They’ve already got equal rights and additionally they have succeeded in imposing a system of positive rights on the “straight” community.
[quote]maverick88 wrote:
If it were proven to be genetic would you still be against it?[/quote]
Of course. That is completely irrelevant to the issue of marriage. A man might be “biologically inclined” to have relations with scores of women - that biological predisposition is not an argument that the state should recognize a marriage with each of them.
So it turns out same-sex marriages have been around for thousands of years
“Ancient
Various types of same-sex marriages have existed,[50] ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions.[51]
In the southern Chinese province of Fujian, through the Ming dynasty period, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies.[52] Males also entered similar arrangements. This type of arrangement was also similar in ancient European history.[53]
An example of egalitarian male domestic partnership from the early Zhou Dynasty period of China is recorded in the story of Pan Zhang & Wang Zhongxian. While the relationship was clearly approved by the wider community, and was compared to heterosexual marriage, it did not involve a religious ceremony binding the couple.[54]
The first historical mention of the performance of same-sex marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire.[55] For instance, Emperor Nero is reported to have engaged in a marriage ceremony with one of his male slaves. Emperor Elagabalus “married” a Carian slave named Hierocles.[56] It should be noted, however, that conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a so-called marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law (apart, presumably, from the arbitrary will of the emperor in the two aforementioned cases).[57] Furthermore, “matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her.”[58] Still, the lack of legal validity notwithstanding, there is a consensus among modern historians that same-sex relationships existed in ancient Rome, but the exact frequency and nature of “same-sex unions” during that period is obscure.[59] In 342 AD Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans issued a law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) prohibiting same-sex marriage in Rome and ordering execution for those so married.[60]
A same-sex marriage between the two men Pedro Díaz and Muño Vandilaz in the Galician municipality of Rairiz de Veiga in Spain occurred on 16 April 1061. They were married by a priest at a small chapel. The historic documents about the church wedding were found at Monastery of San Salvador de Celanova.[61]”
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]maverick88 wrote:
If it were proven to be genetic would you still be against it?[/quote]
Of course. That is completely irrelevant to the issue of marriage. A man might be “biologically inclined” to have relations with scores of women - that biological predisposition is not an argument that the state should recognize a marriage with each of them.
[/quote]
Bigot!
I couldn’t muscle through all 20 pages, but, why can’t we give gays equal rights? I am emotionally homophobic, that’s my problem, not the gays. Intellectually I have no problem with gays. Let 'em get “married”, but since we were founded by Christians, and they do still make up the majority, the gays should have the good taste (get it?) to call it something else as to not bum out the traditional people. We do need to evolve as a society, and the gays aren’t going any where. People can hate on them all they want and say it’s a sin, blah blah blah, but I firmly believe one group of people can’t dictate to another group. As far as stuff like this goes, religion and whatnot.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Wait, where’s that from?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
As for equal rights for same sex couples, who is to say that any two guys living together cannot get these rights? Simply make a false claim and collect your special rights.
[/quote]
Who is to say a male and female living together cannot get these rights? I love the ignorance of the argument that a gay couple is no different than 2 friends living together.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]maverick88 wrote:
If it were proven to be genetic would you still be against it?[/quote]
Of course. That is completely irrelevant to the issue of marriage. A man might be “biologically inclined” to have relations with scores of women - that biological predisposition is not an argument that the state should recognize a marriage with each of them.
[/quote]
A common argument amongst many anti-gay marriage folk is that homosexuality isn’t genetic or natural and therefore shouldn’t be recognized. It’s more a response to an argument than anything.
[quote]strangemeadow wrote:
I couldn’t muscle through all 20 pages, but, why can’t we give gays equal rights?[/quote]
You would have to take away numerous legislative positive rights first. Gays already have more rights. They also have all the same marriage rights as “straight” people - i.e. a gay man can marry any woman he wants. A gay woman can marry any man she wants. That’s not a semantic game, that’s equality before the law.
