Proof Gay Marriage is Wrong

Off Topic
423

[quote]orion wrote:
And just for fun:

Zeb, PROVE to me that there never were gay marriages in ancient cultures.

You may recognize that kind of reasoning from the evolution debate … roflmao…[/quote]

Well, you have actually distorted my comment. My original sentence was: "There has never been gay marriage in any civilized society (in ancient times).

I then stated ( a few posts after that) There has never been gay marriage in any “great” civilized society.

And just for fun why don’t you get busy and prove me wrong. If you do I will promise to vote for gay marriage if it comes up in my state…No actually I won’t :slight_smile:

424

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Yes, indeed the government does in fact get it’s power from the people. Not from a tiny fraction of the people but from the majority. If the government were ruled by the few then we could have tyranny.

We certainly would have all sorts of crazy laws on the books wouldn’t we?
[/quote]

We allready have a shitload of crazy laws on the books.

Plus, I am absolutely convinced that you understand the concept of “tyranny of the majority” and that therefore governments power has to be restricted.

Wouldn?t that be nice if personal relationships would be off- limits?

I want to be able to marry two women too. In fact I want to be able to marry as many women as I can support financially.

Pretty much the only way I will be able to live in a life-long relationship. :wink:

If dogs or lamp shades want to marry too, they will speak up. Untill then I?ll assume they are satisfied.

No they have not. It was governments mistake to deal with marriage in the first place, even though it was done to free marriage from the clutches of the church (and for good reasons). Government should mind its own business and recognize any number of people that feel like marrying.

And hey, polygamy has a veeeery long tradition. I thought I?d mention it, traditions seems to be the key for you.

I would also like to help you:

I hereby define marriage as a bond that several people engage in, if they have reached the age of consent which I decree to be 18, unless the parents agree than it?s 16.

Cool, huh. See, now the definition allows it.

PROVE that they never have.

Because everything a communist says is wrong? So I guess Marx?s description of capitalism as an autocatalytic process was completely worthless…

Damn, I thought that that was a really good manifesto.

425

[quote]ZEB wrote:
orion wrote:
And just for fun:

Zeb, PROVE to me that there never were gay marriages in ancient cultures.

You may recognize that kind of reasoning from the evolution debate … roflmao…

Well, you have actually distorted my comment. My original sentence was: "There has never been gay marriage in any civilized society (in ancient times).

I then stated ( a few posts after that) There has never been gay marriage in any “great” civilized society.

And just for fun why don’t you get busy and prove me wrong. If you do I will promise to vote for gay marriage if it comes up in my state…No actually I won’t :)[/quote]

Ha,

you Sir are allready retreating!

I do not have to prove anything, for it is you Sir, that made the claim in the first place!

Prove to me that there were never any ancient, civilized cultures that allowed gay marriage.

It would be fun to see you try to prove a negative. Hey, if it is fair in an evolution debate…

426

[quote]orion wrote:
The3toedSloth wrote:
harris447 wrote:

can you please tell me the moment, or series thereof, that you decided to become aroused by women?

Summer of 1967, in my buddy’s clubhouse, looking at a centerfold in a 1962 vintage playboy. ( sorry can’t remember exactly which issue )

I was born in 1960 by the way…

( This could be a whole new thread. hehe )

|/ 3Toes

Jane Fonda as Barbarella in the scene with the Orgasmatron… sigh…[/quote]

Two words…Daisy Duke…I’m not sure I ever gave a damn about that orange car. :wink:

427

[quote]ZEB wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
ZEB wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
But there is no moral precedence for denying these people equal rights in the eyes of the law.

Only several thousand years of “precedence.” Oh my…

You are just not getting it. We change what laws apply to different groups of people all the time.

Yes we do and it has a bettering effect on society. Please tell me how allowing less than 1% of the population to marry someone of the same sex helps the “whole.”

Black people didn’t used to be able to vote. Now they can. What a terrible development. Blacks and whites once were not allowed to marry each other. Now they can. What an awful development.

