Life as we know it is about to be destroyed

[AllieBaba]

You believe wrong, and your left-wing spin comparing gay marriage to interracial marriage is intellectually dishonest. Race is defined factually by genetics. Aberrant sexual behavior is defined only by the behavior.

Rather than give equal rights under the law; which, gays already have, a ruling specifically for a group defined solely by its behavior gives that group unequal rights under the law.

Despite your attempt to paint those who oppose gay marriage as fearmongering alarmists, the truth is more along the lines of opposing special laws that cater solely to minorities and their idiosyncracies and/or legislating from the bench to circumvent and usurp the power of the legislature and the will of the majority.

If you want to talk apocalyptic, I'd say when we're so fucked up in the head that the aberrant minority can always find a court that will allow it to enforce its will on the majority, that something is DEFINTELY ass-backward arond here.

Besides which, the term "marriage" is the definitive word that describes (hopefully) a life long union between a man and a woman.
Not between men of a certain race and a woman of a certain race.
Not between men and men.
Not between women and women.
Not between men, women, and women, and women.
Not between men, women and various and assorted pets.

 

[doeton]

There was an old fellow of Lyme
Who lived with three wives at one time.
When asked, 'Why the third?'
He replied, 'One’s absurd,
and bigamy, sir, is a crime.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy

 

[doeton]

The Hebrew Bible indicates that polygyny was practised by the ancient Hebrews. Though the institution was not extremely common it was not particularly unusual and was certainly not prohibited or discouraged by the Bible. No where in the Torah or the rest of the Bible is monogamy established as a rule or even a desireable principle.[19] The Bible mentions approximately forty polygynists, including such prominent figures as Abraham, Jacob, Esau, Moses, David and King Solomon, with little or no further remark on their polygyny as such.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy

 

[Shogun]

If I don't respond to something you wrote, it's either because I skipped over it or didn't think it merited the effort of a response. I can only roll my eyes so much, so expect me to ignore you frequently.

If your fragile ego needs a response, try less insult and more reason. Given your limited reasoning abilities, I'm willing to settle for less insult.

oh come the fuck on mr. "I doubt you could afford or have years to offer law school"... Say, why didn't you reply to my point instead of resorting to talking shit, Mr. Lawyer? Indeed, you should probably be the guy giving lectures on less insults and more reason.

 

[ReillyT]

Besides which, the term "marriage" is the definitive word that describes (hopefully) a life long union between a man and a woman.
Not between men of a certain race and a woman of a certain race.
Not between men and men.
Not between women and women.
Not between men, women, and women, and women.
Not between men, women and various and assorted pets.

Apparently, you would be right everywhere in the US except California and Massachusetts. Generally though, marriage is a concept defined by law (and religion - but that is a separate issue), and laws do change (as do religions coincidentally).

 

[Dogger]

yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, . . .

You can follow my response to RGS, too, buttwipe.

 

[Shogun]

You can follow my response to RGS, too, buttwipe.

PROFOUND response, lawyer..





indeed, I kinda figured you didn't have anything with which to respond.

 

[AllieBaba]

The Hebrew Bible indicates that polygyny was practised by the ancient Hebrews. Though the institution was not extremely common it was not particularly unusual and was certainly not prohibited or discouraged by the Bible. No where in the Torah or the rest of the Bible is monogamy established as a rule or even a desireable principle.[19] The Bible mentions approximately forty polygynists, including such prominent figures as Abraham, Jacob, Esau, Moses, David and King Solomon, with little or no further remark on their polygyny as such.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy

Ok, fine, so marriage can be between one man and multiple women.
But I don't think anywhere in the Bible or in any dictionary is it defined as a union between same sexes (though I've no doubt the definition will be changed now, yippee skippy, hope everyone is happy now we're making words not mean anything specific anymore).

 

[AllieBaba]

Apparently, you would be right everywhere in the US except California and Massachusetts. Generally though, marriage is a concept defined by law (and religion - but that is a separate issue), and laws do change (as do religions coincidentally).

And language.
We'll just have to think up a new word that means "marriage between man and woman only" only the libs will have a fit with that, too.

 

[doeton]

And language.
We'll just have to think up a new word that means "marriage between man and woman only" only the libs will have a fit with that, too.

i've no problem with a religion setting up it's own name for their custom.

i loved the what was it...new virginity...deal...man...i'llhave to google that.

sompin like "i was a slut, but now i'm going to be virgin again"

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If I don't respond to something you wrote, it's either because I skipped over it or didn't think it merited the effort of a response. I can only roll my eyes so much, so expect me to ignore you frequently.

If your fragile ego needs a response, try less insult and more reason. Given your limited reasoning abilities, I'm willing to settle for less insult.

Ahh the coward has been forced to respond and with idiocy no less. How does it feel, counselor? o be totally wrong on an assumption after making an open attack?

 

[Dogger]

blada, blada, blada, blada, yaba, daba, do . . .

I'm not laughing with you. I'm laughing at you.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I'm not laughing with you. I'm laughing at you.

And everyone else is laughing AT you for being the board fool.

 

[Dogger]

And everyone else is laughing AT you for being the board fool.

Sure, .

You have 9.7 times the number of posts I have, yet only 3.4 times the Rep Points and Rep Power. That ratio of almost 3:1 is even worse for you, given the ratio of conservatives to liberals on this board. Keep deluding yourself.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And yet you can not accept that on this issue you are totally wrong, you made a bad assumption that bit you in the ass and then tried to ignore it. Faiking that your response has been to pretend I have no point. You screwed up, be a man admit it. You will feel better.

Now if you had done a little research or paid attention more you would have known my position on Gays, marriage and such. Instead you just assumed I was against them in the manner you thought would let you make fun of me. Sucks to be you, doesn't it?

 

[Dogger]

And yet you can not accept that on this issue you are totally wrong, you made a bad assumption that bit you in the ass and then tried to ignore it. Faiking that your response has been to pretend I have no point. You screwed up, be a man admit it. You will feel better.

Now if you had done a little research or paid attention more you would have known my position on Gays, marriage and such. Instead you just assumed I was against them in the manner you thought would let you make fun of me. Sucks to be you, doesn't it?

Projection, Definition No. 8

 

[Diuretic]

"Marriage" is a social construct, it can mean anything you want it to at any given time.

One thing I've thought about is why someone has to "give away" the bride. Is she still a chattel?

 

[Ravi]

"Marriage" is a social construct, it can mean anything you want it to at any given time.

One thing I've thought about is why someone has to "give away" the bride. Is she still a chattel?

Old sexist habits die hard.