Think of it like this: if the L.G.B.T.Q. activists can redefine “marriage” then why can’t straight people redefine “gay?” Why can’t a “straight” couple decide to call themselves gay and demand access to the positive rights that have been legislated for L.G.B.T.Q. people? Or maybe they could be the “Q” part or something. Why can’t they join L.G.B.T.Q. “rights” groups and use anti-discrimination legislation to force these groups to take them as members? After all, radical atheist homosexual agitators are using such legislation to join Christian groups.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]strangemeadow wrote:
I couldn’t muscle through all 20 pages, but, why can’t we give gays equal rights?[/quote]
You would have to take away numerous legislative positive rights first. Gays already have more rights. They also have all the same marriage rights as “straight” people - i.e. a gay man can marry any woman he wants. A gay woman can marry any man she wants. That’s not a semantic game, that’s equality before the law.
Think of it like this: if the L.G.B.T.Q. activists can redefine “marriage” then why can’t straight people redefine “gay?” Why can’t a “straight” couple decide to call themselves gay and demand access to the positive rights that have been legislated for L.G.B.T.Q. people? Or maybe they could be the “Q” part or something. Why can’t they join L.G.B.T.Q. “rights” groups and use anti-discrimination legislation to force these groups to take them as members? After all, radical atheist homosexual agitators are using such legislation to join Christian groups.[/quote]
I don’t understand. If gay marriage were legalized wouldn’t rights also be expanded for straight people? Any straight man can marry any man he wants, any straight woman can marry any woman he wants. Wouldn’t equality before the law still exist?
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
As for equal rights for same sex couples, who is to say that any two guys living together cannot get these rights? Simply make a false claim and collect your special rights.
[/quote]
Who is to say a male and female living together cannot get these rights? I love the ignorance of the argument that a gay couple is no different than 2 friends living together.[/quote]
Did you even realize that many corporations already have to give couples living together the same rights of those who are married? So the slope has already been greased and is as slippery as it has ever been.
And it’s not that I’m saying it’s the same thing I’m just giving one more way that the system can be beaten.
Think strategically for a moment. That arrangement doesn’t work for a multitude of reasons as you’ve had your nose rubbed in the facts for umpteen pages by others.
But you believe what you’ve been programmed to believe so bla bla bla…
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]strangemeadow wrote:
I couldn’t muscle through all 20 pages, but, why can’t we give gays equal rights?[/quote]
You would have to take away numerous legislative positive rights first. Gays already have more rights. They also have all the same marriage rights as “straight” people - i.e. a gay man can marry any woman he wants. A gay woman can marry any man she wants. That’s not a semantic game, that’s equality before the law.
Think of it like this: if the L.G.B.T.Q. activists can redefine “marriage” then why can’t straight people redefine “gay?” Why can’t a “straight” couple decide to call themselves gay and demand access to the positive rights that have been legislated for L.G.B.T.Q. people? Or maybe they could be the “Q” part or something. Why can’t they join L.G.B.T.Q. “rights” groups and use anti-discrimination legislation to force these groups to take them as members? After all, radical atheist homosexual agitators are using such legislation to join Christian groups.[/quote]
I don’t understand. If gay marriage were legalized wouldn’t rights also be expanded for straight people? Any straight man can marry any man he wants, any straight woman can marry any woman he wants. Wouldn’t equality before the law still exist?[/quote]
Dude, now you’re just getting silly…
[quote]strangemeadow wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]strangemeadow wrote:
I couldn’t muscle through all 20 pages, but, why can’t we give gays equal rights?[/quote]
You would have to take away numerous legislative positive rights first. Gays already have more rights. They also have all the same marriage rights as “straight” people - i.e. a gay man can marry any woman he wants. A gay woman can marry any man she wants. That’s not a semantic game, that’s equality before the law.