And those things were a betterment to our society as a whole, for obvious reasons.

There are plenty reasons of extending civil unions to gays. There are those who feel themselves to be in love with each other (physically and non-physically) and ready to make the exact same committments as married people make. What don’t you understand about the fact that people living in a home as man and wife and man and man or whatever who pull their income and have a full committment to each other should be able to visit each other in the hospital, get tax breaks the same as married people, etc…? Religion and god have nothing to do with it. To them, their committment is every bit as real as married people, and as a legal matter there’s no justification for telling them it’s not, and they should be deprived of rights though they’re living as married people and view themselves as married.

I’m afraid that you are the one who is “not getting it.” I am for gay people to visit their loved ones in the hospital. I’m also for every law on the books which protects gay people from discrimination relative to hiring practices etc.

What I am not for is changing the definition of marriage. Um…it’s not perfect but it’s been around in it’s present form for (shall I type it again? Oh why not) over 5000 years!

Now get busy and give me some good solid reasons why gay marriage should be legalized.

Otherwise, I’m just not going to approve it…LOL[/quote]

Well a gay partner cannot visit their partner in the hosptial like a wife could visit me. Do you even realize that half to the things you problem theoretically are for as far as allowing the gays are precluded to them? So, if you mean what you say then you do support ‘legislation’ though short of civil unions. Please tell me why gay partners should not be allowed to have joint bank accounts, tax breaks, etc… the way married people do. It’s entirely obvious to me that they should have all the same legal rights of marriage, half of which I don’t even know what they are. But I can’t think of single reason why they shouldn’t have all of them. And you haven’t given one except harkening back to tradition. Well, tradition is wrong a lot of the time. You say it’s obvious that black people should vote. Well, it’s obvious now (to most of us) in retrospect with our current sense of justice and equal rights. But it wasn’t obvious to a large segment of the population for a very long time. You’re not for changing the definition of marriage, and it’s not being changed. A civil union would afford people living together, in a committed sexual relationshin specific rights that they should have. You can view marriage however you want and are entirely free to view them as unmarried. I’m not sure how I would view civil unions myself. You have yet to advance in what way such relationship would be inferior that the parties shouldn’t have the same LEGAL rights.

428

Gay marriage IMO, would reduce the spread of AIDS, and save lives… via fewer sexual partners.

429

[quote]johnny_law wrote:
orion wrote:
The3toedSloth wrote:
harris447 wrote:

can you please tell me the moment, or series thereof, that you decided to become aroused by women?

Summer of 1967, in my buddy’s clubhouse, looking at a centerfold in a 1962 vintage playboy. ( sorry can’t remember exactly which issue )

I was born in 1960 by the way…

( This could be a whole new thread. hehe )

|/ 3Toes

Jane Fonda as Barbarella in the scene with the Orgasmatron… sigh…

Two words…Daisy Duke…I’m not sure I ever gave a damn about that orange car. ;)[/quote]

Wonderwoman TV series, man she has a nice rack… I mean invisible jet.

430

[quote]JoeTime wrote:
Gay marriage IMO, would reduce the spread of AIDS, and save lives… via fewer sexual partners. [/quote]

Eh, maybe. This one’s debateable. Only if it would encoruage gays who have a lot of sex to be monogomous. It wouldn’t do a damn thing in that respect if the only ones who got married/civil unionized were monogomous ones. But it very well might do the former. I think the insitiution of marriage in general does encourage monogamy if only because some people feel obligated to get married as opposed to being perpetually single (and dating and having sex with multiple people) because it’s our cultural norm. (not sure if this is necessarily a good thing or not)/.

431

[quote]orion wrote:

We allready have a shitload of crazy laws on the books.[/quote]

So, basically you are stating “what’s one more!” I don’t subscribe to that sort of thinking.

You think?

You might want to rethink that one. There are some things that we need protection for: No intervention regarding child molestation? No intervention regarding an abused wife? There are others…

Well one when has a headache you have a back up…LOL.

