So, my little gnome friend. You can hop around and say what you want and squeal your obnoxious gnome laugh. I have a perfect place for you on my motorcycle...........................up the exhaust pipe where the waste comes out.
OMG... stop with the metaphors already!
The gay biker avatar is enough, you don't need to try hit on me in public! ...
Jokes aside, thanks for the straight answer on my question (pardon the pun), and it's fair enough, we all have our own beliefs and values and are entitled to our own opinions.
I'm not even really pro-gay myself, if anything I am indifferent.
Each to their own I say. They're not affecting me with their life choices, so let them do as they please and afford them the same rights as anyone else.
That's my opinion anyways.
"(The) Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude." - George W Bush. Oh. My. God.
Marriage laws are not primarily about adult needs for official recognition and support, but about the well-being of children and society, and such preference constitutes a rational policy decision. Thus, society and government have reasonable, important interests in encouraging heterosexual couples to accept the recognition and regulation of marriage.
This is a cause of equal rights here, How can anybody justify that? WHY should homosexuals not be allowed to marry? I'd really like an answer to that. a good one.
The OP speaks about "good news", Why is it good news? does it even have ANY kind of effect on him at all?
Where is this so called "Equal rights now eh"? Hey Op, where is your america, "Land of the freedom" now hm?
If you let people have total freedom they do all sorts of crazy shit. Next they will be wanting to marry farm animals, do they allow that in the Netherlands? If not, then why? I mean they should give the guy who loves his goat girlfriend the right to marry her if he wants to shouldn't they?There is kind of a diffrence between marrying an animal and gay marriage. Also, how exactly is homosexual marriage "Crazy shit"?
Now wait, you're the guy that said people should have freedom. How do you know that sheep doesn't have feelings? Maybe it is truely in love with the man, afterall animals have rights these days. How dare you take away that sheep's right to a happy marrage!
Actually the sheep doesn't have rights. Not human rights. It's not a human... Bam... Just floored your whole argument. (For that matter, is it a human right to be allowed marriage?) Wanting rights for humans doesn't mean you have to want diddly squat for animals. More importantly though, people who cannot communicate are not able to marry. If you have motor neurone disease such that you cannot move or speak, you have no way of saying "I do"/consenting to the marriage, and thus you cannot be married. The day a sheep can stand up and say "I do" in its little frilly frock is the day we have to consider giving them real rights. For now, the only thing that provably distinguishes humans from animals is language/speech, and until something can replicate that it's not the same of us, therefore it doesn't have the same rights as us. Now PLEASE find a REAL argument to oppose gay marriage.
Oh and the majority of Americans do think that gay marrage is "crazy shit", that's why we vote against it.
There's never been a vote of that kind, so quit while your 2 centuries behind and sh*t the f*ck up, move into the 21st century, get with the times, and take a sensible standpoint on current affairs.
Well seeing as how my whole "sheep" argument was a joke, it makes you look silly putting all that effort into your post. Maybe it's just because you are a kid and don't understand sarcasm yet. If you're going to use profanity just go ahead and type it out, there is no language filter on this site and we wont tell your Mommy on you.
YAY age based insults. GJ on that one. I'm not sure why I asterixed "shut" tbh, but i tend to asterix other things because this isn't the only forum I frequent and there are people who prefer that it at least be somewhat censored than there in all its 'potency'... And you're welcome to go ahead and tell my 'mommy' on me, because she swears as much as I do... You see, our family has evolved somewhat passed the neolithical ideas that one word is 'worse' than another. And based on the argument you're making, she'd probably tell me I should have been 'more rude'.
As far as sarcasm goes, of course I realise the 'maybe the sheep has feelings too' thing was sarcasm, but noone ever said a joke can't be used to make a point just as well as a fact can. Your attempt at sarcasm (it wasn't funny btw... That's what most americans seem to miss about the whole 'I was being sarcastic' thing... It's supposed to be funny...) was merely an attempt to backup a premise to your conclusion that you know is entirely false, and so there's no reason not to argue it. By destroying that point - as easy as it was to overlook - you run out of avenues to hide in with the whole 'homosexuality=beastiality' thing. And I'd say typing while thinking at about 80 WPM, that post didn't take me anymore than 3 minutes, so it didn't really waste too much of my time; just kept my occupied.
Marriage laws are not primarily about adult needs for official recognition and support, but about the well-being of children and society, and such preference constitutes a rational policy decision. Thus, society and government have reasonable, important interests in encouraging heterosexual couples to accept the recognition and regulation of marriage.
If you ask me, Marriage should be seen as the binding between two People. I see no reason why it should be a binding between a man & woman only. Marriage should be a sign that you feel binded with that person,a true sign that you love him/her. Gender has nothing to do with that.
The thing I do find most humorous about all of this (and I have every right to say it seeing as your post was started out of pure hatred) is that the original poster's avatar makes him look like he's just stepped out of the Blue Oyster in a Police Academy movie (a gay bar, in case you're too young to have witnessed the cinematic gold that is Police Academy...). I guess it's hard to tell from a small pic, but you look like you belong to the club you're trying to abolish.
If you ask me, Marriage should be seen as the binding between two People. I see no reason why it should be a binding between a man & woman only. Marriage should be a sign that you feel binded with that person,a true sign that you love him/her. Gender has nothing to do with that.
