Brokeback Propaganda

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
2148

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Are you gay?

Is that why you have this position – there is something in it for you, right?
[/quote]

My being gay has zero bearing on the validity of the highly respected Pew Research Center’s recent findings in March, 2006. Here they are again in case you missed them:

[b]"Public acceptance of homosexuality has increased in a number of ways in recent years, though it remains a deeply divisive issue. Half of Americans (51%) continue to oppose legalizing gay marriage, but this number has declined significantly from 63% in February 2004, when opposition spiked following the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision and remained high throughout the 2004 election season. Opposition to gay marriage has fallen across the board, with substantial declines even among Republicans.

These are among the results of the latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted among 1,405 adults from March 8-12.

The poll also finds less opposition to gays serving openly in the military and a greater public willingness to allow gays to adopt children. A 60% majority now favors allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military, up from 52% in 1994, and 46% support gay adoption, up from 38% in 1999."[/b]

Imagine that…

MORE Americans now favor gay marriage than ever before.

MORE Americans now favor gays serving openly in the military.

MORE Americans now favor allowing gays to adopt children.

http://people-press.org/...p3?ReportID=273

2149

[quote]forlife wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Are you gay?

Is that why you have this position – there is something in it for you, right?

My being gay has zero bearing on the validity of the highly respected Pew Research Center’s recent findings in March, 2006. Here they are again in case you missed them:

[b]"Public acceptance of homosexuality has increased in a number of ways in recent years, though it remains a deeply divisive issue. Half of Americans (51%) continue to oppose legalizing gay marriage, but this number has declined significantly from 63% in February 2004, when opposition spiked following the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision and remained high throughout the 2004 election season. Opposition to gay marriage has fallen across the board, with substantial declines even among Republicans.

These are among the results of the latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted among 1,405 adults from March 8-12.

The poll also finds less opposition to gays serving openly in the military and a greater public willingness to allow gays to adopt children. A 60% majority now favors allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military, up from 52% in 1994, and 46% support gay adoption, up from 38% in 1999."[/b]

Imagine that…

MORE Americans now favor gay marriage than ever before.

MORE Americans now favor gays serving openly in the military.

MORE Americans now favor allowing gays to adopt children.

http://people-press.org/...p3?ReportID=273
[/quote]

Now wait just a minute…

(1) Your being gay might have zero to do with ONE POLL (Yes, that is ONE POLL), but it has EVERYTHING TO DO WITH YOUR BIAS on this issue.

The fact that you (and your gay brethren) deny the FACT that marriage is BY DEFINITION 1 man + 1 woman, is because that YOU and others stand to GAIN $$$$$$$$$$$$ and even more important, possibly, the ACCEPTANCE FOR YOUR SIN THAT YOU CRAVE.

(2) The fact that more Americans might “accept” your position, is because of the radical gay lobby that has made this into a civil rights and discrimination issue instead of what it really is: People in sin wishing to have that sin given the U.S. Stamp of Approval.

(3) Even the poll shows that a MAJORITY of Americans OPPOSE GAY MARRIAGE. This is seen in that there is no state in the U.S. that has legalized this.

WE THE PEOPLE DON’T WANT THIS!

(4) Even if a state would legalize this or even if the majority of Americans would be for this, HOMOSEXUALITY IS STILL AND ALWAYS WILL BE SIN.

SIN
SIN
SIN
SIN
SIN

GOD’S WORD IS THE LAST WORD!

2150

[quote]forlife wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Are you gay?

Is that why you have this position – there is something in it for you, right?

My being gay has zero bearing on[/quote]

You “being gay” has had a bearing on just about everything you think, say, write and do!

You left your wife and children because of your same sex attraction…

You left your faith because of your same sex attraction…

And every word written on this thread by you is because you are a homosexual and really really hate anyone opposing your politically correct view point.

So…STOP PLAYING GAMES.

This is incorrect as proven not only by independent polls, many of which I have already posted. But also proven incorrect by the 20 states that have voted down gay marriage by an average of 71%!

