Any Dudes Wanna Get Married?

Grneyes · July 5, 2011, 2:26am

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:<<< It doesn’t matter that gay marriage benefits adopted children.

Because despite all of that, nobody is going to change your mind on homosexuality being morally corrupt.

You’re no different than Tiribulus. He’s just more straightforward about his reason for opposing gay rights.[/quote]Here, allow me to be straightforward yet again. Gay marriage benefits no one. Not society, not the children it would horrifically corrupt, not you and not your “partner” because IT IS morally repugnant because IT IS an abominable perversion of the created order of the holy designer. Even plain human anatomy testifies to this. Programs written for Unix do not run in Windows. Emulation can force the issue, but it still ain’t Windows. (imperfect analogy as are they all).

I’ll hand you this outright so you can wail and moan along with the rest of the God haters around here. My standard is unabashedly and unapologetically the Word of God. It would not matter to me if gay marriage made us the singular unchallenged superpower for the next thousand years. It is an abomination in the sight of the one and only true and living God and I would take a slow agonizing death before declaring right what He has so clearly and forcefully called an affront to his holiness.

See THAT is the ONLY POSSIBLE actually Christian position regardless of what some of these post modern reprobates try to pawn off in His name. Marriage, sex and family are not open to ambiguity or nuance like some lesser doctrines are.

If it were me I’d go have sex with my “partner” in celebration of the great victories being won for our side and not care one bit about what anybody else thought, especially some faceless phantoms on an internet forum. But you have a more sensitive conscience than mine if left to myself. Here you are, like Kamui of all people is saying, whining and sniveling like a little girl that some religious fanatics refuse to see the virtue in your depravity. Please accept me, PLEASE accept me and I’m callin you a liar ahead of time for when you deny that this is primarily what this is about for you.

I stand by everything I’ve said to and about you. I would risk my own life to save yours and would even give you mouth to mouth if it meant delaying your death. If it meant saving your soul I’d do it ten times, but as of today your are a walking stench in the nostrils of a holy God to whom you owe comprehensive obedience and indeed your very existence. His judgment and curse rests upon you while you persist in this rebellion and you are bringing that same judgment and curse to my country by foisting your perversion into the foundation of marriage and family. The adulterers and fornicators are faaaar ahead of ya, but they’ve paved your way just beautifully.

WOWEEE!!! If that ain’t right wing extremist Christian fundamentalism I don’t what is huh? Do a little peeking if you dare. I was a mainstream common American man at the founding of this nation and that’s why we roared forward and upward. This website is what the common “american” is today which fully explains our loud grotesque and ever accelerating tragic decline.

[/quote]

Man, oh man…YOU and people who think like you are what is wrong with organized religion today. YOU and people who think like you are what is wrong with America today and would gladly take us in the direction of Iran and Saudi Arabia in their narrow-minded thinking and controlling of their people. YOU and people who think like you are the American equivalent of the Taliban and their religious doctrines that allow stoning people to death during the intermission of a soccer game.

Grneyes · July 5, 2011, 2:39am

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
I don’t know how many times now you, Sloth, me and others have said this exact same thing in just this one thread. For page after page after page.

Instead of once acknowledging this and attempting to deal with it…
[/quote]

They can’t. Flat out, they can’t. Tradional marriage, without even looking at it from a moral view, easily justifies the discrimination (exclusive state recognition) afforded to it. Homosexual marriage doesn’t. They can’t offer what we’ve been asking for which is the fundamentally critical service that homosexuality offers mankind, justifying discrimination (since it’s a whopping expansion of one relationship) in it’s favor.

They have no arguments. What arguments they do have, which don’t address the above, ends up justifying damn near ANY form of relationship between ANY number of adults. When pointed out, they flat out refuse to deal with it. I’ve personally posted my own twist on Forlife’s visitation recount, multiples times. Not once did they deal with it, though they’ve posted many times since. If you’re going to cry bigotry, pine for ‘fairness’, and trot out ‘state recognized romance’ (another form of discrimination between human relationships), you had better deal with it.

