|
Author
|
Topic: Damn Liberals
|
|
|
Zerot
I pay schoolgirls to verbally abuse me.
Member # 1295
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-14-2004 09:25 PM
Are there any non-religious arguements against homosexuality?
From: Lizton, Indiana | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kid Vid2
I am a tub of earwax.
Member # 2514
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-14-2004 09:48 PM
yes darn those godless republican liberals who were supposed to vote for adding something to the constitution that does not belong in the constitution at all like they were supposed to because everyone must blindly follow their party leaders blah blah blah endless faggotry
From: cardbord box :((((((((((((( | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Donald
Bob the Builder
Member # 1551
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-14-2004 10:33 PM
Um, yeah, who HONESTLY gives a shit about this sort of thing? If the economy still fucking blows and kids are still coming home from Iraq, Afghanistan, and anywhere else that "harbours terrorists" in the ever-fashionable cardboard box, that's where the focus should be.
Edit: Added an important qualifier and removed the derail attempt
[ 07-15-2004, 12:36 AM: Message edited by: Donald ]
From: In your girl's panties | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IceHawk78
NOBODY IMPORTANT
Member # 1699
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-15-2004 01:31 AM
All the soccer moms care about this because they want a leader with "values"
From: Ohio | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Slade_64
chipmunk pr0n author
Member # 804
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-15-2004 04:42 AM
Fags are queers.
- - - - -
Bucket.
From: Funky Town Texas | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rysto
Farting Nudist
Member # 24
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-15-2004 02:13 PM
"I would argue that the future of our country hangs in the balance because the future of marriage hangs in the balance. Isn't that the ultimate homeland security, standing up and defending marriage?" - Senator Rick Santorum
So preventing gay marriage is more important than fighting terrorism. What the fuck?
- - - - -
So "a" can be any value?
-a guy in my Calculus class, on the nature of variables
From: Waterloo, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
MK
is somewhat large.
Member # 1445
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-15-2004 03:08 PM
Let me ask this, why are you all saying that fighting terrorism is more important as an excuse? Why can't we do BOTH things? Save marriage and kill terrorists?
-MK
Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wintermute
My custom title sucks.
Member # 5
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-15-2004 04:05 PM
Why can't we do BOTH things? Save marriage and kill terrorists?
MK, how would banning same-sex marriage save other-sex marriage? If, in the future, two guys can marry, it won't mean that a man and a women can't marry. (I know you won't have the balls to answer this question, but I have to ask.)
While we're onto subjects that you troll about, do you know what you get when Americans kill a Muslim terrorist?
- one dead Muslim terrorist
- two Muslim terrorist recruits
Let me know how that all works out for you.
p.s. Muslims = 1/4 of Earth's population.
p.p.s. Similar math applies when you kill innocent Muslim non-terrorists.
[ 07-15-2004, 04:06 PM: Message edited by: Wintermute ]
From: Winnipeg, Manitoba | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
starCaliber
is evil and also MewtwoSama
Member # 268
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-15-2004 05:12 PM
hi toby :-*
From: San Francisco, CA | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
MewtwoSama
Asshole
Member # 12
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-15-2004 06:50 PM
Santorum
1. The frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex.
From: Abyss of Evil | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rysto
Farting Nudist
Member # 24
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-15-2004 07:28 PM
quote:
Originally posted by MK:
Let me ask this, why are you all saying that fighting terrorism is more important as an excuse? Why can't we do BOTH things? Save marriage and kill terrorists?
-MK
Yes, but to say that preventing gay marriage is more important?
- - - - -
So "a" can be any value?
-a guy in my Calculus class, on the nature of variables
From: Waterloo, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zerot
I pay schoolgirls to verbally abuse me.
Member # 1295
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-15-2004 10:25 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Zerot:
Are there any non-religious arguements against homosexuality?
