It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Pop23]

Please link the marriage law that sex is a qualification.

You say the two groups I outlined are not similarily situated but give no explanation? We are to give your word for it?

Here, one group is made up exclusively of the same gender, the other is exclusively made up of the same gender. AND THEYRE NOT SIMILARILY SITUATED?

Be so kind as to share your obvious knowledge.

Hetrosexual same sex do not have sex with each other. You are denying a civil right based on a different demographic groups desires.

Where have we heard that argued before?

I point out how incest between same-sex siblings cannot legally have sex and you switch it up to same-sex sibling marriage.



And they are not similarily situated since homosexuality is legal while incest, even between same-sex family members, is not.

Yes dimwit, when marriage is the issue, it will come up in the conversation.

Again, incest is an act. Tell me how two same sex heterosexuals are going to act on an impulse they do not have.

Go ahead.

You still haven't gotten past the reality that same-sex incest remains illegal even though gay sex is legal. You have to get past that before you can establish a claim on same-sex incestuous marriage.

How is a same sex heterosexual relationship incestuous? You realize incest involves an act that Hetros do not perform together. True Story. No act, no crime. Sorry that hurts your withering argument, but that's how it works.

You keep bringing up same sex incest relationship when it doesn't apply to the denial of rights to couples who would not have sex together. Kinda strange dude. Seek help.

Of course it applies. Incest is illegal regardless of the make up of genders. You think it's the government's job to monitor a couple's bedroom to make sure they're not having sex?

Incest is an action dimwit. You have yet to provide an explanation as to how an act occurs between two individuals that have no desire for such an act?

Please quit deflecting and attempt an answer to your own assertion.

 

[Faun]

Good point -- you probably don't know due to your infliction.

Me? I'm straight and married with kids. Same-sex marriage isn't about me -- it's about equality under the law.

Equality under the law is the point. Why is it equal to exclude similarily situated adults from the benefits of marriage?

Please, and "because they will act on a desire they don't have" is an unacceptable answer.

That's not my answer. I've given my answer. You either don't like it or you don't understand it.

Again with the because you say so chit.

That wasn't my answer either; proving it's not that you didn't like it -- you really didn:t understand it.

And you have zero clue as to what incest is. You seem to think incest can occur with no participating individuals.

Again, seek help. You need it

Looks like you've completely abandoned your idiocy that same-sex marriage opens the door to incestuous marriage. After all the layers of your argument are peeled away, you're reduced to arguing that non-incestuous immediate family marriage should be legal.

Does this mean we've heard the last of your incestuous marriage should be legal idiocy?

 

[Faun]

Marriage is about a set of benefits, really nothing more. It's simply a private LLC or S Corp.

How sad you think that is all marriage is.

Dude, you were the group redefining it, I was cool with how it was.

Marriage was, and is, far more than just a "set of benefits." That hasn't changed because same-sex marriage can no longer be bannef. You really are ******* clueless.

I hope you're not married. I'd hate to think all you get out of it is a "set of benefits"

So the law gave you more than a set of legal benefits? I suppose it gave you love? How nice for you.

My relationship with my wife is none of your business dimwit, but the government added nothing to it except for a few useful benefits that helped us raise our kids.

You?

Didn't say it was my business; nor do I want it to be. I'm just find it sad that your marriage is nothing more than a "set a benefits."

 

[Faun]

They're not similarily situated. No immediate family members are allowed to have sex with each other. The law is applied equally to everyone.

Please link the marriage law that sex is a qualification.

You say the two groups I outlined are not similarily situated but give no explanation? We are to give your word for it?

Here, one group is made up exclusively of the same gender, the other is exclusively made up of the same gender. AND THEYRE NOT SIMILARILY SITUATED?

Be so kind as to share your obvious knowledge.

Hetrosexual same sex do not have sex with each other. You are denying a civil right based on a different demographic groups desires.

Where have we heard that argued before?

I point out how incest between same-sex siblings cannot legally have sex and you switch it up to same-sex sibling marriage.



And they are not similarily situated since homosexuality is legal while incest, even between same-sex family members, is not.

Yes dimwit, when marriage is the issue, it will come up in the conversation.

Again, incest is an act. Tell me how two same sex heterosexuals are going to act on an impulse they do not have.

Go ahead.

You still haven't gotten past the reality that same-sex incest remains illegal even though gay sex is legal. You have to get past that before you can establish a claim on same-sex incestuous marriage.

