Gay marraige

Off Topic
141

Musclerob, it doesn’t seem like you’re actually considering other people’s posts, just skimming over them.

Marriage in the United States HAS changed without a change in its ESSENCE, which is institutionalized monogamy. Why would admitting gays destroy monogamy? Answer this beyond harping “any change,” and you actually will have an argument to present to us.

“Also, I still see marriage fraud as a big problem since you can’t really prove gayness. Two college guys could marry each other just to get some benefits, but it couldn’t be proven that they’re not gay.”

It has already been explained to you that such “marriage frauds” would be insignificant (and irrelevant since this opportunity is currently open to males and females–and virtually unused except in the case of assisting immigration).

“Logically? Comparing segregated bathrooms to marriage? C’mon! I see his point, but they’re not the same.”

The issue in this example is how to define whether ANY two groups have equal rights–not whether the case for gay marriage compares to African-American’s struggle for civil rights.

So do you have anything more to tell us, or do you just want to waste our time?

142

Heterosexuals have the right to marry the person they love.

Sorry, that is not the case.

I can NOT marry a married woman that I love.

She’s human, over 18, she consents, we’re not related, and we love each other.

There goes your definition.

You know that the same arguments you (Musclerob and others) make against homosexual marriage are the same arguments people made when interracial marriage was an issue.

I’m going to appologize right now. I’m sorry for what I am about to say.

Chris, you are an idiot. That is a disgusting comparison and I’ve said it many times before. And I assume that you’ve read my posts, so that must mean you read all my reasoning behind this yet STILL believe this is a valid comparison.

Comparing all the shit blacks had to go through to two guys that like dick’s up their ass is sickening. You should be ashamed to make that comparison.

Yet you want to make me out to be some kind of bad person? Interesting.

143

Brian,

Marriage in the United States HAS changed without a change in its ESSENCE, which is institutionalized monogamy. Why would admitting gays destroy monogamy?

The essence of a marriage is being between a man and a woman, which is also in essence monogamous. If you change one essence, what is preventing changing the other essence?

It has already been explained to you that such “marriage frauds” would be insignificant (and irrelevant since this opportunity is currently open to males and females–and virtually unused except in the case of assisting immigration).

Ok, point taken. Let’s toss out this issue.

The issue in this example is how to define whether ANY two groups have equal rights–not whether the case for gay marriage compares to African-American’s struggle for civil rights.

Brian, I realize this. I don’t think bathrooms and marriage is a fair comparison. It’s just not the same, but I see your point.

144

Hahahahaha! You guys are KILLING me!! Especially MRBP. Dude, you rock. I haven’t seen such a bunch of goofy posts since morg has been around. Look MRBP, it’s really not that hard. You want me to “justify” gay marriage for ya? Okay:

Marriage is between two consenting adults.

Whew! That was tough. The problem we have here is that you don’t like the idea of the two consenting adults being of the same gender. You gave all kinds of examples and analogies as to why you feel this way, but it boils down to one simple fact:

(deep breath)

say it with me:

“I don’t like homosexuals.”

And that’s fine. Really, it is. You are allowed to feel however you want about anything. That’s one of the marvelous, wonderful things about the life we live here on Earth. I say enjoy the few perks that we DO have. And, I’m just like you. Only it’s not fruitcakes* or lesbians that I hate: it’s really, really fat people. They just DISGUST me. I work in the healthcare industry, and I see them all of the time, waddling, short of breath, complaining of chest pain, smelling like something nearby died a horrible death recently. AAAAARRRGGGH! And I get to take care of them, and the consequences of their “lifestyle choice”. It’s aggravating to me!!

But I digress.

Look dude, they (homos) aren’t hurting you one teensy little bit by getting married. And I know that you said that it’s just one perversion that’s going to lead to another and another, etc. And you’re wrong. I’m sorry, but comparing a fruitcake* to a child-molester or a “chicken-lover” is ridiculous. Be a man now, and admit it. It is.

So queers want to get “married”. So what? Plain and simple, dude, ask yourself (if you can) one question:

“If I didn’t have this dislike for homosexuals, would I mind it if they were able to get married, just like a heterosexual couple?”

Be honest with yourself, now. That’s the ONE PERSON you should NEVER lie to. Never.

*about my use of the word “fruitcake”: I got razzed by ZEB pretty bad two weeks ago when we did this same kind of thread entitled “Tolerance” for using the words “fruitcake”, “fruity”, “donut-puncher”, etc. And I’m not the least bit sorry about it. You see, when you’re a guy, and you’re “totally into shopping”, and you say things like “OHMYGOD! There’s a party tonight, and I have absolutely NOTHING to wear!”
then that makes you a fruitcake. It’s the language, not me. And yes, I call some of my closer gay friends “fruity” to their faces, and they think it’s hilarious, because they know I’m a smart-ass and I’m just heckling them. So there!

