Why we shouldn't allow gay marriage.

[theHawk]

What the hell are you talking about?

 

[Shogun]

Haggert's homosexual icon!


haven't you read the bible?!?

 

[Bonnie]

Hmmmmm....Could it be Red has issues and insecurities regarding his own sexuality? Methinks he dost protest too much.

Careful going down that road Bully considering how ardently many protest how happy they are to be atheists

 

[fuzzykitten99]

Taken from facebook.com, here are a few reasons why gay marriage should be outlawed:

"01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans."

those are rhetorical statements and opinions, not provable facts.

Stop with the argument that gays want equal rights. YOU HAVE THEM. A straight man has no more a right to marry another man than a gay man has. A gay man can marry any person he chooses, so long as that person is of the opposite sex. This goes same for women.

Homos only want their relationships recognized as important to the government and society, not because they really think they don't have equal rights. But so far, Gay marriage is 0 for- what is it, 14, now? I lost count. Their wants are based solely on FEELINGS not law, common sense, or even logic. This is why they play the 'I don't have equal rights, so pity me' card.

It's the self-important syndrome that affects many gays.

 

[Mr.Conley]

This is an issue that has nothing to do with homosexuality but everything to do with who gets to decide issues like this, judges or the People.

An amendment to the constitution banning gay marriage will resolve the entire issue. For an amendment to be added to the Constitution, it must pass both houses of Congress by a 2/3 majority and be ratified by 3/4 of the states. This is called popular mandate. We abolished slavery and gave women the vote in like manner. It is in the Constitution in black and white and was the intent of the Founders.

This will give everyone a chance to vote on the issue.

The problem some have with this approach is that, in all likelihood, an amendment banning gay marriage would be ratified if it was ever placed before the majority of voters. Several states have already passed bans on gay marriage through their legislatures, while only two states allow gay marriage thanks to the actions of a handful of judges.

The Founding Fathers intended that the People of this republic have the power and the right to decide matters through popular mandate. They did not intend that an oligarchy of judges should be given the power to decide such matters for us.

Really? The Founding Father's intended that the People of the Republic hold the power and the right to decide matters through popular mandate? I don't think Alexander Hamilton thought that way. He said:

"The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct permanent share in the government... Can a democratic assembly who annually revolve in the mass of the people be supposed steadily to pursue the public good?"

And, more importantly,
"The voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God; and, however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true to fact. "

John Jay, first Supreme Court Chief Justice, said the revolution, "laid open a wide field for the operation of ambition," especially for "men raised from low degrees to high stations and rendered giddy by elevation." He felt the Constitutional Convention was as much about protecting, "the worthy against the licentious."

As for George Washington, the founding father of the Founding Fathers? how about this:

We have probably had too good an opinion of human nature... experience has taught us, that men will not adopt and carry in execution measures the best calculated for their own good, without the intervention of a coercive power." He felt America need a "strong government, ably administered" by an "aristocracy of talent."

Yes, Jefferson was all for expanding freedom and that sort of thing, but Jefferson was in France when the Constitution was first written, and at first hated the document. In actuality, the Constitution was a reaction against freedom. The intention of the Constitution was to take power away from the people and place it in the hands of their "betters." Why else would the People only have the power to directly elect one chamber of one part of one branch out of the entire government? Every other position is either appointed or indirectly elected by said betters. The Constitution isn't about protecting freedoms. The Bill of Rights was an add on to ensure passage, and don't so much give the people power as limit government power (thereby protecting the upper classes). The Constitution doesn't even mention "popular mandate." The amendment process dealt more with satisfying states' rightist then anything. The people have no way of expressing themselves effectively outside of the House or Representatives, and even there the hope was that better men would hold sway. The idea that the Constitution acts to ensure your or my voice in the halls of power is farce.

 

[Shogun]

who would jesus marginalize?

 

[trobinett]

Mr. Conley posts:

The intention of the Constitution was to take power away from the people and place it in the hands of their "betters."

Wonder what happened?

 

[Kagom]

who would jesus marginalize?

You're not really helping the case and you sure as hell aren't debating.

 

[jillian]

The intention of the Constitution was to take power away from the people and place it in the hands of their "betters."

That's not quite right. The intention of the Constitution was to minimize the powers of government and establish a democratic republic where the people have a voice but the minority is protected from the whims and tyranny of the majority. It favored rich, white, male, landowners and, of course, discriminated against women and blacks but that is a reflection of the time.

