[quote]Grneyes wrote:
I’m not asking for state sponsored discrimination[/quote]
Unless you’re changing marriage to simply consenting adults in any arrangment they desire, you are.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
[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.
[/quote]You’re characteristically clueless my dear. You have grievously misrepresented every single thing I’ve ever said on this subject and for the 100th time. Anybody who cares to honestly look, will find that people like me were the mainstream middle when this once great nation was founded. People like you wouldn’t represent more than an infinitesimal fraction of the population for another 150 years.
Please produce just one quote of mine in my thousands of posts where I said anything like the lies you have here attributed to me. Just one. When you fail to do that I will quote myself saying exactly the opposite in this very thread. Not surprising though, you do exactly what God says you’re gonna do. If you’ll exchange His truth for a lie with marriage why should I be left out?
[/quote]
News flash: I don’t believe in a Christian God, or a Jewish God, or a Muslim God. I don’t believe in organized religion. So you saying I am doing what God wants me to do means nothing to me.
I’m not saying you’re lying, I’m saying that your thinking is similar to the Taliban’s interpretation of Islam. It is narrowminded and leaves no room for the free will your God gave you.
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
I’m asking for state sponsored equality.[/quote]
Then you’re for abolishing state recognition of marriage?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:“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”
Well, clearly she’s talking about America at its founding.[/quote]And my point is that what I believe was considered normative at our founding and is what made this country great and what she believes IS destroying it. We are all witnesses whether we like it or not. I keep hoping to see those pants come back up Mak, but you just keep tripping around here.
[/quote]
Um, you might have been the norm when the Puritans were the only people here, besides the Indians of course. At the time of this country’s fight for independence, things had loosened up, not by much, but they had. In fact, people had become much more religiously tolerant than the Puritans had been. We had weathered the superstition of the witchcraft trials. Many things had improved from the Puritan times to the late 1770s.
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
The state already recognizes sexual orientation/activity by recognizing marriage.
[/quote]
The state recognizes that the opposite sexes can propogate it’s citizens in intact homes with both mom and dad present, which happens to be the best enviroment for raising those children. Which in turn is more likely to produce tax producers instead of consumers (and non-felons). And, which provides tax producers to shoulder the entitlement obligations meant for elder generations. A problem now beginning to threaten SS and Medicare, for instance. Your, or anyone else’s, sex isn’t special to me, my neighbor, or the state. It isn’t worth privileging. Sex doesn’t need public expectations and pressure to happen. Intact homes, bearing and rearing their OWN children? Ordering this act of procreation is a public, political, and social concern. Drive through a ghetto and count the number of present fathers.
“Romance” and “sex” are complete nonsense answers.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
I’m asking for state sponsored equality.[/quote]
Then you’re for abolishing state recognition of marriage? [/quote]
No, I’m asking for the state to recognize that homosexual couples who are in a committed relationship deserve the same rights and privileges IH and I do.
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
I’m asking for state sponsored equality.[/quote]
Then you’re for abolishing state recognition of marriage? [/quote]
No, I’m asking for the state to recognize that homosexual couples who are in a committed relationship deserve the same rights and privileges IH and I do.[/quote]
Then you’re not asking for equality. You’re asking for a mere one more form of relationship to share your status and privilege. For "equality’ (as if it were the holy grail of human existence) you’d have to demand that the state be blind in the face of ALL human relationships of any form. You’d demand the state to no longer recognize your marriage, in other words. You’d have no different status, benefits, or privileges than a couple of drinking buddies.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
The state already recognizes sexual orientation/activity by recognizing marriage.
[/quote]
The state recognizes that the opposite sexes can propogate it’s citizens in intact homes with both mom and dad present, which happens to be the best enviroment for raising those children. Which in turn is more likely to produce tax producers instead of consumers (and non-felons). And, which provides tax producers to shoulder the entitlement obligations meant for elder generations. A problem now beginning to threaten SS and Medicare, for instance. Your, or anyone else’s, sex isn’t special to me, my neighbor, or the state. It isn’t worth privileging. Sex doesn’t public expectations and pressure to happen. Intact homes, bearing and rearing their OWN children? Ordering this act of procreation is a public and social concern. Drive through a ghetto and count the number of present fathers.
“Romance” and “sex” are complete nonsense answers. [/quote]
Exactly.
Grneyes, read this and re-read it. THIS is what we’ve been getting at for the past thousand posts or so. This is the bottom line. There is a REAL DIFFERENCE in kind here. Tell me you can see this.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
The state already recognizes sexual orientation/activity by recognizing marriage.