Then you are stating that those poor polygamists need a stronger washington lobby. Something on the order of the powerful washington gay lobbby.

But what about those people who love their dogs, lamps and toasters? They really want a relationship with them. Can you deny such happiness to this group. And guess what? There might be more of them than you think. Especially if they are aware of special financial benefits.

[quote]No they have not. It was governments mistake to deal with marriage in the first place, even though it was done to free marriage from the clutches of the church (and for good reasons). Government should mind its own business and recognize any number of people that feel like marrying.

And hey, polygamy has a veeeery long tradition. I thought I?d mention it, traditions seems to be the key for you.[/quote]

Thank you for proving at least one of my points: gay marriage is a slippery slope… Seriously, I appreciate it.

[quote]I would also like to help you:

I hereby define marriage as a bond that several people engage in, if they have reached the age of consent which I decree to be 18, unless the parents agree than it?s 16.

Cool, huh. See, now the definition allows it.[/quote]

YIKES!

[quote]They never have and why should they now? No one has stepped up and given any valid reasons why gay marriage should be allowed or recognized.

PROVE that they never have.[/quote]

The onus of proof is always on the party that wants to change the law…

[quote]Because everything a communist says is wrong? So I guess Marx?s description of capitalism as an autocatalytic process was completely worthless…

Damn, I thought that that was a really good manifesto.[/quote]

LOL…you are nothing if not entertaining. And I thank you for that!

432

orion :

Arnold was from Austria and he is a good republican (sort of). What happened to you sir?

433

[quote]ZEB wrote:
orion :

Arnold was from Austria and he is a good republican (sort of). What happened to you sir?

[/quote]

I grew up in a BIIIIIIIIG city!

He did not…

434

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

Well a gay partner cannot visit their partner in the hosptial like a wife could visit me. Do you even realize that half to the things you problem theoretically are for as far as allowing the gays are precluded to them? So, if you mean what you say then you do support ‘legislation’ though short of civil unions.[/quote]

I do support this. I think we have common ground here.

[quote]Please tell me why gay partners should not be allowed to have joint bank accounts, tax breaks, etc… the way married people do. It’s entirely obvious to me that they should have all the same legal rights of marriage, half of which I don’t even know what they are. But I can’t think of single reason why they shouldn’t have all of them. And you haven’t given one except harkening back to tradition. Well, tradition is wrong a lot of the time.

We won’t get anywhere (as if we are going to anyway) if I have to keep repeating my postion on this issue. Go back and read my umpteen posts which speak directly to the “black is not the sam as gay” issue.

Well that’s good I can breath a sigh of relief…:slight_smile:

To be very honest I have not considered this issue. So far I have been a “no marriage for gays” sort of guy.

However, you make some valid points. I think that “rights” need to be extended to all people living in a committed relationship." Be that relationship sexual or not. Two brothers or sisters living together etc.

Under certain circumstances I could see a civil union of sorts. However, it would have to have certain limitations. And it would never reach in recognition or status (or rights) the level of marriage.

435

[quote]ZEB wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

Well a gay partner cannot visit their partner in the hosptial like a wife could visit me. Do you even realize that half to the things you problem theoretically are for as far as allowing the gays are precluded to them? So, if you mean what you say then you do support ‘legislation’ though short of civil unions.

I do support this. I think we have common ground here.

Please tell me why gay partners should not be allowed to have joint bank accounts, tax breaks, etc… the way married people do. It’s entirely obvious to me that they should have all the same legal rights of marriage, half of which I don’t even know what they are. But I can’t think of single reason why they shouldn’t have all of them. And you haven’t given one except harkening back to tradition. Well, tradition is wrong a lot of the time.

You say it’s obvious that black people should vote. Well, it’s obvious now (to most of us) in retrospect with our current sense of justice and equal rights. But it wasn’t obvious to a large segment of the population for a very long time.

