The looming war over gay marriage

[Big Fitz]

In this issue it is heteros who have the special rights just as men had the special right to vote while women were denied. In both cases the discrimination is based on the crotch watch.

Horseshit. What a disingenuous attempt at equivalency. The majority status of being able to marry the opposite gender has been the status quo for humanity since it began. Your attempt to say the two are the same is an utter lie based on pure philosophical dishonesty and you know it.

And throughout most of history, people have not had the rights enshrined in the Constitution. Heck, most people in the United States did not have the rights in the Constitution throughout most of our history. There are so many things that humanity has done throughout history that has been wrong, so relying on history is a nonstarter.

The past does not give your position on the subject credibility.

 

[Big Fitz]

Oh, boo-hoo. Go join the ******* Klansman cying about being forced to live in the same country as interracial couples.

Yep no tolerance for anyone who disagrees with your radical minority agenda. Everyone who disagrees is a hatefilled mindless bigot homophobe who eats puppies and kicks children, owns an SUV and shoots single mothers while stealing the cans of beans from the homeless.

Morally and intellectually bankrupt.

 

[CurveLight]

Horseshit. What a disingenuous attempt at equivalency. The majority status of being able to marry the opposite gender has been the status quo for humanity since it began. Your attempt to say the two are the same is an utter lie based on pure philosophical dishonesty and you know it.

And throughout most of history, people have not had the rights enshrined in the Constitution. Heck, most people in the United States did not have the rights in the Constitution throughout most of our history. There are so many things that humanity has done throughout history that has been wrong, so relying on history is a nonstarter.

The past does not give your position on the subject credibility.

History is a fundamental source of progress and without it we would still be using square wheels. Women were denied the right to vote based solely on physical anatomy. Thankfully, through history and great sacrifices, it has been demonstrated it was barbaric to discriminate based on the crotch watch. You want to deny equal rights based solely on physical anatomy. Is it possible one day you will be able to take your eyes off of other peoples' crotches long enough to read the US Constitution?

 

[CurveLight]

Oh, boo-hoo. Go join the ******* Klansman cying about being forced to live in the same country as interracial couples.

Yep no tolerance for anyone who disagrees with your radical minority agenda. Everyone who disagrees is a hatefilled mindless bigot homophobe who eats puppies and kicks children, owns an SUV and shoots single mothers while stealing the cans of beans from the homeless.

Morally and intellectually bankrupt.

It is impossible to practice bigotry towards bigots.

 

[Big Fitz]

Oh, boo-hoo. Go join the ******* Klansman cying about being forced to live in the same country as interracial couples.

Yep no tolerance for anyone who disagrees with your radical minority agenda. Everyone who disagrees is a hatefilled mindless bigot homophobe who eats puppies and kicks children, owns an SUV and shoots single mothers while stealing the cans of beans from the homeless.

Morally and intellectually bankrupt.

It is impossible to practice bigotry towards bigots.

Have you seen/heard Al Sharpton?

 

[Father Time]

Oh, boo-hoo. Go join the ******* Klansman cying about being forced to live in the same country as interracial couples.

Yep no tolerance for anyone who disagrees with your radical minority agenda. Everyone who disagrees is a hatefilled mindless bigot homophobe who eats puppies and kicks children, owns an SUV and shoots single mothers while stealing the cans of beans from the homeless.

Morally and intellectually bankrupt.

Says the asshole who thinks he has a right to live in a place free of 'the gay'. That makes you a bigot just like anyone who wants segregation of people based on races. Now of course you're going to pretend me insulting you for wanting the right to segregate gays is akin to insulting everyone who doesn't like gay marriage, this can only be because you have no arguments other than weak insults to sling at your opponents, you pathetic shmuck.

Anyone else notice that he does not even pose a counter argument to the comparison just slings random straw men and insults hoping no one will notice his lack of substance?

Perhaps you can give an example of how that argument cannot also be used for inter-racial marriages, although I doubt you're able to.

 

[CurveLight]

Yep no tolerance for anyone who disagrees with your radical minority agenda. Everyone who disagrees is a hatefilled mindless bigot homophobe who eats puppies and kicks children, owns an SUV and shoots single mothers while stealing the cans of beans from the homeless.