And that 71% is very close to the number of people who have responded in a USA/CNN poll that being 68% of all people polled opposed gay marriage.

Yea, I have to go along with this. In fact, I wonder why anyone would oppose gays serving in the military. Women serve in the military and there is usually no sexual conflict. “How” they serve might be a point of contention. Such as barracks set up, showering etc. But serving…I have no problem with that.

Actually, there are law suits which are attempting to prohibit adoption in some states. I posted those on this thread.

2151

What’s the matter forlife, you have nothing to say about this? It seems that all of your words against the “slippery slope” theory seem sort of shallow in light of recent events.

Why don’t you simply admit that this is what you want? It is isn’t it?

SLIPPERY SLOPE THEORY GETS A BOOST.

Here Come the Brides
Plural marriage is waiting in the wings.
by Stanley Kurtz

ON SEPTEMBER 23, 2005, the 46-year-old Victor de Bruijn and his 31-year-old wife of eight years, Bianca, presented themselves to a notary public in the small Dutch border town of Roosendaal. And they brought a friend. Dressed in wedding clothes, Victor and Bianca de Bruijn were formally united with a bridally bedecked Mirjam Geven, a recently divorced 35-year-old whom they’d met several years previously through an Internet chatroom. As the notary validated a samenlevingscontract, or “cohabitation contract,” the three exchanged rings, held a wedding feast, and departed for their honeymoon.

When Mirjam Geven first met Victor and Bianca de Bruijn, she was married. Yet after several meetings between Mirjam, her then-husband, and the De Bruijns, Mirjam left her spouse and moved in with Victor and Bianca. The threesome bought a bigger bed, while Mirjam and her husband divorced. Although neither Mirjam nor Bianca had had a prior relationship with a woman, each had believed for years that she was bisexual. Victor, who describes himself as “100 percent heterosexual,” attributes the trio’s success to his wives’ bisexuality, which he says has the effect of preventing jealousy.

The De Bruijns’ triple union caused a sensation in the Netherlands, drawing coverage from television, radio, and the press. With TV cameras and reporters crowding in, the wedding celebration turned into something of a media circus. Halfway through the festivities, the trio had to appoint one of their guests as a press liaison. The local paper ran several stories on the triple marriage, one devoted entirely to the
media madhouse.

News of the Dutch three-way wedding filtered into the United States through a September 26 report by Paul Belien, on his Brussels Journal website. The story spread through the conservative side of the Internet like wildfire, raising a chorus of “I told you so’s” from bloggers who’d long warned of a slippery slope from gay marriage to polygamy.

Meanwhile, gay marriage advocates scrambled to put out the fire. M.V. Lee Badgett, an economist at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and research director of the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies, told a sympathetic website, “This [Brussels Journal] article is ridiculous. Don’t be fooled–Dutch law does not allow polygamy.” Badgett suggested that Paul Belien had deliberately mistranslated the Dutch word for “cohabitation contract” as “civil union,” or even “marriage,” so as to leave the false impression that the triple union had more legal weight than it did. Prominent gay-marriage advocate Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, offered up a detailed legal account of Dutch cohabitation contracts, treating them as a matter of minor significance, in no way comparable to state-recognized registered partnerships.

In short, while the Dutch triple wedding set the conservative blogosphere ablaze with warnings, same-sex marriage advocates dismissed the story as a silly stunt with absolutely no implications for the gay marriage debate. And how did America’s mainstream media adjudicate the radically different responses of same-sex marriage advocates and opponents to events in the Netherlands? By ignoring the entire affair.

Yet there is a story here. And it’s bigger than even those chortling conservative websites claim. While Victor, Bianca, and Mirjam are joined by a private cohabitation contract rather than a state-registered partnership or a full-fledged marriage, their union has already made serious legal, political, and cultural waves in the Netherlands. To observers on both sides of the Dutch gay marriage debate, the De Bruijns’ triple wedding is an unmistakable step down the road to legalized group marriage."

http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/494pqobc.asp

This occurred only four years after gay marriage was legalized.