From: Lizton, Indiana | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Slade_64
chipmunk pr0n author
Member # 804
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-16-2004 12:40 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Zerot:
quote:
Originally posted by Zerot:
Are there any non-religious arguements against homosexuality?
Some.
- - - - -
Bucket.
From: Funky Town Texas | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anthrax
Ultimate Authoritative Power in the Universe
Member # 335
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-16-2004 12:52 AM
i'm still waiting for the compulsory gay marriage amendment
- - - - -
She told The Associated Press she first realized her son was mentally ill in 1996 when he killed her oldest child, a 25-year-old woman who suffered from cerebral palsy, by beating her with a dumbbell.
From: Somebody put shit in my pants! | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cesar
Farting Nudist
Member # 529
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-16-2004 04:06 AM
I don't know why homosexuals want to marry, I always thought that was one of the perks of being homosexual.
I'm not a big fan of marriage to being with. There is always something about the commitment and the responibilies and liabilities put into that stupid piece of paper. If a couple wanted to get married, I do not think of it as: "I love you" "I love you too" "Let's get married and be with eachother forever"
You can poke fun at the entire concept of marriage by looking at celebrities, and their marriages last for hours (*coughBritneycough*), months, and if they are lucky years.
I know you can love someone so much that you want to be with them forever, but why chain yourselves together?
If it doesn't work out, and your married, there would be legal battles of all sorts concerning money, house, and children.
Then the sex dies off over the years, having someone whenever you want is less arousing then going off late into the night and making passionate love to your neighbour before your spouse gets home.
I dunno, maybe it is just me. I guess I would get married when I'm old and can't catch the fish like I used to.
From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-16-2004 12:03 PM
There are lots of legal and financial reasons for getting married.
As has been mentioned here before, the best solution is for the government to get entirely out of the marriage business and create civil unions, which are open to all people.
Marriage is basically a religious thing anyway, so if a bunch of sun-worshipping freaks want to prevent fags from getting married because they think it would anger the Easter Bunny, then that's fine, but it wouldn't have any impact on taxes, insurance benefits, inheritance, etc.
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zerot
I pay schoolgirls to verbally abuse me.
Member # 1295
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-16-2004 02:54 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Slade_64:
quote:
Originally posted by Zerot:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Zerot:
Are there any non-religious arguements against homosexuality?
Some.[/QUOT E]
I don't see it. Is it the "buttsex is icky" thing?
Heteros spread STDs just as well as gays do. And gay marriage could LOWER the amount of STDs in the population, since people will be more for monogamous relationships.
And just because the majority of americans are morally against gay marriage means nothing, especially because those feelings tend to come from religion.
From: Lizton, Indiana | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
NAMBLAMAN
WITH A NAMBLA PLAN
Member # 3642
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-18-2004 02:04 AM
Let's try Zerot's thing again.
COULD SOMEONE PLEASE COME UP WITH A REASON TO BAN GAY MARRIAGE THAT DOES NOT INVOLVE RELIGION AND IS ALSO NOT EQUALLY USABLE AGAINST ANY NUMBER OF THINGS NO ONE WOULD REASONABLY TRY TO BAN?
MK, this means you.
From: NAMBLANIA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
MK
is somewhat large.
Member # 1445
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-18-2004 02:41 AM
quote:
Originally posted by NAMBLAMAN:
Let's try Zerot's thing again.
COULD SOMEONE PLEASE COME UP WITH A REASON TO BAN GAY MARRIAGE THAT DOES NOT INVOLVE RELIGION AND IS ALSO NOT EQUALLY USABLE AGAINST ANY NUMBER OF THINGS NO ONE WOULD REASONABLY TRY TO BAN?
MK, this means you.
Fine... although my religious reasons are valid, I can give you ample "non religious" reasons...
1: The admission of gays to receieve legal marriage status would be a catalyst to even further corruption of marriage. If gender is no longer considered, we will soon want people who will demand the following:
*marry more than one person legally [bigamy]
*marry non-human entities [dogs, goats, trees, etc...]