Morally and intellectually bankrupt.

It is impossible to practice bigotry towards bigots.

Have you seen/heard Al Sharpton?

Is that the guy that looks like a hair-diet Don King? Whether I have or not is irrelevant.

 

[Father Time]

Horseshit. What a disingenuous attempt at equivalency. The majority status of being able to marry the opposite gender has been the status quo for humanity since it began. Your attempt to say the two are the same is an utter lie based on pure philosophical dishonesty and you know it.

And throughout most of history, people have not had the rights enshrined in the Constitution. Heck, most people in the United States did not have the rights in the Constitution throughout most of our history. There are so many things that humanity has done throughout history that has been wrong, so relying on history is a nonstarter.

The past does not give your position on the subject credibility.

So why were you trying a bogus appeal to tradition then?

 

[logical4u]

In this issue it is heteros who have the special rights just as men had the special right to vote while women were denied. In both cases the discrimination is based on the crotch watch.

Horseshit. What a disingenuous attempt at equivalency. The majority status of being able to marry the opposite gender has been the status quo for humanity since it began. Your attempt to say the two are the same is an utter lie based on pure philosophical dishonesty and you know it.

The majority of slave owners in the US operated for a few hundred years on the justification of status quo. That must mean there was nothing wrong with slavery.

Even if we had 20 million years of recorded human history that showed it was only heteros who married it would still be wholly irrelevant. In fact, it would show the opportunity to disabuse discrimination.

Can you demonstrate any society that 'accepted' gay marriage that grew and prospered? Can you demonstrate any openly homosexual community where people are trying to take their families to be part of 'that' community?
You want to ask the hard questions, please demonstrate how 'homosexual' marriage is of any benefit to society. Your view of the world seems to revolve around what pleases 'the homosexual crotch', you have no proof, no evidence that homosexual marriage will improve the lives of anyone other than the two involved. Marriage (traditional), improved the lives of 'both' families, of those married, and of the community and society where they lived.
For those with the petty arguements: it is true that EVERY marriage does not make that happen, but GENERALLY speaking, marriage stabilizes communities.
Allowing, a really bad idea on the basis of lets try it and see if it works is like dumping manure in your drinking water, thinking you can remove it if you don't like the taste. Once it is done, all is tainted.

 

[logical4u]

The government - "Big Government" - is denying a small portion of the population the right to enter into a legally binding contract with another willing person that is available to the other 97% of the population.

You are on the wrong side of history. It is only a matter of time before gay marriage happens.

So, based on your arguement: people should not be denied the right to marry their parent or close relative, or animal of their choosing?
That small portion of the population has the right to marry, they have just chosen to marry people that they are forbidden (lawfully) to marry. There is a big difference. That is an additional "right", not equal "right".

I'm so sick of this braindead bestiality comparison. Can it be determined if an animal consents to a marriage? No, so it'll never happen.

So you give bad rep when you don't have a good arguement, nice.
Homosexuals are not being compared to those that want besiality legalized. It is a demonstration, once you open the door to 'please' a small group of individuals, that obviously has no long term benefit for society, every other group, no matter what their agenda (those that want to marry animals or motorcycles included), will use the same arguements to be 'pleased' also.
Instead of calling names and repeating yourself, please start listing all the great things that will happen when homosexuals are allowed to marry. Demonstrate how this idea will be beneficial to our children (generaly speaking) over the long term. Will it give our communities more integrity? More stability? Less crime? Less drug or alcohol use?

I have called no names, I have pointed out that there are very NEGATIVE affects of homosexual marriage on society. Can you show me a 'virtual' homosexual community that is everything a society wants? Can you demonstrate where families will want married homosexuals to move to theirr communities in any large numbers?

I guess you can give me some more bad rep to show what you are made of or call names because you lack any facts or evidence.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Horseshit. What a disingenuous attempt at equivalency. The majority status of being able to marry the opposite gender has been the status quo for humanity since it began. Your attempt to say the two are the same is an utter lie based on pure philosophical dishonesty and you know it.