2152

People have used the bible to support their pro-slavery positions, too. Do you have something more tangible?

2153

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Your being gay might have zero to do with ONE POLL (Yes, that is ONE POLL), but it has EVERYTHING TO DO WITH YOUR BIAS on this issue.[/quote]

Actually, if you bothered to read the link I provided, the Pew Research Group was summarizing polls across multiple years. If that wasn’t enough for you though, check out these dozens of polls by Fox News, CNN, ABC News, Gallup, etc. ALL OF WHICH SHOW AN INCREASING LEVEL OF ACCEPTANCE FOR GAYS OVER TIME.

http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm

You don’t like it any more than the racial bigots and misogynists disliked having their turf challenged by the general public, but you are losing ground in your discrimination and will continue to do so.

You conveniently failed to address the question in my last post. Didn’t you say that the bible portrayed Abraham’s polygamy as a sin? Hmmm, still waiting for the scriptural reference on that one.

[quote]SIN
SIN
SIN
SIN
SIN

GOD’S WORD IS THE LAST WORD!
[/quote]

For starters, who are you to tell the rest of the world what “God’s word” is? Religion is separated from the state for a very good reason.

Since you brought up sin though, I’m curious what your viewpoint is on the new testament injunction against women speaking in church and having their heads uncovered. Does that still qualify as:

[quote]SIN
SIN
SIN
SIN
SIN

GOD’S WORD IS THE LAST WORD!
[/quote]

Or has God’s word changed since then?

2154

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Faith has nothing to do with the fact that even the most uneducated non-medical person knows that your butt-hole was not designed to have another man’s penis stuck in it.

[/quote]

This is the crux of the entire issue. How does love manifest itself by one man sticking his sausage in another man’s buns?

Sasuage…buns…I bet a couple guys on the thread are starting to get hungry!

2155

forlife,

Still silent on the polygamist “wedding” that took place this a short time ago in a certain country that has allowed gay “marriage” for four years.

Your silence is quite telling!

Glad Americans are smart enough not to take the slippery slope ride by allowing gay marriage.

6 more states will enact anti gay marriage laws this year.

That will make 26 in total by the end of the year.

You’re losing…

:wink:

2156

Back to vulgarity and mockery, Ivan? You’re a shining example of the Christian life. Jesus would be proud!

2157

[quote]ZEB wrote:
harris447 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
SLIPPERY SLOPE THEORY GETS A BOOST.

Here Come the Brides
Plural marriage is waiting in the wings.
by Stanley Kurtz

ON SEPTEMBER 23, 2005, the 46-year-old Victor de Bruijn and his 31-year-old wife of eight years, Bianca, presented themselves to a notary public in the small Dutch border town of Roosendaal. And they brought a friend. Dressed in wedding clothes, Victor and Bianca de Bruijn were formally united with a bridally bedecked Mirjam Geven, a recently divorced 35-year-old whom they’d met several years previously through an Internet chatroom. As the notary validated a samenlevingscontract, or “cohabitation contract,” the three exchanged rings, held a wedding feast, and departed for their honeymoon.

When Mirjam Geven first met Victor and Bianca de Bruijn, she was married. Yet after several meetings between Mirjam, her then-husband, and the De Bruijns, Mirjam left her spouse and moved in with Victor and Bianca. The threesome bought a bigger bed, while Mirjam and her husband divorced. Although neither Mirjam nor Bianca had had a prior relationship with a woman, each had believed for years that she was bisexual. Victor, who describes himself as “100 percent heterosexual,” attributes the trio’s success to his wives’ bisexuality, which he says has the effect of preventing jealousy.

The De Bruijns’ triple union caused a sensation in the Netherlands, drawing coverage from television, radio, and the press. With TV cameras and reporters crowding in, the wedding celebration turned into something of a media circus. Halfway through the festivities, the trio had to appoint one of their guests as a press liaison. The local paper ran several stories on the triple marriage, one devoted entirely to the
media madhouse.