How is a same sex heterosexual relationship incestuous? You realize incest involves an act that Hetros do not perform together. True Story. No act, no crime. Sorry that hurts your withering argument, but that's how it works.

You keep bringing up same sex incest relationship when it doesn't apply to the denial of rights to couples who would not have sex together. Kinda strange dude. Seek help.

Why is it strange given your whole argument has been about how same-sex marriage opens the door to incestuous marriage?

Now you're saying it's not about incestuous marriage.

 

[Pop23]

Equality under the law is the point. Why is it equal to exclude similarily situated adults from the benefits of marriage?

Please, and "because they will act on a desire they don't have" is an unacceptable answer.

That's not my answer. I've given my answer. You either don't like it or you don't understand it.

Again with the because you say so chit.

That wasn't my answer either; proving it's not that you didn't like it -- you really didn:t understand it.

And you have zero clue as to what incest is. You seem to think incest can occur with no participating individuals.

Again, seek help. You need it

Looks like you've completely abandoned your idiocy that same-sex marriage opens the door to incestuous marriage. After all the layers of your argument are peeled away, you're reduced to arguing that non-incestuous immediate family marriage should be legal.

Does this mean we've heard the last of your incestuous marriage should be legal idiocy?

Oh Dear, you caught me.

So it appears that your idiocy over same sex Hetero marriage now being justified has disappeared ( until we get to equal protection, then it will likely rear its ugly head again).

 

[Pop23]

Marriage is about a set of benefits, really nothing more. It's simply a private LLC or S Corp.

How sad you think that is all marriage is.

Dude, you were the group redefining it, I was cool with how it was.

Marriage was, and is, far more than just a "set of benefits." That hasn't changed because same-sex marriage can no longer be bannef. You really are ******* clueless.

I hope you're not married. I'd hate to think all you get out of it is a "set of benefits"

So the law gave you more than a set of legal benefits? I suppose it gave you love? How nice for you.

My relationship with my wife is none of your business dimwit, but the government added nothing to it except for a few useful benefits that helped us raise our kids.

You?

Didn't say it was my business; nor do I want it to be. I'm just find it sad that your marriage is nothing more than a "set a benefits."

And yours has government issued love.

Is that done with direct injection or through an IV drip?

 

[Pop23]

Please link the marriage law that sex is a qualification.

You say the two groups I outlined are not similarily situated but give no explanation? We are to give your word for it?

Here, one group is made up exclusively of the same gender, the other is exclusively made up of the same gender. AND THEYRE NOT SIMILARILY SITUATED?

Be so kind as to share your obvious knowledge.

Hetrosexual same sex do not have sex with each other. You are denying a civil right based on a different demographic groups desires.

Where have we heard that argued before?

I point out how incest between same-sex siblings cannot legally have sex and you switch it up to same-sex sibling marriage.



And they are not similarily situated since homosexuality is legal while incest, even between same-sex family members, is not.

Yes dimwit, when marriage is the issue, it will come up in the conversation.

Again, incest is an act. Tell me how two same sex heterosexuals are going to act on an impulse they do not have.

Go ahead.

You still haven't gotten past the reality that same-sex incest remains illegal even though gay sex is legal. You have to get past that before you can establish a claim on same-sex incestuous marriage.

How is a same sex heterosexual relationship incestuous? You realize incest involves an act that Hetros do not perform together. True Story. No act, no crime. Sorry that hurts your withering argument, but that's how it works.

You keep bringing up same sex incest relationship when it doesn't apply to the denial of rights to couples who would not have sex together. Kinda strange dude. Seek help.

Why is it strange given your whole argument has been about how same-sex marriage opens the door to incestuous marriage?

Now you're saying it's not about incestuous marriage.

Now that the redefining of marriage is complete we get the task of redefining other things.

How fun HUH?

 

[Faun]

How sad you think that is all marriage is.

Dude, you were the group redefining it, I was cool with how it was.

Marriage was, and is, far more than just a "set of benefits." That hasn't changed because same-sex marriage can no longer be bannef. You really are ******* clueless.

I hope you're not married. I'd hate to think all you get out of it is a "set of benefits"

So the law gave you more than a set of legal benefits? I suppose it gave you love? How nice for you.

My relationship with my wife is none of your business dimwit, but the government added nothing to it except for a few useful benefits that helped us raise our kids.

You?