And throughout most of history, people have not had the rights enshrined in the Constitution. Heck, most people in the United States did not have the rights in the Constitution throughout most of our history. There are so many things that humanity has done throughout history that has been wrong, so relying on history is a nonstarter.

The past does not give your position on the subject credibility.

.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Can you demonstrate any society that 'accepted' gay marriage that grew and prospered?

Can you demonstrate any society that 'accepted' a president from from a minority race before the US and prospered?

And yes, the comparison is the exactly the same. If you seek to imply that the evil gay army will tear asunder the foundations of the Republic and eat babies in the street if they are recognized equally, then you must demonstrate it. You can't. So, you're dodging.

It's pathetic.

please demonstrate how 'homosexual' marriage is of any benefit to society.

Please demonstrate how letting you walk free and vote is any benefit to society as a whole.

you have no proof, no evidence that homosexual marriage will improve the lives of anyone other than the two involved.

Wrong. You're about to argue it for me

[Marriage], improved the lives of 'both' families, of those married, and of the community and society where they lived.
For those with the petty arguements: it is true that EVERY marriage does not make that happen, but GENERALLY speaking, marriage stabilizes communities.

There's no such thing as 'traditional marriage' as you wish it to be- the oldest tradition was harems and polygamy.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Civil unions between male couples existed around 600 years ago in medieval Europe, a historian now says.
Historical evidence, including legal documents and gravesites, can be interpreted as supporting the prevalence of homosexual relationships hundreds of years ago, said Allan Tulchin of Shippensburg University in Pennsylvania.
If accurate, the results indicate socially sanctioned same-sex unions are nothing new, nor were they taboo in the past.

Gay marriage goes way back - LiveScience- msnbc.com

 

[CurveLight]

And throughout most of history, people have not had the rights enshrined in the Constitution. Heck, most people in the United States did not have the rights in the Constitution throughout most of our history. There are so many things that humanity has done throughout history that has been wrong, so relying on history is a nonstarter.

The past does not give your position on the subject credibility.

So why were you trying a bogus appeal to tradition then?

That's like asking why the chicken crossed the road.

 

[Toro]

Can you demonstrate any society that 'accepted' gay marriage that grew and prospered?

Sweden, Norway, Holland, Belgium, Spain, Canada.

You want to ask the hard questions, please demonstrate how 'homosexual' marriage is of any benefit to society.

Prove that it is not.

Your view of the world seems to revolve around what pleases 'the homosexual crotch', you have no proof, no evidence that homosexual marriage will improve the lives of anyone other than the two involved.

You are the one fascinated by "the homosexual crotch."

You have no proof, no evidence that homosexual marriage will not improve the lives of anyone else. You just have prejudices and archaic stereotypes.

As for you argument, thank you for exposing yourself as a Big Government collectivist, putting the interests of the collective ahead of the individual.

Allowing, a really bad idea on the basis of lets try it and see if it works is like dumping manure in your drinking water, thinking you can remove it if you don't like the taste. Once it is done, all is tainted.

Thank you, Archie Bunker.

 

[CurveLight]

Civil unions between male couples existed around 600 years ago in medieval Europe, a historian now says.
Historical evidence, including legal documents and gravesites, can be interpreted as supporting the prevalence of homosexual relationships hundreds of years ago, said Allan Tulchin of Shippensburg University in Pennsylvania.
If accurate, the results indicate socially sanctioned same-sex unions are nothing new, nor were they taboo in the past.

Gay marriage goes way back - LiveScience- msnbc.com

That's a kitten's age compared to evidence of a male on male union as found in Samuel. Believe that was a few thousand years ago.

 

[CurveLight]

So, based on your arguement: people should not be denied the right to marry their parent or close relative, or animal of their choosing?
That small portion of the population has the right to marry, they have just chosen to marry people that they are forbidden (lawfully) to marry. There is a big difference. That is an additional "right", not equal "right".

I'm so sick of this braindead bestiality comparison. Can it be determined if an animal consents to a marriage? No, so it'll never happen.

