"Opponents of gay marriage often cite Scripture."

[eots]

this thread is so gay

 

[ABikerSailor]

Whenever I come on message boards, I find it's usually after 20 posts when the resident old fart blowhard tries to smack down the newbie, only to be handed his ass. Seems you've also fulfilled this in single-digits. Congrats.

BTW, I think this douche needs to be known as A Bitch-ass Sissy, since that's what he acts like.

Funny, but Bitch-ass here calls me a homophobe for not supporting gay marriage...right after making a stereotypical joke about decorating.

I guess even if I did think my cock, I'd still be smarter than your ignorant ass.



Marital benefits aren't rights, and the gay community hasn't proven why same-sex couples deserve those benefits beyond the fact that they exist and love each other.

ETA: Why is it that the Right has to eat it on this issue? Most people in Congress -- Democrat, Republican, or Independent -- believes marriage is between one man and one woman. But in the political arena, it gets twisted like the Democrats are more friendly to the gay marriage cause than Republicans...then they go to Congress and nothing changes.

Really? Then why did you proposition me and invite me to blow you douchebag?

By the way Shit Sac, you never stated how old your punk ass is. Or, are you one of those pussy assed college boys that is too scared to join the military? Or, are you still flipping burgers at McD's?

 

[Lycurgus]

Forget the bible, being queer is against nature too!

I won't let my personal beliefs interfere with what others do in their life, so long as their life doesn't hinder my life in any fashion, but, my opinion is mine and being queer is contradictory of nature.

Men are built one way and women another for a reason. It doesn't matter if you want to use the bible to make the case or nature it's self. The result is the same! Period.

 

[chrismac]

Really? Then why did you proposition me and invite me to blow you douchebag?

By the way Shit Sac, you never stated how old your punk ass is. Or, are you one of those pussy assed college boys that is too scared to join the military? Or, are you still flipping burgers at McD's?

It was obviously a rhetorical proposition. Gee, sorry. I forgot you take your cocksucking seriously.

Why do you care how old I am, bitch ass?

 

[Lycurgus]

The perverse act of same sex sexual interaction crosses all religious lines. Nature well defined who and what the two sexes are meant to be, in their proper order. Those who defy that are the demented and disturbed.

However, so long as they do not push their perversion on me or mine, I have no concern with how they live their sick lives.

 

[PeterS]

Marital benefits aren't rights, and the gay community hasn't proven why same-sex couples deserve those benefits beyond the fact that they exist and love each other.

ETA: Why is it that the Right has to eat it on this issue? Most people in Congress -- Democrat, Republican, or Independent -- believes marriage is between one man and one woman. But in the political arena, it gets twisted like the Democrats are more friendly to the gay marriage cause than Republicans...then they go to Congress and nothing changes.

First, you promised a secular argument and didn't give one. Again I ask, what is it? Second, we are a constitutional republic not a democracy. What the majority thinks is irrelevant. If the majority wanted to ban marriage all together would it be within the constitution to do so? Third, the right to pursue happiness is certainly implied and implicit in our founding documents. If marriage isn't a right then what is it and why would any government agency bother with regulating it? Why issue a license if there is no right to engage in the act? Fourth, proven they deserve those benefits? How in the hell has the heterosexual community proven they deserve the benefits of marriage?

 

[chrismac]

Where in my argument did I rely on the Bible or God as why I'm against gay marriage? Since every step of the democratic process involves popular vote (electing officials, passing laws, striking down laws, deciding court cases, amending Constitutions), I'd say "what the majority thinks is irrelevant" is pretty naive. Marriage is a right, but the man/woman stipulation is intrinsic in that right, according to most people in most places for all of human history. The government isn't regulating who marries in the literal sense; it's regulating how it bestows marital benefits. Considering any benefits it gives are a) costly, to varying degrees, b) funded by tax dollars, and c) based on a compelling, and most likely enduring reason, it has to regulate benefits.