Didn't say it was my business; nor do I want it to be. I'm just find it sad that your marriage is nothing more than a "set a benefits."

And yours has government issued love.

Is that done with direct injection or through an IV drip?

You're ******* retarded.

The government issued no love into my marriage. That is supplied by my wife, my kids, myself and my family.

But that's ok, I don't expect someone whose own marriage is limited to just a "set of benefits" to understand that. Actually, I feel sorry for you that you don't have what I have. It truly is beautiful.

 

[Faun]

I point out how incest between same-sex siblings cannot legally have sex and you switch it up to same-sex sibling marriage.



And they are not similarily situated since homosexuality is legal while incest, even between same-sex family members, is not.

Yes dimwit, when marriage is the issue, it will come up in the conversation.

Again, incest is an act. Tell me how two same sex heterosexuals are going to act on an impulse they do not have.

Go ahead.

You still haven't gotten past the reality that same-sex incest remains illegal even though gay sex is legal. You have to get past that before you can establish a claim on same-sex incestuous marriage.

How is a same sex heterosexual relationship incestuous? You realize incest involves an act that Hetros do not perform together. True Story. No act, no crime. Sorry that hurts your withering argument, but that's how it works.

You keep bringing up same sex incest relationship when it doesn't apply to the denial of rights to couples who would not have sex together. Kinda strange dude. Seek help.

Why is it strange given your whole argument has been about how same-sex marriage opens the door to incestuous marriage?

Now you're saying it's not about incestuous marriage.

Now that the redefining of marriage is complete we get the task of redefining other things.

How fun HUH?

No, you actually don't. Not unless they're warranted by their own merits.

 

[Mertex]

no authority on the planet earth gets to arbitrarily define "marriage remains the union of a man and a woman," so for you to think thats somehow objective and not some arbitrary opinion is giggle worthy and its also no longer the precedent in your very own Country. Society has now advanced past "your" opinion and has adopted a new one. Suck it up, pippy.

So, essentially, your argument is... we can arbitrarily change whatever any word means and make it mean whatever we need for it to mean in order to accommodate what we desire. I kind of think that general policy MIGHT pose a problem down the road somewhere. I also think... unless we've redefined what "free speech" means, I have the right to disagree with this policy and warn people that it's an idiotic idea.

Oh, so your whole argument is not against homosexuals being allowed to get married....your whole beef is that the word "marriage" only applies to man and a woman......and homosexuals need to find another word to describe their union......I get it......

so, why don't you do like Sarah Palin and coin a new word for them. .......how about "smarriage"? That sounds like a good word.

In essence, yes... My argument has always been regarding the importance of traditional marriage and what many people have a fundamental connection to in a cultural as well as a religious way. I don't feel that is being respected and I think that is intentional. This issue is not really about gay couples having the same rights as straight couples, it's about tearing down moral and traditional values. It's a big steamy dump on the Church. It's a chance for Socialist Seculars to flex some political muscle and act righteous in the face of indignity.

You still don't get it? Nobody cares what you feel or what you think in this matter. It has been settled. You can whine and complain all you want, but unless you can get the majority of Americans to agree with you, you're just going to get an ulcer. You have expressed your reasons for not accepting ssm, and some of us have countered with our reasons, but in the end it doesn't matter. It is over and done.

My personal view is that government shouldn't be telling us what we can call marriage. It doesn't matter which kind, it shouldn't be up to the government to decide, it should be up to US! I suggested, years ago, that we should replace "marriage licenses" with simple two-party contracts, if there is some need for such defining of domestic partnership. This would benefit any two people who want to use it, regardless of their intimate relations. I have no problem with that and I don't think most people would. I see that as a solution to the problem which respects all sides and resolves the issue to the best it can be solved for all.

Government isn't telling you what you can call marriage. The Supreme Court just told us that people of the same sex are allowed to get married. You can refrain from calling their marriage a "marriage" if it makes you feel better. You are offering homosexuals the same kind of crap that racist people wanted to offer blacks.....separate but equal. They want their union to be recognized as "marriage" and the Supreme Court who goes by the Constitution and is way more qualified in defining "law" saw that it was unconstitutional to deny them that right.

Marriage is the union of a man and woman. That's what marriage is. It can't be something else simply because we wish to accommodate people's sexuality. I understand. I sympathize. I just don't agree that's what we have to do and I think it's a terrible mistake we are making that will come back to haunt us.