I love my Mom
I wonder if I can get a bill passed to marry her if I want to. She is a person. Any law against that? She cant have kids so it would be ok...right?
I love my cat too.........................nevermind
If you ask me, Marriage should be seen as the binding between two People. I see no reason why it should be a binding between a man & woman only. Marriage should be a sign that you feel binded with that person,a true sign that you love him/her. Gender has nothing to do with that.
I love my Mom
I wonder if I can get a bill passed to marry her if I want to. She is a person. Any law against that? She cant have kids so it would be ok...right?
I love my cat too.........................nevermind
*sigh*
is this honnestly the best arguement you can come up with? "hey, homosexualit marriage is wrong because [insert extreme case here] is wrong as well!" honnestly, the same could be said about this, if we allow male-female marriage, then we might as well allow mother and son marriage as well. if I say this, then I should be considered speaking nonsense. But if the gay marriage subject comes up, then for some people, it all of a sudden makes perfect sense, and thus gay marriage should be banned as well.
We indeed need to draw a line somewhere, But I have yet to hear a good reason why that line should be drawn before gay marriage
Gameloading, please explain how gay marriage is good for us. So far your argument for gay marriage is no stronger than the arguments against it. Are you involved in a gay marriage yourself, do you have a first hand experience with this issue? You seem to have a burning passion for the subject so I assume you are involed in a same sex marriage (am I correct or not)?
Anyway show us some proof of how same sex marriages have made things better in the Netherlands...anything?
1. Homosexuals are seeking a special right. They already have the same right to marry the rest of us have-the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. Limiting marriage to one man and one woman doesn't discriminate on the basis of sex or sexual orientation.
2. It denies the self-evident truth of nature that male and female bodies are designed for and complement each other. Opposite-sex marriage is the natural means by which the human race reproduces.
3. Granting same-sex couples a license to marry will not create true marriage. Neither two men nor two women can become one flesh. Licensing the unnatural does not make it natural. It would be a state-sanctioned counterfeit, a sham and a fraud. A licensed electrician cannot produce power by taping two same-sex plugs together. Homosexual sex is dangerous and destructive to the human body and powerless for human reproduction.
4. Homosexual marriage will always be an abomination to God regardless of whether a clergyman performs the ceremony. When God calls something unholy, man cannot make it holy or bless it.
5. Homosexual marriage is as wrong as giving a man a license to marry his mother or daughter or sister or a group.
6. Homosexual marriage will harm children by denying them the love and nurture of a mom and dad. The only "procreation" homosexuals can engage in requires that a third party must be brought into the relationship.
7. Granting a marriage license to homosexuals because they engage in sex is as illogical as granting a medical license to a barber because he wears a white coat or a law license to a salesman because he carries a briefcase. Real doctors, lawyers and the public would suffer as a result of licensing the unqualified and granting them rights, benefits and responsibilities as if they were qualified.
8. Homosexual marriage will devalue your marriage. A license to marry is a legal document by which government will treat same-sex marriage as if it were equal to the real thing. A license speaks for the government and will tell society that government says the marriages are equal. Any time a lesser thing is made equal to a greater, the greater is devalued. For example:
a. If the Smithsonian Museum displays a hunk of polished blue glass next to the Hope Diamond with a sign that says, "These are of equal value," and treats them as if they were, the Hope Diamond is devalued in the public's eye. The government says it's just expensive blue glass. The history and mystery are lost too.
b. If an employer uses a robot as an employee and treats the robot the same way it treats human employees, human employees are devalued. By doing so, the employer says, "A robot can do your job, you're no better." What will you and the public think of your job and you?
c. If the government issues a license to babysitters that grants them the same rights, protections and responsibilities as a child's parents, parenthood is devalued. The government says parents are just babysitters.
d. If government grants professional licenses to just anybody, every profession and qualified professional is devalued. The government says an uneducated panhandler can do brain surgery.
9. The assumption by many is that marriage is just two people with a license who have sex and wear rings. Homosexuals do that?why not give them the license? Engaging in sex doesn't equal marriage. Adults involved in incest have sex too; should government call it marriage and license them? Certainly not.
10. The biggest problem we have in getting people, especially younger ones, to understand why marriage is devalued by the existence of a counterfeit is that much of the public does not value marriage at all. Adultery is no big deal. No- fault divorce is tolerated. Absentee fathers and mothers devalue marriage. Unmarried pregnancies are common. Fornication is "normal." When we make the case against homosexual marriage, we need to speak against these other problems that devalue marriage too. As we acknowledge these problems we can emphasize that legalizing homosexual marriage will compound the problems, not solve or lessen them.
This is a cause of equal rights here, How can anybody justify that? WHY should homosexuals not be allowed to marry? I'd really like an answer to that. a good one.
I have nothing against homosexuals marrying. As long as its the opposite sex. Who said Homosexuals couldnt marry? This has been brought up time and time again.
Female = /V
Male = 8----
This is the way we are made and this is the way it should stay.....Period
And maybe you would like it if we went back to the days where the parents chose the spouse for their children? Then you would be forced to marry someone you don't love. Does that sound cool to you? Because essentially that's what you're doing by saying a gay person can marry someone of the opposite sex. You're saying they can marry someone they can't ever love. They are not capable of loving a person of the opposite sex the way you are.
