View Full Version : Same Gender Marriage...Get over it.
bullypulpit
10-09-2010, 03:28 PM
This says it all.
<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/bEpQ8fFQ7Rk&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bEpQ8fFQ7Rk&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>
darin
10-09-2010, 04:56 PM
Fifteen seconds later I shut it off. Insulting those who don't agree with a point of view shows the classless nature of the opposition. It's a 2 minute video of logical fallacy.
How the, uhem, fuck, can you call yourself intelligent - hell, LOGICAL, and post that vid as 'saying it all'? I mean, honestly, it's beyond me. It's changed what I think of you. I used to think you were at least logical. Now...holy lord....
bullypulpit
10-10-2010, 06:52 AM
Fifteen seconds later I shut it off. Insulting those who don't agree with a point of view shows the classless nature of the opposition. It's a 2 minute video of logical fallacy.
How the, uhem, fuck, can you call yourself intelligent - hell, LOGICAL, and post that vid as 'saying it all'? I mean, honestly, it's beyond me. It's changed what I think of you. I used to think you were at least logical. Now...holy lord....
A) It's funny. B) It's true. C)There is no rational basis for denying same gender couples the right to marry. The hypocrisy of the right in this matter is an insult to those who don't agree with their position. Newtie and his multiple infidelities...Rush on his 4th marriage...David Vitter and his whore-mongering...John Ensign and his sordid affair and attempted cover-up. The list goes on.
And then, mebbe you shoulda watched it all the way through.
jimnyc
10-10-2010, 08:50 AM
Having children curse for an ad to promote a cause - very sad.
Having children curse for an ad to promote a cause - very sad.
They've always used children to normalize sodomy.That is truly sad. Liberals have been brain washing children for decades.
Pagan
10-10-2010, 04:33 PM
They've always used children to normalize sodomy.That is truly sad. Liberals have been brain washing children for decades.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1556756
Previous investigations have indicated that the ratio of sex offenders against female children vs. offenders against male children is approximately 2:1, while the ratio of gynephiles to androphiles among the general population is approximately 20:1. The present study investigated whether the etiology of preferred partner sex among pedophiles is related to the etiology of preferred partner sex among males preferring adult partners. Using phallometric test sensitivities to calculate the proportion of true pedophiles among various groups of sex offenders against children, and taking into consideration previously reported mean numbers of victims per offender group, the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1. This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually. This, of course, would not indicate that androphilic males have a greater propensity to offend against children.
Abbey Marie
10-13-2010, 03:47 PM
It's all too common for gays to be crude; particularly sexually crude. Exhibit A: pics from any gay "pride" parade (which I won't post again).
What I find so hypocritical is how gays ask us to stop defining them by their sexuality, when all they seem to do is define themselves by their sexuality, flaunt it publicly, and in fact, use it to demand change.
KarlMarx
10-13-2010, 04:33 PM
A) It's funny. B) It's true. C)There is no rational basis for denying same gender couples the right to marry. The hypocrisy of the right in this matter is an insult to those who don't agree with their position. Newtie and his multiple infidelities...Rush on his 4th marriage...David Vitter and his whore-mongering...John Ensign and his sordid affair and attempted cover-up. The list goes on.
And then, mebbe you shoulda watched it all the way through.
1. Two wrongs don't make a right (especially the so called "right" to marry)
2. Sure, there's a rational basis for denying gay couple the right to marry. It's wrong. It's wrong because the Bible says it's wrong. It's wrong because in most people's guts they also know that it's wrong. And those are the people that vote. And just because you think yourself to be morally superior to those of us who don't agree with your position doesn't make it any less wrong.
3. There is another rational basis for denying gay couples the right to marry... it's called the Tenth Amendment. States can grant or deny rights not enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Marriage is not a right, nor a legal protection. Marriage suddenly became a right when gays thought they should be married, too. When the issue is put in front of the voters of a state, it is always voted down. Blacks and Hispanics, not the Mormon Church, were the main reason for the passage of Proposition 8 in California (the proposition that gays should not be allowed to marry). If two groups of people who are well acquainted with oppression and discrimination vote against the right for gays to marry, there must be a reason and the reason is ... see item #2.
4. Of course, BP, if we don't agree with you, we are suddenly troglodytes, right wing hypocrites and so forth. That is what has become to be expected of the Left and, unfortunately, from you.
Reasonably funny and effective at getting a handful of points across, but the constant swearing is far too much.
gabosaurus
10-16-2010, 12:30 PM
It's not any worse that the kooks who teach their children that gays are "fags" and such. I thought the video was right on the money. Sometimes you need to slap homophobes in the face to get their attention.
It's not any worse that the kooks who teach their children that gays are "fags" and such. I thought the video was right on the money. Sometimes you need to slap homophobes in the face to get their attention.
There is such a thing as not lowering yourself for the sake of an argument.
There would have been nothing wrong with the kids saying 'leave my Dads alone' or 'why shouldn't my mums be able to marry' but all the needless swearing is just that, needless. It lowers the tone and, stupidly, loses the support of people like myself who would otherwise be in favour of such a movement.
Trigg
10-16-2010, 04:42 PM
I thought the video was right on the money. Sometimes you need to slap homophobes in the face to get their attention.
Having a phobia is being extremely fearful of something, I doubt being against gay marriage qualifies as a phobia. Homophobia is an idiotic term.
Your hero in the White House is against gay marriage, does he need slapped in the face also???
Marriage has always been between 1 man and 1 woman. If gays want to have a civil union with all the benefits that are afforded married couples, fine, no problem. But, there is no reason to change the definition of marriage.
Pagan
10-16-2010, 04:58 PM
Government has no business being involved with marriage period, not only that but it is a violation of the Constitution, 14th Amendment Section 1.
That and I cannot see how someone can call themselves a Conservative when they are supporting Government dictating the most personal aspect of ones life, their family.
Simple solution, demand Government abide by the rule of law and get out of marriage then it's a non issue.
BoogyMan
10-17-2010, 12:24 PM
Marriage is an institution between man and woman. It always has been that way and always should be.
Modern liberal sensibilities should not be allowed to pervert marriage.
I find it truly entertaining how the vacuous left cannot honestly speak of objection to homosexuality in any other terms than phobia. Most people have absolutely no fear of homosexuals, but they see the sin of homosexuality and are honest enough to point it out. Couching it in terms of a phobia simply shows intellectual dishonesty.
Marriage is an institution between man and woman. It always has been that way and always should be.
Why? How exactly will you suffer if two men across your city marry as apose to have a civil partnership?
Pagan
10-17-2010, 05:04 PM
Marriage is an institution between man and woman. It always has been that way and always should be.
Modern liberal sensibilities should not be allowed to pervert marriage.
I find it truly entertaining how the vacuous left cannot honestly speak of objection to homosexuality in any other terms than phobia. Most people have absolutely no fear of homosexuals, but they see the sin of homosexuality and are honest enough to point it out. Couching it in terms of a phobia simply shows intellectual dishonesty.
I find it rather hypocritical that so called "Conservatives" scream small government but yet so readily open up the most personal aspect of their lives to Government control. That is the epitome of intellectual dishonesty.
That and again Government dictating marriage is a direct violation of the Constitution 4th Amendment Section 1.
DragonStryk72
10-17-2010, 07:01 PM
Okay, I'm in favor of gay marriage, and that's just a shitty argument for it. The first six seconds ensures the only people still watching are the ones who are already in favor of gay marriage, and that's where I stopped watching.