You don't want government telling us what marriage is, but you feel important enough to be able to tell us what marriage is. Marriage is the legal union of two people, now. It may come back to haunt you....in fact I think it already is haunting you, but you can't say that for everyone, as the majority of Americans are okay with it.

And hey, I get that you are all excited by this and think you've now won the war and everything is right with the world because of this ruling.... but I've got news for you... Those who oppose what has been done are not going to walk around the rest of their lives with heads hung in shame like beaten children. Bibles aren't going to rewrite themselves to make homosexuality acceptable. And now that you've established the court as the arbiter of morality for us all, don't be surprised to find the court in your bedroom telling you which sexual positions are constitutional and which ones might violate constitutional rights of others.

You have a big imagination. I'm not excited by it nor am I appalled. It doesn't matter to me, it doesn't affect me or my marriage. The Bible says that we are to love our neighbor as ourself and you are forgetting that part of the Bible....you should love even homosexuals and want the same benefits for them that you get. And just a reminder, the Bible doesn't apply to our government. The constitution doesn't mention or quote the Bible....in fact, our founding fathers were intelligent enough to realize that church and state needed to remain separate. And the fact that the court has deemed same sex marriage as legal, I don't see how it has anything to do with your morality unless you feel that now you have to participate in homosexuality. And you sound terribly afraid of the government....imagining that the government is going to go so far as to tell people what sexual positions they must use.....but you and your beliefs would probably like the government to go in to people's bedrooms and make sure no one is performing sodomy. I bet you would be okay with that?

 

[Mertex]

LOL- I think you mistake us for Conservative Christians.

No, you're more of a fundamentalist wacko.

When you can't debate use ad hominem....

 

[Mertex]

so what's the point of not allowing hetro siblings from the rights and benefits of marriage.

You keep repeating that same mantra........if you feel so strongly about it you need to start a petition or file a lawsuit for the "sisters" you keep bringing up which you said you know and the court will have to consider it. You can use your arguments with them that you have used here.

I know that you are using that as your counter to same sex marriage, when it isn't even comparable and I don't know what your purpose is. It isn't like some of us have gone to great lengths to argue that we would not stand for two hetero sisters getting married....in fact, the same people that are whining about ssm would probably be the ones complaining that the two sisters shouldn't be allowed to get married.......or you would be saying that because same sex marriage was allowed, now all these other crazy situations are going to happen.

 

[Boss]

no authority on the planet earth gets to arbitrarily define "marriage remains the union of a man and a woman," so for you to think thats somehow objective and not some arbitrary opinion is giggle worthy and its also no longer the precedent in your very own Country. Society has now advanced past "your" opinion and has adopted a new one. Suck it up, pippy.

So, essentially, your argument is... we can arbitrarily change whatever any word means and make it mean whatever we need for it to mean in order to accommodate what we desire. I kind of think that general policy MIGHT pose a problem down the road somewhere. I also think... unless we've redefined what "free speech" means, I have the right to disagree with this policy and warn people that it's an idiotic idea.

Oh, so your whole argument is not against homosexuals being allowed to get married....your whole beef is that the word "marriage" only applies to man and a woman......and homosexuals need to find another word to describe their union......I get it......

so, why don't you do like Sarah Palin and coin a new word for them. .......how about "smarriage"? That sounds like a good word.

In essence, yes... My argument has always been regarding the importance of traditional marriage and what many people have a fundamental connection to in a cultural as well as a religious way. I don't feel that is being respected and I think that is intentional. This issue is not really about gay couples having the same rights as straight couples, it's about tearing down moral and traditional values. It's a big steamy dump on the Church. It's a chance for Socialist Seculars to flex some political muscle and act righteous in the face of indignity.

You still don't get it? Nobody cares what you feel or what you think in this matter. It has been settled. You can whine and complain all you want, but unless you can get the majority of Americans to agree with you, you're just going to get an ulcer. You have expressed your reasons for not accepting ssm, and some of us have countered with our reasons, but in the end it doesn't matter. It is over and done.

Well I think it remains to be seen if this is "over and done" and you should be careful underestimating your opposition. I think a lot of people do care what I think and share my viewpoint. I don't think you're going to find this any more "settled and over" than abortion. In fact, this is going to be challenged much more rigorously because it effects other rights of other people.