How about we are just given the right to marry the person we love and who loves us back?
And why do you as a Republican, whom I assume is for minimal government, always fall on the side of using the government to force people to act a certain way? I haven't read a post from you yet that hasn't leaned in that direction. This is not a governmental matter at all. This is a religious matter. Why is the government in the marriage business? Think about that.
Your username is outfctrl, yet you're posts always talk about controlling folks. Does it really mean "outforcontrol" instead?
Gameloading, please explain how gay marriage is good for us. So far your argument for gay marriage is no stronger than the arguments against it. Are you involved in a gay marriage yourself, do you have a first hand experience with this issue? You seem to have a burning passion for the subject so I assume you are involed in a same sex marriage (am I correct or not)?
Anyway show us some proof of how same sex marriages have made things better in the Netherlands...anything?
Hey BuZZkilgore (or should I say MMO_Man?)
Where did I ever claimed Gay Marriage is good for us? Its not good for you, and its not good for me, its not good for any non-homosexual. But here is the thing, its not bad for you either. In fact, it has NO EFFECT on you at all. As I already explained when you named me gay on your MMO_Man account, I am not homosexual or bisexual in any way or form, I'm straigth. I am for equal rights. Show some proof how same sex marriages made things better? Pretty hard, but if you ever make a trip to the Netherlands, I'd be glad to introduce you to homosexual couples who are now HAPPY they are MARRIED.
Gameloading, please explain how gay marriage is good for us. So far your argument for gay marriage is no stronger than the arguments against it. Are you involved in a gay marriage yourself, do you have a first hand experience with this issue? You seem to have a burning passion for the subject so I assume you are involed in a same sex marriage (am I correct or not)?
Anyway show us some proof of how same sex marriages have made things better in the Netherlands...anything?
Hey BuZZkilgore (or should I say MMO_Man?)
Where did I ever claimed Gay Marriage is good for us? Its not good for you, and its not good for me, its not good for any non-homosexual. But here is the thing, its not bad for you either. In fact, it has NO EFFECT on you at all. As I already explained when you named me gay on your MMO_Man account, I am not homosexual or bisexual in any way or form, I'm straigth. I am for equal rights. Show some proof how same sex marriages made things better? Pretty hard, but if you ever make a trip to the Netherlands, I'd be glad to introduce you to homosexual couples who are now HAPPY they are MARRIED. I didn't expect you to come up with anything. As far as making to a trip to the Netherlands, you have to be kidding me. lol
1. Homosexuals are seeking a special right. They already have the same right to marry the rest of us have-the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. Limiting marriage to one man and one woman doesn't discriminate on the basis of sex or sexual orientation. Actually it does. it limites two people who love each other, only because they happen to be male. Couple A exists of a male & a female. They are allowed to marry. Couple B exists of a male & another male, they are not allowed to marry.
2. It denies the self-evident truth of nature that male and female bodies are designed for and complement each other. Opposite-sex marriage is the natural means by which the human race reproduces. That is called SEX, not MARRIAGE, please stick to the subject. By the way, do you ever shave? Nature didn't intend that..(looks at picture) ok..bad example, but. Did you ever had a haircut? Not natures intention. Do you drink Milk? Not natures intention. Brush your teeth? want me to go on?
3. Granting same-sex couples a license to marry will not create true marriage. Neither two men nor two women can become one flesh. Licensing the unnatural does not make it natural. It would be a state-sanctioned counterfeit, a sham and a fraud. A licensed electrician cannot produce power by taping two same-sex plugs together. Homosexual sex is dangerous and destructive to the human body and powerless for human reproduction. Stick to the subject, we are talking about marriage, not sex.
4. Homosexual marriage will always be an abomination to God regardless of whether a clergyman performs the ceremony. When God calls something unholy, man cannot make it holy or bless it. We are not talking about religion here. NEVER should religion influence laws in any way or form. If you think it should, then you better bring some damn good evidence that it is an abomination of god, and a book is not going to cut it.
5. Homosexual marriage is as wrong as giving a man a license to marry his mother or daughter or sister or a group. Thats your opinion as a heterosexual. based on absolutely nada.
6. Homosexual marriage will harm children by denying them the love and nurture of a mom and dad. The only "procreation" homosexuals can engage in requires that a third party must be brought into the relationship. We are talking about homosexual marriage here, Not homosexual child adoption. although I fully agree that a child needs a mother & father. I am for gay marriage, but I don't think that homosexual couples, married or not, should be able to adopt a child.
7. Granting a marriage license to homosexuals because they engage in sex is as illogical as granting a medical license to a barber because he wears a white coat or a law license to a salesman because he carries a briefcase. Real doctors, lawyers and the public would suffer as a result of licensing the unqualified and granting them rights, benefits and responsibilities as if they were qualified.