If you're trying to win folks over, it might be a good start not to call them fuckwads as an opening line.
PostmodernProphet
10-17-2010, 07:07 PM
A) It's funny. B) It's true. C)There is no rational basis for denying same gender couples the right to marry.
sure there is....."marriage" is a relationship between a man and a woman.....same gender couples simply aren't.....
Why? How exactly will you suffer if two men across your city marry as apose to have a civil partnership?
I won't.....but I will suffer if some idiot comes along and says I have to change the definition of marriage simply because some guy wants me to approve of his relationship with another guy.....they are depriving me of my right to say "that's fucking nuts".......
I won't.....but I will suffer if some idiot comes along and says I have to change the definition of marriage simply because some guy wants me to approve of his relationship with another guy.....they are depriving me of my right to say "that's fucking nuts".......
Oh poor you, however will you be able to live when the definition of a word changes, how dare these fags try and put you through such torture just so they can marry eachother, which let's face it means nothing to them.
/sark.
PostmodernProphet
10-17-2010, 09:37 PM
Oh poor you, however will you be able to live when the definition of a word changes, how dare these fags try and put you through such torture just so they can marry eachother, which let's face it means nothing to them.
/sark.
sounds about right to me.....I see no reason for society to change simply because some guy want to take his sex life out of the privacy of his bedroom....../sarcasm works both ways you know....
I think it's time we expand Don't Ask, Don't Tell to civilian life......
sounds about right to me.....I see no reason for society to change simply because some guy want to take his sex life out of the privacy of his bedroom....../sarcasm works both ways you know....
I think it's time we expand Don't Ask, Don't Tell to civilian life......
Oh, so we've gone from a definition changing, to society changing :laugh:
Face it mate, it has nothing to do with your life at all, you just want things to remain as they are because of private prejudice.
avatar4321
10-17-2010, 11:04 PM
Having children curse for an ad to promote a cause - very sad.
Not like they have a moral high ground for forcing immorality on the people.
It's not any worse that the kooks who teach their children that gays are "fags" and such. I thought the video was right on the money. Sometimes you need to slap homophobes in the face to get their attention.
That says far more about you than it does about any of us.
I find it rather hypocritical that so called "Conservatives" scream small government but yet so readily open up the most personal aspect of their lives to Government control. That is the epitome of intellectual dishonesty.
That and again Government dictating marriage is a direct violation of the Constitution 4th Amendment Section 1.
That would because you aren't actually looking at what's being discussed.
No one cares what they do in their private lives. But when they want government to regulate their relationships then it is growing government.
There is nothing in the 4th amendment about Marriage.
Oh poor you, however will you be able to live when the definition of a word changes, how dare these fags try and put you through such torture just so they can marry eachother, which let's face it means nothing to them.
/sark.
No one is stopping them from committing to each other. We just oppose government recognition and regulation of their relationships.
DragonStryk72
10-18-2010, 02:45 AM
No one is stopping them from committing to each other. We just oppose government recognition and regulation of their relationships.
Why? It's not like the government determines what God thinks of it, right?
KarlMarx
10-18-2010, 04:55 AM
I find it rather hypocritical that so called "Conservatives" scream small government but yet so readily open up the most personal aspect of their lives to Government control. That is the epitome of intellectual dishonesty.
That and again Government dictating marriage is a direct violation of the Constitution 4th Amendment Section 1.
I believe you meant the 14th Amendment...
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The point that we are going to disagree on is whether marriage is a "protection of the law". To me, it is not. It could be argued that denying children the right to drive or to drink violates the 14th amendment, too.
Applying the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to gay marriage goes beyond the original intent of the amendment. It was supposed to apply to legislation that was already on the books and to the rights granted under the Bill of Rights. For instance, the Dred Scott decision which denied blacks citizenship.
Furthermore, if marriage is a "right", then divorce laws should be declared unconstitutional. In most cases, divorce is the idea of one of the affected parties, the other does not want it. If marriage is a right, then in such cases, granting a divorce violates the Constitutional right of the person who does not want the divorce. And if you're going to apply the 14th amendment to marriage, then the person that does not want the divorce is being denied "equal protection under the law".
However....
The 14th amendment is a good example of why abortion should be illegal. It deprives persons (unborn) life without due process of law
And... I agree, the federal government should be out of the marriage business, that is something that is best left up to the voters of the states... and, repeating a previous post, the voters of the states don't want gay marriage....
The text of the 10th amendment follows...
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
PostmodernProphet
10-18-2010, 07:13 AM
Oh, so we've gone from a definition changing, to society changing :laugh:
Face it mate, it has nothing to do with your life at all, you just want things to remain as they are because of private prejudice.
face it yourself.....society doesn't have to change because a gay person wants it to.....
No one is stopping them from committing to each other. We just oppose government recognition and regulation of their relationships.
Why? What's wrong with the government going 'yep...they're married'.
face it yourself.....society doesn't have to change because a gay person wants it to.....
And I guess society didn't *have* to change when some black joes didn't wana spend their lives as slaves. But what'da ya know...
I see you've again committed to a change in society and not a definition as you first claimed.
Pagan
10-18-2010, 08:27 AM
I believe you meant the 14th Amendment...
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The point that we are going to disagree on is whether marriage is a "protection of the law". To me, it is not. It could be argued that denying children the right to drive or to drink violates the 14th amendment, too.
Applying the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to gay marriage goes beyond the original intent of the amendment. It was supposed to apply to legislation that was already on the books and to the rights granted under the Bill of Rights. For instance, the Dred Scott decision which denied blacks citizenship.
Furthermore, if marriage is a "right", then divorce laws should be declared unconstitutional. In most cases, divorce is the idea of one of the affected parties, the other does not want it. If marriage is a right, then in such cases, granting a divorce violates the Constitutional right of the person who does not want the divorce. And if you're going to apply the 14th amendment to marriage, then the person that does not want the divorce is being denied "equal protection under the law".
However....
The 14th amendment is a good example of why abortion should be illegal. It deprives persons (unborn) life without due process of law
And... I agree, the federal government should be out of the marriage business, that is something that is best left up to the voters of the states... and, repeating a previous post, the voters of the states don't want gay marriage....
The text of the 10th amendment follows...
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
You're right, I "fat fingered it" and left out the "1" ...
But no, it does apply to the states -
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
What this does is bar Government from creating a "Special Class" with special rights, protections, privileges, etc. and it also makes so called "Hate Crimes" legislation a violation of the 14th.
It's went well beyond the time that we held Government accountable to the rule of law.
As for the abortion spin on it, this comes down to when a person is considered a human. Personally I don't think abortion will ever become illegal for it's used as a form of population control and control is what Government is all about.
PostmodernProphet
10-18-2010, 09:42 AM
And I guess society didn't *have* to change when some black joes didn't wana spend their lives as slaves. But what'da ya know...
I see you've again committed to a change in society and not a definition as you first claimed.
oh, I'm sorry....did blacks act to impose their skin color "choice" on us....
Trigg
10-18-2010, 02:23 PM
What's wrong with the government going 'yep...they're married'.
What's wrong with the gov. going "yep, they have a civil union"
Why change the definition of marriage, when there is no reason to do it?
What will being married gain them, if they can have a civil union that gives them everything that a marriage would? NOTHING, that's what.
