[quote]orion wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Moral laws and their corollaries should ideally be based on the defining characteristics of what human beings are and what’s good for them as human beings. Empirical studies show that homosexuality is NOT a healthy state for individuals or societies.
Therefore, homosexuality should not be encouraged and marriage between them, insofar as it encourages homosexuality, should not be allowed.
YOUR INTERPRETATION of empirical studies show that homosexuality is not healthy for society AS YOU DEFINE IT.
There fixed it for you.
I see you are working for the greater good again, you are an altruist at heart, always there to work for “society”…[/quote]
Orion,
Don’t lapse into a Kantian world-view: just because an individual sees something in a PARTICULAR way doesn’t disqualify that particular view from matching reality noumenally. My definitions are based upon perceptions; what else would I use?
Gays are far more likely to have multiple partners, have diseases, and so forth. These are unhealthy for members of a society. Unless marriage prevents a gay man from prowling gay bars somehow, marriage for gays as an endorsement by society for THAT lifestyle is wrong.
"I had always accepted the mass media’s portrayal of gays as a colorful minority like the Croatians, who have a special “sexual orientation.” They meet each other at their bars and do their thing. As long as they kept it within their own community, what did I care?
But they don’t. To my surprise I recently learned that most gays prefer heterosexual males. My source is a book, The Caricature of Love, (1957), by Dr. Hervey Checkley, a clinical professor of psychiatry at the Medical College of Georgia. A gay friend also confirmed this fact to me. That would explain the amount of gay porn on the Internet found by searching the term “straight men.”
I also learned that many gays prefer youths, and these experiences often turn victimized children into homosexuals and/or distort their lives. A survey of readers of the gay magazine The Advocate indicated that 21% of respondents were sexually abused by an adult by age 15. This seems to be one way that homosexuals “propagate.” My source is an extraordinary research paper by psychologist Dr. Judith Reisman entitled Crafting “Gay” Children: An Inquiry, p. 9.
According to Reisman, the 1991 US Population Statistical Abstracts indicate that between 1-2 million gay males (2% of the adult male population of 90 million) abuse 6-8 million boys. The ratio is 3-5 boy victims to one gay male compared to one girl victim per eleven straight males. This is based on data on 33 million boys and 32 million girls under the age of 18. Reisman says that since 100% of the gay males do not sexually assault boys, the 2% homosexual population harbors a vast pederast subculture committing multiple repeated child sex offences. (8)"
BTW: Bash Makow, but look into the studies he lists.
Personally, the idea of a civil union is fine with me. I cant see denying people the right to be with their sick partner or not have the same other legal protections(and pitfalls, btw) that my wife and I do. Some of the fuss that gets raised over this issue is probably pure bias, maybe even hatred. I can’t imagine hating someone because of who they love and anything I say that follows is not motivated in any way by bias towards homosexuals. At the end of the day, we all bleed the same. I know some people pay lip service to that, but it is truly what is in my heart.
However, with that said, I will give you the best argument I can come up with against gay marriage and I will stipulate that I won’t even touch a religious argument(not saying one is not valid, just playing within the anti-religion crowd’s rules).
We are on very dangerous ground when we allow a very small minority of the society to redefine our culture wholesale. I can’t imagine anyone coming on here and trying to argue that there are not thousands of years of history defining marriage very specifically…a union between a man and a woman. This crosses every boundary you can think over…religious, cultural, geographic whatever. It is what it is. In the US, whenever a vote comes up on gay marriage initiatives, it never turns out in favor of. That means it is very clear that the culture wants to continue defining itself in a certain way.
I realize that the institution of marriage has largely been destroyed anyway, but the culture does not seem to want to go down this road. Perhaps it is for fear of how children will be socialized(personally, I think a child needs a male and a female influence in their life to develop fully, but what do I know), perhaps it is religious, perhaps it is an innate opposition that many people have to homosexuality. Whatever it is, the tactics that have been employed by the gay activists scare the hell out of me. By manipulating a broken media and influencing corrupt politicians and judges, they have pushed farther than many people will ever realize. You hear the term “gay mafia” thrown around but it is almost eerie how some of the more aggressive activists mimic criminal organizations in their influencing tactics. I also find it disturbing how often gay rights groups are tied deeply into the out-of-control Marxist movement in this country. They operate from the same exact playbook and have been terribly successful at changing the United States(almost always for the worse I might add) in only a few short decades.
In my eyes, this is really a struggle over who is going to control our country and our culture. Once you have a civil union, what point is there to keep pushing to get it called a marriage? Unless of course, you want to show that you and the forces you are allied with are so powerful, that you can tell the rest of us that a cat is now a dog and so help you if you refuse to go along with their decision to alter reality.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
orion wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Moral laws and their corollaries should ideally be based on the defining characteristics of what human beings are and what’s good for them as human beings. Empirical studies show that homosexuality is NOT a healthy state for individuals or societies.
Therefore, homosexuality should not be encouraged and marriage between them, insofar as it encourages homosexuality, should not be allowed.
YOUR INTERPRETATION of empirical studies show that homosexuality is not healthy for society AS YOU DEFINE IT.
There fixed it for you.
I see you are working for the greater good again, you are an altruist at heart, always there to work for “society”…
Orion,
Don’t lapse into a Kantian world-view: just because an individual sees something in a PARTICULAR way doesn’t disqualify that particular view from matching reality noumenally. My definitions are based upon perceptions; what else would I use?
Gays are far more likely to have multiple partners, have diseases, and so forth. These are unhealthy for members of a society. Unless marriage prevents a gay man from prowling gay bars somehow, marriage for gays as an endorsement by society for THAT lifestyle is wrong.
[/quote]
Reiterating your definitions albeit implicitly do not make them
any more binding for the rest of us.
There is lots of risky behaviors you have no problems with.
I’m positive that CA common-law marriage didn’t incorporate same-sex couples in the past - who knows what judges will say now?
Now, should the law recognize multiple-partner relationships? I think not. The probable destabilization effect on society from creating a bunch of low-status males with no possibility of marriage is worrisome.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Especially if society has to pay for the results of the gay lifestyle.
What in the hell is the result? You say gays have a higher level of STDs… this effects hetero society… how exactly?
It affects society because most do not have health insurance so the government ends up paying for their healthcare. And in turn you pay for it from taxes.
People can’t be trusted to protect themselves during something as simple to protect as sex? The government has to do it for them?
You liberal slime.
Statistics would indicate that gays do a very poor job of protecting themselves from their own behavior.
And I know you aren’t calling me a liberal?
So… things that make our health insurance bills go up are immoral? You do realize that WE, the healthy, non-obese people, cost the health care system FAR more than the sick right?
The extra years we live on average by far tip the balance. Wasn’t this literally just in an article My dads been saying this shit for years… if the healthy people didn’t outbalance the sick, insurance companies could never make any money.
And yes. Yes I am. The term liberal is used to describe someone who wants government intervention over personal responsibility around these parts.
By implying the government should discourage gay people from having gay sex, you are stating that the government knows what’s best for them better than they do. I may be doing it facetiously, but I am indeed calling you a liberal big-government slimeball. =D
[/quote]
Dude, where did I say I think it’s governments job to take care of people or tell them how to live? Nowhere!
I believe that the government should not pay for any lifestyle related disease and that includes risk taking behavior. I believe in small government, not big Hillary government.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I’m positive that CA common-law marriage didn’t incorporate same-sex couples in the past - who knows what judges will say now?
Now, should the law recognize multiple-partner relationships? I think not. The probable destabilization effect on society from creating a bunch of low-status males with no possibility of marriage is worrisome.[/quote]
True enough on the last bit. However,that is more true of areas that include the tradition of polygamy, and, more importantly, the ‘buying and selling’ of wives (as that is what it amounts to).
Personally, I think the government should get its nose out of marriage all together, and let the insurance companies deal with their end their own way. However, that leaves the inheritance problem… which wouldn’t be a problem if people made and updated a will or something like it, although that is a huge inconvenience… hmm…
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
"I had always accepted the mass media’s portrayal of gays as a colorful minority like the Croatians, who have a special “sexual orientation.” They meet each other at their bars and do their thing. As long as they kept it within their own community, what did I care?
But they don’t. To my surprise I recently learned that most gays prefer heterosexual males. My source is a book, The Caricature of Love, (1957), by Dr. Hervey Checkley, a clinical professor of psychiatry at the Medical College of Georgia. A gay friend also confirmed this fact to me. That would explain the amount of gay porn on the Internet found by searching the term “straight men.”
I also learned that many gays prefer youths, and these experiences often turn victimized children into homosexuals and/or distort their lives. A survey of readers of the gay magazine The Advocate indicated that 21% of respondents were sexually abused by an adult by age 15. This seems to be one way that homosexuals “propagate.” My source is an extraordinary research paper by psychologist Dr. Judith Reisman entitled Crafting “Gay” Children: An Inquiry, p. 9.
According to Reisman, the 1991 US Population Statistical Abstracts indicate that between 1-2 million gay males (2% of the adult male population of 90 million) abuse 6-8 million boys. The ratio is 3-5 boy victims to one gay male compared to one girl victim per eleven straight males. This is based on data on 33 million boys and 32 million girls under the age of 18. Reisman says that since 100% of the gay males do not sexually assault boys, the 2% homosexual population harbors a vast pederast subculture committing multiple repeated child sex offences. (8)"
BTW: Bash Makow, but look into the studies he lists.
[/quote]
Damn HH, that is not very PC of you. It’s all true, but not PC.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Especially if society has to pay for the results of the gay lifestyle.
What in the hell is the result? You say gays have a higher level of STDs… this effects hetero society… how exactly?
It affects society because most do not have health insurance so the government ends up paying for their healthcare. And in turn you pay for it from taxes.
People can’t be trusted to protect themselves during something as simple to protect as sex? The government has to do it for them?
You liberal slime.
Statistics would indicate that gays do a very poor job of protecting themselves from their own behavior.
And I know you aren’t calling me a liberal?
So… things that make our health insurance bills go up are immoral? You do realize that WE, the healthy, non-obese people, cost the health care system FAR more than the sick right?
The extra years we live on average by far tip the balance. Wasn’t this literally just in an article My dads been saying this shit for years… if the healthy people didn’t outbalance the sick, insurance companies could never make any money.
And yes. Yes I am. The term liberal is used to describe someone who wants government intervention over personal responsibility around these parts.
By implying the government should discourage gay people from having gay sex, you are stating that the government knows what’s best for them better than they do. I may be doing it facetiously, but I am indeed calling you a liberal big-government slimeball. =D
Dude, where did I say I think it’s governments job to take care of people or tell them how to live? Nowhere!
I believe that the government should not pay for any lifestyle related disease and that includes risk taking behavior. I believe in small government, not big Hillary government.
So you are totally wrong.
[/quote]
So, you’re apparently for the government controlling our children. Being a teenager in high school is a lifestyle related to disease and that includes a LOT more risk taking behavior than homosexuality. We should be preventing them from getting together, we can’t pay for them to socialize in a school! Their parents can take care of them! Home schooled children don’t take NEAR the risks high school students do.
Pedophiles should be punished.
Homosexuals should not.
High School drop outs are a lot more likely to commit crimes. Should we be denying them health insurance so they die off faster? Why should we pay for them? They are part of a group that, as a whole, is less moral than others.
To relate this to something you’ll understand: Should we be denying someone whose been to therapy their second amendment rights? How about a guy who was once arrested for drug dealing? Are they not far more likely to do something bad with a gun than another person?
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Especially if society has to pay for the results of the gay lifestyle.
What in the hell is the result? You say gays have a higher level of STDs… this effects hetero society… how exactly?
It affects society because most do not have health insurance so the government ends up paying for their healthcare. And in turn you pay for it from taxes.
People can’t be trusted to protect themselves during something as simple to protect as sex? The government has to do it for them?
You liberal slime.
Statistics would indicate that gays do a very poor job of protecting themselves from their own behavior.
And I know you aren’t calling me a liberal?
So… things that make our health insurance bills go up are immoral? You do realize that WE, the healthy, non-obese people, cost the health care system FAR more than the sick right?
The extra years we live on average by far tip the balance. Wasn’t this literally just in an article My dads been saying this shit for years… if the healthy people didn’t outbalance the sick, insurance companies could never make any money.
And yes. Yes I am. The term liberal is used to describe someone who wants government intervention over personal responsibility around these parts.
By implying the government should discourage gay people from having gay sex, you are stating that the government knows what’s best for them better than they do. I may be doing it facetiously, but I am indeed calling you a liberal big-government slimeball. =D
Dude, where did I say I think it’s governments job to take care of people or tell them how to live? Nowhere!
I believe that the government should not pay for any lifestyle related disease and that includes risk taking behavior. I believe in small government, not big Hillary government.
So you are totally wrong.
So, you’re apparently for the government controlling our children. Being a teenager in high school is a lifestyle related to disease and that includes a LOT more risk taking behavior than homosexuality. We should be preventing them from getting together, we can’t pay for them to socialize in a school! Their parents can take care of them! Home schooled children don’t take NEAR the risks high school students do.
You children hating bastard. You disgust me.
[/quote]
You are clearly an idiot, so I’m not going to waste anymore time on your pathetic responses.
But I will say that my only issue is that I do not want gays to marry. It’s about the tradition and word, not anything else.
Gays in California already had a domestic partners law that gave them all the same benefits, which I had no issue with. But that was not good enough; they wanted to use the word “marriage”.
In my mind, and billions of others, marriage originated in the bible and is supported by a long religious tradition. It is this tradition that gays are stomping on by wanting to be “married”
So it’s not about risky behavior or any other crap you are going to come up with. It’s about gays messing with a thousand plus year tradition that many value very much.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
BostonBarrister: please give me a logical reason, other than homophobia, that allowing gays to marry would negatively impact marriage or procreation among heterosexuals.
BostonBarrister wrote:
Here are two: It could affect the normative behavior of married people, and also affect the societal normative pressure on heterosexuals to marry. Read the links for more.
Now address each of my previous points please.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
…seriously?
You: It would cause problems?
Me: What problems and why?
You: Uh… it could affect how people act!
Your response here has told me nothing.
HOW AND WHY (I’ll use big letters so you can read them easier) would it affect the normative behavior of married people?
HOW AND WHY would it affect the societal normative pressure on heterosexuals to marry?
Quit repeating the same thing (that it could have an effect), and answer my fucking question.
Tell you what: I’m not re-writing the articles contained in the links that you’re refusing to read. Read the links, particularly the first. Then if you have particularized issues, ask. I know very well that you haven’t read them, because not all of what’s in the links agrees with my positions, and you haven’t pointed this out, which would be the first thing you would do if you had read them. So go along like a good little chap and read up; and if you won’t, to borrow a Briticism, bugger off.
Here I’ll make another bad attempt at logic (just for shits and giggles): Logic would dictate that a smarter person would understand an article better than a more foolish one. This means, if both read the same article, the smarter person would be better able to answer questions about its content and relate examples from the work.
Its clear to you that you’re the more intelligent of the two of us, yet, having read all three articles, and being asked for an example you would have exacted from them, cannot produce a single one.
Clearly, there is no point in me reading them, since, if you cannot find in them an example of gay marriage leading to a decline in either straight marriage or straight procreation (that is not an example of an act of anti-gay bigotry/bias), I have no hope whatsoever.
And I’ve made the mistake of allowing you to limit the scope of the debate to the governments desire to give incentive for procreation and child raising, when, in reality, that is not how marriage is viewed by society. Marriage, to most, is a way of legitimizing relationships. This is relevant because, even if the governments main concern is on the issue of procreation, going about giving the benefits in a way that mirrors a religious idea (of a religion that is anti-gay), thus deciding which relationships will be socially legitimate and which will not, thus supporting, promoting, and encouraging homophobia, is wrong.
If the government wants to incentivize reproduction, why doesn’t the government simply give incentives to those who raise children? Why not let it be understood that encouraging procreation is their goal, instead of working the incentives into an endeavor that most people attach unrelated sentimental value on (whereas most people view marriage as an act of love, not a contract designed to stimulate population growth)?
Because bigotry is bad, supporting it is bad, laws that support it are bad, and supporting laws that support it is bad. Even if the intent was never to legitimize only heterosexual monogamist relationships, if that is the result (which it is), the law is supporting bigotry and should be changed. Even if the “behvioral incentive” has nothing to do with discrimination, if it discriminates (which it does), it should be changed, especially when other laws could easily be enacted that would provide the same incentive without supporting bigotry or discrimination (such as, if you are raising a child, you get benefits, if you aren’t, you don’t).
Read what I said above about how the current marriage laws legitimize one form of relationship, thus illegitimizing all others.
I think what you meant to say was “impinged in any technical way”. Because, yes, gays can still form couples, however, due to the fact that they cannot marry, their relationships are seen as illegitimate, which is meaningful.
[quote]
Marriage is not all benefits - it’s also restrictions on freedom and imposition of responsibilities. Gays are finding this out, even without the tax break:
And unfortunately, from at least this perspective, youngish heterosexuals (no need for child marriage - just consider the decade of a person’s 20s) are increasingly opting out of accepting marriage and its attendant costs.
Why are you so insistant on the idea that the government must (or should) continue incentivizing procreation through marriage? Worst case scenerio is that the government has to find another way to incentivize procreation; would that be so difficult?
I can’t demonstrate that it will or won’t, and that is irrelevant. Unless you can demonstrate that it will, for reasons other than homophobia, then its no different than a hiring manager asking you to prove that hiring a black employee will not negatively affect business (on the grounds that the only reason hiring a black employee would negatively affect business would be people acting out of racism – not because sexual preference is the same thing as race). Why should he take the risk?
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Especially if society has to pay for the results of the gay lifestyle.
What in the hell is the result? You say gays have a higher level of STDs… this effects hetero society… how exactly?
It affects society because most do not have health insurance so the government ends up paying for their healthcare. And in turn you pay for it from taxes.
People can’t be trusted to protect themselves during something as simple to protect as sex? The government has to do it for them?
You liberal slime.
Statistics would indicate that gays do a very poor job of protecting themselves from their own behavior.
And I know you aren’t calling me a liberal?
So… things that make our health insurance bills go up are immoral? You do realize that WE, the healthy, non-obese people, cost the health care system FAR more than the sick right?
The extra years we live on average by far tip the balance. Wasn’t this literally just in an article My dads been saying this shit for years… if the healthy people didn’t outbalance the sick, insurance companies could never make any money.
And yes. Yes I am. The term liberal is used to describe someone who wants government intervention over personal responsibility around these parts.
By implying the government should discourage gay people from having gay sex, you are stating that the government knows what’s best for them better than they do. I may be doing it facetiously, but I am indeed calling you a liberal big-government slimeball. =D
Dude, where did I say I think it’s governments job to take care of people or tell them how to live? Nowhere!
I believe that the government should not pay for any lifestyle related disease and that includes risk taking behavior. I believe in small government, not big Hillary government.
So you are totally wrong.
So, you’re apparently for the government controlling our children. Being a teenager in high school is a lifestyle related to disease and that includes a LOT more risk taking behavior than homosexuality. We should be preventing them from getting together, we can’t pay for them to socialize in a school! Their parents can take care of them! Home schooled children don’t take NEAR the risks high school students do.
You children hating bastard. You disgust me.
You are clearly an idiot, so I’m not going to waste anymore time on your pathetic responses.
But I will say that my only issue is that I do not want gays to marry. It’s about the tradition and word, not anything else.
Gays in California already had a domestic partners law that gave them all the same benefits, which I had no issue with. But that was not good enough; they wanted to use the word “marriage”.
In my mind, and billions of others, marriage originated in the bible and is supported by a long religious tradition. It is this tradition that gays are stomping on by wanting to be “married”
So it’s not about risky behavior or any other crap you are going to come up with. It’s about gays messing with a thousand plus year tradition that many value very much.
[/quote]
Dear Headhunter,
Your nephew has successfully learned to troll. Thank you for all the wise words and the example to follow.
Forever in your footsteps,
Beowolf
@Lorisco: Why didn’t you just say that in the first place? I would have responded with “separation of Church and State remember?” you would have said “It is about tradition, not the Church” and we would have agreed to disagree. Its been fun though.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
In my mind, and billions of others, marriage originated in the bible and is supported by a long religious tradition. It is this tradition that gays are stomping on by wanting to be “married”[/quote]
The concept didn’t originate in the Bible. If we’re going to go on a “which religion did it first” basis, then only Hindu marriage should be recognized. You fucktards should stop stealing and corrupting OUR sacred institution.
See the problem with that argument?
Marriage has been around since the beginning of Mankind, don’t be arrogant enough to presume a religion started it.
Usage of the word:
[i]The way in which a marriage is conducted has changed over time, as has the institution itself. Although the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history, many cultures have legends or religious beliefs concerning the origins of marriage.
…
The first recorded use of the word “marriage” for same-sex couples also occurs during the Roman Empire. A number of marriages are recorded to have taken place during this period. [11] In the year 342, the Christian emperors Constantius and Constans declared that same-sex marriage to be illegal.[12] In the year 390, the Christian emperors Valentinian II, Theodoisus and Arcadius declared homosexual sex to be illegal and those who were guilty of it were condemned to be burned alive in front of the public.[/i]
I also like how it took over 300 years after Christ’s death to outlaw homosexuality. Word of God my ass.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Especially if society has to pay for the results of the gay lifestyle.
What in the hell is the result? You say gays have a higher level of STDs… this effects hetero society… how exactly?
It affects society because most do not have health insurance so the government ends up paying for their healthcare. And in turn you pay for it from taxes.