And "how in the hell has the heterosexual community proven they deserve the benefits of marriage" does the same thing the article in the OP does: forgoes making a case for gay marriage by trying to cynically cut down and show skepticism to the nature of heterosexual marriage. I'll put it like this: all the emotion and legal benefits and "civil rights" status placed on marriage was done so under the "heterosexual" version of it. If it's so important, that's because we made it important.

 

[Lycurgus]

Secular?

It's simple, nature makes the case very clearly for mammals. There are makes and there are females. This is used for reproduction purposes and in some unique cases, humans being one, it also permits for sexual gratification. The physiological body parts are designed to go together very well, as nature intended to achieve both. If the human male penis was intended to be inserted into the human rectum, then the rectum would provide the reproduction process. However, it does not.

I guess that is as simple, as basic and as secular as it can be explained. Of course anyone can come along and twist these basic facts to their own personal perversion.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Whatever. I'd seen that article on HuffPo -- the liberal atheist clearinghouse that it is -- and I couldn't read it then, either.

The article starts off with this same kind of "well, see, people who believe in traditional marriage are wrong because look at the other archaic traditions that are in the tradition of marriage." It trips on its own two feet, because all the examples it gives are between who? Men and women.

I think it's a gross oversimplification of what the Bible says, and does so with a fair amount of self-righteous pandering to the Left. At this stage in the game, I think there's a legitimate legal secular argument against gay marriage that doesn't even rely on Biblical tenets. I just think a lot of people love complaining about religious doctrine, whatever it is, rather than maintain this dishonest altruistic need to separate church and state. I hear more people complain about the homosexual persecution by religious people than I've ever actually seen it play out.

It's funny how using the Bible is all cool and respectable when it's used to justify gay marriage, but when it's used to deny it, oh, separation of church and state!
Pick a side, and stay there, is all I ask.

"
Pick a side, and stay there, is all I ask."

Picking a side and staying there sounds like a recipe for a closed mind, which I hope you would/could overcome with new information and insight.

I do not think people understand their own biases, prejudices and bigotry and that is okay on some level. It is what makes life interesting. If I were to say I think you may be a bit bigoted on this, it is not meant as an insult, only an observation. Think of it as when I say somebody is ignorant of something. The negative connotations are usually on the side of others---not meant by me. Ignorance in it's simplest is nothing but a lack of knowledge about something. Bigotry is nothing but being stuck in a position and staying there no matter what information comes along.

Arguing that traditional marriage as an institution is in danger because of gay marriages is an argument born of fear and loathing and ignorance. Traditional marriage has been soiled since the very first divorce and first adultry, so blaming gays for some hypothetical destruction of a flawed institution is an ignorant argument. We as a society accept so much in marriages that violate the 'sacred' oaths uttered before gods and civil authorities that it is laughable in a sad way to even entertain the arguments that marriage is somehow threatened because two individuals of the same sex/gender want what individuals of different genders have---a recognition of their love and bonds.

I would hope you could argue about marriage outside of religion because that is what the court cases are about---civil marriages.

and please, can you name one thing that the fear mongers in Massachusetts warned about if gays got married that has come to be?

 

[PeterS]

Where in my argument did I rely on the Bible or God as why I'm against gay marriage?

You haven't made an argument against gay marriage. That is what I am asking you to do. Tradition is not an argument. We've had any number of traditions that haven't held up constitutionally. Nor can you cite majority homophobia as a valid reason-again we are a constitutional republic even though you think it irrelevant.

The pursuit of happiness is certainly a right. Marriage to the person you love is part of that which gives us happiness and clearly it is being denied to some. Other than a tradition of bigotry and hatred against homosexuality what is the reason for discrimination against a minority?

 

[PeterS]

Secular?

It's simple, nature makes the case very clearly for mammals. There are makes and there are females. This is used for reproduction purposes and in some unique cases, humans being one, it also permits for sexual gratification. The physiological body parts are designed to go together very well, as nature intended to achieve both. If the human male penis was intended to be inserted into the human rectum, then the rectum would provide the reproduction process. However, it does not.