Pagan
10-18-2010, 02:32 PM
What's wrong with the gov. going "yep, they have a civil union"
Why change the definition of marriage, when there is no reason to do it?
What will being married gain them, if they can have a civil union that gives them everything that a marriage would? NOTHING, that's what.
14th Amendment
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Question I have is this, why are you so insistent that Government dictate the most fundamental aspect of a persons life? Are you really such a Liberal that demands such control of your personal life?
Trigg
10-18-2010, 03:34 PM
Question I have is this, why are you so insistent that Government dictate the most fundamental aspect of a persons life? Are you really such a Liberal that demands such control of your personal life?
I'm not a liberal and I don't think this is a party issue.
Why do gays insist of changing the definition of marriage?
A civil union would give them the same exact rights as marriage would. So, what does changing the definition get them?
Pagan
10-18-2010, 04:28 PM
I'm not a liberal and I don't think this is a party issue.
I didn't say it was a "party" issue, it's an issue on ideals, liberal and conservative. Historically here in the U.S. Liberals aka Progressives push for big government and more government control, Conservatives push for less government and less government control.
So question still stands, why do you insist on having the most personal aspect of your life dictated by Government? That's a Progressive/Liberal philosophy that Government control/dictate your life, it sure isn't Conservative.
Why do gays insist of changing the definition of marriage?
A civil union would give them the same exact rights as marriage would. So, what does changing the definition get them?
It's a violation of the 14th Amendment, Section 1. and no civil unions do 'not' give them exactly the same.
You know things like immunity from testifying against ones spouse, Social Security Benefits, etc. Just with a "marriage" certificate opens and entire flood gate of special privileges, benefits, rights and legal immunities that you cannot get with a "Civil Union". Thus this is a direct violation of the 14th Amendment.
Not to mention that me being a Conservative fundamentally oppose government dictating my personal life. If two fags or lesbians want to get married what business is it of mine or anyone elses? I sure do not want them dictating to me how I should conduct my personal life and family, why do you?
Abbey Marie
10-18-2010, 04:43 PM
What's wrong with the gov. going "yep, they have a civil union"
Why change the definition of marriage, when there is no reason to do it?
What will being married gain them, if they can have a civil union that gives them everything that a marriage would? NOTHING, that's what.
They think it will gain them what they crave more than anything- being seen as normal. Even a venerable institution like marriage will not likely achieve that for them, though. Queer is a synonym of aberrant for a reason.
What's wrong with the gov. going "yep, they have a civil union"
Why change the definition of marriage, when there is no reason to do it?
What will being married gain them, if they can have a civil union that gives them everything that a marriage would? NOTHING, that's what.
And what will you lose by the definition being changed?
I don't care if people want to call it a marriage or a civil union or whatever, let them call it whatever they want. It won't affect me, and won't affect you.
Though if I may ask (as such things aren't exactly on my mind) are there any differences in the ceremonies between a marriage and a civil union?
Pagan
10-18-2010, 08:09 PM
And what will you lose by the definition being changed?
I don't care if people want to call it a marriage or a civil union or whatever, let them call it whatever they want. It won't affect me, and won't affect you.
Though if I may ask (as such things aren't exactly on my mind) are there any differences in the ceremonies between a marriage and a civil union?
There's a big difference, Civil Unions will not give Government benefits like Social Security nor immunities like the immunity of not testifying against your Spouse. Which again I repeat is a violation of the 14th Amendment Section 1.
There's a big difference, Civil Unions will not give Government benefits like Social Security nor immunities like the immunity of not testifying against your Spouse. Which again I repeat is a violation of the 14th Amendment Section 1.
Indeed I understand the legal differences, however, are there also differences in the ceremonies?
Pagan
10-18-2010, 08:24 PM
Indeed I understand the legal differences, however, are there also differences in the ceremonies?
Yes, a lot. It depends on what flavor or religion and even "non" religion you belong to. Or if you just go down the the courthouse and get a Justice of the Peace, Judge or even on Ship with the Captain. They vary greatly ..................
Yes, a lot. It depends on what flavor or religion and even "non" religion you belong to. Or if you just go down the the courthouse and get a Justice of the Peace, Judge or even on Ship with the Captain. They vary greatly ..................
Mkay, can you give examples if the differences? The most obvious *flavour* of religion here being Christianity.
Pagan
10-18-2010, 08:43 PM
Mkay, can you give examples if the differences? The most obvious *flavour* of religion here being Christianity.
Well for one Episcopalians support Gay Marriage and they have Gay Clergy. Then there's Mormons with their "Temple" Marriages that do not allow outsiders in plus you have to have a valid Temple recommend to enter if you are a Mormon.
The list goes on and on and on ...........
BoogyMan
10-18-2010, 09:58 PM
I find it rather hypocritical that so called "Conservatives" scream small government but yet so readily open up the most personal aspect of their lives to Government control. That is the epitome of intellectual dishonesty.
That and again Government dictating marriage is a direct violation of the Constitution 4th Amendment Section 1.
Where did I call for government control?
I certainly did not. I am, yet again, simply saying that modern liberal sensibilities should not be able to change the meaning of marriage.
Methinks you assume too much. :)
Pagan
10-18-2010, 10:50 PM
Where did I call for government control?
I certainly did not. I am, yet again, simply saying that modern liberal sensibilities should not be able to change the meaning of marriage.
Methinks you assume too much. :)
Really?
So what is your definition of marriage, you do know there are many so who's right?
So then do you agree that Government should not be involved with Marriage?
Trigg
10-21-2010, 05:01 PM
And what will you lose by the definition being changed?
I don't care if people want to call it a marriage or a civil union or whatever, let them call it whatever they want. It won't affect me, and won't affect you.
Though if I may ask (as such things aren't exactly on my mind) are there any differences in the ceremonies between a marriage and a civil union?
what do they gain by changing the definition, if everything else is equal?
Pagan
10-21-2010, 06:39 PM
what do they gain by changing the definition, if everything else is equal?
Everything else is NOT equal, that's the point.
Social Security
Legal immunities and protections like for example not being forced to testify against your spouse.
etc.
etc.
You know this lie that is being repeated that everything is equal, no matter how much you repeat it it still isn't the truth.
BoogyMan
10-21-2010, 07:25 PM
Why? How exactly will you suffer if two men across your city marry as apose to have a civil partnership?
It isn't marriage if it involves two men. If you want to call it a civil partnership that is your deal, it still doesn't make it marriage.
KarlMarx
10-21-2010, 07:44 PM
14th Amendment
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Question I have is this, why are you so insistent that Government dictate the most fundamental aspect of a persons life? Are you really such a Liberal that demands such control of your personal life?
Amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Pagan
10-21-2010, 07:51 PM
Amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
So you're ignoring -
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"
Typical for those who haven't a leg to stand on
what do they gain by changing the definition, if everything else is equal?
What do you gain by keeping the definition, if everything else is equal?
In my opinion along as all rights and privileges are the same then alls fine. But in such an event I don't know why anyone (on either side) cares about the word marriage cus in my opinion the describing word doesn't really matter, and because I dont think it matters I don't care if gays call it marriage or not.
Pagan
10-21-2010, 08:55 PM
What do you gain by keeping the definition, if everything else is equal?
In my opinion along as all rights and privileges are the same then alls fine. But in such an event I don't know why anyone (on either side) cares about the word marriage cus in my opinion the describing word doesn't really matter, and because I ding think it matters I don't care if gays call it marriage or not.