Think of it like this: if the L.G.B.T.Q. activists can redefine “marriage” then why can’t straight people redefine “gay?” Why can’t a “straight” couple decide to call themselves gay and demand access to the positive rights that have been legislated for L.G.B.T.Q. people? Or maybe they could be the “Q” part or something. Why can’t they join L.G.B.T.Q. “rights” groups and use anti-discrimination legislation to force these groups to take them as members? After all, radical atheist homosexual agitators are using such legislation to join Christian groups.[/quote]
I don’t understand. If gay marriage were legalized wouldn’t rights also be expanded for straight people? Any straight man can marry any man he wants, any straight woman can marry any woman he wants. Wouldn’t equality before the law still exist?[/quote]
Dude, now you’re just getting silly…
[/quote]
Getting silly?
We’re talking about society sanctioning two men having sex! We’re talking about trashing a 5000 year old institution for about 2% of the population. AND…we’re talking about doing it without knowing the ultimate consequences, or what other group will also want to be included in this “marriage” definition. Or for that matter why people even become gay to begin with. And if that will effect the grown children of these “couples”
Silly? We’ve been silly for a long time it’s far beyond that now.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]strangemeadow wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]strangemeadow wrote:
I couldn’t muscle through all 20 pages, but, why can’t we give gays equal rights?[/quote]
You would have to take away numerous legislative positive rights first. Gays already have more rights. They also have all the same marriage rights as “straight” people - i.e. a gay man can marry any woman he wants. A gay woman can marry any man she wants. That’s not a semantic game, that’s equality before the law.
Think of it like this: if the L.G.B.T.Q. activists can redefine “marriage” then why can’t straight people redefine “gay?” Why can’t a “straight” couple decide to call themselves gay and demand access to the positive rights that have been legislated for L.G.B.T.Q. people? Or maybe they could be the “Q” part or something. Why can’t they join L.G.B.T.Q. “rights” groups and use anti-discrimination legislation to force these groups to take them as members? After all, radical atheist homosexual agitators are using such legislation to join Christian groups.[/quote]
I don’t understand. If gay marriage were legalized wouldn’t rights also be expanded for straight people? Any straight man can marry any man he wants, any straight woman can marry any woman he wants. Wouldn’t equality before the law still exist?[/quote]
Dude, now you’re just getting silly…
[/quote]
Getting silly?
We’re talking about society sanctioning two men having sex! We’re talking about trashing a 5000 year old institution for about 2% of the population. AND…we’re talking about doing it without knowing the ultimate consequences, or what other group will also want to be included in this “marriage” definition. Or for that matter why people even become gay to begin with. And if that will effect the grown children of these “couples”
Silly? We’ve been silly for a long time it’s far beyond that now.
[/quote]
Is it possible to sanction and not condone? Seriously, I’m asking. Is there a way around this? Other than rounding them all up and sending them to an island? Say, on Jupiter…
I never liked that planet.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]strangemeadow wrote:
I couldn’t muscle through all 20 pages, but, why can’t we give gays equal rights?[/quote]
You would have to take away numerous legislative positive rights first. Gays already have more rights. They also have all the same marriage rights as “straight” people - i.e. a gay man can marry any woman he wants. A gay woman can marry any man she wants. That’s not a semantic game, that’s equality before the law.
Think of it like this: if the L.G.B.T.Q. activists can redefine “marriage” then why can’t straight people redefine “gay?” Why can’t a “straight” couple decide to call themselves gay and demand access to the positive rights that have been legislated for L.G.B.T.Q. people? Or maybe they could be the “Q” part or something. Why can’t they join L.G.B.T.Q. “rights” groups and use anti-discrimination legislation to force these groups to take them as members? After all, radical atheist homosexual agitators are using such legislation to join Christian groups.[/quote]
I don’t understand. If gay marriage were legalized wouldn’t rights also be expanded for straight people? Any straight man can marry any man he wants, any straight woman can marry any woman he wants. Wouldn’t equality before the law still exist?[/quote]
No. Because the institution of marriage has been destroyed in the process.