News of the Dutch three-way wedding filtered into the United States through a September 26 report by Paul Belien, on his Brussels Journal website. The story spread through the conservative side of the Internet like wildfire, raising a chorus of “I told you so’s” from bloggers who’d long warned of a slippery slope from gay marriage to polygamy.

Meanwhile, gay marriage advocates scrambled to put out the fire. M.V. Lee Badgett, an economist at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and research director of the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies, told a sympathetic website, “This [Brussels Journal] article is ridiculous. Don’t be fooled–Dutch law does not allow polygamy.” Badgett suggested that Paul Belien had deliberately mistranslated the Dutch word for “cohabitation contract” as “civil union,” or even “marriage,” so as to leave the false impression that the triple union had more legal weight than it did. Prominent gay-marriage advocate Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, offered up a detailed legal account of Dutch cohabitation contracts, treating them as a matter of minor significance, in no way comparable to state-recognized registered partnerships.

In short, while the Dutch triple wedding set the conservative blogosphere ablaze with warnings, same-sex marriage advocates dismissed the story as a silly stunt with absolutely no implications for the gay marriage debate. And how did America’s mainstream media adjudicate the radically different responses of same-sex marriage advocates and opponents to events in the Netherlands? By ignoring the entire affair.

Yet there is a story here. And it’s bigger than even those chortling conservative websites claim. While Victor, Bianca, and Mirjam are joined by a private cohabitation contract rather than a state-registered partnership or a full-fledged marriage, their union has already made serious legal, political, and cultural waves in the Netherlands. To observers on both sides of the Dutch gay marriage debate, the De Bruijns’ triple wedding is an unmistakable step down the road to legalized group marriage."

http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/494pqobc.asp

This occurred only four years after gay marriage was legalized.

So what?

harris says “so what” to three polygamists getting married.

This should tip off the readers of this thread as to the direction that those who want gay marriage would take this country.

Very good harris, thanks for your honestly.

Actually, that is much more than forlife has given us regarding the topic of polygamy.

It’s nice to see your true colors.

[/quote]

Yes: so the fuck what?

If three people want to get married, then what does it affect your life, my life, or ANYONE’S lives in the fucking slightest?

Besides reactionary jebus-freaks who wish to impose their myths, fears, and hatreds on everyone else while singing, “The sky is falling” at the top of thir lungs?

Last post here. You’re boring and reading your bullshit makes me wanna shower.

2158

[quote]forlife wrote:
Back to vulgarity and mockery, Ivan? You’re a shining example of the Christian life. Jesus would be proud![/quote]

No forlife, he is just pointing out, as I did, that biologically gay male sex is contrary to evolution and survival of the fittest. Anal sex is wrong from a religious and biological perspective. It serves no purpose other than to spread disease.

2159

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
No forlife, he is just pointing out, as I did, that biologically gay male sex is contrary to evolution and survival of the fittest. Anal sex is wrong from a religious and biological perspective. It serves no purpose other than to spread disease.
[/quote]

Actually, if you go back and read his posts you will see that they were vulgar by any “Christian” standard. That’s between him and Jesus, though.

As for your aversion to anal sex, do you similarly think it is wrong for straight couples to practice it? Would you try to deny marriage to straight couples that did so?

2160

[quote]forlife wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Your being gay might have zero to do with ONE POLL (Yes, that is ONE POLL), but it has EVERYTHING TO DO WITH YOUR BIAS on this issue.

Actually, if you bothered to read the link I provided, the Pew Research Group was summarizing polls across multiple years. If that wasn’t enough for you though, check out these dozens of polls by Fox News, CNN, ABC News, Gallup, etc. ALL OF WHICH SHOW AN INCREASING LEVEL OF ACCEPTANCE FOR GAYS OVER TIME.

