Any Dudes Wanna Get Married?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

  1. I don’t recall Jerry Falwell predicting the end of civilization within a few years. And I was very tuned into him in the 80’s as he was a big supporter of our greatest modern day President Ronald Reagan.

  2. Please tell me out of a list of 100 things which ones are better now than in 1962? 3 or 4 maybe, sure. But that is not exactly a resounding victory for our current culture is it?

  3. We are still standing, and we look pretty much the way Rocky Balboa looked after fighting Apollo Creed. Not pretty…No sir eeeeee!

  4. Teen pregnancy rates are down from 20 years ago, true. But not because 13-16 year olds are abstaining from sex. It’s because they are having other forms of sex and are using condoms when they have intercourse. AND…the abortion rates are much higher too. But none of this has stopped the spread of AIDS. Where was AIDS in 1962? Where was homosexuality in 1962? According to the CDC almost 60% of all new HIV cases come from male homosexuals. Who, according to the CDC also lead the way in STD’s, suicide, anxiety, depression and an entire host of other unwanted tragic illness. HEY LETS PROMOTE MORE OF THIS BEHAVIOR. Why not the media will never tell us the truth. It would be funny if it were not so tragic. Allowing gay marriage is like subsidizing alcoholics to drink more. Pathetic and destructive and…we, as a nation, will continue to pay a price for this! The slippery slope has a huge price tag.

  5. There is not one of the statistics that I mention in my original post above that look better in 2011 than the did in 1962.

It’s not pretty my friend. And if we don’t do something quickly we will continue to slide down that slippery slope while we are playing the fiddle and celebrating perversity. [/quote]

AIDS was not around in 1962 because it wasn’t even a disease then. And you cannot blame gays or any group for starting AIDS unless you can prove that an evil homosexual scientist created the virus in a lab. Starting and spreading are different things.

You have limited your definition of “better” to a narrow list of societal statistics. I agree that these are important statistics. And when you say that these numbers increased, are you talking percentages or raw numbers? The population has increased so naturally the raw numbers went up. But if the percentage didn’t change, then there is no change.

It is interesting that you focus on 1962 and school prayer as the day when all this trouble started. As others have mentioned, and I mentioned on another post, correlation does not equal causation. And this is why the question on interracial marriage is relevant. The slippery slope works both ways. In 1963, the Loving couple challenged the Virginia law that prohibited interracial marriage.

In 1967, the Supreme Court handed down its decision finding the law unconstitutional. Yet another “problem” from the 60s. And I guarantee you that some cranky Southerners were saying, “If we let them Negroes marry white folk, next thing you know, people will want to marry goats.” By golly, if we just kept them black folk in their place we wouldn’t be in this mess.

See what I’m getting at here? I need more than correlation.

As far as whether things are better now than they were in 1962, are you kidding me? Computers alone should equal 1,000 reasons since they went on to bring about so many other beneficial changes.[/quote]

Good luck reasoning with this guy.

102

[quote]Otep wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:<<< If we heterosexuals are so virtuous, >>>[/quote]You’re smarter than this. That is not what I said. Heterosexual hedonism has been and IS, far and away more destructive than homosexuality if for no other reason than sheer numbers. Gay marriage is simply a natural step in devaluing THE single component that most accounted for our rise and is now the direct cause of our fall. Gays can do what they want. I will not be kicking their doors down, but DO NOT attempt to sell that to me as marriage or a family. Reread the whole post please. All of it is required to get the message.
[/quote]

Maybe I’m missing something. You’re suggesting that ‘THE single component that most accounted for our rise’ is heterosexual marriage?

I realize it was a page ago. Seemed pretty important to understanding your argument about America’s downhill course.[/quote]No, I’M not saying, the founders told us that religious morality was essential for their experimental government to work. Denying that the religious morality they were talking about was Christianity doesn’t pass the chuckle test. THE major social component of that morality was, is, the new testament model of monogamous marriage, family and sex. The God of the bible was recognized there and everywhere else. It’s simply false to say otherwise. Yes, that was the bedrock for absolutely everything else. While God was acknowledged and that family model was considered normative this country ascended on every level like no other in human history.

When that was abandoned in the 60’s the decline began immediately and is now in a full flaming tailspin.

I’m not typing this all over again (for the 100th time), but here from a few pages ago when somebody told me this would no appreciable effect on our future har dee har har.:

[quote]Gay marriage is the latest component in a national suicide that began in earnest in the 1960’s. It HAS AND IS having an appreciable effect. A devastating suicidal one. This country was built on the social/political/economic foundation of very limited public government through privately and voluntarily practiced Judeo-Christian morality.