If they are the great equality crusaders, the best the anti-bigotry crusaders have to offer, they absolutely owe us an explanation as to why they’re only agitating for homosexual marriage. They need to explain how they can justify slamming the door behind hetero and homo marriage…hell, marriage, period…and not become the antithesis of their own supposedly ‘anti-discrimination’ position. They can’t, because it’s a braindead fad for the non-homosexual and pure selfish immaturity on the part of the homosexual.

I find it telling that the libertarian, who ultimately wants nothing less than the death of state recognized marriage, has adopted the cause. Coincidence? Hardly. Next they’ll side with a ‘non-marital romance on equal footing with marriage’ cause.

I flat out do not respect the participation of the pro side in this debate. They have plainly dodged the underlying questions we’ve been begging them for. They’ve flat out refused to deal with putting their own ‘bigotry’ in the spotlight by tip-toeing around the question of slamming the door shut behind homosexual marriage. Nor, the earlier mentioned “critical service” question.

The fear of dealing with these things has been made plain. For all the emotional malarky they inject into this it’s telling that they’ve yet to post answers–they must surely have–to those fundamental questions. It’s shameful for a movement that wants to so radically transform such a fundamentally important institution to have no idea how to answer us, without looking like hypocrites or desperate (state-recognized romance?!).

And after calling them out with this post for their nonsense, they still won’t. Oh, they’ll respond to ME, but not to those above mentioned questions.[/quote]

Wait, wait, wait…I have very plainly answered questions put to me. I have very plainly stated my views on the purpose of marriage, on what I think marriage is, and why it’s important to the state. Just because you don’t agree with me don’t say I didn’t answer your questions or that my arguments are invalid.

Yes, “state sponsored romance”! What do you think marriage is? It’s state sponsored LOVE! It’s state sponsored SEX!

Grneyes · July 5, 2011, 2:45am

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]imhungry wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Traditional marriage: mama can give birth to little Juniors and Princesses[/quote]

Except when mama and papa are either infertile.[/quote]

Except mama and papa are still OPEN TO LIFE. If their infertility were to change, they could still have kids.

And, if someone doesn’t want kids, why in the world get married?[/quote]

See my wifes’ post for the main reason, BC.

“To publicly declare to your family, friends, and society that you love someone so much you want to commit to him/her for the rest of your lives. The End.”

[/quote]

And, as I asked her, why would the state discriminate between friendship and romance? And this IS condoning state discrimination between human relationships, by the way. Further, oddly enough, this form of discrimination doesn’t even justify itself as heterosexual marriage does. For example, thier’s is a friendship, while yours is a romance…and? What does the state have to do with discriminating between the two? Oh, and in the him/her, you forgot “/them.”[/quote]

Again, relegating a gay sexual relationship to mere friendship is ignorant. Relegating a gay sexual romantic (as in LOVE) relationship to mere friendship is ignorant. Please re-adjust your thinking.

Grneyes · July 5, 2011, 2:50am

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]imhungry wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Traditional marriage: mama can give birth to little Juniors and Princesses[/quote]

Except when mama and papa are either infertile.[/quote]

Except mama and papa are still OPEN TO LIFE. If their infertility were to change, they could still have kids.

And, if someone doesn’t want kids, why in the world get married?[/quote]

See my wifes’ post for the main reason, BC.

“To publicly declare to your family, friends, and society that you love someone so much you want to commit to him/her for the rest of your lives. The End.”

[/quote]

I saw it, and it’s been proven to be lacking. The fruit of marriage is children. And marriage is not just about declaring to people that you love someone. Marriage is a bond between a man and woman, where they are open to new life, and do so in that bond for the betterment of the children and the spouses.