Some believe marriage is between 1 man 1 woman
Some believe marriage is between 1 man multiple women
Some believe marriage is between multiple men 1 woman
Some believe marriage is between 1 man 1 man
Some believe marriage is between 1 woman 1 woman
Then there are those who don't believe in marriage period
Bottom line it's NOBODY'S BUSINESS period, especially government. And government dictating marriage is nothing more than government dictating ones personal life.
It isn't marriage if it involves two men. If you want to call it a civil partnership that is your deal, it still doesn't make it marriage.
Mkay, just wondering, Same Sex Marriage is Legal in Canada, so if you went to Canada and meet two married lesbians, would you consider them married or not?
PostmodernProphet
10-22-2010, 08:39 AM
And what will you lose by the definition being changed?
I will have been forced by the government to accept something I do not accept.....to me, that's losing something.....I can't grasp why others don't understand that.....
Really?
So what is your definition of marriage, you do know there are many so who's right?
no, there aren't "many"......
Trigg
10-22-2010, 09:20 AM
Everything else is NOT equal, that's the point.
Social Security
Legal immunities and protections like for example not being forced to testify against your spouse.
etc.
etc.
You know this lie that is being repeated that everything is equal, no matter how much you repeat it it still isn't the truth.
so change the rules on a civil partnership so that things are equal.
LEAVE MARRIAGE ALONE.
Pagan
10-22-2010, 10:13 AM
so change the rules on a civil partnership so that things are equal.
LEAVE MARRIAGE ALONE.
Simple, get Government out of Marriage period then it's solved. Simple, isn't it?
I will have been forced by the government to accept something I do not accept.....to me, that's losing something.....I can't grasp why others don't understand that.....
Your not forced to accept it, you can disagree with it, in the same way that someone can disagree with womens rights etc.
It just means the government doesn't have the right to deem it illegal. You are the one that is calling for the government to step it's nose in.
so change the rules on a civil partnership so that things are equal.
LEAVE MARRIAGE ALONE.
And if everything was EXACTLY the same, why would you care if it's called a marriage or not?
Also, I put to you the same point I made above, where you to visit Canada, where gay marriage is legal, would you say that a gay couple are married?
BoogyMan
10-22-2010, 06:18 PM
Mkay, just wondering, Same Sex Marriage is Legal in Canada, so if you went to Canada and meet two married lesbians, would you consider them married or not?
I would NOT consider them married because what they are involved in is NOT marriage.
I would NOT consider them married because what they are involved in is NOT marriage.
So as far as you're concerned, even if the law changed in America and gays were able to marry, you would still not consider them married?
BoogyMan
10-22-2010, 06:25 PM
So as far as you're concerned, even if the law changed in America and gays were able to marry, you would still not consider them married?
Exactly. Modern liberal sensibility doesn't get to redefine age old institutions.
If you started calling yourself a leopard, I wouldn't go for that either.
Exactly. Modern liberal sensibility doesn't get to redefine age old institutions.
If you started calling yourself a leopard, I wouldn't go for that either.
Well there you go then, you dont care if they do use the word married or not, because as far as you're concerned they aren't, so what's wrong with them using the word married.
BoogyMan
10-22-2010, 07:59 PM
Well there you go then, you dont care if they do use the word married or not, because as far as you're concerned they aren't, so what's wrong with them using the word married.
They are no more married than you are a leopard. Simply saying so doesn't change that fact.
They are no more married than you are a leopard. Simply saying so doesn't change that fact.
And do you think it should be illegal for me to call myself a leopard?
DragonStryk72
10-23-2010, 03:09 AM
what do they gain by changing the definition, if everything else is equal?
Very well then, we should stop calling it marriage. Civil Union is exactly the same thing, so we'll use that instead.
DragonStryk72
10-23-2010, 03:12 AM
Exactly. Modern liberal sensibility doesn't get to redefine age old institutions.
If you started calling yourself a leopard, I wouldn't go for that either.
Let's talk about "age old" for a second. Let's see, marriage has been polygamous (harems and such), it has been used as a means of establishing trade, forging peace treaties, hiding homosexuality, the list goes on and on. You really think that just allowing gay people to marry is somehow going to "stain" the honor of marriage? Seriously, someone got to that stain a long god damned time ago.
Libertarian94
10-23-2010, 09:28 AM
1. Two wrongs don't make a right (especially the so called "right" to marry)
2. Sure, there's a rational basis for denying gay couple the right to marry. It's wrong. It's wrong because the Bible says it's wrong. It's wrong because in most people's guts they also know that it's wrong. And those are the people that vote. And just because you think yourself to be morally superior to those of us who don't agree with your position doesn't make it any less wrong.
3. There is another rational basis for denying gay couples the right to marry... it's called the Tenth Amendment. States can grant or deny rights not enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Marriage is not a right, nor a legal protection. Marriage suddenly became a right when gays thought they should be married, too. When the issue is put in front of the voters of a state, it is always voted down. Blacks and Hispanics, not the Mormon Church, were the main reason for the passage of Proposition 8 in California (the proposition that gays should not be allowed to marry). If two groups of people who are well acquainted with oppression and discrimination vote against the right for gays to marry, there must be a reason and the reason is ... see item #2.
4. Of course, BP, if we don't agree with you, we are suddenly troglodytes, right wing hypocrites and so forth. That is what has become to be expected of the Left and, unfortunately, from you.
2) I have a couple problems with this point. First of that being we in America do not legislate based on religious doctrine that is wrong. Also we are not a democracy just because the its the majority will doesnt mean it is right.
Majority rule will only work if you're considering individual rights. You can't have five wolves and one sheep vote on what they want to have for supper - Larry Flynt
3) Can states truly deny two consenting individuals the right to enter a legal contract? (and yes it is a legal contract)
darin
10-23-2010, 09:36 AM
3) Can states truly deny two consenting individuals the right to enter a legal contract? (and yes it is a legal contract)
First, it's not a 'right'. It's 'permission'. Nobody has a 'right' to Marry.
Can states truly deny seven consenting individuals the legal authority to enter into a contract?
Where is the line drawn? Slippery-slope, sure...but it's valid.
First, it's not a 'right'. It's 'permission'. Nobody has a 'right' to Marry.
Can states truly deny seven consenting individuals the legal authority to enter into a contract?
Where is the line drawn? Slippery-slope, sure...but it's valid.
Indeed, but by way of speech no one has a right to anything because any right can be taken away, thus all rights are permissions.
And really I don't see the problem with multiple person marriages. If 4 people say, live together, share eacothers lives and bodies and have an arrangement between themselves, and want it set out in a legal contract incase one of them dies etc I don't have a problem with that.
darin
10-23-2010, 09:46 AM
Indeed, but by way of speech no one has a right to anything because any right can be taken away, thus all rights are permissions.
And really I don't see the problem with multiple person marriages. If 4 people say, live together, share eacothers lives and bodies and have an arrangement between themselves, and want it set out in a legal contract incase one of them dies etc I don't have a problem with that.
Do you acknowledge the kind of mind-fuck that'd put on subsequent kids? Like being raised by homos, kids in that environment would ultimately turn out jacked-up beyond reason. They'd vote more 'socialist' - more 'liberal' - Liberal kids are what f'd up England's government and economy. Just sayin...you need to work through the 2nd and 3rd order effects of such arrangements.
Libertarian94
10-23-2010, 09:48 AM
First, it's not a 'right'. It's 'permission'. Nobody has a 'right' to Marry.