*marry close family members [incest]
If we step up and say "NO! MARRIAGE = 1 MAN + 1 WOMAN" we help fight back against people who would want the above... if we give any, they'll want the remaining 7 yards...
2: This will royally screw up wealth transfer. Let's say my dad has a lot of money and wealth, owns a factory or somethin... [or if not my dad, just someone else who is also male]. Well, rather than deal with transfer taxes & fees, etc... I'll just marry him and it will legally be part mine ^_^
We'll have people marry just to complete busness transactions...
3: I'm sure that most people would tell you a child is best raised in an environment with both a man and woman traditionally [also, how would you like having 2 gay ass fathers and be teased by others?]
4: Biologically, would you not agree that the penis and vagina were MADE to be used with each other, not in some other way?
5: It [the act of gay sex] is just fucking gross...
[ 07-18-2004, 02:46 AM: Message edited by: MK ]
Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anthrax
Ultimate Authoritative Power in the Universe
Member # 335
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-18-2004 03:13 AM
And of course the solution is to ban gay marriage and not to remove the government from marriage.
I realize I am arguing with MK but I would like to point out that I have no real problem with polygamy or incest or people "marrying" non-human objects. People can already leave their estate to their pets (as cat ladies have proved on several occaisions). I don't see what financial benefits could possibly be obtained from marrying a lamp.
Just because people can't have more than one wife doesn't mean that they can't have more than one girlfriend. Just because incest is illegal doesn't mean that family members can't and don't have sex with each other. And even though you can't marry your car doesn't mean you can't have sex with it (I have seen the pictures). Christ, blowjobs are still illegal in some states.
Then again I don't really understand why anyone is fighting to make this kind or that kind of marriage legal. Marriage is another pointless ritual that has no real reason to exist.
- - - - -
She told The Associated Press she first realized her son was mentally ill in 1996 when he killed her oldest child, a 25-year-old woman who suffered from cerebral palsy, by beating her with a dumbbell.
From: Somebody put shit in my pants! | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
NAMBLAMAN
WITH A NAMBLA PLAN
Member # 3642
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-18-2004 03:13 AM
Thank you for responding, though my post is incomplete due to my haiku-like restrictions.
although my religious reasons are valid
They are valid in a religious society, not one with separation of church and state. We are discussing laws, not right and wrong.
From: NAMBLANIA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
MK
is somewhat large.
Member # 1445
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-18-2004 03:27 AM
quote:
Originally posted by NAMBLAMAN:
We are discussing laws, not right and wrong.
But, many laws ARE based upon the concept of right & wrong... Someone once said it's wrong to kill a person without having a good reason to do so, so we have laws against killing a person without a good reason...
- - - - -
even my mother thinks i'm an idiot
Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
starCaliber
is evil and also MewtwoSama
Member # 268
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-18-2004 04:14 AM
ok, the mk gimmick is no longer funny. please delete it jef
From: San Francisco, CA | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
MewtwoSama
Asshole
Member # 12
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-18-2004 12:15 PM
- - - - -
Hade ni ikuze!
From: Abyss of Evil | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
NAMBLAMAN
WITH A NAMBLA PLAN
Member # 3642
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-18-2004 12:42 PM
it's wrong to kill a person without having a good reason to do so
In a society with "legally murder anyone anytime", you would band together with friends for protection, effectively forming a new tribal government.
So if a government permits murder (or to a lesser extent theft and anything where you HURT ANOTHER PERSON WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT), then that government goes away.
To some people, drinking coffee is morally wrong.
From: NAMBLANIA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
MewtwoSama
Asshole
Member # 12
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-18-2004 02:56 PM
quote:
Originally posted by NAMBLAMAN:
To some people, drinking coffee is morally wrong.
GET OUT OF MY HEAD!
From: Abyss of Evil | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bulbasaur3000
Donkeylips
Member # 1801
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-18-2004 07:02 PM
So I see this topic and I read the title post by MK, and I'm just like, "Wow, why the fuck would you bring something up like that? Are you expecting something new? The gimmick account is getting old and less original."
