Obama Supports Gay Marriage

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
561

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]strangemeadow wrote:
Conversely, people could mind their own business and not tell others what to do.
Oh, right. I forgot.[/quote]

If Bob wants to put a ring on Steve’s finger and tell everyone they’re married, I’m not sending in a SWAT team. If Bob want’s to open up and access a public (state recognized/privileged) institution that is supposed to serve an IMMENSELY critical function, we’re going to have a little conversation.
[/quote]

So in your mind what would happen to society if the government stopped recognizing marriage altogether and people just had private ceremonies where they declared they were married?

[/quote]

The more orthodox would continue to marry and reproduce. The rest of society would become even more barren and old. The economy would collapse. The entitlements depending on the economy would collapse. Starvation, lack of medical care, housing, food and ignorance. chaos. Religion reasserts order and shared values after rapidly outbreeding the atheist and secular. But only after a long and nasty slide. But, since heterosexual orderly pairing of the reproductive sexes is HUGELY critical, we recognize it. Now we need to reinforce it’s status.[/quote]

Translation: My religious views are superior to yours therefore they should become part of the law so you will be forced to follow them too.[/quote]

LOL…this is not a religious arguement. But where exactly were all the atheists when this country was first formed?

WHERE!
[/quote]

Same place all the Mormons were?

562

[quote]sloth

LOL…this is not a religious arguement. But where exactly were all the atheists when this country was first formed?

WHERE!

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]colt44 wrote:
Exactly, lets bring slavery back…[/quote]

Didn’t know you were in favor of slavery. What kind of slavery are you in favor for?[/quote]

Black people, lets round em all up.

563

[quote]colt44 wrote:
Can someone, present me with one, just one single GOOD reason for why Gay’s should not be allowed to marry.
[/quote]

I think you should re-read this thread. No one is saying anything about gay’s not being able to marry, well except the liberal bigots and their hatred of marriage that isn’t homosexual or traditional marriage.

564

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]strangemeadow wrote:
Conversely, people could mind their own business and not tell others what to do.
Oh, right. I forgot.[/quote]

If Bob wants to put a ring on Steve’s finger and tell everyone they’re married, I’m not sending in a SWAT team. If Bob want’s to open up and access a public (state recognized/privileged) institution that is supposed to serve an IMMENSELY critical function, we’re going to have a little conversation.
[/quote]

So in your mind what would happen to society if the government stopped recognizing marriage altogether and people just had private ceremonies where they declared they were married?

[/quote]

The more orthodox would continue to marry and reproduce. The rest of society would become even more barren and old. The economy would collapse. The entitlements depending on the economy would collapse. Starvation, lack of medical care, housing, food and ignorance. chaos. Religion reasserts order and shared values after rapidly outbreeding the atheist and secular. But only after a long and nasty slide. But, since heterosexual orderly pairing of the reproductive sexes is HUGELY critical, we recognize it. Now we need to reinforce it’s status.[/quote]

Translation: My religious views are superior to yours therefore they should become part of the law so you will be forced to follow them too.[/quote]

LOL…this is not a religious arguement. But where exactly were all the atheists when this country was first formed?

WHERE!
[/quote]

Same place all the Mormons were?

[/quote]

What a snappy answer! But you forgot one important point, there are no Mormons crying out for gay marriage–OOPS!

565

[quote]colt44 wrote:

Exactly as I thought. No one can give me a good reason. How interesting…[/quote]

Directly behind your post is 22 pages of reasons, dipshit. Help yourself.

566

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]strangemeadow wrote:
Conversely, people could mind their own business and not tell others what to do.
Oh, right. I forgot.[/quote]

If Bob wants to put a ring on Steve’s finger and tell everyone they’re married, I’m not sending in a SWAT team. If Bob want’s to open up and access a public (state recognized/privileged) institution that is supposed to serve an IMMENSELY critical function, we’re going to have a little conversation.
[/quote]

So in your mind what would happen to society if the government stopped recognizing marriage altogether and people just had private ceremonies where they declared they were married?