 

[Shogun]

You're not really helping the case and you sure as hell aren't debating.

not only is it a relevant question but it is a helluva comparison when looking back on American history from day one until today. Sure, we ALSO had the first amendment while sending Scopes and Ferlinghetti to the supreme court. The attitude toward equal application of the Constitution is as spotted today as it was before blacks were allowed to vote and, I daresay, when the last "debate" of this nature was weather or not American values would allow blacks to have relationships with whites. Don't believe it? Go ask whether or not blacks and whites should procreate together on the Rants and RAves forum on the Atlanta Georgia Graigslist. If you don't think applying the jesus standard to these so called christians is relevant then so be it... I never signed up to wear your team jersey anyway.

 

[Kagom]

not only is it a relevant question but it is a helluva comparison when looking back on American history from day one until today. Sure, we ALSO had the first amendment while sending Scopes and Ferlinghetti to the supreme court. The attitude toward equal application of the Constitution is as spotted today as it was before blacks were allowed to vote and, I daresay, when the last "debate" of this nature was weather or not American values would allow blacks to have relationships with whites. Don't believe it? Go ask whether or not blacks and whites should procreate together on the Rants and RAves forum on the Atlanta Georgia Graigslist. If you don't think applying the jesus standard to these so called christians is relevant then so be it... I never signed up to wear your team jersey anyway.

1.) I'm gay.

2.) I actually try to use coherent debating methods and not just post random cartoons. I post studies from the APA and other news pieces.

3.) I'm quite aware of the history in regards to interracial marriage. Don't lecture me.

 

[Shogun]

1.) I'm gay.

2.) I actually try to use coherent debating methods and not just post random cartoons. I post studies from the APA and other news pieces.

3.) I'm quite aware of the history in regards to interracial marriage. Don't lecture me.

Is this where you expect a cookie or a gold star? Does being gay mean that everyone else must fall behind your rainbow banner? I can show you Journal submitted studies that are laughable decades later. This might come as a shock but it might be the case that you are not the only person familiar with peer reviewed journals. I am quite aware that your opinon regarding standard thread input means two things... The first one is Jack... can you guess what the second thing is?


:sleepy1:


now.. if you can't win this debate on the merits of the issue so be it.. Spare me your lecture on proper debating. I'll pass on your projected frustration. Thanks anyway.

 

[theHawk]

who would jesus marginalize?

To answer your question, anyone that rejects him. Sinners that don't repent and accept Jesus into their hearts are denied entry into heaven, according to Him. Does damning someone to an eternity of hell qualify as marginalizing?

 

[Shogun]

Legally according the the United States Constitution?

no.


So.. when ole jebus was hanging out with hookers and such I guess it never dawned on him that there were commandments being broken?


ps... did he tell YOU, his followers, to judge like he gets to judge or did he remind you that you shouldn't be chucking stones at anyone? Is homosexuality a sin that he allows his pharisee followers to judge? Perhaps the version I read was differentthan yours... Not to mention the whole "give unto ceasar" bit...

I wonder if lynching christians of yesteryear were as convinced of their own righteousness as you are....

 

[Kagom]

Is this where you expect a cookie or a gold star? Does being gay mean that everyone else must fall behind your rainbow banner? I can show you Journal submitted studies that are laughable decades later. This might come as a shock but it might be the case that you are not the only person familiar with peer reviewed journals. I am quite aware that your opinon regarding standard thread input means two things... The first one is Jack... can you guess what the second thing is?


:sleepy1:


now.. if you can't win this debate on the merits of the issue so be it.. Spare me your lecture on proper debating. I'll pass on your projected frustration. Thanks anyway.

I brought it up because the way you had worded your last sentence made me think you assumed I was a conservative. Otherwise I wouldn't have bothered saying anything.

Don't talk down to me about peer reviewed journals. They have more credibility than opinion at times. However, I tend to stick to articles that have been researched thoroughly and have used random samplings so their results aren't completely controlled.

I can win a debate based on the merits of the issue. To that I have nothing further to add.

 

[Shogun]

I brought it up because the way you had worded your last sentence made me think you assumed I was a conservative. Otherwise I wouldn't have bothered saying anything.

Don't talk down to me about peer reviewed journals. They have more credibility than opinion at times. However, I tend to stick to articles that have been researched thoroughly and have used random samplings so their results aren't completely controlled.

I can win a debate based on the merits of the issue. To that I have nothing further to add.

I don't care what direction from the political spectrum you are coming from.