My personal view is that government shouldn't be telling us what we can call marriage. It doesn't matter which kind, it shouldn't be up to the government to decide, it should be up to US! I suggested, years ago, that we should replace "marriage licenses" with simple two-party contracts, if there is some need for such defining of domestic partnership. This would benefit any two people who want to use it, regardless of their intimate relations. I have no problem with that and I don't think most people would. I see that as a solution to the problem which respects all sides and resolves the issue to the best it can be solved for all.

Government isn't telling you what you can call marriage. The Supreme Court just told us that people of the same sex are allowed to get married. You can refrain from calling their marriage a "marriage" if it makes you feel better. You are offering homosexuals the same kind of crap that racist people wanted to offer blacks.....separate but equal. They want their union to be recognized as "marriage" and the Supreme Court who goes by the Constitution and is way more qualified in defining "law" saw that it was unconstitutional to deny them that right.

So it looks like your idea of "debate" is to simply contradict anything I say. Formulating the argument of "nuh-uh!" must take so much brain power! Perhaps you should take a break and go have a banana?

Yes, the SCOTUS essentially redefined marriage. This is going to be a problem because of two groups of people. Those opposed, who will continue to fight this in every way they can. And, those who are totally for it and think it should extend much further.

The SCOTUS did not go by the Constitution, and that's the whole problem here. The Constitution explicitly says things like this are the right of the people and states to decide. The case should have been turned down for lack of standing. It wasn't, they made a bad ruling, and now we'll face the consequences. You think it's over, I think it's just begun.

Marriage is the union of a man and woman. That's what marriage is. It can't be something else simply because we wish to accommodate people's sexuality. I understand. I sympathize. I just don't agree that's what we have to do and I think it's a terrible mistake we are making that will come back to haunt us.

You don't want government telling us what marriage is, but you feel important enough to be able to tell us what marriage is. Marriage is the legal union of two people, now. It may come back to haunt you....in fact I think it already is haunting you, but you can't say that for everyone, as the majority of Americans are okay with it.

The majority are NOT okay with this. I am really sorry that some poll you've drummed up is making you think that but it's just not the truth. It's interesting that in this paragraph you are admitting the definition of marriage is changed, completely in contradiction to what you said before. It is this redefinition of marriage that is going to be problematic. Pops is giving you examples and so have I, but you want to reject them with the brilliant and well-thought-out "nuh-uh!" argument. Unfortunately, the equal protection clause in the Constitution trumps the "nuh-uh!" argument.... which is really a ruse anyway. Whenever these other types of marriage are ruled constitutional, you'll find a way to support them like you've supported gay marriage. This is because you are a moral relativist.

And hey, I get that you are all excited by this and think you've now won the war and everything is right with the world because of this ruling.... but I've got news for you... Those who oppose what has been done are not going to walk around the rest of their lives with heads hung in shame like beaten children. Bibles aren't going to rewrite themselves to make homosexuality acceptable. And now that you've established the court as the arbiter of morality for us all, don't be surprised to find the court in your bedroom telling you which sexual positions are constitutional and which ones might violate constitutional rights of others.

You have a big imagination. I'm not excited by it nor am I appalled. It doesn't matter to me, it doesn't affect me or my marriage. The Bible says that we are to love our neighbor as ourself and you are forgetting that part of the Bible....you should love even homosexuals and want the same benefits for them that you get. And just a reminder, the Bible doesn't apply to our government. The constitution doesn't mention or quote the Bible....in fact, our founding fathers were intelligent enough to realize that church and state needed to remain separate. And the fact that the court has deemed same sex marriage as legal, I don't see how it has anything to do with your morality unless you feel that now you have to participate in homosexuality. And you sound terribly afraid of the government....imagining that the government is going to go so far as to tell people what sexual positions they must use.....but you and your beliefs would probably like the government to go in to people's bedrooms and make sure no one is performing sodomy. I bet you would be okay with that?

Hey don't try and use the Bible against me, I'm not a Christian. I was just pointing out that SCOTUS doesn't control religious doctrine. You people seem to want to equate this with Civil Rights but the movement for civil rights was led by a black pastor, Dr. King. It was a grass-roots movement spearheaded by the church and the issue of homosexuals marrying is condemned by the church. There is no moral equivalency, but hey... don't let that stop you from claiming it!

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I care what Boss thinks. If he's exhibiting pathology I care a great deal.

 

[Syriusly]

LOL- I think you mistake us for Conservative Christians.

No, you're more of a fundamentalist wacko.