[/quote]

The more orthodox would continue to marry and reproduce. The rest of society would become even more barren and old. The economy would collapse. The entitlements depending on the economy would collapse. Starvation, lack of medical care, housing, food and ignorance. chaos. Religion reasserts order and shared values after rapidly outbreeding the atheist and secular. But only after a long and nasty slide. But, since heterosexual orderly pairing of the reproductive sexes is HUGELY critical, we recognize it. Now we need to reinforce it’s status.[/quote]

Translation: My religious views are superior to yours therefore they should become part of the law so you will be forced to follow them too.[/quote]

LOL…this is not a religious arguement. But where exactly were all the atheists when this country was first formed?

WHERE!
[/quote]

Same place all the Mormons were?

[/quote]

What a snappy answer! But you forgot one important point, there are no Mormons crying out for gay marriage–OOPS![/quote]

So if a group was not present at the founding of this country, they automatically lose all their votes in current day? Or do they just lose their votes if they want something you disagree with?

567

[quote]colt44 wrote:
Exactly, lets bring slavery back…

Didn’t know you were in favor of slavery. What kind of slavery are you in favor for?

Black people, lets round em all up. [/quote]

As I said this is not a religious argument. I was responding to someone who wanted to bring religion into the argument. But you wouldn’t know that because you’re an idiot and refuse to read the thread.

Now like I said read the thread. All kidding and insults aside you have no idea what’s going on relative to who said what and you’ve proven twice now.

Going to read it and comment intelligently? Or are you going to continue to play the village idiot?

The choice is yours junior.

568

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]colt44 wrote:

Exactly as I thought. No one can give me a good reason. How interesting…[/quote]

Directly behind your post is 22 pages of reasons, dipshit. Help yourself.[/quote]

Exactly, 22 pages of crap. Let me know when a good reason comes up.

569

[quote]strangemeadow wrote:
Pedophiles aren’t gay and vice versa. This link isn’t really helpful at all. Do you really think this is what’s going on, or are you using a spoon made of hate and misunderstanding to stir this pot of shit?[/quote]

You didn’t read the article did you?

570

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]colt44 wrote:

[quote]sloth

LOL…this is not a religious arguement. But where exactly were all the atheists when this country was first formed?

WHERE!

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]colt44 wrote:
Exactly, lets bring slavery back…[/quote]

Didn’t know you were in favor of slavery. What kind of slavery are you in favor for?[/quote]

Black people, lets round em all up. [/quote]

As I said this is not a religious argument. I was responding to someone who wanted to bring religion into the argument. But you wouldn’t know that because you’re an idiot and refuse to read the thread.

Now like I said read the thread. All kidding and insults aside you have no idea what’s going on relative to who said what and you’ve proven twice now.

Going to read it and comment intelligently? Or are you going to continue to play the village idiot?

The choice is yours junior.[/quote]

There were implications within your statement that extended beyond your main point. At least I saw it as so, and felt the need to provide a bit of comparison to the relevance of your sarcasm.

571

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Watch the Western World collapse…oh…wait. Guess not.[/quote]It has been since the 60’s. In case you haven’t noticed.
[/quote]

The collapse is always being highly exaggerated and a matter of perspective. In case you hadn’t noticed. [/quote]

Seeing as China’s GDP surpassed the U.S.'s and they are in the process of taking control of the financial system by buying up U.S. debt, I’d say it’s caving in for the West at least.

572

[quote]colt44 wrote:

Exactly, 22 pages of crap. Let me know when a good reason comes up.[/quote]

So, you haven’t read them then? Not surprising. Reading doesn’t appear to be your strong suit.

573

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Or are you going to continue to play the village idiot?[/quote]

Confirmed: he isn’t playing.

574

[quote]Cortes wrote:
I was under the impression that enjoying significant tax, employment, government, medical, estate and death benefits without providing the reciprocal compensation of a socially favored nuclear family unit, social stability, and the children to further stabilize the above mentioned society and fund it via their own taxation, was indeed something that affected me and the rest of society.

I should probably just shut my bigoted hole, though. [/quote]

x2

575

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Or are you going to continue to play the village idiot?[/quote]

Confirmed: he isn’t playing.[/quote]

Said who, I love play time!?

576

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

Push’s argument on the other hand is at least a somewhat reasonable one and even though I don’t buy the “slippery slope” argument, I think his question does bring up some interesting questions regarding what constitutes a marriage or what limitations we should/could place on marriage.[/quote]

No it doesn’t hold any water. Here’s a post I wrote a while back:

[quote]therajrajwrote:

We allow people to own handguns, rifles and semi-automatics, but we don’t allow them to own automatic weapons or nuclear weapons. We CAN make an arbitrary stopping point. The slippery slope argument FAILS because we can decide this is the limit. And every time you want to move the line, a new debate must take place.

