have voted to keep same-sex marriage illegal have had it forced on them. However, many states have legalized it through legislative action. I suppose you can say that legislatures forced it on those states, but that is far different than when unelected judges have done it.
Wait, what? 3 of the most liberal states in the Country and they won by slime margins. 32 Stats overwhelmingly voted it down. Then your liberal buddies use stacked courts to over turn the will of the people. Its really more than gay , no not gay, Homosexual marriage. Its an attack on The Constitution and Religion. There is no Constitutional right to homo marriage. END OF STORY.
What if a church wants to marry a gay couple? Wouldn't that be a constitutional right for the church?