LOL- you are the one who wants to go back to the good old days of Christian persecution of homosexuals- and predict that Supreme Court will suddenly be acting like Christian conservatives.

You are the one who is convinced that gays will be trying to pass laws so that they can rape you on the street.

Talk about a wacko

 

[Syriusly]

no authority on the planet earth gets to arbitrarily define "marriage remains the union of a man and a woman," so for you to think thats somehow objective and not some arbitrary opinion is giggle worthy and its also no longer the precedent in your very own Country. Society has now advanced past "your" opinion and has adopted a new one. Suck it up, pippy.

So, essentially, your argument is... we can arbitrarily change whatever any word means and make it mean whatever we need for it to mean in order to accommodate what we desire. I kind of think that general policy MIGHT pose a problem down the road somewhere. I also think... unless we've redefined what "free speech" means, I have the right to disagree with this policy and warn people that it's an idiotic idea.

Oh, so your whole argument is not against homosexuals being allowed to get married....your whole beef is that the word "marriage" only applies to man and a woman......and homosexuals need to find another word to describe their union......I get it......

so, why don't you do like Sarah Palin and coin a new word for them. .......how about "smarriage"? That sounds like a good word.

In essence, yes... My argument has always been regarding the importance of traditional marriage and what many people have a fundamental connection to in a cultural as well as a religious way. I don't feel that is being respected and I think that is intentional. This issue is not really about gay couples having the same rights as straight couples, it's about tearing down moral and traditional values. It's a big steamy dump on the Church. It's a chance for Socialist Seculars to flex some political muscle and act righteous in the face of indignity.

You still don't get it? Nobody cares what you feel or what you think in this matter. It has been settled. You can whine and complain all you want, but unless you can get the majority of Americans to agree with you, you're just going to get an ulcer. You have expressed your reasons for not accepting ssm, and some of us have countered with our reasons, but in the end it doesn't matter. It is over and done.

Well I think it remains to be seen if this is "over and done" and you should be careful underestimating your opposition. I think a lot of people do care what I think and share my viewpoint. I don't think you're going to find this any more "settled and over" than abortion. In fact, this is going to be challenged much more rigorously because it effects other rights of other people.!

LOL- 'because it effects the rights of other people'.

Showing once again you care deeply about the rights of people- if they are Christians- but not if they are gay.

There are people who do care- just as there were people who cared deeply about the ban on mixed race marriages ending.

It was 20 years before most Americans accepted mixed race marriages. Most Americans already accept Americans of the same gender marrying.

But there will always be those who are offended by changes to what they consider to be traditional marriage- whether that is ending bans on mixed race marriages or ending bans on same gender marriages.

Doesn't mean we have to indulge you.

 

[Syriusly]

[Q
Hey don't try and use the Bible against me, I'm not a Christian. I was just pointing out that SCOTUS doesn't control religious doctrine. You people seem to want to equate this with Civil Rights but the movement for civil rights was led by a black pastor, Dr. King. It was a grass-roots movement spearheaded by the church and the issue of homosexuals marrying is condemned by the church. There is no moral equivalency, but hey... don't let that stop you from claiming it!

"Condemned by the church'?

What church? Certainly the Catholic Church- but most Americans are not Catholics. There is no 'the church' in America- and as you point out- you don't belong to any of them.

Most churches do not accept same gender marriage yet- but a considerable number do. The United Church of Christ, Unitarians,

And not that Christians care what Jews think- but Reform Jews accept gay marriage and rabbi's will marry same gender couples.

But hey- not as if you care what minorities like Jews or homosexuals think- right?

 

[Syriusly]

Ask the states. Read what the courts have said. Read any of my previous posts on the matter.

Or just keep dancing with your incest straw man.

You can spout nonsense till the cows come home.

You created a very ugly situation and won't own up to it.

What an infant

What a sad little bigot you are.

Pissed off because no one will dance with your straw man.

Take a break Looney Tune, go do something you consider fun, like interior decorating.

Exposing bigots and perverts like you is what I consider to be fun.

^^^^futher proof of OCD.

Gotta laugh at the pervert comment. You can't make this chit up folks

Exposing bigots and perverts like you is a pleasure.

 

[Syriusly]

no authority on the planet earth gets to arbitrarily define "marriage remains the union of a man and a woman," so for you to think thats somehow objective and not some arbitrary opinion is giggle worthy and its also no longer the precedent in your very own Country. Society has now advanced past "your" opinion and has adopted a new one. Suck it up, pippy.