And then I see how, while the war in Iraq and the economy are important things we must save America from #s 1 and 2, #3 is protecting marriage...wait a second, where do free healthcare and free college education fit into that? How about tracking down child support offenders, or fixing the foster care system before we vote to allow fewer people to adopt? Few things piss me off more than Republicans pretending to be altruistic for the good of society and for the children, because there's more than a few things out there that some simple legislation and a fraction of the $87 billion sent to Iraq could fix, that would fuck up a kid alot more than having 2 daddies.
Banning gay marriage belongs on the list of things to do where "America is almost a Utopia...only if this were fixed, then we'd be a perfect Utopia. Probably right above banning chewing gum/spraying non-stick substances all over every single downward-facing surface in the country.
[ 07-18-2004, 07:10 PM: Message edited by: Bulbasaur3000 ]
- - - - -
This signature sucks. Why is it here?
From: Plano, TX =( | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-18-2004 08:43 PM
MK: I'll just marry him and it will legally be part mine
What prevents men and women from doing this now?
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fenix
I live in a public bathroom.
Member # 2371
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-18-2004 11:18 PM
Haven't civilizations been doing that for centuries already anyways?
- - - - -
life of lively to live to life of full life thx to shield battery
From: The Homeworld, Aiur | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IceHawk78
NOBODY IMPORTANT
Member # 1699
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-19-2004 12:14 AM
Fine... although my religious reasons are valid, I can give you ample "non religious" reasons...
No they aren't. I don't even care what they are, they are wrong.
1: The admission of gays to receieve legal marriage status would be a catalyst to even further corruption of marriage. If gender is no longer considered, we will soon want people who will demand the following:
The "slippery slope theory" can be used on any number of other things which the government would never attempt to ban. So by flakkin/nambla standards this arguement fails.
*marry more than one person legally [bigamy]
What is a non-religious reason for this being wrong?
*marry non-human entities [dogs, goats, trees, etc...]
Same question.
*marry close family members [incest]
Gee, is there an echo in here?
If we step up and say "NO! MARRIAGE = 1 MAN + 1 WOMAN" we help fight back against people who would want the above... if we give any, they'll want the remaining 7 yards...
There is no reason to stick to a particular definition of marriage if it is unfitting. Any more it is societally acceptable to have a gay couple. And by that I mean that there is a mojority opinion that there is nothing inherently wrong with being homosexual, and forming a relationship based on that. And since majority rules in your view, then that means there is nothing wrong with being homosexual and building a homosexual relationship. Why then, have you decided that they can build this relationship, but then at a certain point, they just have to stop and say "okay, this is good enough."?
I believe it was brought up earlier, but what if you were told that from this day on that every time you have sex with a woman that you are doing nothing to procreate life (because, let's say, you were found out that you are unable to have children). Now, what if the government told you, yes, we recognize that there is nothing at all wrong with your relationship, but because you cannot have children you may not get married. It is not your fault, or anything, we just can't allow this to happen. That is what this situation would be like to a gay couple.
2: This will royally screw up wealth transfer. Let's say my dad has a lot of money and wealth, owns a factory or somethin... [or if not my dad, just someone else who is also male]. Well, rather than deal with transfer taxes & fees, etc... I'll just marry him and it will legally be part mine ^_^
We'll have people marry just to complete busness transactions...
So, what, are you an economist now? Straight people can already do that. In fact, it would be completely legal to do exactly what you said, if they just hired a hooker or someone to pretend to be a woman in between the deal. But it still wouldn't happen, because of the same reason it doesn't happen now with straight people - the main being that getting married has a lot of legal and fiscal ramifications. You're using a high-school economics class of how money works in a marriage. Work on getting your advanced law degree and learn about all the millions of by-laws and such before making such stupid statements and situations.