Can states truly deny seven consenting individuals the legal authority to enter into a contract?
Where is the line drawn? Slippery-slope, sure...but it's valid.
No matter what your personal feeling on gay marriage, polygamy etc. they should not effect how you would legislate. Consenting individuals have the right to enter a contract. Them entering this contract has really no effect on you in the least. These relationships will happen regardless or not you try to deny them the right to enter a legal contract.
How about slippery slope going the other way... States have the right to say black people cannot marry.
Libertarian94
10-23-2010, 09:51 AM
Indeed, but by way of speech no one has a right to anything because any right can be taken away, thus all rights are permissions.
And really I don't see the problem with multiple person marriages. If 4 people say, live together, share eacothers lives and bodies and have an arrangement between themselves, and want it set out in a legal contract incase one of them dies etc I don't have a problem with that.
Are you familiar with the concept of natural rights?
Do you acknowledge the kind of mind-fuck that'd put on subsequent kids? Like being raised by homos, kids in that environment would ultimately turn out jacked-up beyond reason. They'd vote more 'socialist' - more 'liberal' - Liberal kids are what f'd up England's government and economy. Just sayin...you need to work through the 2nd and 3rd order effects of such arrangements.
Well there are plenty of open communities, where children are shared by the collective adults, indeed in many families grand-parents look after the children as much as the parents, does that mean those children get mind-fucked?
Personally after my parents split at 5 I spent most days staying with my Grand-parents or Aunties/Uncles due to the nature of my dads work, somehow though I was still able to understand the concept of biological parents and guardians, I guess I'm genius :laugh:
Also, there is nothing you can do to stop 4 adults living together as if they were married, all you can do is stop them having the protections of married people, so the kids could (in your belief) still be mind-fucked whether or not they had te legal right to marry.
darin
10-23-2010, 09:57 AM
Solid reasoning, Noir, but you're wrong. Valid points, however. :)
No matter what your personal feeling on gay marriage, polygamy etc. they should not effect how you would legislate. Consenting individuals have the right to enter a contract. Them entering this contract has really no effect on you in the least. These relationships will happen regardless or not you try to deny them the right to enter a legal contract.
How about slippery slope going the other way... States have the right to say black people cannot marry.
We pay people to follow their convictions as they govern.
If states say that, people are free to leave that state.
Libertarian94
10-23-2010, 10:04 AM
What about when those covictions lead to the loss of rights? We are not a theocracy religious beliefs are not a valid reason to legislate against such arrangements.
darin
10-23-2010, 10:07 AM
What about when those covictions lead to the loss of rights? We are not a theocracy religious beliefs are not a valid reason to legislate against such arrangements.
What point are you arguing now? Nobody with reason wants a theocracy - nobody but islamic extremists.
Solid reasoning, Noir, but you're wrong. Valid points, however. :)
By your own admission my reasoning and points are valid, and you post no counter points or alternate reasoning, but merely delare that I am wrong anyway, not the strongest argument I've ever heard :laugh:
darin
10-23-2010, 10:13 AM
By your own admission my reasoning and points are valid, and you post no counter points or alternate reasoning, but merely delare that I am wrong anyway, not the strongest argument I've ever heard :laugh:
...because there is no point in continuing. You have decided to not change your mind. You make valid points - but not points which ultimately 'prove' your opinion. Shall I continue to pound my head against a wall for the entertainment of others?
:)
Pagan
10-23-2010, 10:16 AM
Do you acknowledge the kind of mind-fuck that'd put on subsequent kids? Like being raised by homos, kids in that environment would ultimately turn out jacked-up beyond reason. They'd vote more 'socialist' - more 'liberal' - Liberal kids are what f'd up England's government and economy. Just sayin...you need to work through the 2nd and 3rd order effects of such arrangements.
So you're saying that Government should dictate the most "sacred" part of ones life, their family? That Government has the responsibility to enforce the majority's "opinion" on how one defines the family.
darin
10-23-2010, 10:18 AM
So you're saying that Government should dictate the most "sacred" part of ones life, their family? That Government has the responsibility to enforce the majority's "opinion" on how one defines the family.
Are you retarded? lol :)
What I wrote is what i'm saying. How you twist what I'm saying to be stupid is all your fault.
;)
...because there is no point in continuing. You have decided to not change your mind. You make valid points - but not points which ultimately 'prove' your opinion. Shall I continue to pound my head against a wall for the entertainment of others?
:)
Fair enough, if the onky reason you debate is to change other peoples minds.
As far as I can see you have not presented a single arguement in favour of your belief that marriage should only be between two people, how you planned to convince me without reasons I don't know, but each to their own.
Libertarian94
10-23-2010, 10:23 AM
What point are you arguing now? Nobody with reason wants a theocracy - nobody but islamic extremists.
You are using religious beliefs to dictate how you legislate so by definition...:laugh:
darin
10-23-2010, 10:25 AM
You are using religious beliefs to dictate how you legislate so by definition...:laugh:
Are you a superhero????? Alien mind reader?
Dude - and...dude...wtf makes you think I legislate ANYTHING? What are you talking about, bro?
Fair enough, if the onky reason you debate is to change other peoples minds.
As far as I can see you have not presented a single arguement in favour of your belief that marriage should only be between two people, how you planned to convince me without reasons I don't know, but each to their own.
I haven't attempted to do so. I'm just making points related to the argument where I see people failing to think. :)
Pagan
10-23-2010, 10:28 AM
Are you retarded? lol :)
What I wrote is what i'm saying. How you twist what I'm saying to be stupid is all your fault.
;)
Really? Then what is your solution for your "opinion" of -
Do you acknowledge the kind of mind-fuck that'd put on subsequent kids? Like being raised by homos, kids in that environment would ultimately turn out jacked-up beyond reason. They'd vote more 'socialist' - more 'liberal' - Liberal kids are what f'd up England's government and economy. Just sayin...you need to work through the 2nd and 3rd order effects of such arrangements.
Libertarian94
10-23-2010, 10:35 AM
Are you a superhero????? Alien mind reader?
Dude - and...dude...wtf makes you think I legislate ANYTHING? What are you talking about, bro?
I haven't attempted to do so. I'm just making points related to the argument where I see people failing to think. :)
I can see the time for reason has passed for you... That was short lived.
darin
10-23-2010, 10:38 AM
Really? Then what is your solution for your "opinion" of -
My solution?
Hrm...well...if we wanted to ensure society exists in 300 years, we COULD start by having the balls to raise our kids with 'conservative' ideals. We could have the balls to beat them when they screw up until the understand screwing up is BAD for them. That'd be a start. We could get homosexuals the mental/emotional help they are crying out for. That'd be a start.
Lots of things.
Giving people the freedom to not have to get married for the tax breaks - I'd like that. Get the government out of school and health care. Hrm...lots of things would help to restore the family-unit...
off the top of my head....
Pagan
10-23-2010, 10:43 AM
My solution?
Hrm...well...if we wanted to ensure society exists in 300 years, we COULD start by having the balls to raise our kids with 'conservative' ideals. We could have the balls to beat them when they screw up until the understand screwing up is BAD for them. That'd be a start. We could get homosexuals the mental/emotional help they are crying out for. That'd be a start.
Lots of things.
Giving people the freedom to not have to get married for the tax breaks - I'd like that. Get the government out of school and health care. Hrm...lots of things would help to restore the family-unit...
off the top of my head....