LGBT redirect [/quote]

Yes, I acknowledged this, but also told you that it is due to the radical Gay movement, but MOST AMERICANS STILL OPPOSE YOUR VIEW![quote]

You don’t like it any more than the racial bigots and misogynists disliked having their turf challenged by the general public, but you are losing ground in your discrimination and will continue to do so.[/quote]

This is a good ploy of yours. Attach my Biblical views to true evils of the past so as to marginalize God and the Biblical view. Sorry, only someone with an IQ under 50 would believe this.

Marriage, until very recently, was 1 man + 1 woman. What you engage in was regarded as a mental illness needing correction. That, sir, is a fact. [quote]

The fact that you (and your gay brethren) deny the FACT that marriage is BY DEFINITION 1 man + 1 woman

You conveniently failed to address the question in my last post. Didn’t you say that the bible portrayed Abraham’s polygamy as a sin? Hmmm, still waiting for the scriptural reference on that one.[/quote]

What I believe I wrote was that Abram’s relation with Sari’s handmaid, Hagar, showed Abram’s lack of faith, which is sin. The Bible says that “whatsoever is not of faith, is sin.” Jesus also taught that God’s rule was that marriage was one man and one woman for one lifetime.

So, what does this have to do with this topic?[quote]

SIN
SIN
SIN
SIN
SIN

GOD’S WORD IS THE LAST WORD!

For starters, who are you to tell the rest of the world what “God’s word” is? Religion is separated from the state for a very good reason.[/quote]

I am a nobody. I am just writing what the Bible says. How many “interpretations” do you want for “abomination?” What do you think God meant when He said that if you have sexual relations with a person of your own sex it is “abomination?” What do you think it means?

My point is with these rhetorical questions is that no interpretation is needed – JUST READ IT![quote]

Since you brought up sin though, I’m curious what your viewpoint is on the new testament injunction against women speaking in church and having their heads uncovered. Does that still qualify as:

SIN
SIN
SIN
SIN
SIN

GOD’S WORD IS THE LAST WORD!

Or has God’s word changed since then?[/quote]

My viewpoint is that women cannot be pastors nor can they stand in the pulpit and teach men the Bible. That is what the Bible says and that is what we do in our church and churches like ours.

This DOES NOT mean that women are inferior or not intelligent or do not know their Bibles. What this means is that God has spoken, we believe it, and we do it.

Again, nice try to trap me, but, although I am not perfect, I do attempt to live my life according to God’s Holy Word.

Sodomy = SIN

Then, now and forever – no matter what you people say, do, or no matter what laws you change.

It is still sin…

2161

[quote]harris447 wrote:

Yes: so the fuck what?

If three people want to get married, then what does it affect your life, my life, or ANYONE’S lives in the fucking slightest?

Besides reactionary jebus-freaks who wish to impose their myths, fears, and hatreds on everyone else while singing, “The sky is falling” at the top of thir lungs?[/quote]

I understand that there are all types of people in the world. And they should indeed have the freedom to pursue any sort of activity that they like providing it’s legal and they’re not purposely hurting anyone.

But the American public is going to continue to say NO to gay marriage. You can rant and rave all you want on the Internet, but you’re going to have to lump that one.

You see harris the majority of Americans have respect for the institution of marriage. That’s why the average state votes down gay marriage by a whopping 71%.

And while you make fun of Christians every chance you get calling them “jebus-freaks” and whatever else jumps into your mind, you have attacked others for making fun of certain aberrant behaviors. Anyway it looks like you are in the minority again as about 90% of the American public considers themselves as “Christian.”

Promise? I’m going to hold you to that…

And congratulations for going out with more of your insults. Your drive by insult postings add nothing…So your departure means nothing.

And while I normally don’t stoop to your level I’m going to this one time as you have had it coming…

harris, I have been on this site for quite a long time and have many posts as you know. I have had heated debates with many whom I consider “liberal.” But no matter how heated it gets I would not hesitate to help each of them if they needed it. But never in my time here have I talked to someone so ignorant, hateful and without any “general moral compass” as you.