8. Homosexual marriage will devalue your marriage. A license to marry is a legal document by which government will treat same-sex marriage as if it were equal to the real thing. A license speaks for the government and will tell society that government says the marriages are equal. Any time a lesser thing is made equal to a greater, the greater is devalued. For example: a. If the Smithsonian Museum displays a hunk of polished blue glass next to the Hope Diamond with a sign that says, "These are of equal value," and treats them as if they were, the Hope Diamond is devalued in the public's eye. The government says it's just expensive blue glass. The history and mystery are lost too.
b. If an employer uses a robot as an employee and treats the robot the same way it treats human employees, human employees are devalued. By doing so, the employer says, "A robot can do your job, you're no better." What will you and the public think of your job and you?
c. If the government issues a license to babysitters that grants them the same rights, protections and responsibilities as a child's parents, parenthood is devalued. The government says parents are just babysitters.
d. If government grants professional licenses to just anybody, every profession and qualified professional is devalued. The government says an uneducated panhandler can do brain surgery. Those are VERY VERY poor examples that are related to COMPLETE diffrent subjects. There is no reason for man and women to de-value marriage suddenly because homosexuals are allowed to marry as well. As I said, Imo, If you only value your marriage because other people are excluded from marriage, then that marriage wasn't a lot to even begin with.
9. The assumption by many is that marriage is just two people with a license who have sex and wear rings. Homosexuals do that?why not give them the license? Engaging in sex doesn't equal marriage. Adults involved in incest have sex too; should government call it marriage and license them? Certainly not.
Homosexuals marry for the same reason straigth people marry: They love each other.
10. The biggest problem we have in getting people, especially younger ones, to understand why marriage is devalued by the existence of a counterfeit is that much of the public does not value marriage at all. Adultery is no big deal. No- fault divorce is tolerated. Absentee fathers and mothers devalue marriage. Unmarried pregnancies are common. Fornication is "normal." When we make the case against homosexual marriage, we need to speak against these other problems that devalue marriage too. As we acknowledge these problems we can emphasize that legalizing homosexual marriage will compound the problems, not solve or lessen them. Really? and how exactly does homosexual marriage de-value marriage?
I say let the gays have legal marriage. This is a minor, minor, minor issue and not worth a fight that they will win in time anyway.
It is not a minor issue, its a major issue.
The way to abolish marriage, without seeming to abolish it, is to redefine the institution out of existence. If everything can be marriage, pretty soon nothing will be marriage. Legalize gay marriage, followed by multi-partner marriage, and pretty soon the whole idea of marriage will be meaningless.
Some of you people just dont get it. WHERE DOES IT STOP???? It has to stop here. Period. Marriage is between a man and a woman.
I agree completely. Part of what marriage is about is Tradition. Marriage has always been between 1 man and 1 woman. Anything else is breaking the tradition. It's about more than just legal status and so forth. Changing the tradition of marriage will make marriage less meaningful. If anyone can get married to anyone, then marriage doesn't matter anymore, and that's not something I will stand for.
Can't gay people just be happy with Civil Unions? It gives you the same legal status without ruining the tradition of marriage.
I just wish they'd let us have a vote up here in Canada, we didn't get any say in the matter and I'd feel pretty safe saying that most Canadians oppose gay marriage as well.
That is truly beautiful. Your marriage only has meaning if you exclude other people from marrying. Only one group can marry (the one which you are obviously part of), while the other group can not (of which your not part of), because if the other group would be allowed to marry, then those poor, married couples would no longer feel that they are special.
Actually no, you twist words so they suit your purpose. It's not that I want to keep marriage the way it is because it excludes people, as much as you'd like that to be. I want to keep marriage the way it is because it's a tradition, because that's the way it's always been, and it's the way it always should be. I will not stand for the bastardization of marriage just because gay people decide they should have it their way.
When we change our traditions we lose the connection to who we are, who we were, and who our ancestors were. Just look at Christmas., or Easter.
Perhaps next time you should read entire posts instead of just playing with your highlighter. For example, read the rest of the paragraph before the part you picked on.
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
I say let the gays have legal marriage. This is a minor, minor, minor issue and not worth a fight that they will win in time anyway.
It is not a minor issue, its a major issue.
The way to abolish marriage, without seeming to abolish it, is to redefine the institution out of existence. If everything can be marriage, pretty soon nothing will be marriage. Legalize gay marriage, followed by multi-partner marriage, and pretty soon the whole idea of marriage will be meaningless.
Some of you people just dont get it. WHERE DOES IT STOP???? It has to stop here. Period. Marriage is between a man and a woman.
I agree completely. Part of what marriage is about is Tradition. Marriage has always been between 1 man and 1 woman. Anything else is breaking the tradition. It's about more than just legal status and so forth. Changing the tradition of marriage will make marriage less meaningful. If anyone can get married to anyone, then marriage doesn't matter anymore, and that's not something I will stand for.
Can't gay people just be happy with Civil Unions? It gives you the same legal status without ruining the tradition of marriage.
I just wish they'd let us have a vote up here in Canada, we didn't get any say in the matter and I'd feel pretty safe saying that most Canadians oppose gay marriage as well.
That is truly beautiful. Your marriage only has meaning if you exclude other people from marrying. Only one group can marry (the one which you are obviously part of), while the other group can not (of which your not part of), because if the other group would be allowed to marry, then those poor, married couples would no longer feel that they are special.