We won’t get anywhere (as if we are going to anyway) if I have to keep repeating my postion on this issue. Go back and read my umpteen posts which speak directly to the “black is not the sam as gay” issue.

You’re not for changing the definition of marriage, and it’s not being changed.

Well that’s good I can breath a sigh of relief…:slight_smile:

A civil union would afford people living together, in a committed sexual relationshin specific rights that they should have. You can view marriage however you want and are entirely free to view them as unmarried. I’m not sure how I would view civil unions myself. You have yet to advance in what way such relationship would be inferior that the parties shouldn’t have the same LEGAL rights.

To be very honest I have not considered this issue. So far I have been a “no marriage for gays” sort of guy.

However, you make some valid points. I think that “rights” need to be extended to all people living in a committed relationship." Be that relationship sexual or not. Two brothers or sisters living together etc.

Under certain circumstances I could see a civil union of sorts. However, it would have to have certain limitations. And it would never reach in recognition or status (or rights) the level of marriage.[/quote]

Well, I’m glad to hear that you do support gays having some rights. But I’m wondering which rights married people have that you think should not extend to gay partners. As far as committed relationships go, I don’t think many straight friends or siblings have a committed relationship to the level gay partners. Because most of us ultimately will have spouses or significant others that fit that role. Gay people (who have them) have their serious partners for that.

438

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I hope heaven is just loaded with fags.[/quote]

errrrr…if that’s true I hope hell is loaded with slutty chicks!!

439

[quote]slimjim wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
I hope heaven is just loaded with fags.

errrrr…if that’s true I hope hell is loaded with slutty chicks!!
[/quote]

I am with you slimjim. And it better have beer too.

440

[quote]harris447 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
harris447 wrote:
…Aaaaaaaaaaand here’s the fairly obvious follow-up: there ws no marriage before the old testament?

If you believe in the Bibles teachings and what it says in Genesis, there was no marriage prior to Genesis because there were no people.

Yeah…back on planet earth, please.
[/quote]

Hey, you asked. :slight_smile:

441

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I do not understand why this is such a big issue. For all the holy men out there, how exactly is your life affected in any way, shape, or form if gays get married?

Are you afraid you’ll see them galavanting in the streets? Maybe even gasp kissing!?? WITH TONGUE???
[/quote]

How do you relate “holy” with Zeb? Zeb doesn’t represent all Christians. Keep your argument between you and the person doing the talking.

443

I never knew the true importance of the rights of marriage until I experienced the need for them.

Last August I was sent to the hospital with a mystery illness. I live in the countryside of Japan where not too many doctors speak English (or rather, technical medical terminology). I do speak Japanese, but not medical jargon (that isnt exactly covered in language textbooks). I cannot tell you how terrifying it is to be treated in not one, but three hospitals, being in excruciating pain, and having tests/procedures done without any knowledge of why. My partner was not allowed to speak with the doctors because she was not considered family (she works in the medical field and could have easily communicated between the the doctor and myself). Mind you this is not the US, but I would be overly distraught if she were in the United States in the hospital and in the same situation.

The fear alone is beyond inhumane, let alone the fact that we are treated with such inequality and not seen as a viable family.

e

444

[quote]fatsensei wrote:
Ahhh liberals. This is probably a poor attitude but I really hope that on judgement day when you are trying to explain to God why being a homosexual is ok that I can be there. It’ll be a hoot.

FatSensei[/quote]

Yes I’m looking forward to that too. I’d love to hear any sensible reasons why it’s not.

445

[quote]
FightinIrish26 wrote:

Jesus I have had it with you and that stupid Bible thumping propaganda. Think for yourself instead of letting the goddamn church do it for you.
The same moral precedence that led to the witch trials in Salem, the oppression of science everywhere in the history of the world, and every other progressive measure the world has tried.

Christian precedence has condemned everyone who doesn’t agree with them. You know Zeb, the fucking Earth revolves around the sun. If the Church told you it didn’t, would you believe it?[/quote]

LMAO