Oh yes it was. Our founders clearly told us that. “The reason we can give you so few rules boys n girls is because you’re already so well behaved on the whole” to paraphrase in a nutshell. Even the total hypocritical pagans like Jefferson and Franklin clearly understood this.

The soil out of which new citizens grow is their family or lack thereof. Every single last issue killing this country is a direct consequence of that. The founders assumed that we would continue in the new testament model of one man and one woman for life wherein boundaries that engender self sacrifice, self control, decency, modesty and HONESTY in the act of upholding one’s vows because one’s word actually meant something. All of this was predicated upon the assumption that God designed it that way. That was the soil for new citizens they absolutely counted on for their experiment in self government to succeed and it did.

We skyrocketed into the most prosperous, powerful, feared and respected nation in all of human history over the course of a few generations BECAUSE despite our human foibles we were the most moral because we were the most Christian. Look at the soil our citizens are growing in now. Children of the hippies. Hedonistic, self obsessed, narcissistic, materialistic whores whose mission in life is bringing themselves the most pleasure in the most rapid fashion possible.

ALL the economic woes we are now in ARE, make no mistake, the consequence of the sexually moral degeneration of this nation’s citizenry resulting in the destruction of the foundational social unit upon which she was built and out of which her members are spawned. Even Stalin understood this. He told the world that the United Sates would never be defeated as long as she maintained her spirituality and hence MORality.

Wanna know what’s rotting this nation dead from the inside out like an oozing flesh eating virus? Go look in your Sex and the Male Animal forum. We will destroy OURSELVES to the snickering glee of our many enemies without a shot being fired, all in the name of getting laid. Gay marriage is just the latest chapter. [/quote]

103

[quote]doogie wrote:

What makes your slippery slope arguments different than the Klan’s when they argued against interracial marriage? What sets your reasoning apart?[/quote]

Differences in mental state cannot be treated the same way as differences in skin tone. There is a clear difference between strong desires and skin color.

104

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:<<< Judeo-Christian morality was used to justify discrimination against mixed-race couples, too. It wasn’t right then, and it isn’t right now.[/quote]Show me where. I’m not even saying the attempt wasn’t made. The Klan thought they were Christians too. But where. And even if it was, it has NOTHING to do with this. Nothing, nada, zilch, zero, negatory big ben. For the reasons I’ve already stated. Being descended from this or that ethnicity carries with it NO moral content in itself whatsoever. No implications for marriage and family. No Christian prohibition OR encouragement. Just plain non issue.
[/quote]

Did you see the quotes I provided earlier?

Not only did ministers use the bible to preach againt interracial marriage, but it went so far that even members of the JUDICIARY cited their religious beliefs to rationalize this discrimination.

It has EVERYTHING to do with this, because the tripe being presented in this thread is EXACTLY the same tripe used to rationalize discriminating against interracial marriages. They quoted the bible, they predicted the destruction of the traditional family, and they bemoaned the moral downfall of society just like people are doing here.

They didn’t see themselves as bigots, but today we recognize them as such. You don’t see yourselves as bigots, but in another 3 decades people will see you as such. Many already do.

This is where religion crosses the line for me. You can believe whatever you want, as long as you keep it in your church. But when you start forcing it on others through legislation, it affects my life; don’t be shocked if I fight back.

105

[quote]forlife wrote:<<< Did you see the quotes I provided earlier? >>>[/quote]Actually I didn’t until just now, but thank you. You have once again made my point for me much better that I could have myself. The only thing even close to what I asked for was BJU which is yet another dispensationalist outfit. My critics sure do love to throw that at me.

I stand by position. Race and homosexuality are not in any way analogous and never have been. There is NO moral component to race and there is nothing BUT morality attached to homosexuality.

106

[quote]John S. wrote:
Who gives a shit who gets married to who, or how many people get married to each other. Live your life, allow the 10th amendment to work.[/quote]

I agree… with the proviso that all involved be consenting and of age and sound mind to do so.

107

Gentlemen, we get in enormous rolling land yachts and hurtle ourselves down the road at fantastic speeds in opposing directions, often with no greater a boundary to prevent deadly collision than a broken yellow line and a shared agreement to obey a set of rules we all only vaguely remember most of the time, and that must be constantly enforced.

And we do that just to get to work. There are far more dangerous and potentially catastrophic activities that everyone over the tender age of 16 can already be involved in than two guys butt-fucking.