The real question is where do we set the limit to encourage everyone else’s freedom and rights? In my opinion that line is drawn at two consenting adults who want to tether their lives together regardless of their sex. If they agree to enter a contract to attain certain benefits, that’s good enough for me. Denying that right to someone who chooses a person of the “wrong” gender is an injustice that needs to be corrected.

Lastly, the way marriage is setup currently, laws surrounding marriage can be easily adapted around two people regardless of sex. If marriages of 3, 5 or 7 people were to take place, many laws would have to change and you would literally have to overhaul the whole thing. Can you imagine a divorce proceeding where 2 people in a polygamous marriage of 7 want out? On Impracticality alone we can draw an argument that marriage should stay between two people. [/quote][/quote]

We can own automatics… where you been?

577

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]strangemeadow wrote:
Conversely, people could mind their own business and not tell others what to do.
Oh, right. I forgot.[/quote]

If Bob wants to put a ring on Steve’s finger and tell everyone they’re married, I’m not sending in a SWAT team. If Bob want’s to open up and access a public (state recognized/privileged) institution that is supposed to serve an IMMENSELY critical function, we’re going to have a little conversation.
[/quote]

So in your mind what would happen to society if the government stopped recognizing marriage altogether and people just had private ceremonies where they declared they were married?

[/quote]

The more orthodox would continue to marry and reproduce. The rest of society would become even more barren and old. The economy would collapse. The entitlements depending on the economy would collapse. Starvation, lack of medical care, housing, food and ignorance. chaos. Religion reasserts order and shared values after rapidly outbreeding the atheist and secular. But only after a long and nasty slide. But, since heterosexual orderly pairing of the reproductive sexes is HUGELY critical, we recognize it. Now we need to reinforce it’s status.[/quote]

Translation: My religious views are superior to yours therefore they should become part of the law so you will be forced to follow them too.[/quote]

LOL…this is not a religious arguement. But where exactly were all the atheists when this country was first formed?

WHERE!
[/quote]

Same place all the Mormons were?

[/quote]

What a snappy answer! But you forgot one important point, there are no Mormons crying out for gay marriage–OOPS![/quote]

So if a group was not present at the founding of this country, they automatically lose all their votes in current day? Or do they just lose their votes if they want something you disagree with?[/quote]

At least Colt has an excuse he never read the thread. What’s your excuse for such a comment? Your setting up straw men and knocking them down. And you are doing this for whose entertainment?

I was giving you an off the cuff answer as to why marriage has been locked in to one man one woman. Based on YOUR (not mine) religious argument. I understand you’re a religious bigot and want to jump down the throat of all Christians, so I threw you a bone. There are, of course, other reasons, but they’ve been pointed out by TB, Sloth and all the other’s. Family, stability, procreation and on and on and on. If you choose to march on and ask the same incredibly stupid questions there isn’t much left to do is there?

Here’s an idea why don’t you give me a long list of reasons why there should be gay marriage. Nope…that’s already been tried and shot down.

Hey…why don’t you just set the entire argument aside and just attack religion. Come on you know you want to.

578

[quote]colt44 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]colt44 wrote:
Exactly, lets bring slavery back…[/quote]

Didn’t know you were in favor of slavery. What kind of slavery are you in favor for?[/quote]

Black people, lets round em all up. [/quote]

That is quite interesting. Why do you want to enslave black people?

579

[quote]SRT08 wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
I was under the impression that enjoying significant tax, employment, government, medical, estate and death benefits without providing the reciprocal compensation of a socially favored nuclear family unit, social stability, and the children to further stabilize the above mentioned society and fund it via their own taxation, was indeed something that affected me and the rest of society.

I should probably just shut my bigoted hole, though. [/quote]

x2[/quote]

All gdod points on the benefits of marriage.

But, how will allowing Gays to marry affect that?

Why do we allow those who will not have children, to marry?

What about those who cannot reproduce?

580

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Or are you going to continue to play the village idiot?[/quote]

Confirmed: he isn’t playing.[/quote]

This actually epitomizes the majority of pro gay marriage advocates.

“Um…like why don’t we just let everyone do what they want to freakin do maaaaaan.”

Bravo!