[quote]hueyOT wrote:
i think ‘forlife’ is doing just fine without help.
[/quote]
For the record - this thread died a long time ago for a reason.
Whoever revived it needs more help that can be given in this thread. Seek a shrink!
[quote]hueyOT wrote:
ZEB wrote:
hueyOT wrote:
ZEB wrote:
hueyOT wrote:
for the record, i agree with forlife’s position.
IMO, zeb is making himself out to be a tool. and he is clearly a religious person <not necessarily strict religious, but he’s definitely a ‘believer’>.
Canada huh?
that comment just reinforces what we already know about you.
I simply acknowledged the fact that you were from Canada.
And by the way calling people “tools” is supposed to endear you to them?
Of course this is the Internet and name calling is par for the course for some…
don’t pretend that you weren’t trying to imply that my opinion is defined by the country of residence.
regardless, don’t bother replying to this post, anyways. i definitely do not have the patience to engage in this dicussion with you. i think ‘forlife’ is doing just fine without help.
[/quote]
Dude, Canada sucks! Get over it!
[quote]ZEB wrote:
So you think marriage would make promiscuous homosexuals monogamous?
[/quote]
I think that marriage would provide more stability and tenure to gay relationships, just like it does to straight relationships.
It’s not rocket science. If there are legal, financial, and social consequences to dissolving a marriage then people will be less likely to separate. If you want to encourage stability in gay relationships, you should be championing marriage rather than fighting it.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
They wanted the right to marry someone of the opposite sex just like the right that whites have.[/quote]
Do you really believe you’re being logical here? Let me spell it out for you, in the terms you have applied to gays.
“Blacks want the special right of being able to marry a white person. They already have the right to marry a black person, but they want the -special right- to marry someone white, given that they are black. Not going to happen.”
It boils down to a very simple concept: heterosexuals currently enjoy the right to marry someone they love, and gays do not. Gays are deprived that -identical right-.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
As I have stated heterosexuals who do not marry but live together are far more committed than homosexuals who also live together without the benefit of marriage.[/quote]
Even if your claim is true, it means nothing in the context of this discussion. The ONLY way to know whether or not marriage would help gays stay more committed is to allow them to marry and measure the results.
If anything, your example illustrates the possibility that gays would benefit MORE from marriage than straight couples.
[quote]terribleivan wrote:
All this stuff about family values and love - blahhhhhhhh. Burn them all!!![/quote]
Family values and love are alive and well in the gay community. However, I don’t see a lot of that in your posts; mocking hatred, yes…but not love.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
There are huge differences between constitutional rights with few restrictions (such as the rights to life or free speech) and other rights with important restrictions, which do not carry the right of universal access. [/quote]
At least you’re finally admitting that heterosexuals are granted a “restricted right” which does not allow universal access…especially to homosexuals and their ilk. So much for “equal rights”.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
That’s because the sacrament of marriage between one man and one wife was ordained by the explicit teachings of Jesus."[/quote]
I thought Jesus was born 2,000 years ago. What happened to the 5,000 year tradition that you’re so fond of touting? Confused on your numbers?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Thankfully about 70% of Americans are holding the line on traditional marriage.
Giving homosexuals the right to marry to those 70%, is sort of like seeing some skinny wimp doing barbell curls in the squat rack to you.
Um…it’s just not accepted behavior.
[/quote]
At one point in our history, more than 70% of Americans thought it was ok to own slaves and prevent women from voting. Obviously, the majority isn’t always right.
Bigots never see themselves as such.
[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
They wanted the right to marry someone of the opposite sex just like the right that whites have.
Do you really believe you’re being logical here? Let me spell it out for you, in the terms you have applied to gays.
“Blacks want the special right of being able to marry a white person. They already have the right to marry a black person, but they want the -special right- to marry someone white, given that they are black. Not going to happen.”
It boils down to a very simple concept: heterosexuals currently enjoy the right to marry someone they love, and gays do not. Gays are deprived that -identical right-.[/quote]
I don’t know how dumb some people can be, but I’m constantly amazed. Some idiots believe that being born with black skin is the same as being born with your dick in another man’s ass. The second you pop out - poof, your dick is in there. Amazing.
[quote]harris447 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
It’s time to stop dodging the question.
forlife, you dodged my question earlier and the debate is over unless you can answer this:
Do you want a society that allows polygamists and those who pracitce incest to be able to marry?
Or is it just YOUR SPECIAL RIGHT that you are after?
Think about it, is YOUR special right more important than someone else’s.
When you finish answering that question I have a few more for you.
Just because you keep shouting the phrases, “special right,” and “5,000 year old institution” doesn’t make them make any sense.
Getting married is not a special right.
“Lesbians get to vote twice,” is a special right.
Marriage as we know it has only existed for a couple hundred years. Before that, there were arranged marriages, dowrys, chattel laws, etc.