In every way (from what you have shown me) you are truly a low life! And I shudder to think what America would be like if people like you ever achieved power in the US.

And…

I feel sorry for the children that you teach and the sort of thoughts that you most likely put in their developing minds. And the school system that is robbed each week when you pick up your pay check.

You are truly pathetic!

Please do me a favor and ignore me, not just on this thread but on any thread that you see me posting on. I consider it an honor for someone like you to hate me.

2162

[quote]forlife wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
No forlife, he is just pointing out, as I did, that biologically gay male sex is contrary to evolution and survival of the fittest. Anal sex is wrong from a religious and biological perspective. It serves no purpose other than to spread disease.

Actually, if you go back and read his posts you will see that they were vulgar by any “Christian” standard. That’s between him and Jesus, though.

As for your aversion to anal sex, do you similarly think it is wrong for straight couples to practice it? Would you try to deny marriage to straight couples that did so?[/quote]

I would deny marriage to hetros if that were the only way they could have sex.

You see the issue is not that gays have anal sex, it’s that this is the only sex they can have because they weren’t designed to have sex in the first place. You are trying to force and physical sexual compatibility that doesn’t exist. That is why every conceivable orifice gets used in an effort to mimic normal sexual relations between male and female.

2163

[quote]forlife wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
No forlife, he is just pointing out, as I did, that biologically gay male sex is contrary to evolution and survival of the fittest. Anal sex is wrong from a religious and biological perspective. It serves no purpose other than to spread disease.

Actually, if you go back and read his posts you will see that they were vulgar by any “Christian” standard. That’s between him and Jesus, though.

As for your aversion to anal sex, do you similarly think it is wrong for straight couples to practice it? Would you try to deny marriage to straight couples that did so?[/quote]

I think that the point is being missed. I am not one of those who wish to deny gay people the right to do whatever in the privacy of their own homes. That is not my problem – what they do for sex.

My problem is that I don’t wish to be forced to sanction this behavior and give it “USA approved” status. I don’t wish to be forced to have my tax money supporting their lifestyles which I believe is sin. The laws define what marriage is and therefore it is the state legislatures – the representatives of the people – who get to decide.

2164

[quote]Zeb wrote:
You see harris the majority of Americans have respect for the institution of marriage
[/quote]

Is that why the divorce rate is 50%, million kids are born out of wedlock and even more are raised by a single parent or non-biological parents? Because of enourmous respect for institute of marriage?

2165

[quote]forlife wrote:
Back to vulgarity and mockery, Ivan? You’re a shining example of the Christian life. Jesus would be proud![/quote]

Before you pass judgement forlife, remember that Jesus is probably pretty unhappy with you working so hard to pervert the human race.

If you stood face to face with Jesus, what would you say? Think about that the next time you go on that date with a “hot guy” - you’ll have your chance to tell Jesus soon enough!

2166

[quote]harris447 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
harris447 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
SLIPPERY SLOPE THEORY GETS A BOOST.

Here Come the Brides
Plural marriage is waiting in the wings.
by Stanley Kurtz

ON SEPTEMBER 23, 2005, the 46-year-old Victor de Bruijn and his 31-year-old wife of eight years, Bianca, presented themselves to a notary public in the small Dutch border town of Roosendaal. And they brought a friend. Dressed in wedding clothes, Victor and Bianca de Bruijn were formally united with a bridally bedecked Mirjam Geven, a recently divorced 35-year-old whom they’d met several years previously through an Internet chatroom. As the notary validated a samenlevingscontract, or “cohabitation contract,” the three exchanged rings, held a wedding feast, and departed for their honeymoon.

When Mirjam Geven first met Victor and Bianca de Bruijn, she was married. Yet after several meetings between Mirjam, her then-husband, and the De Bruijns, Mirjam left her spouse and moved in with Victor and Bianca. The threesome bought a bigger bed, while Mirjam and her husband divorced. Although neither Mirjam nor Bianca had had a prior relationship with a woman, each had believed for years that she was bisexual. Victor, who describes himself as “100 percent heterosexual,” attributes the trio’s success to his wives’ bisexuality, which he says has the effect of preventing jealousy.