I guess that is as simple, as basic and as secular as it can be explained. Of course anyone can come along and twist these basic facts to their own personal perversion.

Marriage isn't necessary for reproduction. I am asking for a secular argument against gay marriage. What is it? And for all those men and women who practice anal intercourse the question being begged is whether they do so for sexual gratification? What do you think???

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You haven't made an argument against gay marriage. That is what I am asking you to do. Tradition is not an argument. We've had any number of traditions that haven't held up constitutionally. Nor can you cite majority homophobia as a valid reason-again we are a constitutional republic even though you think it irrelevant.

The pursuit of happiness is certainly a right. Marriage to the person you love is part of that which gives us happiness and clearly it is being denied to some. Other than a tradition of bigotry and hatred against homosexuality what is the reason for discrimination against a minority?

ignorance, fear and loathing? how about closed mindedness?

 

[chrismac]

"
Pick a side, and stay there, is all I ask."

Picking a side and staying there sounds like a recipe for a closed mind, which I hope you would/could overcome with new information and insight.

I do not think people understand their own biases, prejudices and bigotry and that is okay on some level. It is what makes life interesting. If I were to say I think you may be a bit bigoted on this, it is not meant as an insult, only an observation. Think of it as when I say somebody is ignorant of something. The negative connotations are usually on the side of others---not meant by me. Ignorance in it's simplest is nothing but a lack of knowledge about something. Bigotry is nothing but being stuck in a position and staying there no matter what information comes along.

Arguing that traditional marriage as an institution is in danger because of gay marriages is an argument born of fear and loathing and ignorance. Traditional marriage has been soiled since the very first divorce and first adultry, so blaming gays for some hypothetical destruction of a flawed institution is an ignorant argument. We as a society accept so much in marriages that violate the 'sacred' oaths uttered before gods and civil authorities that it is laughable in a sad way to even entertain the arguments that marriage is somehow threatened because two individuals of the same sex/gender want what individuals of different genders have---a recognition of their love and bonds.

I would hope you could argue about marriage outside of religion because that is what the court cases are about---civil marriages.

and please, can you name one thing that the fear mongers in Massachusetts warned about if gays got married that has come to be?

First of all, that meant to not be a hypocrite and condone something for yourself while condemning it for other people.

"Bigotry" is a pejorative word, even if you don't mean it that way. Saying someone might not understand an issue is just that. Calling them names is just going to put people on the defensive.

Marriage is a tradition. Appealing to what it always has been isn't wrong. Saying that because it's never been perfect that we should just accept every attempt to change it is just appealing to novelty. People want to keep one thing intact: the man/woman stipulation.

It's retarded to point out that there are a lot of things that sully the point of marriage. No shit. It's not like people who disagree with gay marriage promote them, and they don't try to put them into law.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

First of all, that meant to not be a hypocrite and condone something for yourself while condemning it for other people.

"Bigotry" is a pejorative word, even if you don't mean it that way. Saying someone might not understand an issue is just that. Calling them names is just going to put people on the defensive.

Marriage is a tradition. Appealing to what it always has been isn't wrong. Saying that because it's never been perfect that we should just accept every attempt to change it is just appealing to novelty. People want to keep one thing intact: the man/woman stipulation.

People want to keep one thing intact: the man/woman stipulation.

why?

It's retarded to point out that there are a lot of things that sully the point of marriage. No shit. It's not like people who disagree with gay marriage promote them, and they don't try to put them into law.

are you comparing disgraceful breaks of a bond with gods and civil authorities with homosexuality? homosexuality is a bad thing? how?

 

[chrismac]

You haven't made an argument against gay marriage. That is what I am asking you to do. Tradition is not an argument. We've had any number of traditions that haven't held up constitutionally. Nor can you cite majority homophobia as a valid reason-again we are a constitutional republic even though you think it irrelevant.

The pursuit of happiness is certainly a right. Marriage to the person you love is part of that which gives us happiness and clearly it is being denied to some. Other than a tradition of bigotry and hatred against homosexuality what is the reason for discrimination against a minority?