[/quote]
The state recognizes that the opposite sexes can propogate it’s citizens in intact homes with both mom and dad present, which happens to be the best enviroment for raising those children. Which in turn is more likely to produce tax producers instead of consumers (and non-felons). And, which provides tax producers to shoulder the entitlement obligations meant for elder generations. A problem now beginning to threaten SS and Medicare, for instance. Your, or anyone else’s, sex isn’t special to me, my neighbor, or the state. It isn’t worth privileging. Sex doesn’t public expectations and pressure to happen. Intact homes, bearing and rearing their OWN children? Ordering this act of procreation is a public and social concern. Drive through a ghetto and count the number of present fathers.
“Romance” and “sex” are complete nonsense answers. [/quote]
Again, romance is used to express love, as in a romantic relationship. I guess I could use “loving relationship” if using “romance” confuses you.
The state only cares about the propagation of the species because it needs to keep track of how many kids need to be educated by the public education system. The state doesn’t care about intact homes with a mother and a father. It only cares about taxes and the census. You think the state cares if IH and I have sex? Or if that sex is only for procreation? I can guarantee you it does not. It will only care when that sex does finally produce children, but not before.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
The state already recognizes sexual orientation/activity by recognizing marriage.
[/quote]
The state recognizes that the opposite sexes can propogate it’s citizens in intact homes with both mom and dad present, which happens to be the best enviroment for raising those children. Which in turn is more likely to produce tax producers instead of consumers (and non-felons). And, which provides tax producers to shoulder the entitlement obligations meant for elder generations. A problem now beginning to threaten SS and Medicare, for instance. Your, or anyone else’s, sex isn’t special to me, my neighbor, or the state. It isn’t worth privileging. Sex doesn’t public expectations and pressure to happen. Intact homes, bearing and rearing their OWN children? Ordering this act of procreation is a public and social concern. Drive through a ghetto and count the number of present fathers.
“Romance” and “sex” are complete nonsense answers. [/quote]
Exactly.
Grneyes, read this and re-read it. THIS is what we’ve been getting at for the past thousand posts or so. This is the bottom line. There is a REAL DIFFERENCE in kind here. Tell me you can see this.[/quote]
Nope, I can’t. Sorry. Drinking buddies is not the same as a sexual, committed, long-term relationship. Please tell me you can see this.
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
The state already recognizes sexual orientation/activity by recognizing marriage.
[/quote]
The state recognizes that the opposite sexes can propogate it’s citizens in intact homes with both mom and dad present, which happens to be the best enviroment for raising those children. Which in turn is more likely to produce tax producers instead of consumers (and non-felons). And, which provides tax producers to shoulder the entitlement obligations meant for elder generations. A problem now beginning to threaten SS and Medicare, for instance. Your, or anyone else’s, sex isn’t special to me, my neighbor, or the state. It isn’t worth privileging. Sex doesn’t public expectations and pressure to happen. Intact homes, bearing and rearing their OWN children? Ordering this act of procreation is a public and social concern. Drive through a ghetto and count the number of present fathers.
“Romance” and “sex” are complete nonsense answers. [/quote]
Again, romance is used to express love, as in a romantic relationship. I guess I could use “loving relationship” if using “romance” confuses you.
The state only cares about the propagation of the species because it needs to keep track of how many kids need to be educated by the public education system. The state doesn’t care about intact homes with a mother and a father. It only cares about taxes and the census. You think the state cares if IH and I have sex? Or if that sex is only for procreation? I can guarantee you it does not. It will only care when that sex does finally produce children, but not before.
[/quote]
You actually believe this? Seriously?
You live in the US, right?
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
The state already recognizes sexual orientation/activity by recognizing marriage.
[/quote]
The state recognizes that the opposite sexes can propogate it’s citizens in intact homes with both mom and dad present, which happens to be the best enviroment for raising those children. Which in turn is more likely to produce tax producers instead of consumers (and non-felons). And, which provides tax producers to shoulder the entitlement obligations meant for elder generations. A problem now beginning to threaten SS and Medicare, for instance. Your, or anyone else’s, sex isn’t special to me, my neighbor, or the state. It isn’t worth privileging. Sex doesn’t public expectations and pressure to happen. Intact homes, bearing and rearing their OWN children? Ordering this act of procreation is a public and social concern. Drive through a ghetto and count the number of present fathers.
“Romance” and “sex” are complete nonsense answers. [/quote]
Exactly.
Grneyes, read this and re-read it. THIS is what we’ve been getting at for the past thousand posts or so. This is the bottom line. There is a REAL DIFFERENCE in kind here. Tell me you can see this.[/quote]
Nope, I can’t. Sorry. Drinking buddies is not the same as a sexual, committed, long-term relationship. Please tell me you can see this.[/quote]
Okay, I guess I’m thick. I absolutely cannot see this.