3: I'm sure that most people would tell you a child is best raised in an environment with both a man and woman traditionally [also, how would you like having 2 gay ass fathers and be teased by others?]
I'm sure most people would also tell you a lot of other incorrect things, but until you can find some way to prove it other than "most people would say this" (meaning most people you know would) then I'm inclined to say that you are full of shit. Ah, so we should contribute to this problem by telling kids "Hey, we aren't saying there's anything wrong with you, but since your childrem might be teased we're not going to let you be married." Or do you think that the first black kids who went to one of the primarily all-white schools didn't get teased? Same for the kids who have disabilities or whose parents have disabilities. Should we reinforce separate-and-unequal? (Note: If you say or are even thinking 'yes' then this is not a discussion between people, and you need to be banned out of stupidity.)
4: Biologically, would you not agree that the penis and vagina were MADE to be used with each other, not in some other way?
Someone in the last thread said that the penis and the anus is one of the best ways to stimulate a man, so that's not necessarily correct. Also people aren't made, they are born and we evolved.
5: It [the act of gay sex] is just fucking gross...
Your ignorance is also just fucking gross. I say we pass a law making you illegal.
From: Ohio | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Biffster
Farting Nudist
Member # 269
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-19-2004 05:03 PM
quote:
Originally posted by MK:
2: This will royally screw up wealth transfer. Let's say my dad has a lot of money and wealth, owns a factory or somethin... [or if not my dad, just someone else who is also male]. Well, rather than deal with transfer taxes & fees, etc... I'll just marry him and it will legally be part mine ^_^
We'll have people marry just to complete busness transactions...
[Logical response]
Many young chicks marry old dudes for money.
[Reality Check]
Yeah, MK, marry dad for his money. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
From: Viridian City (On the road at least) | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
starCaliber
is evil and also MewtwoSama
Member # 268
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-20-2004 12:24 AM
why are you guys responding to MK? it is much like trying to start a discussion with a refrigerator.
...
guys, the refrigerator isn't even plugged in.
From: San Francisco, CA | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-20-2004 12:27 AM
Crushed ice, please.
Gimme the cubes and I'll cut ya.
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
White Cat
Nobody knows why I'm an admin.
Member # 42
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-20-2004 03:11 AM
From: Calgary | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
pkthunder
I look like your mom.
Member # 67
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-20-2004 10:48 AM
*marry non-human entities [dogs, goats, trees, etc...]
FYI - this is completely irrelavent because marriage is a legal contract and both parties entering the contract must exhibit capacity.
From: Broomfield, CO | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wintermute
My custom title sucks.
Member # 5
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-20-2004 11:09 AM
why are you guys responding to MK?
It's not for him, it's for the people who aren't broken retards, but who are against gay marriage for dumb reasons.
MK's just the filthy toy that belches ignorant viewpoints when you yank the string in his neck.
sup brian
From: Winnipeg, Manitoba | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
MewtwoSama
Asshole
Member # 12
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-20-2004 11:49 AM
wilderness logging? I'd rather hear about that than gay marraige, too bad the media doesnt really care.
- - - - -
Hade ni ikuze!
From: Abyss of Evil | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
IceHawk78
NOBODY IMPORTANT
Member # 1699
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-20-2004 12:38 PM
Sup yo. Trees make your air and clean up the pollution and lower greenhouse effect and look pretty.
Also I'm responding to MK because I've actually had to respond to moronic idiocy such as this myself. Doing so on here, no matter how pointless, helps keep me sharp. Plus, there's always the chance that someone intelligent will hop in and possibly point out an error in what I've said, so that I can correct myself. Also what 'mute said.
From: Ohio | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MewtwoSama
Asshole
Member # 12
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-20-2004 02:13 PM
But I need paper to put my food in and play hangman on.
From: Abyss of Evil | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Slade_64
chipmunk pr0n author
Member # 804
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-20-2004 03:20 PM
quote:
Originally posted by IceHawk78:
Fine... although my religious reasons are valid, I can give you ample "non religious" reasons...