Uh, yes I did. I don't believe we should give marital benefits to couples that aren't in line with what marriage has always been, don't have children, ultimately don't do anything to perpetuate society, and who can receive benefits through alternatives means.

The pursuit of happiness doesn't mean what you think it does. I mean, drowning puppies and committing arson could be one's pursuit of happiness. And the phrase is "pursuit of happiness", which means, you're allowed to pursue it. That doesn't mean you're entitled to it. Besides, society doesn't have to support you in it if they disagree with it.

The rest I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about. There is no such thing as a right to marriage to the person you love, if the person is already married, a blood relative, a minor, or of the same sex. While bigotry may exist (even though, like I said, I hear more people complain about bigotry than I see it) it's a moot point because traditional marriage is between a man and a woman, regardless who wants to be a part of it. The minority has to present a compelling reason for instituting it. Those who want to keep the status quo don't have to make them feel better about it.

 

[KittenKoder]

Forget the bible, being queer is against nature too!

I won't let my personal beliefs interfere with what others do in their life, so long as their life doesn't hinder my life in any fashion, but, my opinion is mine and being queer is contradictory of nature.

Men are built one way and women another for a reason. It doesn't matter if you want to use the bible to make the case or nature it's self. The result is the same! Period.

Great, that old and extremely lame myth. If it isn't natural then why does it happen in nature so much? Fact is, it happens in nature more than in humanity. Also since when have we been natural? Since about 1,000 BC I think was the last time we were even close to a natural species.

 

[Modbert]

VOTES = MONEY / MONEY - VOTES

MONEY & VOTES = POWER & PERSONAL WEALTH

You saw what took place on the Left-Coast, when push came to shove!

So, now they blame that on the Christian's, Blacks and Hispanics!

They blame that on them because it was those groups who voted in favor of Prop 8 by good margins.

Though you forgot the mormons which helped fund Prop 8.

 

[52ndStreet]

We must have morals in any society in order for the society to survive.
Homosexuality is an out right perversion. Legitimizing it by legalizing marriages between
Homosexuals, sends the wrong message to people in the society.And our children will become confused, as to what a normal family consists of.

We should move to remove these deviant homosexuals from our society, permanently.
We must criminalize Homosexuality, now! It is a disgusting, sick perverted, abnormal,lifestyle.It must be banned from society.

 

[Amanda]

I was going to try to read the whole thread but there was so much hostility on the first page I just skipped it. I hope if I missed anything important that will be gently pointed out to me.

To me, the Bible does not have to explicitly say gay marriage is wrong because it says homosexuality is wrong. That seems pretty straight forward to me. If I had gay feelings I would try my best to resist them and I would ask God to help to make me feel differently. I would hope no one would hate me for how I was. This is why although I don't like homosexuality, I don't have any hate for gay people. I want them to be happy and I think they would be better off not gay, but I'm not doing anything to hurt them and if the state gives them the right to get married then I will respect that. I don't think there are any inconsistencies in my thinking and the teachings of Jesus, but if you think there are could you please bring them to my attention? Thanks.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Yeah, I got a nickel. And I bet the fucker is smarter than you.

"Pigeon hole God into our little comfortable box"? What in the gently caress is your bitch ass talking about? That's the point of monotheistic religion -- faith in an idea of the nature of God. Yeah, assholes like me...

Maybe you meant to say "you're an asshole because you hate to corn hole". Yeah, sorry. Guilty as charged. Guess you gotta find another road to hoe. Then again, you probably enjoy that.

So.....you're saying that your dick is smarter than me, which means that you think with your cock. No wonder you asked me to blow you.

BTW......take your mistletoe and shove it up your ass.

Interestingly enough, since I've been on these boards, I've noticed that it generally takes someone to go from newbie to full blown stupid in at least 50 posts. Congratulations.....you've managed to do it in single digits.

BTW Everyone, I think ChrisMac should be known as Shit Sack (or Shit Sac) from now on. He thinks he's got balls, but it's pure crap.

Welcome to USMB prick.

tff