So you give bad rep when you don't have a good arguement, nice.
Homosexuals are not being compared to those that want besiality legalized. It is a demonstration, once you open the door to 'please' a small group of individuals, that obviously has no long term benefit for society, every other group, no matter what their agenda (those that want to marry animals or motorcycles included), will use the same arguements to be 'pleased' also.
Instead of calling names and repeating yourself, please start listing all the great things that will happen when homosexuals are allowed to marry. Demonstrate how this idea will be beneficial to our children (generaly speaking) over the long term. Will it give our communities more integrity? More stability? Less crime? Less drug or alcohol use?

I have called no names, I have pointed out that there are very NEGATIVE affects of homosexual marriage on society. Can you show me a 'virtual' homosexual community that is everything a society wants? Can you demonstrate where families will want married homosexuals to move to theirr communities in any large numbers?

I guess you can give me some more bad rep to show what you are made of or call names because you lack any facts or evidence.

Where have you shown negative effects on society directly caused by gay marriage? It seems like the only connection to a negative is how often people whine about gays. Try this experiment: Embark on a two week Bigot Fast and keep a daily journal. At the end of the two weeks examine the journal in search of evidence of how your world came crashing down because you weren't crotch watching.

 

[Father Time]

So, based on your arguement: people should not be denied the right to marry their parent or close relative, or animal of their choosing?
That small portion of the population has the right to marry, they have just chosen to marry people that they are forbidden (lawfully) to marry. There is a big difference. That is an additional "right", not equal "right".

I'm so sick of this braindead bestiality comparison. Can it be determined if an animal consents to a marriage? No, so it'll never happen.

So you give bad rep when you don't have a good arguement, nice.
Homosexuals are not being compared to those that want besiality legalized. It is a demonstration, once you open the door to 'please' a small group of individuals, that obviously has no long term benefit for society, every other group, no matter what their agenda (those that want to marry animals or motorcycles included), will use the same arguements to be 'pleased' also.

The bad rep was for terrible almost non-sequiter arguments.

But those that want to marry animals or motorcycles have to contend with a deal breaker homosexuals don't. Namely that inanimate objects and animals cannot give consent which is required for any legal contract. So it's a stupid comparison. Also how many gay marriage advocates are also willing to give marriage to animals and/or inanimate objects?

Instead of calling names and repeating yourself, please start listing all the great things that will happen when homosexuals are allowed to marry.
Demonstrate how this idea will be beneficial to our children (generaly speaking) over the long term. Will it give our communities more integrity? More stability? Less crime? Less drug or alcohol use?

A. Same argument can be used against interracial marriage
B. Why should that have to be a requirement to legalize anything? Oh it won't give us a huge amount of benefit so we can't do it. Are you not familiar with the concept of fairness?

I have called no names, I have pointed out that there are very NEGATIVE affects of homosexual marriage on society.

No you haven't you've merely grasped at straws. As for name calling, adding IMHO after something doesn't negate name calling.

Can you show me a 'virtual' homosexual community that is everything a society wants?

Do heterosexual marriages need society's approval? No! Why in all holy hell should homosexual marriages need it?

Can you demonstrate where families will want married homosexuals to move to theirr communities in any large numbers?

Irrelevant really. Communities are not allowed to discriminate, although I betcha I can find people uncomfortable with an interracial couple. Why should the opinions of the masses dictate the actions of private citizens when those actions have little to no effect on them?

I guess you can give me some more bad rep to show what you are made of or call names because you lack any facts or evidence.

I'm sorry what facts or evidence have you presented? All you did is ask a series of stupid questions.

You basically have a shotgun approach, throw out as many arguments out of thin air as possible and pray one of them sticks.

 

[Father Time]

You want a benefit from gay marriage how about the orphans that will be adopted by those married couples? That seems like a pretty good benefit to me.

 

[CurveLight]

You want a benefit from gay marriage how about the orphans that will be adopted by those married couples? That seems like a pretty good benefit to me.

Both my heavy jewels on the line says the response will be you just described a harm and didn't realize it.

Ie: "Gay marriage gives those perverts State assisted pedophilia and ground zero recruitment into the Gay (no) Pride "community!"