So do you advocate this through legislation or by removing government from peoples personal life and letting them run their family's according to their own beliefs?
I haven't attempted to do so. I'm just making points related to the argument where I see people failing to think. :)
Indeed, and when I pointed out to ya where you failed to think you decided to stop the convo.
darin
10-23-2010, 11:37 AM
Indeed, and when I pointed out to ya where you failed to think you decided to stop the convo.
You made valid counter-points. That doesn't mean I conceded your counter points invalidate my points. In fact, your points were thought-provoking, but ultimately not on topic. Rather than force you to stick to the specific topic, I graciously gave you an out by stopping.
You made valid counter-points. That doesn't mean I conceded your counter points invalidate my points. In fact, your points were thought-provoking, but ultimately not on topic. Rather than force you to stick to the specific topic, I graciously gave you an out by stopping.
Mkay, well should you ever want to discuss that I'm ever ready :3
BoogyMan
10-23-2010, 04:03 PM
Let's talk about "age old" for a second. Let's see, marriage has been polygamous (harems and such), it has been used as a means of establishing trade, forging peace treaties, hiding homosexuality, the list goes on and on. You really think that just allowing gay people to marry is somehow going to "stain" the honor of marriage? Seriously, someone got to that stain a long god damned time ago.
Someone else does something to try and change what marriage is and you think that is justification for further damage to the institution? What a complete load of hogwash!
BoogyMan
10-23-2010, 04:05 PM
And do you think it should be illegal for me to call myself a leopard?
Where did I make that claim?
If you started claiming you are a leopard, you would be just as wrong as those who claim that marriage is anything other than man and woman.
Where did I make that claim?
If you started claiming you are a leopard, you would be just as wrong as those who claim that marriage is anything other than man and woman.
Right, so you may think I'm wrong but it shouldn't be illegal for me to proclaim myself a leopard. In the same way you will never think that two gays are married, but you think the government should make it illegal for them to consider themselves married.
Pagan
10-23-2010, 04:36 PM
Right, so you may think I'm wrong but it shouldn't be illegal for me to proclaim myself a leopard. In the same way you will never think that two gays are married, but you think the government should make it illegal for them to consider themselves married.
Yep, you nailed it on the head here.
So much for those who bitch about small government eh?
BoogyMan
10-23-2010, 07:50 PM
Right, so you may think I'm wrong but it shouldn't be illegal for me to proclaim myself a leopard. In the same way you will never think that two gays are married, but you think the government should make it illegal for them to consider themselves married.
I love the assumptive ridiculousness of your comment. Where did I EVER, repeat EVER say the government has anything to do with this? Read over my comments and they come back and make an attempt at having a REAL discussion.
Just as you are not a leopard and are not lobbying for everyone to accept you as one, there is no assiciation with marriage when the coupling is not man and woman.
You can call it what you want, but it isn't marriage.
I love the assumptive ridiculousness of your comment. Where did I EVER, repeat EVER say the government has anything to do with this? Read over my comments and they come back and make an attempt at having a REAL discussion.
So you don't think gay marriage should be illegal (though you don't consider it marriage)
BoogyMan
10-24-2010, 07:31 AM
So you don't think gay marriage should be illegal (though you don't consider it marriage)
I have NEVER argued that the government should even be involved, why must you twist what I say so that you can try and fit it into your preconceived and ill thought out notions?
I am saying, for about the 10th time, that marriage is an institution between man an woman, so any other coupling is NOT marriage. Just as you would be wrong to call yourself a leopard, so are those who claim to be married when they are not following the pattern of man and woman.
I have NEVER argued that the government should even be involved, why must you twist what I say so that you can try and fit it into your preconceived and ill thought out notions?
I am saying, for about the 10th time, that marriage is an institution between man an woman, so any other coupling is NOT marriage. Just as you would be wrong to call yourself a leopard, so are those who claim to be married when they are not following the pattern of man and woman.
No worries, I have no quarrel with that, and I doubt many gays will either.
Pagan
10-24-2010, 09:10 AM
I have NEVER argued that the government should even be involved, why must you twist what I say so that you can try and fit it into your preconceived and ill thought out notions?
I am saying, for about the 10th time, that marriage is an institution between man an woman, so any other coupling is NOT marriage. Just as you would be wrong to call yourself a leopard, so are those who claim to be married when they are not following the pattern of man and woman.
Just like Catholic's don't consider it marriage unless you're married in the Catholic Church, everyone has their "opinion" and honestly it should be respected.
So we're in agreement that Government needs to abide by the rule of law and get out of Marriage completely. That it belongs in the "home", not legislated by some bought and paid for whore politician.
Cheers
PostmodernProphet
10-24-2010, 09:59 AM
You are using religious beliefs to dictate how you legislate so by definition...:laugh:
except that every religion and those without religion have agreed for thousands of years that marriage requires both sexes......
Libertarian94
10-24-2010, 10:13 AM
except that every religion and those without religion have agreed for thousands of years that marriage requires both sexes......
Well for sarters: argumentum ad antiquitatem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition
Also do you no how those with out a religion defined marriage for thousands fo years? A link, citation, anything?
...pllltzzzz!....
Pagan
10-24-2010, 10:37 AM
except that every religion and those without religion have agreed for thousands of years that marriage requires both sexes......
Showing your complete ignorance again I see.
So the Ancient Greeks an Romans never had same sex marriage, nor the Chinese, etc. eh? :lame2:
Also I take it you haven't heard about the Gay Saints St. Sergius and St. Bacchus
A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St. Catherine's Monastery on Mt. Sinai in Israel. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman ‘pronubus’ (a best man), overseeing a wedding. The pronubus is Christ. The married couple are both men.
http://www.jinxiboo.com/blog/2009/5/3/when-same-sex-marriage-was-a-christian-rite.html
http://www.colfaxrecord.com/uploads/inline/1219563031_6df3.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=124 1326654161
Such same gender Christian sanctified unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12thand/ early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (‘Geraldus Cambrensis’) recorded.
ame-sex unions in pre-modern Europe list in great detail some same gender ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century rite, "Order for Solemn Same-Sex Union", invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus, and called on God to "vouchsafe unto these, Thy servants [N and N], the grace to love one another and to abide without hate and not be the cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God, and all Thy saints". The ceremony concludes: "And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded".
Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic "Office of the Same Sex Union", uniting two men or two women, had the couple lay their right hands on the Gospel while having a crucifix placed in their left hands. After kissing the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.
Records of Christian same sex unions have been discovered in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, in Istanbul and in the Sinai, covering a thousand-years from the 8th to the 18th century.
The Dominican missionary and Prior, Jacques Goar (1601-1653), includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek Orthodox prayer books, “Euchologion Sive Rituale Graecorum Complectens Ritus Et Ordines Divinae Liturgiae” (Paris, 1667).
BoogyMan
10-24-2010, 12:09 PM
Just like Catholic's don't consider it marriage unless you're married in the Catholic Church, everyone has their "opinion" and honestly it should be respected.
So we're in agreement that Government needs to abide by the rule of law and get out of Marriage completely. That it belongs in the "home", not legislated by some bought and paid for whore politician.
Cheers
The government has no place in the marriage business, just as couples not fitting the pattern of man and woman have no place in the marriage institution.
BoogyMan
10-24-2010, 12:11 PM
You toss out the term Christian pretty freely when speaking of the groups below. An association I would reject.