I can only think of one reason why someone would think different: moral decay. Moral decay has led to the systematic separation of the procreative aspect from the marital and unitive aspects of the conjugal act. No longer do people recognize the conjugal act as a procreative act, as well. Now, people don’t even recognize it as a marital act, it has become just a unitive act to show one’s love for another.[/quote]

Again, I would ask you what about the people who want to get married who do NOT want to have kids? Are we going to ban them from marriage? Have them “live in sin” as you would put it? Or should they remain celibate and virgins for their entire lives?

Sex IS a unitive act. Seeing it as just a “marital” or “procreative” act reduces it to an obligation, a chore. Sex is to be enjoyed, not a chore. People have been having unwed sex since the beginning of time. Get over it already.

Grneyes · July 5, 2011, 2:58am

[quote]therajraj wrote:
I would be against incest marriages because of the potential for an increase in retarded children.

I just looked up incest laws in Canada, and you can get 14 years for shagging your siblings. Surprised to see such a steep penalty.[/quote]

In Illinois you can marry your first cousin if you’re over 50 or one of you is infertile.

Sloth · July 5, 2011, 3:05am

[quote]
Because friendship and romance are different. Stop trying to equate them.[/quote]

Thank you Capt. Obvious. Now, tell me why you support goverment discrimination between the two. Tell me why government is even the business of giving pats on the back for romance…Stop ignoring the actual question. “'Cause they’re different,” really?

Sorry Mak, obvious deflection is obvious. Leave the stupid insults for someone more easily distracted.

…People get jealous, period. What does that have to with binary or polyamorous arrangments that handle it?

C’mon,

Brother_Chris · July 5, 2011, 3:12am

[quote]imhungry wrote:

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Incestuous pairs, well, there are good medical reasons not to sanction them to produce offspring.[/quote]

I was just told (re-told, and then yelled at through PM) that marriage is to show one’s love for another to society. And, it is not an inherently procreative bond. So, why in the world would we discriminate against incestuous pairs if it is not a procreative bond? If it is just a unitive bond?

If gays can enter marriage, then obviously it is not procreative, because they cannot procreate without going outside the marriage. So, we should not worry about brother and sister marrying – that is according to the ssm argument.

I argue that marriage is not only a unitive bond, but the only procreative bond acceptable for the betterment of children. Because homosexuals are not able to enter a reproductive bond because of form, which is not the same as particular difficulties, in a ssm then it is not even a marriage, but a farse of one.

[/quote]

For clarity, I haven’t sent you any PM’s, the only PM’s I have ever sent here have been to Orion, Varqanir, Lixy and Katzenjammer, and not one has been related to on-going debates. I’m vain, you know.
In essense I agree with you, but that’s idealism and the world looks wery different. I’m very much more interested in the functional. and I see that as wasted energy to fuss about fringes. Undoubtedly marrage would be for many gsys just a party among others, but not for all, it’s just a party for many heteros as well. What can I say, I have made my point and I’m sure everyone understands it, even though they do not necessarily agree.[/quote]

Ftr, neither I nor Greeny pm’d BC.

Edit: I meant to quote BC. My apologies. [/quote]

I will also make clear that neither kaaleppi, Greeny, nor IH have pm’ed me.

It was someone else, and I only mentioned it for effect. Not to call anyone out, I gave the person my answer that pm’ed me, and I don’t even think they have any posts in this thread.

Brother_Chris · July 5, 2011, 3:14am

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Well they are siblings, that’s pretty straightforward. You are an idealist tirib, you are comcerned with the afterlife, I’m concerned with this life. God tells you what you should know, don’t be concerned with minutiae, its all devils work anyway. Now go and repent. ;)[/quote]

Although Tirib, maybe concerned with just the afterlife, you have ran into a Catholic. Although we realise that the afterlife is important, this life is important nevertheless.

Sloth · July 5, 2011, 3:16am

[quote]Grneyes wrote:
I have very plainly answered questions…[/quote]

No you haven’t.

Besides the fact that your view of marriage (discriminatory still) has yet to be justified, does it or does it not then include the polyamorous? Please, please answer this question. Besides being meaningless, pointless, and unjustifiably ‘bigoted’ towards other forms of human relationships, where does your ‘marriage’ draw the line? At how many partners does Grneyes say “no, you’re not special?”