145

“I can NOT marry a married woman that I love.”

Wow, you got me. Oh wait.

  1. Neither of them are currently married.

You constantly banter on and on about how we shouldn’t compare the rights movement of the homosexuals to the rights movement of the african-american.

I guess that you aren’t much of a history buff because homosexuals have been persecuted just as the african americans have been. Or I guess you probably don’t count the 50,000 or so homosexuals forced to wear the pink triangles and die in Nazi concentration camps. Or more recently the case of Matthew Shepard who’s skull was bashed in with a gun butt and left to die tied to a fence in Wyoming, just because he was gay. I guess all those people don’t count because they can “help it.”

I am glad that you resorted to personal attacks because that only shows everyone else here how your arguements DON’T hold water. (BTW Musclerob-- when I say that your arguments don’t hold water that means they are full of holes)

146

“If I didn’t have this dislike for homosexuals, would I mind it if they were able to get married, just like a heterosexual couple?”

I don’t dislike homosexuals. I dislike homosexuals in the same way that I dislike someone with ADD or something…meaning not really at all, but sometimes I don’t like it, but I don’t dislike them.

Please refer to my previous post where I go over “essence.”

147

chris,

Ok, so I can marry a dead person? Seriously, wasn’t there something in the news about this? They could right it in their will that they consent to marriage.

And seriously…why not a group of people? Why would you say no to that? How in the hell would a divorce work when you have 10 wives and 3 husbands?!?

I guess that you aren’t much of a history buff because homosexuals have been persecuted just as the african americans have been.

Dude, that’s horrible. You think the Mathew Sheppard story is some “proof”? Get a clue, there were hundreds if not more equally and MORE brutal attacks on blacks in this country.

You compare, oh, about 400 years of brutal slave trade to less than 10 years of Nazi killing? How many Africans died over those 400 years as a result of slave trade? How many more were enslaved? Were gays enslaved?

BTW, I’m sure everyone is wondering how gay transgendered marriages fit into this. I mean, if marriage can be redefined as allowing a man to marry a man and a woman to marry a woman, then where do the transgendered fit in?

148

Actually, chris, groups DO fit your definition of marriage.

So you think it’s ok for groups to marry? Would 100 people be allowed to be in a marriage? I mean, how can you set a limit on it?

149

Musclerob writes:

Brian,

“The essence of a marriage is being between a man and a woman, which is also in essence monogamous. If you change one essence, what is preventing changing the other essence?”

This is actually a new twist to the argument and bears further discussion. However, I would argue that “man and woman” has long been an ASSUMPTION in civil marriage, never part of its essence.

“Brian, I realize this. I don’t think bathrooms and marriage is a fair comparison. It’s just not the same, but I see your point.”

I wasn’t comparing bathrooms to marriage, or blacks to gays, I was contrasting having rights to not having them.

150

“…if marriage can be redefined as allowing a man to marry a man and a woman to marry a woman, then where do the transgendered fit in?”

They should have no problems whatsoever if the government begins to marry two people irrespective of gender.

BTW, does anybody know whether marriages are currently legal that include people who have undergone a sex-change?

151

Also, why would brothers not be allowed to marry?

I mean, if they don’t have sex then it’s not incest.

Then again, why not have a brother and sister marry if they don’t have sex?

152

MRBP: You DO have a dislike for gays. I refer you to nearly every one of your own posts. Read between the lines of pretty much every one of them, pal. It says: “I don’t approve of the gay lifestyle” over and over. But I’m telling you, man, it’s okay! No one can tell you what you like or dislike. If you can’t fathom what it means to be gay and married to your “life partner”, that’s fine. No one is telling you that you are wrong for feeling the way that you do. I can imagine that most of the guys in the forums are the same way. Yes, gay marriage is non-traditional, but who says that the old ways couldn’t be improved a little bit? Without change, my friend, we stagnate. Our institutions are crumbling now because they are rigid, and fixed in the old way of life that is no longer relevant to the way we live NOW. The way I see it, the folks on these forums aren’t out to change anyone’s mind about anything, we just like to vent or engage in intellectual discourse, or are bored, etc. So don’t go changing on me, buddy. Hate them fruitcakes all that you want, but be honest at least with yourself. Say anything you want to here, back up your arguments however you want, but remember:

You are an intolerant, bigoted, hate-mongering poopy-pants.