Showing your complete ignorance again I see.
So the Ancient Greeks an Romans never had same sex marriage, nor the Chinese, etc. eh? :lame2:
Also I take it you haven't heard about the Gay Saints St. Sergius and St. Bacchus
A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St. Catherine's Monastery on Mt. Sinai in Israel. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman ‘pronubus’ (a best man), overseeing a wedding. The pronubus is Christ. The married couple are both men.
http://www.jinxiboo.com/blog/2009/5/3/when-same-sex-marriage-was-a-christian-rite.html
http://www.colfaxrecord.com/uploads/inline/1219563031_6df3.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=124 1326654161
Such same gender Christian sanctified unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12thand/ early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (‘Geraldus Cambrensis’) recorded.
ame-sex unions in pre-modern Europe list in great detail some same gender ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century rite, "Order for Solemn Same-Sex Union", invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus, and called on God to "vouchsafe unto these, Thy servants [N and N], the grace to love one another and to abide without hate and not be the cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God, and all Thy saints". The ceremony concludes: "And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded".
Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic "Office of the Same Sex Union", uniting two men or two women, had the couple lay their right hands on the Gospel while having a crucifix placed in their left hands. After kissing the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.
Records of Christian same sex unions have been discovered in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, in Istanbul and in the Sinai, covering a thousand-years from the 8th to the 18th century.
The Dominican missionary and Prior, Jacques Goar (1601-1653), includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek Orthodox prayer books, “Euchologion Sive Rituale Graecorum Complectens Ritus Et Ordines Divinae Liturgiae” (Paris, 1667).
Pagan
10-24-2010, 12:55 PM
The government has no place in the marriage business, just as couples not fitting the pattern of man and woman have no place in the marriage institution.
We're in agreement that Government has no place in the marriage business. As to your definition of marriage, well that's your personal belief which you should not be forced to believe otherwise.
Pagan
10-24-2010, 12:56 PM
You toss out the term Christian pretty freely when speaking of the groups below. An association I would reject.
So you don't believe the Catholic Church is Christian then :laugh2:
OK :lol:
Libertarian94
10-24-2010, 01:56 PM
The government has no place in the marriage business, just as couples not fitting the pattern of man and woman have no place in the marriage institution.
fair enough
BoogyMan
10-24-2010, 04:52 PM
So you don't believe the Catholic Church is Christian then :laugh2:
OK :lol:
You obviously haven't done enough reading from the bible to know the difference, have you?
Pagan
10-24-2010, 05:49 PM
You obviously haven't done enough reading from the bible to know the difference, have you?
Well that's your opinion, they believe they are the only true Christian Church, along with the Mormons, JW's, Baptist, Pentecostal, Lutheran's, ____________ (just fill in blank).
BoogyMan
10-24-2010, 07:26 PM
Well that's your opinion, they believe they are the only true Christian Church, along with the Mormons, JW's, Baptist, Pentecostal, Lutheran's, ____________ (just fill in blank).
You cannot defend your viewpoint here?
Missileman
10-24-2010, 07:44 PM
You cannot defend your viewpoint here?
Perhaps you might point out the references in the Bible that you use to disqualify Catholics as Christian.
PostmodernProphet
10-25-2010, 07:19 AM
Well for sarters: argumentum ad antiquitatem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition
Also do you no how those with out a religion defined marriage for thousands fo years? A link, citation, anything?
are you serious?......how about an argument from the "obvious".......
PostmodernProphet
10-25-2010, 07:21 AM
Showing your complete ignorance again I see.
So the Ancient Greeks an Romans never had same sex marriage, nor the Chinese, etc. eh? :lame2:
Also I take it you haven't heard about the Gay Saints St. Sergius and St. Bacchus
A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St. Catherine's Monastery on Mt. Sinai in Israel. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman ‘pronubus’ (a best man), overseeing a wedding. The pronubus is Christ. The married couple are both men.
http://www.jinxiboo.com/blog/2009/5/3/when-same-sex-marriage-was-a-christian-rite.html
http://www.colfaxrecord.com/uploads/inline/1219563031_6df3.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=124 1326654161
Such same gender Christian sanctified unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12thand/ early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (‘Geraldus Cambrensis’) recorded.
ame-sex unions in pre-modern Europe list in great detail some same gender ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century rite, "Order for Solemn Same-Sex Union", invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus, and called on God to "vouchsafe unto these, Thy servants [N and N], the grace to love one another and to abide without hate and not be the cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God, and all Thy saints". The ceremony concludes: "And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded".
Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic "Office of the Same Sex Union", uniting two men or two women, had the couple lay their right hands on the Gospel while having a crucifix placed in their left hands. After kissing the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.
Records of Christian same sex unions have been discovered in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, in Istanbul and in the Sinai, covering a thousand-years from the 8th to the 18th century.
The Dominican missionary and Prior, Jacques Goar (1601-1653), includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek Orthodox prayer books, “Euchologion Sive Rituale Graecorum Complectens Ritus Et Ordines Divinae Liturgiae” (Paris, 1667).
lol......according to Jinxi Boo?...my first reaction is who the fuck is Jinxi Boo....
and here's a photo of your source from the about page...... http://www.jinxiboo.com/storage/xIMG_7777.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=126583447 9026
Pagan
10-25-2010, 08:34 AM
You cannot defend your viewpoint here?
What that Catholic's are Christians?
I'm not the one claiming they aren't so nothing to defend. :lame2:
lol......according to Jinxi Boo?...my first reaction is who the fuck is Jinxi Boo....
and here's a photo of your source from the about page......
So if she were a he and in suit and tie the evidence which is independent of the person reporting it would be more valid?
Sounds like poisoning the old well, no?
jimnyc
10-25-2010, 09:01 AM
So if she were a he and in suit and tie the evidence which is independent of the person reporting it would be more valid?
Sounds like poisoning the old well, no?
Are you saying an individual report should be looked at based on the facts presented, and not immediately dismissed based on who the messenger is?
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29549-More-homosexual-parents-mean-more-homo-kids
Are you saying an individual report should be looked at based on the facts presented, and not immediately dismissed based on who the messenger is?
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29549-More-homosexual-parents-mean-more-homo-kids
Yes I am.
And you'll note in that thread that I said my only problem with that guy was that he had been caught manipulating data of a similar nature before. Therefore I would like to of seen backing from other groups or organizations that are well respected to ensure he is not doing the same again. However, I did not discredit his report because of that, I merely said I wouldn't rush to support it.
And as a matter of fact (though unrelated to this topic) I would not be surprised and infact would expect that gay families would produce more gay/bi-sexual children regardless of the report.
Pagan
10-25-2010, 09:43 AM
lol......according to Jinxi Boo?...my first reaction is who the fuck is Jinxi Boo....
and here's a photo of your source from the about page...... http://www.jinxiboo.com/storage/xIMG_7777.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=126583447 9026
So?
You'll also notice at the top of the story -
"Note: This is a reprint of an article that originally ran in the Colfax Record last year"
Nice try numbnuts
http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r309/marcus0263/funnies/bored.jpg?t=1288017803
BoogyMan
10-25-2010, 10:31 AM
What that Catholic's are Christians?