Peer journals are not infallable. NUMEROUS examples prove that.

You sure are showing me just how one winds a debate on the merits of the issue! Hell, I can't figure out which to jam in my A: first... a cookie or a gold star...

now, if you don't mind.. can we get back to the topic rather than trying to paw on Shogun? I am having fun poling at the pharisee christians on this board who are convinced that they were only given two cheaks to turn and that the words of their namesake were mere suggestions.

 

[theHawk]

Legally according the the United States Constitution?

no.


So.. when ole jebus was hanging out with hookers and such I guess it never dawned on him that there were commandments being broken?


ps... did he tell YOU, his followers, to judge like he gets to judge or did he remind you that you shouldn't be chucking stones at anyone? Is homosexuality a sin that he allows his pharisee followers to judge? Perhaps the version I read was differentthan yours... Not to mention the whole "give unto ceasar" bit...

I wonder if lynching christians of yesteryear were as convinced of their own righteousness as you are....

There is quite a difference between judging people and 'chucking stones' at them and choosing not to promote their agenda. You are twisting words around to make it sounds as if we want to persecute homosexuals. As if not recognizing their marriages is somehow tantamount to stoning them in public. Nothing prevents homosexuals from performing a wedding at pro-queer churches, and no one is even suggesting a prohibition of that. What gay marriage advocates are pushing is for the rest of us (non-gay) to accept and recognize their marriages.

 

[Shogun]

"There is quite a difference between judging people and 'chucking stones' at them and choosing not to promote their agenda."


I don't recall any gay couples hopeing that youd put a penis in your mouth as a wedding gift.. I'm sure a nice punchbowl will suffice. Is allowing gays the same application of the US Constitution "promoting their agenda"? I bet if you hold your breath in a little more there is room to squeeze in a few more minority groups while you split hairs with the very words of ole jebus....



"You are twisting words around to make it sounds as if we want to persecute homosexuals."

Trust me.. your apathy and willingness to manipulate scripture does that for me.. All I am doing is pointing at you and laughing. I trust that if society at large were marginalizing christians like we allow gays to be fucked with the siren of persicution would deafen us all.



"As if not recognizing their marriages is somehow tantamount to stoning them in public."


Yes, I forgot that jebus said that the requirement for judging each other was how big of a rock you decided to throw. yup. Again, if America decided not to recognize christian marriage are you telling me that you'd buy such a lame excuse for marginalization? I highly doubt it. Walk a mile, buddy.. Do unto others.. yadda yadda.. never mind me.. im only quoting the root of all christianity.




"Nothing prevents homosexuals from performing a wedding at pro-queer churches, and no one is even suggesting a prohibition of that."


Granted.. AND.. if there were no laws, benefits and restrictions affected by marriage in general then you would have a point.. as it is..

Hell, I'd even compramise on Civil Unions that held as much legal precedence as any ole marriage since I'm not one to get hung up on nomenclature.. however, this isn't only about dressing up for pictures, is it?




"What gay marriage advocates are pushing is for the rest of us (non-gay) to accept and recognize their marriages."


I'm not sure that this is true. Certainly, a commonlaw marriage in Arkansas won't care if you don't consider it as legitimate as a giant five star affair since it has every legal qualification as any other legal marraige contract. It seems to me that when we create second class citizens there will always, ALWAYS be this same conflict. Are you willing to allow gay marriage the same legal relevance as hetero marriage? If so, I applaud your consistency. If not, well, again.. NO one is asking you to suck a dick and I sure hope that no one forced their cock in your mouth on their way to the alter.

 

[Kagom]

I don't care what direction from the political spectrum you are coming from.

Peer journals are not infallable. NUMEROUS examples prove that.

You sure are showing me just how one winds a debate on the merits of the issue! Hell, I can't figure out which to jam in my A: first... a cookie or a gold star...

now, if you don't mind.. can we get back to the topic rather than trying to paw on Shogun? I am having fun poling at the pharisee christians on this board who are convinced that they were only given two cheaks to turn and that the words of their namesake were mere suggestions.

Good for you. I'm sure not many others do, but I didn't say what direction of the spectrum I'm from. I misread something you said and put in a response that was not really necessary.

I didn't say they were infallible. I believe that they have more weight than opinion. And is there something wrong with deeply researched journals and findings when done with random samples, etc.?

Because I'm not debating the subject of the thread with you.

Sure, we can go back to the subject at hand.

 

[Shogun]

Thank you, kind sir.