Grneyes · July 5, 2011, 3:29am

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:
I have very plainly answered questions…[/quote]

No you haven’t.

Besides the fact that your view of marriage (discriminatory still) has yet to be justified, does it or does it not then include the polyamorous? Please, please answer this question. Besides being meaningless, pointless, and unjustifiably ‘bigoted’ towards other forms of human relationships, where does your ‘marriage’ draw the line? At how many partners does Grneyes say “no, you’re not special?”[/quote]

To answer your questions, let me copy and paste my answer from several pages back:

I understand the slippery slope argument about polyamorous and polygamous and incestuous couples, but one of those things is definitely against natural law and should never be considered okay by anyone’s morals. Should we legalize the first two? Again, I don’t see why not when it isn’t hurting anyone and if the people involved are okay with that lifestyle and are of consenting age. I know my views are extremely liberal compared to people on here and that many statements I just made will set off a firestorm of comments but the subject of this thread is gay marriage and I just don’t understand why homosexuals should not be afforded the same relationship status and benefits of that status that my husband and I have just because they are the same sex and my husband and I are of the opposite sex.

EDIT: For me, personally, I don’t want more than one husband. My thinking cannot conceive of having multiple partners at the same time. However, MY thinking should not dictate how others live. If my friend Gabe wants to be the other man in a polyamorous relationship and have sex with his girlfriend while her husband is down the hall, that’s fine with me. I might not understand it, but I’m not going to demand a law against it.

Brother_Chris · July 5, 2011, 3:25am

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Oh man you are cruel, swedes?[/quote]

Quite: - YouTube

Brother_Chris · July 5, 2011, 3:29am

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Traditional marriage: mama can give birth to little Juniors and Princesses[/quote]

Except when mama and papa are either infertile.[/quote]

Except mama and papa are still OPEN TO LIFE. If their infertility were to change, they could still have kids.

And, if someone doesn’t want kids, why in the world get married?[/quote]

Infertility can be permanent, and people get married despite NOT WANTING CHILDREN AND NEVER END UP HAVING KIDS.[/quote]

Yes, it can be permanent, partially. However, the form is not permanently infertile such as SSM. Big difference. That happens partially, but the form is still correct. Generally a man and a woman can reproduce children, that is not possible in SSM, which is generally closed to new life and never partially open to new life.

Grneyes · July 5, 2011, 3:34am

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Traditional marriage: mama can give birth to little Juniors and Princesses[/quote]

Except when mama and papa are either infertile.[/quote]

Except mama and papa are still OPEN TO LIFE. If their infertility were to change, they could still have kids.

And, if someone doesn’t want kids, why in the world get married?[/quote]

Infertility can be permanent, and people get married despite NOT WANTING CHILDREN AND NEVER END UP HAVING KIDS.[/quote]

Yes, it can be permanent, partially. However, the form is not permanently infertile such as SSM. Big difference. That happens partially, but the form is still correct. Generally a man and a woman can reproduce children, that is not possible in SSM, which is generally closed to new life and never partially open to new life.

[/quote]

Okay…so the people in the marriage might be infertile, but marriage itself isn’t infertile? So same-sex marriage is going to always infertile because they have to use IVF or a surrogate or adoption to become fertile? Which, according to you is morally wrong and never acceptable, correct?

Brother_Chris · July 5, 2011, 3:36am

[quote]imhungry wrote:
Did I/we say that marriage was JUST about declaring to people that you love someone? I do agree with marriage being a bond between a man and woman… But, the child part is optional, in my opinion.[/quote]

Yes, it is optional. Not always does a wife get pregnant.

No, moral decay is the reason for taking the procreative aspect out of the conjugal act within marriage. Although the birth of children is the fruit of marriage.

[quote]Love is the prime reason most people get married in the first place, then children are created from that love… If they choose or even can, for that matter.
[/quote]

Usually those that love each other also want to give each other children, well…that’s what my grandparents tell me.