So, essentially, your argument is... we can arbitrarily change whatever any word means and make it mean whatever we need for it to mean in order to accommodate what we desire. I kind of think that general policy MIGHT pose a problem down the road somewhere. I also think... unless we've redefined what "free speech" means, I have the right to disagree with this policy and warn people that it's an idiotic idea.

Oh, so your whole argument is not against homosexuals being allowed to get married....your whole beef is that the word "marriage" only applies to man and a woman......and homosexuals need to find another word to describe their union......I get it......

so, why don't you do like Sarah Palin and coin a new word for them. .......how about "smarriage"? That sounds like a good word.

In essence, yes... My argument has always been regarding the importance of traditional marriage and what many people have a fundamental connection to in a cultural as well as a religious way. I don't feel that is being respected and I think that is intentional. This issue is not really about gay couples having the same rights as straight couples, it's about tearing down moral and traditional values. It's a big steamy dump on the Church. It's a chance for Socialist Seculars to flex some political muscle and act righteous in the face of indignity.

You still don't get it? Nobody cares what you feel or what you think in this matter. It has been settled. You can whine and complain all you want, but unless you can get the majority of Americans to agree with you, you're just going to get an ulcer. You have expressed your reasons for not accepting ssm, and some of us have countered with our reasons, but in the end it doesn't matter. It is over and done.

Well I think it remains to be seen if this is "over and done" and you should be careful underestimating your opposition. I think a lot of people do care what I think and share my viewpoint. I don't think you're going to find this any more "settled and over" than abortion. In fact, this is going to be challenged much more rigorously because it effects other rights of other people.

My personal view is that government shouldn't be telling us what we can call marriage. It doesn't matter which kind, it shouldn't be up to the government to decide, it should be up to US! I suggested, years ago, that we should replace "marriage licenses" with simple two-party contracts, if there is some need for such defining of domestic partnership. This would benefit any two people who want to use it, regardless of their intimate relations. I have no problem with that and I don't think most people would. I see that as a solution to the problem which respects all sides and resolves the issue to the best it can be solved for all.

Government isn't telling you what you can call marriage. The Supreme Court just told us that people of the same sex are allowed to get married. You can refrain from calling their marriage a "marriage" if it makes you feel better. You are offering homosexuals the same kind of crap that racist people wanted to offer blacks.....separate but equal. They want their union to be recognized as "marriage" and the Supreme Court who goes by the Constitution and is way more qualified in defining "law" saw that it was unconstitutional to deny them that right.

So it looks like your idea of "debate" is to simply contradict anything I say. Formulating the argument of "nuh-uh!" must take so much brain power! Perhaps you should take a break and go have a banana?

Yes, the SCOTUS essentially redefined marriage. This is going to be a problem because of two groups of people. Those opposed, who will continue to fight this in every way they can. And, those who are totally for it and think it should extend much further.

The SCOTUS did not go by the Constitution, and that's the whole problem here. The Constitution explicitly says things like this are the right of the people and states to decide. The case should have been turned down for lack of standing. It wasn't, they made a bad ruling, and now we'll face the consequences. You think it's over, I think it's just begun. t!

Your idea of a debate is clearly just to keep repeating what you believe over and over again.

The Supreme Court ruled according to the Constitution- just as it did in Loving v. Virginia and every other case were it overturned an unconstitutional marriage law.

The Constitution does not say that things like these the right of the people to decide- the Constitution says explicitly that Americans must be treated equally before the law- regardless of what States decide.

You believing it was a bad ruling has no more meaning than those who believed Loving v. Virginia was a bad ruling.

You believing it will lead to the end of the world- or the United States or whatever the hell you believe- merely sound like those who predicted the same things when the Supreme Court ruled that bans on mixed race marriages were unconstitutional.

50 years from now- your rantings will appear to America just like the point of view of those who supported Virginia's ban on mixed race marriages.

 

[Syriusly]

LOL- I think you mistake us for Conservative Christians.

No, you're more of a fundamentalist wacko.

When you can't debate use ad hominem....

Well it was particularly funny when he predicted that since the Supreme Court overturned bans on same gender marriage- that would lead to the government intruding into our bedrooms.

Funny because of course- Christians passed laws specifically to control what Americans did in the privacy of their bedrooms- and the Supreme Court is the one who said that was violating the rights of Americans.