No they aren't. I don't even care what they are, they are wrong.
I think this response is pretty ignorant in of itself but then again MK is retarded so I won't defend him.
quote:
Originally posted by IceHawk78:
4: Biologically, would you not agree that the penis and vagina were MADE to be used with each other, not in some other way?
Someone in the last thread said that the penis and the anus is one of the best ways to stimulate a man, so that's not necessarily correct. Also people aren't made, they are born and we evolved.
Sex is meant for procreation, pleaure is just a perk. But hell there are some that don't even like sex because they don't find it pleasurable. That's why most relationships based on sex fail, pleasure isn't everything. Then again if thats the excuse your using for having gay/incest/inanimate object marrige...my hand stimulates my penis; can I marry it like Adam West?
[ 07-20-2004, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: Slade_64 ]
- - - - -
Bucket.
From: Funky Town Texas | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
MK
is somewhat large.
Member # 1445
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-20-2004 03:24 PM
quote:
Originally posted by pkthunder:
*marry non-human entities [dogs, goats, trees, etc...]
FYI - this is completely irrelavent because marriage is a legal contract and both parties entering the contract must exhibit capacity.
As of NOW, yes... However, as of, hmmm, very recently marriage meant legally the union of 1 man and 1 woman, so, if they can change that... just you wait... If any part of marriage can be changed, it ALL can be changed...
Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bugcatcher Ed
Farting Nudist
Member # 3289
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-20-2004 07:09 PM
Gay marriage amendment:
Pro arguments:
1) Expense - Somehow this has been left out of the discussion. Married people have various perks in this country. Allowing homosexual marriage will definitely increase the number of married people. This will cost money on a continual basis. One could try to change all the relevent codes and statutes to exclude the new gay marriages, but (ethics aside) that would be enormously expensive. This is the most valid argument I'm aware of for an amendment banning gay marriage. If you like it, you should support an amendment banning all marriage in the U.S., as that would be even cheaper.
2) The amendment is necessary to defend the institution of marriage. This is utter nonsense. Incompatible couples marry all the time. People marry for money. None of this affects anyone else's marriage. Nor would a gay marriage.
3) The slippery slope - if we allow this, soon any conceivable marriage will be recognized. More nonsense. Ultimately, this might lead to the recognition of multi-partner marriages, which are legal in many countries, which would, by the way, be a legal and administrative nightmare. The main other reason for polygamy/polyandry being illegal in this country are historic anti-Mormonism, so I'm not sure there's really a sound civic reason for this. In any case the slope stops here. Marriage between anything but consenting adults is a whole different kettle of fish, and, frankly, it ain't gonna happen.
4) Religious reasons. On the one hand we have the religious institution of marriage. Your church may not recognize same-sex marriages. Or marriages to people of other religions. Or to people of other branches of the same religion. Then we have the civil institution of marriage. The state recognizing any or all of the above marriage does not mean your church has to. So, bring your religious reasons to your church. Don't bring them to a discussion of the civil institution.
5) Saving the American Family! I'd certainly agree that children are best raised by a man and a woman. Depending, of course, on the man. And the woman. So, how about a ban on marriages between people who don't seem like they'd make good parents? Didn't think so. Also, all these studies compare single-parent families with two-parent families. I bet anything that two parents of the same sex would give results more like the second that the first.
6) It's unnatural & the ick factor. Yes, many think it's both unnatural and icky to allow marriage between people of two different races... Oops, wrong century. It's so easy to confuse the anti-miscegenation ideas with the anti-gay marriage ideas. Partly because both are based on prejudice. By the way, has anyone noticed that the anti-gay marriage guys always talk about marriage between two men? And how many of them can be found surfing teen lesbian sex sites?
Con arguments:
States' rights. The government needs to show a compelling reason to take over marriage law from the states. As it is the states seem to be dealing with the issue as needed. This would be a compelling argument for conservatives, if they actually cared about states' rights.