Sloth · July 5, 2011, 5:09am

[quote]Grneyes wrote:
I understand the slippery slope argument about polyamorous and polygamous and incestuous couples, but one of those things is definitely against natural law and should never be considered okay by anyone’s morals.[/quote]

We don’t legislate private morality, remember? If homosexual brothers, or sisters, want to marry you can’t object to state recognition of it.

The only people that ever try to answer this question always say the same, yes. Every time. Those who assure us that there is no slippery slope vanish. So, when we conservatives point out that it doesn’t end until marriage means basically any arrangment consenting adults can imagine between themselves, we do so for good reason. Thank you.

Still would like to know why you want state sponsored discrimination between human relationships and sexual orientation/activity.

Brother_Chris · July 5, 2011, 4:24am

[quote]Grneyes wrote:
Again, I would ask you what about the people who want to get married who do NOT want to have kids?[/quote]

Matters what you mean by not want to have kids. As in they don’t want to have kids at the moment, or they never want kids?

Ban them from marriage? How does banning them from marriage equal living in sin? Yes, if they don’t have a desire for children then they should not marry. That is after all one of the ways in which you show your love to your spouse is giving yourself fully, and that includes being open to children. If you’re not, then it’s like I love you, but just not enough to give you children. That’s not fully.

Yes, that is why the only way a conjugal act can be considered moral is if it is within marriage and it is both unitive and procreative.

I know, Bl. John Paul the Great thinks so, too. He even advises in his books that a husband should wait to orgasm until his wife has. He taught that it should be enjoyable, not only for the man, but his wife, as well.

Um, okay? “People have been killing people since the beginning of time. Get over it already.” That is not really an defense.

Cortes · July 5, 2011, 4:45am

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

Going with the heart analogy, ever hear of a heart transplant? Replacing someone’s original nonworking heart with another person’s? Works just fine, doesn’t it, given the donor is a close match? You can equate gay marriage with a heart transplant. I’m pretty sure, given time, that it too will work just fine.
[/quote]

Haha! I love it. Yes, your analogy works perfectly. I completely agree with you. I really do!

So, answer me this question: Let’s say they are giving away free heart transplants down at the Mayo clinic. Absolutely everything you could possibly need, from pre-op care to post-op follow-up and any related care is covered, and the operation will be performed by the best surgeon in the country along with his hand picked team. They’ll even take you to and from the hospital in a limousine. Sounds like a pretty good deal, right? You gonna sign up? Would you sign up anyone in your family?
[/quote]

Now, when something sounds too good to be true, it probably IS. I’m pretty sure there’s a catch in there…like maybe that surgeon likes to start his day with a double on the rocks of Johnny Walker and likes to operate slightly non-sober as he feels this gives him an edge during surgery. Or that maybe the heart that is going in my body wasn’t as vetted as it should have been and was procured on the black market from a Colombian drug lord that the anesthesiologist owes money to for his last batch of cocaine. Would be pretty stupid of me to go blindly into something like that without researching it, right? [/quote]

No no. No need to second guess me. This is simple and logical. There are no catches.

Just think about this as if it honestly happened in your life. If somebody came to you today and told you you could have a heart transplant, free of charge, absolutely no strings attached,would you take them up on it?

You will, of course, have to exchange your present heart. But this is the modern world, heart surgery techniques and artificial heart technology are now state of the art. Trust us. Leave everything to us. What could go wrong?

Do I need to continue?
[/quote]

I would still need to do research and think on it. And if my heart is perfectly fine now, why would I want to exchange it?
[/quote]

Exactly.

[quote]

If you are using this as a corollary to marriage…marriage isn’t perfectly fine right now. It sucks. Half of the marriages taking place today end in divorce, with the kids used as bargaining chips. Please explain what this has to do with allowing gay marriage.[/quote]

Do me a favor and read the last few pages. We’ve spent almost every post addressing exactly this.

Tiribulus · July 5, 2011, 4:50am