Actually no, you twist words so they suit your purpose. It's not that I want to keep marriage the way it is because it excludes people, as much as you'd like that to be. I want to keep marriage the way it is because it's a tradition, because that's the way it's always been, and it's the way it always should be. I will not stand for the bastardization of marriage just because gay people decide they should have it their way.
When we change our traditions we lose the connection to who we are, who we were, and who our ancestors were. Just look at Christmas., or Easter.
Perhaps next time you should read entire posts instead of just playing with your highlighter. For example, read the rest of the paragraph before the part you picked on.
Are you trying to claim that you did NOT say "Well hey, if everyone can just marry these days, then my marriage just doesn't matter anymore", because that is EXACTLY what you said. Tradition or no tradition, Marriage also has benefits. And equal rights > Tradition any time of the day. Also, allow homosexuals doesn't change anything for you. it doesn't affect you in any way or form.
I mean, imo, all those opposed to homosexuality are like children. "We came up with a new game, and YOUR not allowed to play with us, nananana"
Who we were? who our ancestors were? Our ancestors were people that were less advanced then us. With diffrent idea's and diffrent value's. They should be noted, but not be taken as a big example.
Homosexual marriage is legal in Massachusetts by the vote of the people – NO. Homosexual marriage is legal in Massachusetts by an act of the State Legislature – NO.
Homosexual marriage is legal in Massachusetts because the State Judiciary legislated from the Bench to force abomination on the State’s citizens – YES.
Can a Democracy Legislate morality? It is doubtful. However a Democracy may enact laws to prevent immorality from becoming accepted as moral. For example pornography is legal as a free speech and freedom of choice issue in America. However Americans are not forced to participate in the experience of pornography. Cities prohibit striptease and nude bars from being in certain proximity of schools or Churches. A Democracy can ensure that immoral homosexuality is not thrust on the majority of its citizens that believe in holy matrimony between a male and a female.
Thank God there are Americans in Massachusetts willing to stand tall against the homosexual agenda in that State.
Hetero's are not forced to have any kind of contact or experience with gay marriage either. it does not have any kind of effect on hetero married couples in any way or form. Many people are just overeacting Imo. I honnestly can't see why anyone would want to take away a part of someone else's happiness.
"activists are asking us to "transform, at unknown cost to ourselves and to future generations, the central institution of our society." Gay marriage ought to be resisted "firmly, politely and above all, unashamedly."
Hetero's are not forced to have any kind of contact or experience with gay marriage either.
If you read some of my other posts, you would see how it affects everyone, even children.
A new definition of marriage that includes same-sex marriage is fundamentally flawed because it attempts to disconnect the natural link between marriage and procreation. History and nature instruct us that marriage is the proper setting for parenthood. Although not all heterosexual couples are able to procreate, this ability is structurally missing from the homosexual relationship. The homosexual relationship precludes any chance of procreation.
The Netherlands provides a good example of what happens when the natural link is torn apart. The Netherlands officially recognized same-sex marriage in 2000, but started moving in the direction of acceptance in the late 1980s. Since then, out-of-wedlock births have skyrocketed to the point where most adults don’t even bother getting married and children often grow up in unstable families, without married parents. In the Netherlands, the acceptance of gay marriage signified the destruction and abolition of marriage as the socially preferred setting for parenthood. Along with the demise of the institutions of marriage and parenthood, the Netherlands, and other Western countries with similar policies, have witnessed the acceptance and implementation of astonishingly liberal policies on abortion, cloning, and other bioethics issues, and the loss of their religious identity. In fact, 75 percent of Dutch under the age of 35 claim no religious affiliation. We have no reason to think this won’t happen in the United States. The relationship between the cheapening of the institution of marriage and the demise of a country’s culture is too strong to ignore.
The institution of marriage is the fundamental center of our society and civilization. Not only is marriage a contract, but also a social estate, subject to state laws of property, inheritance, and to the expectations of the local community; a spiritual association, subject to the creed and canons of a religious community; and most fundamentally, a natural institution, subject to the natural laws taught by reason and conscience, nature and custom. Marriage is a social institution older than the nation-state, contract law, Christianity, or any known institution.
If you actually read that article you just posted yourself, you will see that its based on mere assumptions. not once is hard scientific evidence brough to the table. That person is trying to relate out of wedlock births with gay marriage, but does not bring any evidence.
Comments
The gay biker avatar is enough, you don't need to try hit on me in public!
Jokes aside, thanks for the straight answer on my question (pardon the pun), and it's fair enough, we all have our own beliefs and values and are entitled to our own opinions.
I'm not even really pro-gay myself, if anything I am indifferent.
Each to their own I say. They're not affecting me with their life choices, so let them do as they please and afford them the same rights as anyone else.
That's my opinion anyways.
"(The) Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude." - George W Bush.
Oh. My. God.
Says the gnome in a santa outfit .....
Yup..that fits you
So yuo basically agree with him that you look like a gay biker.......ok.Now wait, you're the guy that said people should have freedom. How do you know that sheep doesn't have feelings? Maybe it is truely in love with the man, afterall animals have rights these days. How dare you take away that sheep's right to a happy marrage!
Actually the sheep doesn't have rights. Not human rights. It's not a human... Bam... Just floored your whole argument. (For that matter, is it a human right to be allowed marriage?) Wanting rights for humans doesn't mean you have to want diddly squat for animals. More importantly though, people who cannot communicate are not able to marry. If you have motor neurone disease such that you cannot move or speak, you have no way of saying "I do"/consenting to the marriage, and thus you cannot be married. The day a sheep can stand up and say "I do" in its little frilly frock is the day we have to consider giving them real rights. For now, the only thing that provably distinguishes humans from animals is language/speech, and until something can replicate that it's not the same of us, therefore it doesn't have the same rights as us. Now PLEASE find a REAL argument to oppose gay marriage.
Oh and the majority of Americans do think that gay marrage is "crazy shit", that's why we vote against it.
There's never been a vote of that kind, so quit while your 2 centuries behind and sh*t the f*ck up, move into the 21st century, get with the times, and take a sensible standpoint on current affairs.
Well seeing as how my whole "sheep" argument was a joke, it makes you look silly putting all that effort into your post. Maybe it's just because you are a kid and don't understand sarcasm yet. If you're going to use profanity just go ahead and type it out, there is no language filter on this site and we wont tell your Mommy on you.YAY age based insults. GJ on that one. I'm not sure why I asterixed "shut" tbh, but i tend to asterix other things because this isn't the only forum I frequent and there are people who prefer that it at least be somewhat censored than there in all its 'potency'... And you're welcome to go ahead and tell my 'mommy' on me, because she swears as much as I do... You see, our family has evolved somewhat passed the neolithical ideas that one word is 'worse' than another. And based on the argument you're making, she'd probably tell me I should have been 'more rude'.
As far as sarcasm goes, of course I realise the 'maybe the sheep has feelings too' thing was sarcasm, but noone ever said a joke can't be used to make a point just as well as a fact can. Your attempt at sarcasm (it wasn't funny btw... That's what most americans seem to miss about the whole 'I was being sarcastic' thing... It's supposed to be funny...) was merely an attempt to backup a premise to your conclusion that you know is entirely false, and so there's no reason not to argue it. By destroying that point - as easy as it was to overlook - you run out of avenues to hide in with the whole 'homosexuality=beastiality' thing. And I'd say typing while thinking at about 80 WPM, that post didn't take me anymore than 3 minutes, so it didn't really waste too much of my time; just kept my occupied.
LMFAO! QFT!!! HAHAHA!
I love my Mom
I wonder if I can get a bill passed to marry her if I want to. She is a person. Any law against that? She cant have kids so it would be ok...right?
I love my cat too.........................nevermind
I love my Mom
I wonder if I can get a bill passed to marry her if I want to. She is a person. Any law against that? She cant have kids so it would be ok...right?
I love my cat too.........................nevermind
*sigh*is this honnestly the best arguement you can come up with? "hey, homosexualit marriage is wrong because [insert extreme case here] is wrong as well!" honnestly, the same could be said about this, if we allow male-female marriage, then we might as well allow mother and son marriage as well. if I say this, then I should be considered speaking nonsense. But if the gay marriage subject comes up, then for some people, it all of a sudden makes perfect sense, and thus gay marriage should be banned as well.
We indeed need to draw a line somewhere, But I have yet to hear a good reason why that line should be drawn before gay marriage
Anyway show us some proof of how same sex marriages have made things better in the Netherlands...anything?
1. Homosexuals are seeking a special right. They already have the same right to marry the rest of us have-the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. Limiting marriage to one man and one woman doesn't discriminate on the basis of sex or sexual orientation.
2. It denies the self-evident truth of nature that male and female bodies are designed for and complement each other. Opposite-sex marriage is the natural means by which the human race reproduces.
3. Granting same-sex couples a license to marry will not create true marriage. Neither two men nor two women can become one flesh. Licensing the unnatural does not make it natural. It would be a state-sanctioned counterfeit, a sham and a fraud. A licensed electrician cannot produce power by taping two same-sex plugs together. Homosexual sex is dangerous and destructive to the human body and powerless for human reproduction.
4. Homosexual marriage will always be an abomination to God regardless of whether a clergyman performs the ceremony. When God calls something unholy, man cannot make it holy or bless it.
5. Homosexual marriage is as wrong as giving a man a license to marry his mother or daughter or sister or a group.
6. Homosexual marriage will harm children by denying them the love and nurture of a mom and dad. The only "procreation" homosexuals can engage in requires that a third party must be brought into the relationship.
7. Granting a marriage license to homosexuals because they engage in sex is as illogical as granting a medical license to a barber because he wears a white coat or a law license to a salesman because he carries a briefcase. Real doctors, lawyers and the public would suffer as a result of licensing the unqualified and granting them rights, benefits and responsibilities as if they were qualified.
8. Homosexual marriage will devalue your marriage. A license to marry is a legal document by which government will treat same-sex marriage as if it were equal to the real thing. A license speaks for the government and will tell society that government says the marriages are equal. Any time a lesser thing is made equal to a greater, the greater is devalued. For example:
a. If the Smithsonian Museum displays a hunk of polished blue glass next to the Hope Diamond with a sign that says, "These are of equal value," and treats them as if they were, the Hope Diamond is devalued in the public's eye. The government says it's just expensive blue glass. The history and mystery are lost too.
b. If an employer uses a robot as an employee and treats the robot the same way it treats human employees, human employees are devalued. By doing so, the employer says, "A robot can do your job, you're no better." What will you and the public think of your job and you?
c. If the government issues a license to babysitters that grants them the same rights, protections and responsibilities as a child's parents, parenthood is devalued. The government says parents are just babysitters.
d. If government grants professional licenses to just anybody, every profession and qualified professional is devalued. The government says an uneducated panhandler can do brain surgery.
9. The assumption by many is that marriage is just two people with a license who have sex and wear rings. Homosexuals do that?why not give them the license? Engaging in sex doesn't equal marriage. Adults involved in incest have sex too; should government call it marriage and license them? Certainly not.
10. The biggest problem we have in getting people, especially younger ones, to understand why marriage is devalued by the existence of a counterfeit is that much of the public does not value marriage at all. Adultery is no big deal. No- fault divorce is tolerated. Absentee fathers and mothers devalue marriage. Unmarried pregnancies are common. Fornication is "normal." When we make the case against homosexual marriage, we need to speak against these other problems that devalue marriage too. As we acknowledge these problems we can emphasize that legalizing homosexual marriage will compound the problems, not solve or lessen them.
I have nothing against homosexuals marrying. As long as its the opposite sex. Who said Homosexuals couldnt marry? This has been brought up time and time again.
Female = /V
Male = 8----
This is the way we are made and this is the way it should stay.....Period
And maybe you would like it if we went back to the days where the parents chose the spouse for their children? Then you would be forced to marry someone you don't love. Does that sound cool to you? Because essentially that's what you're doing by saying a gay person can marry someone of the opposite sex. You're saying they can marry someone they can't ever love. They are not capable of loving a person of the opposite sex the way you are.How about we are just given the right to marry the person we love and who loves us back?
And why do you as a Republican, whom I assume is for minimal government, always fall on the side of using the government to force people to act a certain way? I haven't read a post from you yet that hasn't leaned in that direction. This is not a governmental matter at all. This is a religious matter. Why is the government in the marriage business? Think about that.
Your username is outfctrl, yet you're posts always talk about controlling folks. Does it really mean "outforcontrol" instead?
Where did I ever claimed Gay Marriage is good for us? Its not good for you, and its not good for me, its not good for any non-homosexual. But here is the thing, its not bad for you either. In fact, it has NO EFFECT on you at all. As I already explained when you named me gay on your MMO_Man account, I am not homosexual or bisexual in any way or form, I'm straigth. I am for equal rights. Show some proof how same sex marriages made things better? Pretty hard, but if you ever make a trip to the Netherlands, I'd be glad to introduce you to homosexual couples who are now HAPPY they are MARRIED.
Where did I ever claimed Gay Marriage is good for us? Its not good for you, and its not good for me, its not good for any non-homosexual. But here is the thing, its not bad for you either. In fact, it has NO EFFECT on you at all. As I already explained when you named me gay on your MMO_Man account, I am not homosexual or bisexual in any way or form, I'm straigth. I am for equal rights. Show some proof how same sex marriages made things better? Pretty hard, but if you ever make a trip to the Netherlands, I'd be glad to introduce you to homosexual couples who are now HAPPY they are MARRIED. I didn't expect you to come up with anything. As far as making to a trip to the Netherlands, you have to be kidding me. lol
I agree. We should keep the government out of it and keep it as a Religious matter. We wouldnt have an issue, would we.
Let the people decide. What would be the answer? No Gay marriage. but no, the liberal judges have to step in and open a can of worms.
Leave marriage the way it is. One Man and one woman. The secular progressives are demoralizing society.
It is not a minor issue, its a major issue.
The way to abolish marriage, without seeming to abolish it, is to redefine the institution out of existence. If everything can be marriage, pretty soon nothing will be marriage. Legalize gay marriage, followed by multi-partner marriage, and pretty soon the whole idea of marriage will be meaningless.
Some of you people just dont get it. WHERE DOES IT STOP???? It has to stop here. Period. Marriage is between a man and a woman.
I agree completely. Part of what marriage is about is Tradition. Marriage has always been between 1 man and 1 woman. Anything else is breaking the tradition. It's about more than just legal status and so forth. Changing the tradition of marriage will make marriage less meaningful. If anyone can get married to anyone, then marriage doesn't matter anymore, and that's not something I will stand for.
Can't gay people just be happy with Civil Unions? It gives you the same legal status without ruining the tradition of marriage.
I just wish they'd let us have a vote up here in Canada, we didn't get any say in the matter and I'd feel pretty safe saying that most Canadians oppose gay marriage as well.
That is truly beautiful. Your marriage only has meaning if you exclude other people from marrying. Only one group can marry (the one which you are obviously part of), while the other group can not (of which your not part of), because if the other group would be allowed to marry, then those poor, married couples would no longer feel that they are special.Actually no, you twist words so they suit your purpose. It's not that I want to keep marriage the way it is because it excludes people, as much as you'd like that to be. I want to keep marriage the way it is because it's a tradition, because that's the way it's always been, and it's the way it always should be. I will not stand for the bastardization of marriage just because gay people decide they should have it their way.
When we change our traditions we lose the connection to who we are, who we were, and who our ancestors were. Just look at Christmas., or Easter.
Perhaps next time you should read entire posts instead of just playing with your highlighter. For example, read the rest of the paragraph before the part you picked on.
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
It is not a minor issue, its a major issue.
The way to abolish marriage, without seeming to abolish it, is to redefine the institution out of existence. If everything can be marriage, pretty soon nothing will be marriage. Legalize gay marriage, followed by multi-partner marriage, and pretty soon the whole idea of marriage will be meaningless.
Some of you people just dont get it. WHERE DOES IT STOP???? It has to stop here. Period. Marriage is between a man and a woman.
I agree completely. Part of what marriage is about is Tradition. Marriage has always been between 1 man and 1 woman. Anything else is breaking the tradition. It's about more than just legal status and so forth. Changing the tradition of marriage will make marriage less meaningful. If anyone can get married to anyone, then marriage doesn't matter anymore, and that's not something I will stand for.
Can't gay people just be happy with Civil Unions? It gives you the same legal status without ruining the tradition of marriage.
I just wish they'd let us have a vote up here in Canada, we didn't get any say in the matter and I'd feel pretty safe saying that most Canadians oppose gay marriage as well.
That is truly beautiful. Your marriage only has meaning if you exclude other people from marrying. Only one group can marry (the one which you are obviously part of), while the other group can not (of which your not part of), because if the other group would be allowed to marry, then those poor, married couples would no longer feel that they are special.Actually no, you twist words so they suit your purpose. It's not that I want to keep marriage the way it is because it excludes people, as much as you'd like that to be. I want to keep marriage the way it is because it's a tradition, because that's the way it's always been, and it's the way it always should be. I will not stand for the bastardization of marriage just because gay people decide they should have it their way.
When we change our traditions we lose the connection to who we are, who we were, and who our ancestors were. Just look at Christmas., or Easter.
Perhaps next time you should read entire posts instead of just playing with your highlighter. For example, read the rest of the paragraph before the part you picked on.
Are you trying to claim that you did NOT say "Well hey, if everyone can just marry these days, then my marriage just doesn't matter anymore", because that is EXACTLY what you said. Tradition or no tradition, Marriage also has benefits. And equal rights > Tradition any time of the day. Also, allow homosexuals doesn't change anything for you. it doesn't affect you in any way or form.I mean, imo, all those opposed to homosexuality are like children. "We came up with a new game, and YOUR not allowed to play with us, nananana"
Who we were? who our ancestors were? Our ancestors were people that were less advanced then us. With diffrent idea's and diffrent value's. They should be noted, but not be taken as a big example.
Getting back to my OP
Homosexual marriage is legal in Massachusetts by the vote of the people – NO. Homosexual marriage is legal in Massachusetts by an act of the State Legislature – NO.
Homosexual marriage is legal in Massachusetts because the State Judiciary legislated from the Bench to force abomination on the State’s citizens – YES.
Can a Democracy Legislate morality? It is doubtful. However a Democracy may enact laws to prevent immorality from becoming accepted as moral. For example pornography is legal as a free speech and freedom of choice issue in America. However Americans are not forced to participate in the experience of pornography. Cities prohibit striptease and nude bars from being in certain proximity of schools or Churches. A Democracy can ensure that immoral homosexuality is not thrust on the majority of its citizens that believe in holy matrimony between a male and a female.
Thank God there are Americans in Massachusetts willing to stand tall against the homosexual agenda in that State.
"activists are asking us to "transform, at unknown cost to ourselves and to future generations, the central institution of our society." Gay marriage ought to be resisted "firmly, politely and above all, unashamedly."
If you read some of my other posts, you would see how it affects everyone, even children.
A new definition of marriage that includes same-sex marriage is fundamentally flawed because it attempts to disconnect the natural link between marriage and procreation. History and nature instruct us that marriage is the proper setting for parenthood. Although not all heterosexual couples are able to procreate, this ability is structurally missing from the homosexual relationship. The homosexual relationship precludes any chance of procreation.
The Netherlands provides a good example of what happens when the natural link is torn apart. The Netherlands officially recognized same-sex marriage in 2000, but started moving in the direction of acceptance in the late 1980s. Since then, out-of-wedlock births have skyrocketed to the point where most adults don’t even bother getting married and children often grow up in unstable families, without married parents. In the Netherlands, the acceptance of gay marriage signified the destruction and abolition of marriage as the socially preferred setting for parenthood. Along with the demise of the institutions of marriage and parenthood, the Netherlands, and other Western countries with similar policies, have witnessed the acceptance and implementation of astonishingly liberal policies on abortion, cloning, and other bioethics issues, and the loss of their religious identity. In fact, 75 percent of Dutch under the age of 35 claim no religious affiliation. We have no reason to think this won’t happen in the United States. The relationship between the cheapening of the institution of marriage and the demise of a country’s culture is too strong to ignore.
The institution of marriage is the fundamental center of our society and civilization. Not only is marriage a contract, but also a social estate, subject to state laws of property, inheritance, and to the expectations of the local community; a spiritual association, subject to the creed and canons of a religious community; and most fundamentally, a natural institution, subject to the natural laws taught by reason and conscience, nature and custom. Marriage is a social institution older than the nation-state, contract law, Christianity, or any known institution.
I sleep with a pillow under my gun.