People can’t be trusted to protect themselves during something as simple to protect as sex? The government has to do it for them?
You liberal slime.
Statistics would indicate that gays do a very poor job of protecting themselves from their own behavior.
And I know you aren’t calling me a liberal?
So… things that make our health insurance bills go up are immoral? You do realize that WE, the healthy, non-obese people, cost the health care system FAR more than the sick right?
The extra years we live on average by far tip the balance. Wasn’t this literally just in an article My dads been saying this shit for years… if the healthy people didn’t outbalance the sick, insurance companies could never make any money.
And yes. Yes I am. The term liberal is used to describe someone who wants government intervention over personal responsibility around these parts.
By implying the government should discourage gay people from having gay sex, you are stating that the government knows what’s best for them better than they do. I may be doing it facetiously, but I am indeed calling you a liberal big-government slimeball. =D
Dude, where did I say I think it’s governments job to take care of people or tell them how to live? Nowhere!
I believe that the government should not pay for any lifestyle related disease and that includes risk taking behavior. I believe in small government, not big Hillary government.
So you are totally wrong.
So, you’re apparently for the government controlling our children. Being a teenager in high school is a lifestyle related to disease and that includes a LOT more risk taking behavior than homosexuality. We should be preventing them from getting together, we can’t pay for them to socialize in a school! Their parents can take care of them! Home schooled children don’t take NEAR the risks high school students do.
You children hating bastard. You disgust me.
You are clearly an idiot, so I’m not going to waste anymore time on your pathetic responses.
But I will say that my only issue is that I do not want gays to marry. It’s about the tradition and word, not anything else.
Gays in California already had a domestic partners law that gave them all the same benefits, which I had no issue with. But that was not good enough; they wanted to use the word “marriage”.
In my mind, and billions of others, marriage originated in the bible and is supported by a long religious tradition. It is this tradition that gays are stomping on by wanting to be “married”
So it’s not about risky behavior or any other crap you are going to come up with. It’s about gays messing with a thousand plus year tradition that many value very much.
[/quote]
A secular government like that of America has no business, and no right, and no justification for enacting laws to support religious traditions.
But then again, at least you’re honest enough to admit that this is the reason; that, by only giving legal benefits to, and therefore only legitimizing one form of relationship which is promoted by certain religions, the government legitimizes those religions. And, lets be frank, we’re talking about christianity here.
By supporting the christian tradition of coupling one man with one woman, the government endorses christianity. Being in a majority christian society, people support this, despite that whole “Congress shall make no law respecting an establisment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.
The framework of our country is set to make illegal the practice of making laws that favor or legitimize one religion over others, yet that is exactly what marriage laws do – hence they are not only wrong, but unamerican.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
In my mind, and billions of others, marriage originated in the bible and is supported by a long religious tradition. It is this tradition that gays are stomping on by wanting to be “married”
The concept didn’t originate in the Bible. If we’re going to go on a “which religion did it first” basis, then only Hindu marriage should be recognized. You fucktards should stop stealing and corrupting OUR sacred institution.
See the problem with that argument?
Marriage has been around since the beginning of Mankind, don’t be arrogant enough to presume a religion started it.
Usage of the word:
[i]The way in which a marriage is conducted has changed over time, as has the institution itself. Although the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history, many cultures have legends or religious beliefs concerning the origins of marriage.
…
The first recorded use of the word “marriage” for same-sex couples also occurs during the Roman Empire. A number of marriages are recorded to have taken place during this period. [11] In the year 342, the Christian emperors Constantius and Constans declared that same-sex marriage to be illegal.[12] In the year 390, the Christian emperors Valentinian II, Theodoisus and Arcadius declared homosexual sex to be illegal and those who were guilty of it were condemned to be burned alive in front of the public.[/i]
I also like how it took over 300 years after Christ’s death to outlaw homosexuality. Word of God my ass.[/quote]
Thats twice now you’ve sort of handed me my ass in this thread. I’m humbled.
Though, I still think its pertinent to consider that most people still consider marriage a christian tradition, and, therefore, legal marriage reflecting christian marriage legitimizes christianity, to them.
So, again. Are you two wanting to redefine marriage (in regards to government and benefits) in what would still be a relatively narrow scope (based on sex, and 2 consenting adults). Or, do you want it thrown wide open to any arrangement, between any number of consenting adults?
My dads been saying this shit for years… if the healthy people didn’t outbalance the sick, insurance companies could never make any money.