108

Here is my stance and all I plan to say on the matter. Unlike my faithful friends I do not believe in legislating from the pulpit. The only thing I object to is a matter of semantics. It?s the word marriage. I don?t give a shit how much love there is, how committed the parties are, etc. A same sex union is not the same as marriage and I would like to call it something different so that a differentiation can be made because it is different. Otherwise, I do not object to the rights, and privileges being bestowed upon the same sex unions.

Again, it’s not a matter of faith, condemnation or condoning. It is simply that the government should not be in the business in legislating morality. What is incumbent on the government is to protect our right to freedom and freewill. This means protecting rights of some that others may not like. Like I said, the word is my only objection. Otherwise, live and let live.

109

Oh dear. PWI has this odd effect of being like the movie Groundhog Day. Arguments long since eviscerated just resurface anew, as if time somehow corrects their flaws.

Gay marriage has next to no analogy to inter-racial marriage. This should be obvious for a variety of reasons, but not the least of which an inter-racial heterosexual union still (theoretically) fulfills the function of marriage as a social institution.

And, attempts to prevent inter-racial marriage had nothing to do with marriage - it had to do strictly with race issues, i.e., perpetuation of racial supremacy/solidarity, etc.

And, of course, I always offer this up, but gay marriage advocates always shrink away from it - if gay marriage is the equivalent to the Civil Rights issue of inter-racial marriage, then ipso facto that must mean that opponents to gay marriage are the moral equivalent to opponents of inter-racial marriage during the Civil Rights movement.

Okey dokey, well, then - the black community overwhelmingly disapproves of gay marriage. So, of course, based on the above, that means that black Americans are the moral equivalent to those that opposed inter-racial marriage. They have to be. They are the modern KKK on this issue.

So, why won’t gay marriage advocates just come up and say this to black Americans?

110

I should also say, though, that despite my policy disagreement on the issue, New Yorkers handled it the exact right way - deliberation in its legislatures and a vote. Well done on this issue - this is how such an issue should be resolved.

111

And with all the “libb-urr-turr-ee-uns” afoot, this makes for a good read. A gay libertarian makes the case against gay marriage:

Bigot!

112

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:<<< Did you see the quotes I provided earlier? >>>[/quote]Actually I didn’t until just now, but thank you. You have once again made my point for me much better that I could have myself. The only thing even close to what I asked for was BJU which is yet another dispensationalist outfit. My critics sure do love to throw that at me.

I stand by position. Race and homosexuality are not in any way analogous and never have been. There is NO moral component to race and there is nothing BUT morality attached to homosexuality.
[/quote]

Why do you keep insisting there is no moral component to race, when history contradicts this? I had 2 separate posts, the first one an extensive list of religious condemnations against interracial marriage, including several declarations by the judiciary on religious grounds.

Your arguments against gay equality are IDENTICAL to the arguments made against racial equality 40 years ago.

113

[quote]pat wrote:
Here is my stance and all I plan to say on the matter. Unlike my faithful friends I do not believe in legislating from the pulpit. The only thing I object to is a matter of semantics. It?s the word marriage. I don?t give a shit how much love there is, how committed the parties are, etc. A same sex union is not the same as marriage and I would like to call it something different so that a differentiation can be made because it is different. Otherwise, I do not object to the rights, and privileges being bestowed upon the same sex unions.

Again, it’s not a matter of faith, condemnation or condoning. It is simply that the government should not be in the business in legislating morality. What is incumbent on the government is to protect our right to freedom and freewill. This means protecting rights of some that others may not like. Like I said, the word is my only objection. Otherwise, live and let live.
[/quote]

Well said.

114

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
And with all the “libb-urr-turr-ee-uns” afoot, this makes for a good read. A gay libertarian makes the case against gay marriage:

Bigot![/quote]

That’s a good article because it asks a question that is on the minds of most libertarians: what exactly should be the government’s role in adult relationships? It’s a valid question and there have been arguments stating that marriage should be based on private agreements, not government rules. He seems to be arguing the same thing.

I heard a libertarian presidential candidate ask the following question: “If you go down to the county clerk’s office and get a marriage license, what does that allow you to do that you couldn’t do before?”

115

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I stand by position. Race and homosexuality are not in any way analogous and never have been. There is NO moral component to race and there is nothing BUT morality attached to homosexuality.
[/quote]

Trib, only a few short years ago a very large African American group (the name escapes me but it can be googled) came out with a public statement saying just about exactly what you are currently saying. And they were pretty upset that homosexual leaders were trying to draw such a comparison.

That is a desperate argument.