Inappropriate amendment. The idea of an amendment to take away the rights of a group is just repulsive.
Political motivation. The recent bit in congress was entirely political. They knew before they started that they didn't have the votes to pass an amendment. They just wanted to make the Dems look like commie-lovers (oops, slipped again! Well you know what I mean). They didn't expect to be so badly trounced as to look like idiots, but them's the breaks. And whatever you can say about wasting time and money on a meaningless act of political posturing instead of doing the work needed to run the government, I'm sure it at least solidified the bone-headed, gullible part of the Republican base.
From: Phenac | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
MK
is somewhat large.
Member # 1445
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-20-2004 08:22 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Bugcatcher Ed:
6) It's unnatural & the ick factor. Yes, many think it's both unnatural and icky to allow marriage between people of two different races... Oops, wrong century. It's so easy to confuse the anti-miscegenation ideas with the anti-gay marriage ideas. Partly because both are based on prejudice.
There is nothing wrong with a man and a woman of different races marrying.
And the defenders of marriage are NOT based upon prejudice.
Read the Bible, I might be incorrect on this, but I believe there is a passage that actually says it's ok to marry someone of a different background as long as they don't change who YOU are.
Read the Bible again, many passages, say homosexuality is bad...
So the Bible itself, if I remember correctly, etc... says that different races = no problem, same gender = problem. So, we're not being prejudice, that is not a fair statement.
Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Donald
Bob the Builder
Member # 1551
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-20-2004 10:18 PM
So does this cue the "one nation under G-d" argument again?
After all, not everyone in the States is a Christian, so why should they be subject to Christian law?
From: In your girl's panties | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pkthunder
I look like your mom.
Member # 67
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-20-2004 11:12 PM
quote:
Originally posted by MK:
quote:
Originally posted by pkthunder:
*marry non-human entities [dogs, goats, trees, etc...]
FYI - this is completely irrelavent because marriage is a legal contract and both parties entering the contract must exhibit capacity.
As of NOW, yes... However, as of, hmmm, very recently marriage meant legally the union of 1 man and 1 woman, so, if they can change that... just you wait... If any part of marriage can be changed, it ALL can be changed...
There's already a name for that. It's called ownership. I guess you can say I'm married to my car because I have a title which serves as a legal contract and declares me it's owner. I mean, we spend a lot of time together. We live at the same residence. It does what I tell it to do, for the most part. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
From: Broomfield, CO | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
starCaliber
is evil and also MewtwoSama
Member # 268
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-21-2004 12:49 AM
i submit that MK is a homosexual IRL (in real life) do you agree
From: San Francisco, CA | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
White Cat
Nobody knows why I'm an admin.
Member # 42
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-21-2004 01:29 AM
Well, he has once again assraped everyone in this thread who fell for his act, so it seems likely.
From: Calgary | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wintermute
My custom title sucks.
Member # 5
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-21-2004 01:43 AM
What act is that?
If you're trying to point out that he trolls, no fucking kidding. Don't waste time pointing out the obvious.
If you're arguing that he's not dumb as a brick, or that he doesn't actually believe his extreme right-wing, Christian positions, provide some evidence or shut the fuck up with the "MK is a gimmick*/MK is a genius and is having you all on" crap. It was old six months ago.
* It's one thing to jokingly offer that this is the only explanation for his behavior. It's another to maintain that it's literally true.
From: Winnipeg, Manitoba | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 07-21-2004 06:12 AM
Donald: So does this cue the "one nation under G-d" argument again?
Now you can at least see why that issue is so important. (Not that you, personally, didn't before...just making the general statement.)
If you indoctrinate children to think there's some kind of link between God and the government, then you get idiots like MK who say things like "Read the Bible..." when you ask them why the government should do this or that.
On a completely unrelated note, this is sort of funny.
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
posted 07-14-2004 09:08 PM
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic