Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by outfctrl

Originally posted by HYPERI0N

Originally posted by outfctrl

Originally posted by Briansho

The thing I can't understand is this. If you are a conservative and you want less government in peoples lives how can you go around telling other people what to do with theirs? What difference does it make what another person does with their life? You can't pick and choose, if you are for the government to be all up in someones business but you say you are a conservative, then you are a closet socialist liberal.

I am not in anyone's business, just stay out of mine. Plus, I am not telling anyone what to do.  I am just tired of this crap being rammed down our throats.(figuratively speaking of course)  NOHOMO  ;-)

 

Yet you are supporting the idea of gays not being allowed to enter Marrage.

Because there is no place to stop once that Rubicon has been crossed. Historically, the definition of marriage has rested on a bedrock of tradition, legal precedent, theology and the overwhelming support of the people.

After the introduction of marriage between homosexuals, however, it will be supported by nothing more substantial than the opinion of a single judge or by a black-robed panel of justices. After they have done their work, the family will consist of little more than someone's interpretation of "rights."

Given that unstable legal climate, it is certain that some self-possessed judge, somewhere, will soon rule that three men and one woman can marry. Or five and two, or four and four. Who will be able to deny them that right? The guarantee is implied, we will be told, by the Constitution. Those who disagree will continue to be seen as hate-mongers and bigots. (Indeed, those charges are already being leveled against those of us who espouse biblical values!) How about group marriage, or marriage between relatives, or marriage between adults and children? How about marriage between a man and his donkey? Anything allegedly linked to "civil rights" will be doable. The legal underpinnings for marriage will have been destroyed.

 EDIT: I dont want to talk about this anymore.  It is pointless. Sooner or later it will be passed and we will just have to live with it anyways, but if it comes up to vote again for it, you know where I many others stand.

I'm not surprised you don't wannt to talk about it anymore because your arguments are laughably bad.

Let's not pretend that the definition of marriage has never been changed before because this just isn't the case.
For many years it was taboo to marry a person below your standings and in many countries in the world, including the United States, interracial marriage was against the law.

Your other issues are all issues that have absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage. There are all valid reasons why we don't allow adults to marry children or why we don't let people marry a donkey. Neither of those are capable of making responsible decisions. Neither of those reasons apply to gay marriage.

I'm going to continue to wonder when anti gay marriage supporters are going to come out and be honnest. I wonder when they will finally drop the excuses which are all easily blown out of the water and just admit they have a religious belief and they want that enforced on everybody else.

To say that this issue can't be debated is simply a lie. The real reason you don't want to debate this is because you know you're going to lose. Your reason for wanting a ban on gay marriage is not because of logical, well thought out reasons or because you believe in freedom. The reason you're against gay marriage is a religious motivation.

By the way, there is no reason why to protect this from children because there is nothing harmful here whatsoever. You're not complaining about kids being taught about marriage or interracial marriage. You don't get to pick and chose what your child is taught in public school.

See? It creates confusion like this. Better suited for the guy's actual blog or whatever that was outfctrl lifted the words from.

Government needs to stay out of the marriage debate, or at least leave it up to the states where it Constitutionally belongs.  Furthermore I support gay rights in so far as they should be treated the same as any other individual and if two of them want to join in to a civil union and receive the benefits of joint tax return, rights of heirship, etc, then they should be allowed to.

I would have the federal government not recognize anything as 'marraige' and would simply rename it 'civil union.'  The union of marraige is a religous one and should stay as such. If one sect wants to have gay marriage then thats their right.

Originally posted by outfctrl

Originally posted by xanphia

Originally posted by outfctrl

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by HYPERI0N

Great video, sadly tho certain types here may take it seriously.

 

Name one person who you think might do so.

 

Outfctrl, Stillkillin.

Dont start singling me out. I dont want that banned, just controlled. 

 

Controlled?

I hope we don't have the slippery slope argument.

What I mean when I say controlled is, stop the exposure to young children in school. At least wait till they grow up a little, say high school?

Keep marriage between a Man and a woman, but allow a civil union of some type.

On a side note: Up, why do you keep flaunting your sexual preference around?

I will never be convinced that homosexuality is normal.  I will accept it in society to some extent, but that's it. We are all different.  You have your views and I have mine.

 

I'm flaunting my desire to have equal rights.  Not my homosexuality.

Originally posted by smokemonsc

Government needs to stay out of the marriage debate, or at least leave it up to the states where it Constitutionally belongs.  Furthermore I support gay rights in so far as they should be treated the same as any other individual and if two of them want to join in to a civil union and receive the benefits of joint tax return, rights of heirship, etc, then they should be allowed to.

I would have the federal government not recognize anything as 'marraige' and would simply rename it 'civil union.'  The union of marraige is a religous one and should stay as such. If one sect wants to have gay marriage then thats their right.

My Christian church performs gay marriages.  For it to be called anything other than that would be the government choosing one religion over another. 

I do agree with you though, the government should not be in the marriage recognition business.  But it is.  And if it chooses to do that and afford privileges and rights to go along with that label, then it needs to do it fairly.

If my church performs marriages between same sex consenting couples then why is my church being disenfranchised?

In my state we passed a law making same sex marriage legal, it is now up on the November ballot to rescind the law.  In my state this is the second time that this law has been brought up, first time it was barely defeated.  Last November it passed and the chuch and marry lobbiest from Cali quickly desended upon our state and started spending money to overturn gays right to legally marry.   The biggest argument put forward is the whole teaching gay marriage in public schools. 

I'll be damned if some liberal ass faggot loving teacher is going to teach my children tolerence and acceptence of others differences, they can learn this stuff when their older or when I decided to tell them about it.  Shit one of the adds has a mother from Mass talking about her 7 yo son who is in second grade being told about how its ok for a man to marry a man.  A fucking 7 yo being taught about accepence and tolerence and in fucking school no less! Thats fucking utterly outrageous and god damn gets my blood boiling!   

Not really, but it does make me wonder what folks have against their children learning tolerence for people who are different from them - homosexuallity is not a disease you can catch and educating your chidren about it wont make them gay.  There is no research that supports that children who grow up in same sex couples have any higher incidence of homosexuality then those growing up in "traditional" homes. 

Originally posted by kiddyno071

In my state we passed a law making same sex marriage legal, it is now up on the November ballot to rescind the law.  In my state this is the second time that this law has been brought up, first time it was barely defeated.  Last November it passed and the chuch and marry lobbiest from Cali quickly desended upon our state and started spending money to overturn gays right to legally marry.   The biggest argument put forward is the whole teaching gay marriage in public schools. 

I'll be damned if some liberal ass faggot loving teacher is going to teach my children tolerence and acceptence of others differences, they can learn this stuff when their older or when I decided to tell them about it.  Shit one of the adds has a mother from Mass talking about her 7 yo son who is in second grade being told about how its ok for a man to marry a man.  A fucking 7 yo being taught about accepence and tolerence and in fucking school no less! Thats fucking utterly outrageous and god damn gets my blood boiling!   

Not really, but it does make me wonder what folks have against their children learning tolerence for people who are different from them - homosexuallity is not a disease you can catch and educating your chidren about it wont make them gay.  There is no research that supports that children who grow up in same sex couples have any higher incidence of homosexuality then those growing up in "traditional" homes. 

 

I wonder what would happen if a teacher told his 7 yo son nothing about gay people but just mentioned that there is homosexuality amongst animals all throughout nature?  Never ever ever ever mentioned that it happens in humans, just mentioned it about animals.

My guess is that he would still be just as upset and call it a "gay agenda".  Which tells me it's something more than what he's letting on.

Originally posted by upallnight

My Christian church performs gay marriages.  For it to be called anything other than that would be the government choosing one religion over another. 

I do agree with you though, the government should not be in the marriage recognition business.  But it is.  And if it chooses to do that and afford privileges and rights to go along with that label, then it needs to do it fairly.

If my church performs marriages between same sex consenting couples then why is my church being disenfranchised?

I agree 100% which is why I'd hope government would get out of the marriage business and stick to "civil unions" which should be allowed between citizens.

I'm not sure if my church would marry a gay couple if it were legal in Illinois, but I would support it if they did.  I am an Episcopalian (spelling?) and we had a big hooplah over our first openly gay Bishop awhile back which you all probably read and heard about.

My theological argument is this:  Even if being gay or having gay sex is a sin (which I think is debatable, but that's not my point), we are sinful creatures and have no business in judging others for their sins.  That responsbility resides with God and only God.  Furthermore assuming gay sex is a sin (which I don't think it is, but again is not my point) it certainly is a victimless sin and does not compare to say murder or theft.  It really is a small issue in the grander scheme of things and I'm convinced its a non-issue that's meant to distract us from real issues like Monetary Policy :) 

Originally posted by outfctrl

I will never be convinced that homosexuality is normal.  I will accept it in society to some extent, but that's it. We are all different. 

 

So only people deemed "normal" are given rights and equal treatment under the law in America?  That's what our Constitution and Bill of Rights says?

Maybe its just me, but when talking about tolerance and such, shouldn't we also have tolerance of others beliefs even if they go against your own?

Seems fair to me.

Originally posted by Scalebane

Maybe its just me, but when talking about tolerance and such, shouldn't we also have tolerance of others beliefs even if they go against your own?

Seems fair to me.

Yup, that's why I tolerate racists, sexists, and homophobes by kicking their ass with reason (Or the Bible if they are Christians). That's tolerance. I will fight for their right to their stupidity, though.

Originally posted by smokemonsc

Originally posted by upallnight

My Christian church performs gay marriages.  For it to be called anything other than that would be the government choosing one religion over another. 

I do agree with you though, the government should not be in the marriage recognition business.  But it is.  And if it chooses to do that and afford privileges and rights to go along with that label, then it needs to do it fairly.

If my church performs marriages between same sex consenting couples then why is my church being disenfranchised?

 

I agree 100% which is why I'd hope government would get out of the marriage business and stick to "civil unions" which should be allowed between citizens.

I'm not sure if my church would marry a gay couple if it were legal in Illinois, but I would support it if they did.  I am an Episcopalian (spelling?) and we had a big hooplah over our first openly gay Bishop awhile back which you all probably read and heard about.

My theological argument is this:  Even if being gay or having gay sex is a sin (which I think is debatable, but that's not my point), we are sinful creatures and have no business in judging others for their sins.  That responsbility resides with God and only God.  Furthermore assuming gay sex is a sin (which I don't think it is, but again is not my point) it certainly is a victimless sin and does not compare to say murder or theft.  It really is a small issue in the grander scheme of things and I'm convinced its a non-issue that's meant to distract us from real issues like Monetary Policy :) 

I don't think it's all that small of an issue.  I feel like anyone having their rights denied of them is a huge issue.  If they can be taken away from one minority, then how long is it really until they are taken away from everyone?

Originally posted by gnomexxx

Originally posted by outfctrl

I will never be convinced that homosexuality is normal.  I will accept it in society to some extent, but that's it. We are all different. 

 

So only people deemed "normal" are given rights and equal treatment under the law in America?  That's what our Constitution and Bill of Rights says?

 

Didn't you learn is school we are a Normalocracy and not a Republic? For shame!

Originally posted by gnomexxx

I don't think it's all that small of an issue.  I feel like anyone having their rights denied of them is a huge issue.  If they can be taken away from one minority, then how long is it really until they are taken away from everyone?

 

Let me be more clear - I don't think homosexuality as a non-sin/sin is a big issue in the theological sense.  I agree the discrimination they receive in our country is an important social and political issue :) and as our laws currently stand, support gay marriage.  if I were to solve the issue in the way I see best, I would remove marriage from the role of government and leave both gay/straight marriages as civil unions and give them equal treatment under the law.

To me the important things are-

1) Right of Heirship

2) Single Income Tax Return

3) Parental Rights (ex. if one partner dies who gets custody priority?)

4) Terminally Ill Rights (right to exercise a living will, things like that, being able to visit your sick partner in a hospital, etc)

5) Basically all benefits you get from a heterosexual marriage you should be able to get from a homosexual marriage

Now ask me if marriage alone should entitle you to these rights?  That's another thread :)  But the cliff notes are that through these benefits we descriminate against people who wish to live the single life, and well, I don't think that's just. =p

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by outfctrl

Originally posted by HYPERI0N

Originally posted by outfctrl

Originally posted by Briansho

I'm not surprised you don't wannt to talk about it anymore because your arguments are laughably bad.

Let's not pretend that the definition of marriage has never been changed before because this just isn't the case.
For many years it was taboo to marry a person below your standings and in many countries in the world, including the United States, interracial marriage was against the law.

Your other issues are all issues that have absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage. There are all valid reasons why we don't allow adults to marry children or why we don't let people marry a donkey. Neither of those are capable of making responsible decisions. Neither of those reasons apply to gay marriage.

I'm going to continue to wonder when anti gay marriage supporters are going to come out and be honnest. I wonder when they will finally drop the excuses which are all easily blown out of the water and just admit they have a religious belief and they want that enforced on everybody else.

To say that this issue can't be debated is simply a lie. The real reason you don't want to debate this is because you know you're going to lose. Your reason for wanting a ban on gay marriage is not because of logical, well thought out reasons or because you believe in freedom. The reason you're against gay marriage is a religious motivation.

By the way, there is no reason to protect this from children because there is nothing harmful here whatsoever. You're not complaining about kids being taught about marriage or interracial marriage either. You don't get to pick and chose what your child is taught in public school.

I want to start this by letting you know that I don't agree with outfctrl here. In fact, it'll probably be a warm day in hell (hell is cold BTW) before I agree with him on any social issue.  I personally think that marriage should be abolished as a government institution and just become a contract between two people that the government has no business in. I also find it amusing that gays are fighting to get married when so many heterosexuals are abandoning the oppressive institution. But I'm still going to play the Devil's advocate here....

let's look at the theoretical possibility of consentual incest. Cousins or siblings, consenting adults want to get married. At this point we can pull out the public health issue due to the effects of inbreeding, but if both parties agree to be sterilized then the arguements that are currently in favor of gay marriage also stand for sibling, cousin and even parent / offspring unions. When you take it in this light you see that this is clearly a much more ethically complicated issue than we've been lead to believe.

Yes, we understand that children and animals are off limits becuase of consent issues, but you can't make that same claim on infertile incestuous marriages and polymoral unions. If you allow for gay marriage as a freedom issue, then you also have to allow for polygamy and incestious marriages because you're dealing with essentially the same arguments in favor thereof.

BTW: upallnight, why is it that gay men are attracted to effeminate males and not masculine males? Also, I had the unfortunate experience of stumbling upon some gay porn on the internet and noticed sites with titles like "Straight Boys are Broke" and several other sites with the theme of "tricking" (raping?) straight men. What's up with that? I'm told that I'm not supposed to feel threatened or uncomfortable in any way around gay men, but there's apparently a big market for fantasies involving the deceptive seduction of straight men.

If both parties agree to get steralized, then I see no reason to forbid these marriages.

It's called freedom. The other side of the freedom coin is tolerance.

I got a question for some of you.  I am adopted, my Brother is adopted and my Sister is adopted.  Would it be legal for me to marry my Sister?

My Mom used to hint on that, saying we are not blood related and we were a good match.  Both my Parents are dead now.

Curious.

I browsed on the web a bit and from what I understand, that's not allowed in most places. An adopted child is considered to be the same as a blood related child.

Originally posted by Gameloading

I browsed on the web a bit and from what I understand, that's not allowed in most places. An adopted child is considered to be the same as a blood related child.

Thanks.  I looked awhile back and couldnt find anything on it.  I dont plan on doing it anyways, she is too much of a neat freak.