116

[quote]pat wrote:
Here is my stance and all I plan to say on the matter. Unlike my faithful friends I do not believe in legislating from the pulpit. The only thing I object to is a matter of semantics. It?s the word marriage. I don?t give a shit how much love there is, how committed the parties are, etc. A same sex union is not the same as marriage and I would like to call it something different so that a differentiation can be made because it is different. Otherwise, I do not object to the rights, and privileges being bestowed upon the same sex unions.

Again, it’s not a matter of faith, condemnation or condoning. It is simply that the government should not be in the business in legislating morality. What is incumbent on the government is to protect our right to freedom and freewill. This means protecting rights of some that others may not like. Like I said, the word is my only objection. Otherwise, live and let live.
[/quote]

Pat, are you becoming a libertarian? I agree that the issue is a case of semantics - people are bothered by the word “marriage” being applied to gays. This is why in a previous post I stressed that, at least in my mind, there is a difference between civil law marriage and marriage in the religious/emotional/personal sense. I made the analogy to a drivers license, but a better analogy would be to a business partnership. That’s essentially all that the law creates - an economic partnership between two people. And the rights don’t really kick in until divorce or death. An exception would be employers who provide benefits to a legal spouse - this is the only benefit that married couples get during the marriage. That’s about it in terms of legal benefits. I would argue that, from a legal standpoint, all marriages are “civil unions.”

117

[quote]garcia1970 wrote:

Yes!!! Repent!! The end is near!![/quote]

Slam on religion when I never even brought up the topic.

As you must know being a “Professor” :slight_smile: Congress spends money NOT the US President. Blame the democrats for that one. But, one more slam on republicans when I didn’t even mention politics.

And a closing shot against religion when, as I’ve said I never brought up the topic.

You are a very bitter little man. Now run along, you won’t be missed.

:slight_smile:

118

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

AIDS was not around in 1962 because it wasn’t even a disease then. And you cannot blame gays or any group for starting AIDS unless you can prove that an evil homosexual scientist created the virus in a lab. Starting and spreading are different things.[/quote]

Mike you’re using a straw man argument. Come on you’re better than that. I never once said that homosexuals STARTED AIDS. What I said was that according to the CDC about 60% of all new HIV positive’s come from male homosexuals. That is a FACT. Not politically correct in any way, but nonetheless still a fact. They S P R E A D it…okay?

  1. It is not a “narrow list” as I said tell me something that’s better now than in 1962. There are a few things, especially tecnologically. But over all we are morally bankrupt. Now YOU tell me what can we do about it? Legalize homosexual marriage in the other 43 states? No really, how do things get better I’d like to hear your answer. And furthermore, how did we sink so low in such a short period of time? Please give me your theory.

Yeah, that’s always a cute argument tactic. But when challenged those who use that prhase can’t come up with reasons why we’re currently on the slide. Just look at history, one can draw conclusions regarding what happened from various actions taken. Henry Ford invented the assembly line. Then what happened? Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, then what happened? Prayer was taken out of school, then what happened? Lot’s of good things! People started respecting one another more. There were less teen pregnancy’s, less school violence, less AIDS, less STD’s less of everything that was bad—Well now taking prayer out of public school sure did help our country—Oh wait…the opposite happened.

As I challenged the other poster who came up with this cutsie phrase “correlation does not equal causation” YOU TELL ME WHAT CAUSED THE SLIDE- Go ahead.

And none of this has to do with anything “gay”.

Like I said, if you have the time T Nation has the space. Please post your theory on why this country is falling apart. I’d love to hear it. YOU tell me where it began and why and how we got to this place.

Oh please, I am not saying we are not technologically superior. But what happened morally? What happend to two parents raising their children? What happened to …read the list above.

Come up with the answer my friend I’d love to read it.

119

IMHO Gay marriage is wrong. IT should be called something else…like same sex union. Because it will never, ever in a million years be marriage by definition. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Give em rights all day long, but to disgrace the meaning of marriage is unacceptable.

120

[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
IMHO Gay marriage is wrong. IT should be called something else…like same sex union. Because it will never, ever in a million years be marriage by definition. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Give em rights all day long, but to disgrace the meaning of marriage is unacceptable. [/quote]

Are you a bigot? You see it doesn’t matter that heterosexuals have this 5000 year old institution that we’ve created. Nor does it matter that 70% of our population wants to keep the definition of marriage between one man and one woman. All that matters is that homosexual groups and the politically correct get what they want for less than 1% of the population (the amount of homosexuals that want or care about marriage). See now that makes pefect sense right?