[quote]strangemeadow wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]strangemeadow wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]strangemeadow wrote:
I couldn’t muscle through all 20 pages, but, why can’t we give gays equal rights?[/quote]
You would have to take away numerous legislative positive rights first. Gays already have more rights. They also have all the same marriage rights as “straight” people - i.e. a gay man can marry any woman he wants. A gay woman can marry any man she wants. That’s not a semantic game, that’s equality before the law.
Think of it like this: if the L.G.B.T.Q. activists can redefine “marriage” then why can’t straight people redefine “gay?” Why can’t a “straight” couple decide to call themselves gay and demand access to the positive rights that have been legislated for L.G.B.T.Q. people? Or maybe they could be the “Q” part or something. Why can’t they join L.G.B.T.Q. “rights” groups and use anti-discrimination legislation to force these groups to take them as members? After all, radical atheist homosexual agitators are using such legislation to join Christian groups.[/quote]
I don’t understand. If gay marriage were legalized wouldn’t rights also be expanded for straight people? Any straight man can marry any man he wants, any straight woman can marry any woman he wants. Wouldn’t equality before the law still exist?[/quote]
Dude, now you’re just getting silly…
[/quote]
Getting silly?
We’re talking about society sanctioning two men having sex! We’re talking about trashing a 5000 year old institution for about 2% of the population. AND…we’re talking about doing it without knowing the ultimate consequences, or what other group will also want to be included in this “marriage” definition. Or for that matter why people even become gay to begin with. And if that will effect the grown children of these “couples”
Silly? We’ve been silly for a long time it’s far beyond that now.
[/quote]
Is it possible to sanction and not condone? Seriously, I’m asking. Is there a way around this? Other than rounding them all up and sending them to an island? Say, on Jupiter…
I never liked that planet.
[/quote]
Yeah, there’s a way, it’s called let them do whatever they want and leave the rest of society out of it.
Side note, can anyone name a long term successful society that sanctioned homosexual marriage?
And don’t say the Greeks of long ago because they didn’t!
How the Christian Right’s Homophobia Scares Away Religious Young People
So how about we create a new institution called “shmarriage”
Under this institution people of the same sex can tether their lives together and recieve benefits very similar to marriage. The institution of marriage remains untouched and SS couples cannot legally refer to themselves as married only smarried.
Pedophilobia…
The Origins of the Pro-Pedophilia Movement
The modern pro-pedophilia movement has its roots in the controversial work of Alfred Kinsey. Kinsey’s 1953 book Sexual Behavior in the Human Male has been a major resource for this movement. Kinsey collected data from pedophiles, including ex-Nazi commandant Dr. Fritz von Balluseck, who offered his victims a choice: rape or the gas chamber.
With Dr. Balluseck’s “research,” and the information from other pedophiles, Kinsey charted the length and frequency of infants’ and children’s orgasms. He stated the children and infants reacted with “violent convulsions of the whole body; heavy breathing, groaning, sobbing, or more violent cries, sometimes with an abundance of tears (especially among the younger children).” That was how he measured their orgasms.
Abridged - original source: √ MANGGA2BET: Situs Judi Slot Online Gacor Terpercaya Indonesia
[quote]ephrem wrote:
How the Christian Right’s Homophobia Scares Away Religious Young People
[/quote]
I didn’t think this was a discussion about homosexuality on a religious level. At least it hasn’t been for me.
As for your inane link…I have a great idea!
Let’s change the words in the Bible so that all those “young people” will like this here religious stuff --Yep that’s what we should do.
Thanks for adding to the thread you are just super.
(eye roll)
[quote]ephrem wrote:
http://www.theatheistpig.com/comics/2012-05-16.jpg[/quote]
Except Tirib, no one has made a theological argument for marriage. So, I assume this is for Tirib.