I'm not the one claiming they aren't so nothing to defend. :lame2:
At least you admit you don't have the knowledge to defend your view up front. :lol:
I believe gay marriage is a sin but I also believe I commit sin so until I can say I am without sin ( which no man can ) then I will let God decide if it is wrong or right, but JMO marriage is between a man and woman
I believe gay marriage is a sin but I also believe I commit sin so until I can say I am without sin ( which no man can ) then I will let God decide if it is wrong or right, but JMO marriage is between a man and woman
Perfectly put :3
gabosaurus
10-25-2010, 11:26 AM
I believe gay marriage is a sin but I also believe I commit sin so until I can say I am without sin ( which no man can ) then I will let God decide if it is wrong or right, but JMO marriage is between a man and woman
I agree with your point, if not your opinion. But I love how some disagree with gay marriage while their own traditional marriages have gone into the toilet.
Pagan
10-25-2010, 11:29 AM
At least you admit you don't have the knowledge to defend your view up front. :lol:
Really?
OK if you say so .....
http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r309/marcus0263/funnies/nose.jpg?t=1288024178
BoogyMan
10-25-2010, 12:15 PM
Really?
OK if you say so .....
http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r309/marcus0263/funnies/nose.jpg?t=1288024178
You are a uniquely different looking individual, Pagan! :) :lol:
You are a uniquely different looking individual, Pagan! :) :lol:
If you're going to make non-point posts purly for laughs you should atleast refrain from using phrases like "uniquely different" :laugh:
Pagan
10-25-2010, 01:15 PM
If you're going to make non-point posts purly for laughs you should atleast refrain from using phrases like "uniquely different" :laugh:
Found a pix of "BoogyMan" :lol::lol:
http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r309/marcus0263/funnies/beerbelly.jpg?t=1288030547
Found a pix of "BoogyMan" :lol::lol:
...
Simply hilarious.
/sark.
Gee, now I sound lika right bastard >,>
I agree with your point, if not your opinion. But I love how some disagree with gay marriage while their own traditional marriages have gone into the toilet.
Gabs my first marriage tanked bad LOL, I am now happier than I have ever been , married to a wonderful woman but I don't think anyone ( at least not me) has formed a opinion on whether a gay marriage will last or not as I am sure there are some gay couples that are truly in love and can spend there lives together, I think the point is to some marriage is between a man and woman period and others look at it threw a religious point of view. I am really not sure what me or anyone having gone threw a divorce has to do with the gay marriage issue :confused:
BoogyMan
10-26-2010, 07:25 AM
How did you get my picture? I would NEVER wear suspenders though......chafes the belly. :)
Found a pix of "BoogyMan" :lol::lol:
http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r309/marcus0263/funnies/beerbelly.jpg?t=1288030547
BoogyMan
10-26-2010, 07:27 AM
If you're going to make non-point posts purly for laughs you should atleast refrain from using phrases like "uniquely different" :laugh:
If you are going to correct a funny, do so with proper spelling! :lol::lol:
If you are going to correct a funny, do so with proper spelling! :lol::lol:
Meh, im dyslexic, you got a reason other than idiocy?
PostmodernProphet
10-26-2010, 10:32 AM
So if she were a he and in suit and tie the evidence which is independent of the person reporting it would be more valid?
Sounds like poisoning the old well, no?
no, but if she were a scholar of the subject her point might be valid.....the fact that she knows naught of which she speaks is a valid point in my book.....
PostmodernProphet
10-26-2010, 10:35 AM
So?
You'll also notice at the top of the story -
"Note: This is a reprint of an article that originally ran in the Colfax Record last year"
Nice try numbnuts
oh I noticed it....I even tried to track down the story but it wasn't available.....I did track down the picture, sans the bullshit claim about Jesus as the best man on the wiki site for the saints in question......
nice try lie, numbnuts......major fail in research.....
Pagan
10-26-2010, 11:02 AM
oh I noticed it....I even tried to track down the story but it wasn't available.....I did track down the picture, sans the bullshit claim about Jesus as the best man on the wiki site for the saints in question......
nice try lie, numbnuts......major fail in research.....
OK if you say so :lame2:
jimnyc
10-26-2010, 11:20 AM
Yes I am.
And you'll note in that thread that I said my only problem with that guy was that he had been caught manipulating data of a similar nature before. Therefore I would like to of seen backing from other groups or organizations that are well respected to ensure he is not doing the same again. However, I did not discredit his report because of that, I merely said I wouldn't rush to support it.
And as a matter of fact (though unrelated to this topic) I would not be surprised and infact would expect that gay families would produce more gay/bi-sexual children regardless of the report.
How would you feel about the report submitted by Pagan if I were to tell you it was posted by an anonymous participant of the "Colfax Record", on a blog that any person can join and submit? "Jinxi" claims it's a reprint of an article but that's not telling it exactly as it is. Writing it in that manner leads the reader to believe it was written by the paper and went through the editorial process to verify what was written. Instead it's just some "joe" from anywhere. Or rather the name "ThosPayne"
Pagan
10-26-2010, 12:04 PM
How would you feel about the report submitted by Pagan if I were to tell you it was posted by an anonymous participant of the "Colfax Record", on a blog that any person can join and submit? "Jinxi" claims it's a reprint of an article but that's not telling it exactly as it is. Writing it in that manner leads the reader to believe it was written by the paper and went through the editorial process to verify what was written. Instead it's just some "joe" from anywhere. Or rather the name "ThosPayne"
Here from the Order of Sergious and Bacchus -
http://www.sergiusandbacchus.org/index-1.html
Don't believe, read a book -
http://www.amazon.com/Same-Sex-Unions-Premodern-Europe-Boswell/dp/0679751645
BoogyMan
10-26-2010, 12:05 PM
Meh, im dyslexic, you got a reason other than idiocy?
Oooo, somebody gets tetchy when his own tactics are used on him. :lame2:
no, but if she were a scholar of the subject her point might be valid.....the fact that she knows naught of which she speaks is a valid point in my book.....
How do you know how much she knows about it, are you just guessing?
Oooo, somebody gets tetchy when his own tactics are used on him. :lame2:
Tetchy? :laugh: You're clearly reading my posts with a different tone than I am posting them, but no matter, I'll take the non-answer to my question as a no, that you have only your idiocy to blame :)
PostmodernProphet
10-26-2010, 12:42 PM
How do you know how much she knows about it, are you just guessing?
I know the subject matter, I know it is all based on the speculations of one author, sans any historical research, which has apparently been quoted by Jinxyboo as if it were true.....
what part am I supposed to be guessing about?.....
Sergius and Bacchus are noted as a classic example of paired saints; scholar John Boswell considers them to be the most influential example of such a pair, even better an example of such an archetype than Saints Peter and Paul.[5][6] In his book Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe, Boswell further argues that Sergius and Bacchus's relationship can be understood as having a romantic dimension, noting that the oldest text of their martyrology describes them as erastai, which can be translated as "lovers".[3] He suggested controversially that the two were even united in a rite known as adelphopoiesis or (brother-making), which he argued was a type of early Christian same-sex union or blessing, reinforcing his view of tolerant early Christian attitudes toward homosexuality.[3] However, Boswell's methodology and conclusions have been critically challenged by historians including David Woods, Robin Darling Young, and Brent Shaw.[4][7][8]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saints_Sergius_and_Bacchus
SpidermanTUba
10-26-2010, 12:58 PM
Having children curse for an ad to promote a cause - very sad.
Oh my fucking God are you for real?
PostmodernProphet
10-26-2010, 08:52 PM
Oh my fucking God are you for real?
funny, coming from someone we know isn't.....
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.