Please explain the difference to me.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
The state already recognizes sexual orientation/activity by recognizing marriage.
[/quote]
The state recognizes that the opposite sexes can propogate it’s citizens in intact homes with both mom and dad present, which happens to be the best enviroment for raising those children. Which in turn is more likely to produce tax producers instead of consumers (and non-felons). And, which provides tax producers to shoulder the entitlement obligations meant for elder generations. A problem now beginning to threaten SS and Medicare, for instance. Your, or anyone else’s, sex isn’t special to me, my neighbor, or the state. It isn’t worth privileging. Sex doesn’t public expectations and pressure to happen. Intact homes, bearing and rearing their OWN children? Ordering this act of procreation is a public and social concern. Drive through a ghetto and count the number of present fathers.
“Romance” and “sex” are complete nonsense answers. [/quote]
Again, romance is used to express love, as in a romantic relationship. I guess I could use “loving relationship” if using “romance” confuses you.
The state only cares about the propagation of the species because it needs to keep track of how many kids need to be educated by the public education system. The state doesn’t care about intact homes with a mother and a father. It only cares about taxes and the census. You think the state cares if IH and I have sex? Or if that sex is only for procreation? I can guarantee you it does not. It will only care when that sex does finally produce children, but not before.
[/quote]
You actually believe this? Seriously?
You live in the US, right?
[/quote]
Yes, I do. If the state was seriously interested in the actuality and frequency of sex IH and I are having, there is something seriously wrong. What I do in my bedroom, in my apartment, is none of the state’s business until I do something that impacts the state (committing a crime or becoming pregnant, for example). It’s none of your business, either.
Yes, I do, and am pretty patriotic, actually. 
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
The state doesn’t care about intact homes with a mother and a father. It only cares about taxes and the census.[/quote]
Are you pulling my leg? Do you realize such homes are more likely to produce, well, producers of tax revenue instead of socially, educationally, economically, and criminally maladjusted tax CONSUMERS?
…
So, let me see if have that last bit right…The state isn’t interested in recognizing your marriage simply because you’re having sex with the same guy in your home. It’s interest lies with child bearing and rearing…
/Looks back at his posts, pulls out his hair in clumps, and jumps out the window screaming it’s a mad, mad, world!
If the state doesn’t see any compelling interesting in encouraging procreation, intact families (and stable, lower-crime communities) and a steady stream of productive citizens, then why on Earth would they go out of their way to reward romantic relationships? What’s the point? I’m asking honestly because you appear to see some motivation here that has NOTHING TO DO WITH CHILDREN yet ROMANCE is somehow fantastically wonderfully special enough that we need to be subsidizing it across the entire spectrum of possibilities.
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
What I do in my bedroom, in my apartment, is none of the state’s business[/quote]
Then the state shouldn’t recognize your marriage, muchless those of homosexuals.
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
Nope, I can’t. Sorry. Drinking buddies is not the same as a sexual, committed, long-term relationship. [/quote]
Therefore, discrimination.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
If the state doesn’t see any compelling interesting in encouraging procreation, intact families (and stable, lower-crime communities) and a steady stream of productive citizens, then why on Earth would they go out of their way to reward romantic relationships? What’s the point? I’m asking honestly because you appear to see some motivation here that has NOTHING TO DO WITH CHILDREN yet ROMANCE is somehow fantastically wonderfully special enough that we need to be subsidizing it across the entire spectrum of possibilities.
[/quote]
For the last time:
[center][i][u]ROMANCE = LOVE[/center][/u][/i]
Anyways, you’re a bit outnumbered at the moment, so I’ll give you credit for being a sport about what might seem like an interrogation. I’m going to bed.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
The state doesn’t care about intact homes with a mother and a father. It only cares about taxes and the census.[/quote]
Are you pulling my leg? Do you realize such homes are more likely to produce, well, producers of tax revenue instead of socially, educationally, economically, and criminally maladjusted tax CONSUMERS?
…
So, let me see if have that last bit right…The state isn’t interested in recognizing your marriage simply because you’re having sex with the same guy in your home. It’s interest lies with child bearing and rearing…
/Looks back at his posts, pulls out his hair in clumps, and jumps out the window screaming it’s a mad, mad, world![/quote]
The state already rewards “tax consumers”, it’s called WELFARE. The more kids you have, the more money you get.
Having said that, people like that piss me off. I don’t believe in people using the state as income. Get a job, dammit! Americans are so snobby. Be a damn burger flipper! Be a janitor! Stop wasting my hard earned tax money because you’re a bunch of lazy bums!
/rant at lazy bums, not anyone on this board or in this thread.