The De Bruijns’ triple union caused a sensation in the Netherlands, drawing coverage from television, radio, and the press. With TV cameras and reporters crowding in, the wedding celebration turned into something of a media circus. Halfway through the festivities, the trio had to appoint one of their guests as a press liaison. The local paper ran several stories on the triple marriage, one devoted entirely to the
media madhouse.

News of the Dutch three-way wedding filtered into the United States through a September 26 report by Paul Belien, on his Brussels Journal website. The story spread through the conservative side of the Internet like wildfire, raising a chorus of “I told you so’s” from bloggers who’d long warned of a slippery slope from gay marriage to polygamy.

Meanwhile, gay marriage advocates scrambled to put out the fire. M.V. Lee Badgett, an economist at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and research director of the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies, told a sympathetic website, “This [Brussels Journal] article is ridiculous. Don’t be fooled–Dutch law does not allow polygamy.” Badgett suggested that Paul Belien had deliberately mistranslated the Dutch word for “cohabitation contract” as “civil union,” or even “marriage,” so as to leave the false impression that the triple union had more legal weight than it did. Prominent gay-marriage advocate Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, offered up a detailed legal account of Dutch cohabitation contracts, treating them as a matter of minor significance, in no way comparable to state-recognized registered partnerships.

In short, while the Dutch triple wedding set the conservative blogosphere ablaze with warnings, same-sex marriage advocates dismissed the story as a silly stunt with absolutely no implications for the gay marriage debate. And how did America’s mainstream media adjudicate the radically different responses of same-sex marriage advocates and opponents to events in the Netherlands? By ignoring the entire affair.

Yet there is a story here. And it’s bigger than even those chortling conservative websites claim. While Victor, Bianca, and Mirjam are joined by a private cohabitation contract rather than a state-registered partnership or a full-fledged marriage, their union has already made serious legal, political, and cultural waves in the Netherlands. To observers on both sides of the Dutch gay marriage debate, the De Bruijns’ triple wedding is an unmistakable step down the road to legalized group marriage."

http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/494pqobc.asp

This occurred only four years after gay marriage was legalized.

So what?

harris says “so what” to three polygamists getting married.

This should tip off the readers of this thread as to the direction that those who want gay marriage would take this country.

Very good harris, thanks for your honestly.

Actually, that is much more than forlife has given us regarding the topic of polygamy.

It’s nice to see your true colors.

Yes: so the fuck what?

If three people want to get married, then what does it affect your life, my life, or ANYONE’S lives in the fucking slightest?

Besides reactionary jebus-freaks who wish to impose their myths, fears, and hatreds on everyone else while singing, “The sky is falling” at the top of thir lungs?

Last post here. You’re boring and reading your bullshit makes me wanna shower.[/quote]

LOL - Harris’ resonse is so dumb, it doesn’t even deserve a response! This idiot is almost as blind as forlife!

To think that three people getting married doesn’t affect anyone else - when did we start breeding stupidity?

2167

[quote]skor wrote:
Zeb wrote:
You see harris the majority of Americans have respect for the institution of marriage

Is that why the divorce rate is 50%, million kids are born out of wedlock and even more are raised by a single parent or non-biological parents? Because of enourmous respect for institute of marriage?[/quote]

This is really funny. Earlier in the thread, this idiot was telling us that the definition of relationship and marriage is evolving, and now, in our modern society it is ok for homosexual unions to be accepted.

Now this dummy throws out the very facts that destroy his argument. Divorce rate is high because we have become laxed in our view of the value of tradition. As the respect for marriage has declined over the last 20 or 30 years, we have seen more and more infidelity, divorce, and children out of wedlock. What a surprise!

This guys is almost as dumb as harris. Almost there skor, you just have to try a little harder to dumb it down next time.