Just kidding! HA! I’m f#ckin with ya. Sorry, I… couldn’t resist. I really am a smart-ass. :slight_smile:

153

This is actually a new twist to the argument and bears further discussion. However, I would argue that “man and woman” has long been an ASSUMPTION in civil marriage, never part of its essence.

I hate to argue semantics, but I think in this case it is needed, since if it were law, semantics would be argued.

Here are two definitions of essence:

  1. The intrinsic or indispensable properties that serve to characterize or identify something.

  2. The most important ingredient; the crucial element.

A marriage consisting of a man and a woman would be intrinsic, since without that, there cannot be a marriage, would you agree?

You have to have a man and you have to have a woman, so that would be an essence of marriage. Or am I wrong?

I wasn’t comparing bathrooms to marriage, or blacks to gays, I was contrasting having rights to not having them.

Ok, sorry.

154

First of all, I wasn’t comparing anything, at least not in the sense you said I did. I was just saying that homosexuals have been persecuted, just as african americans have been. It seems that you may have missed that one.

Secondly, you are getting to be a tad ridiculous. Allowing homosexual people to marry is not going to open the door for a person to marry a dead guy or 100 people to get married to each other. And if you think it is then I don’t know how to counter someone who is void of reason, except to offer some advice on a good psychologist.

And lastly, I gave you too much credit when I said you weren’t much of a history buff, because it seems that you truly don’t know anything about history.

The Nazis systematically killed FAR MORE than the slave trade did. It’s not like the plantation owners just walked around beating and killing any black person they could find. African Americans had it pretty rough to say the least, but by and large it was bad for business to kill your means of income.

Lothario1132 hit the nail on the head when he said that you are in need of a catharsis. Just go outside and scream, “I don’t like homosexuals!” Hopefully you don’t have any gay neighbors, but then again, what do you care?

155

Did anyone else notice marriage is misspelled in the title to this post?
Onward. There are some of the most asinine arguments possible here. Mainly from the side against gay marriage. Much twisting of facts and words in an attempt to create a valid point.
Marriage, as it stands is a legally binding contract. Contracts by nature have very strict standards that cannot be deviated from. If male/male or female/female contracts were included with female/male contracts, it would not include female/animal or male/toaster or any other deviant.
As for setting a precedent for change, I very highly doubt it. The marriage contract will still be the same.
Adressing the mental illness aspect…even if it is, that is not grounds for denial. Fat people are ill, mentally and physically. It is against nature to be in the state of obesity. Fat people get married.
If homosexuality is natal, then gays are being oppressed by being denied the ability to form a contract that other members of society are allowed to form.
There are too many other moot points to shoot down. I can not remember them all at the moment. Refresh them and I will take them down as quickly.

156

Musclerob wrote “But perhaps now there would be a precident of changing the definition. So what’s next? Three people? Why not? The definition was changed once. Then what after that? Pretty soon it becomes meaningless.”

That’s exactly how I feel about changing the Constitution. Once you start tampering with the Constitution to please a small minority (the Christian Conservatives) it will open the floodgates for the Constitution to become a political football that gets changed back and forth just to suit whoever happens to currently be in power.

157

So, you guys defend gay marriage by saying “oh, I don’t think it would lead to group marriage.”

That’s lame.

That’s exactly how I feel about changing the Constitution. Once you start tampering with the Constitution to please a small minority (the Christian Conservatives) it will open the floodgates for the Constitution to become a political football that gets changed back and forth just to suit whoever happens to currently be in power.

Tampering? Lumpy, how on earth is going through the ammendment process tampering? That is rediculous.

Small minority? I hate to break it to you, but most people are against it. California is an obvious example, and that has to be the gayest state in the country. The majority of the population decided that marriage is only between a man and a woman and put that into law. Do you not realize this?

I have news for you. The Constitution can be changed by ANYONE, but it has to go through the ammendment process. Duh.

158

Secondly, you are getting to be a tad ridiculous. Allowing homosexual people to marry is not going to open the door for a person to marry a dead guy or 100 people to get married to each other. And if you think it is then I don’t know how to counter someone who is void of reason, except to offer some advice on a good psychologist.

chris, if you change one essence of marriage, that is, changing that marriage is between a man and a woman, then, what is preventing the changing of the other essense, which is monogomy?

It wouldn’t start off with a case with 100 people. Probably just a guy and two wives. Would you allow this? Why would you allow gays to marry but discriminate against people that believe in group love?

159

Gay marriage is fine with me as long as both chics are hot

160

Musclerob, you made yourself ridiculous when you wrote this:

"Also, why would brothers not be allowed to marry?

I mean, if they don’t have sex then it’s not incest.

Then again, why not have a brother and sister marry if they don’t have sex?"