As for the tradition part…so the fuck what? Beating your wife was tradition. Slavery was tradition. Dying from the Plague was tradition.
Just because something’s a tradition, don’t make it sacred.
[/quote]
Did you copy and paste this? I am surprised you were able to figure out that function.
[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
They wanted the right to marry someone of the opposite sex just like the right that whites have.
Do you really believe you’re being logical here? Let me spell it out for you, in the terms you have applied to gays.
“Blacks want the special right of being able to marry a white person. They already have the right to marry a black person, but they want the -special right- to marry someone white, given that they are black. Not going to happen.”
It boils down to a very simple concept: heterosexuals currently enjoy the right to marry someone they love, and gays do not. Gays are deprived that -identical right-.[/quote]
And I am deprived from entering the military because of age. I could easily pass any fitness test, but I’m still denied. Now if they made an exception for me that would indeed be a special right…huh?
Blacks wanted and deserved the SAME rights as whites. Gays want, do not deserve and will not be getting (drum roll) special rights.
[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
As I have stated heterosexuals who do not marry but live together are far more committed than homosexuals who also live together without the benefit of marriage.
Even if your claim is true, it means nothing in the context of this discussion. The ONLY way to know whether or not marriage would help gays stay more committed is to allow them to marry and measure the results.
If anything, your example illustrates the possibility that gays would benefit MORE from marriage than straight couples.[/quote]
LOL…not quite.
It proves, if anything, that homosexuals are promiscuous as the many studies which I posted clearly demonstrate. If you think a wedding will change all that then you need to think twice about the logic that you are using.
[quote]forlife wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
All this stuff about family values and love - blahhhhhhhh. Burn them all!!!
Family values and love are alive and well in the gay community. However, I don’t see a lot of that in your posts; mocking hatred, yes…but not love.
[/quote]
While this is not addressed to me I am going to comment anyway.
“Love” is not always giving people what they want. That’s not how you raise a child and that’s not how you protect people that you love either.
Anyone who really studies the homosexual health statistics would in no way claim that promoting that sort of behavior is what “love” is all about. In fact, it seems to me that it’s the opposite of love.
[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
There are huge differences between constitutional rights with few restrictions (such as the rights to life or free speech) and other rights with important restrictions, which do not carry the right of universal access.
At least you’re finally admitting that heterosexuals are granted a “restricted right” which does not allow universal access…especially to homosexuals and their ilk. So much for “equal rights”.[/quote]
Do you know what “restricted rights” means?
If so please explain it to me. I am curious as to your read on that term and to whom it applies to generally.
[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
That’s because the sacrament of marriage between one man and one wife was ordained by the explicit teachings of Jesus."
I thought Jesus was born 2,000 years ago. What happened to the 5,000 year tradition that you’re so fond of touting? Confused on your numbers?[/quote]
No, I have it “straight”.
It’s you who are confused. Read that over again and think about it.
[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Thankfully about 70% of Americans are holding the line on traditional marriage.
Giving homosexuals the right to marry to those 70%, is sort of like seeing some skinny wimp doing barbell curls in the squat rack to you.
Um…it’s just not accepted behavior.
At one point in our history, more than 70% of Americans thought it was ok to own slaves and prevent women from voting. Obviously, the majority isn’t always right.
Bigots never see themselves as such.[/quote]
True, the majority is not always right. But in many cases they are right. This happens to be one of them.
Can you think of any other times that the majority was and is correct?
I can.
forlife,
You still have not answered my question. Are you scared to answer it?
I’ll post it once more for you. If you dodge it again I have a feeling that it will keep popping up:
"Do you want a society that allows polygamists and those who pracitce incest to be able to marry?
Or is it just YOUR SPECIAL RIGHT that you are after?
Think about it, is YOUR special right more important than someone else’s.
When you finish answering that question I have a few more for you."
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Anyone who really studies the homosexual health statistics would in no way claim that promoting that sort of behavior is what “love” is all about. In fact, it seems to me that it’s the opposite of love.[/quote]
Having experienced the “love” of religious bigots who insist they know what is best for me, they can keep it.
I know it goes against every prejudice you hold, but I continue to be happier, more integrated, and a more genuinely loving person now than when I was in the closet. I know you will insist that I couldn’t possibly be experiencing “real joy” right now…but you are wrong. I know also that you will insist that eventually, if I just wait long enough, my decision to come out will bring me misery instead of happiness. You are wrong on that count as well.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
"Do you want a society that allows polygamists and those who pracitce incest to be able to marry?
Or is it just YOUR SPECIAL RIGHT that you are after?
[/quote]
I can’t answer the question because your basic premise is flawed. The right to marry someone you love is not a special right at all. It is currently reserved for heterosexuals, it has thankfully been extended to blacks, and in time it will be extended to gays.