I think this falls into the category of discrimination.  After all, there is no biological reason I couldn't.  If Gays can marry, then I should be able to marry my adopted Sister.

I am going to start a protest.

Originally posted by outfctrl

I got a question for some of you.  I am adopted, my Brother is adopted and my Sister is adopted.  Would it be legal for me to marry my Sister?

My Mom used to hint on that, saying we are not blood related and we were a good match.  Both my Parents are dead now.

Curious.

I see no reason for having laws preventing such things. There used to be more of it -- at least as far as cousins marrying, but since anti-incest laws are nothing but taboos made law and social or genetic engineering. I would have to say, go for it.

The adoptive aspect has little bearing as far as I am concerned, because I simply do not believe governments should get involved in these things at all.

My sis and I are adopted too, but there is no percentage in us going anywhere we love each other but don't get along very well. We have the best relationship when we are half a country apart.

Originally posted by sepher

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by outfctrl

Originally posted by HYPERI0N

Originally posted by outfctrl

Originally posted by Briansho

The thing I can't understand is this. If you are a conservative and you want less government in peoples lives how can you go around telling other people what to do with theirs? What difference does it make what another person does with their life? You can't pick and choose, if you are for the government to be all up in someones business but you say you are a conservative, then you are a closet socialist liberal.

I am not in anyone's business, just stay out of mine. Plus, I am not telling anyone what to do.  I am just tired of this crap being rammed down our throats.(figuratively speaking of course)  NOHOMO  ;-)

 

Yet you are supporting the idea of gays not being allowed to enter Marrage.

Because there is no place to stop once that Rubicon has been crossed. Historically, the definition of marriage has rested on a bedrock of tradition, legal precedent, theology and the overwhelming support of the people.

After the introduction of marriage between homosexuals, however, it will be supported by nothing more substantial than the opinion of a single judge or by a black-robed panel of justices. After they have done their work, the family will consist of little more than someone's interpretation of "rights."

Given that unstable legal climate, it is certain that some self-possessed judge, somewhere, will soon rule that three men and one woman can marry. Or five and two, or four and four. Who will be able to deny them that right? The guarantee is implied, we will be told, by the Constitution. Those who disagree will continue to be seen as hate-mongers and bigots. (Indeed, those charges are already being leveled against those of us who espouse biblical values!) How about group marriage, or marriage between relatives, or marriage between adults and children? How about marriage between a man and his donkey? Anything allegedly linked to "civil rights" will be doable. The legal underpinnings for marriage will have been destroyed.

 EDIT: I dont want to talk about this anymore.  It is pointless. Sooner or later it will be passed and we will just have to live with it anyways, but if it comes up to vote again for it, you know where I many others stand.

I'm not surprised you don't wannt to talk about it anymore because your arguments are laughably bad.

Let's not pretend that the definition of marriage has never been changed before because this just isn't the case.
For many years it was taboo to marry a person below your standings and in many countries in the world, including the United States, interracial marriage was against the law.

Your other issues are all issues that have absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage. There are all valid reasons why we don't allow adults to marry children or why we don't let people marry a donkey. Neither of those are capable of making responsible decisions. Neither of those reasons apply to gay marriage.

I'm going to continue to wonder when anti gay marriage supporters are going to come out and be honnest. I wonder when they will finally drop the excuses which are all easily blown out of the water and just admit they have a religious belief and they want that enforced on everybody else.

To say that this issue can't be debated is simply a lie. The real reason you don't want to debate this is because you know you're going to lose. Your reason for wanting a ban on gay marriage is not because of logical, well thought out reasons or because you believe in freedom. The reason you're against gay marriage is a religious motivation.

By the way, there is no reason why to protect this from children because there is nothing harmful here whatsoever. You're not complaining about kids being taught about marriage or interracial marriage. You don't get to pick and chose what your child is taught in public school.

 

See? It creates confusion like this. Better suited for the guy's actual blog or whatever that was outfctrl lifted the words from.

outfctrl has basically been proven to be the cut-and-paste king of this forum. Cross him off the list of anyone that can be taken remotely seriously.