New Symbol On Facebook If You Believe In "Marriage Equality"

Kermit · 03-28-13 09:25 AM

Originally Posted by TheMoneyShot

Why are we debating that sticking a fat rooster in a tight pus#y is unacceptable?

LOL. When discussions like that start coming up, you know the human race is in serious trouble.

The Kraken · 03-28-13 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by TheMoneyShot

Why are we debating that sticking a fat rooster in a tight pus#y is unacceptable?

Whats wrong with a pussy that isn't tight?

Seaweed · 03-29-13 09:13 PM

"marriage equality" is just elitism disguised as equality. Equality is enabling people to realize their natural and human right. Let government interfere in family life and rename our relationships in the souless word to define us as "partners" and take away the traditional words of "mother" "father" "husband" and "wife"? From a secular standpoint, it does not make sense that homosexuals redefine marraige when it's clear that they already have legal benefits from civil unions. Marriage is iconic and important for creating life and raising children. I am not against gay love, I believe in commitment, but that's not enough to make it marriage. Children are the missing element, do we want to exclude them? They are not less valuable just because it's not a marriage. The Gay rights movement, which was positive was about ejecting state from private relationships, and out of gay bars, is now inviting them in and asking for their recognition.

I respect history and how it has come into being. Am I threatened? I can have gay friends, I know same sex people that are living in long term loving committed stable relationships. But you know, those want to have nothing to do with same sex marriage. They see it as patronizing, andd they are happy with civil right privileges won by gay rights movement. They see marriage as a heterosexual institution for the good of society and they are happy that children are brought up with a mother and father. The purpose of state is to promote what is right and good for society. Spain legalized gay marriage in 2006 but only about 2000 have entered it. This means that it will not be popular even if it is introduced. By adopting same sex "marrriage", the state will be saying that there is no better way of bringing up a child one way than other. They will saying that it does not matter, and there is nothing special about the combination of man and woman. Over time, it will send the message to tell young people that its all about subjective partnerships. When you miss children, as the state does from its definition, what you do is you are putting the rights of adults above children. Marriage is in trouble, of course we know about divorce, but I put it to you that it is no reason to redefine marriage, undermine its fundamental characteristics, and send a message that that traditional understanding of marriage does no matter. Answer this, on what round of reason in 10, 20 years etc. when a case is made for polygamy or for polyandry, on what ground can you resist that call? You may disagree, but on what ground can you reject it? Stand up for what is right SBR and don't be afraid to speak up for what is right. There is a social function to marraige that a homosexual "marriage" or even a civil union does not fulfill. This is not a religious vs. secular debate. This is a social debate.

statnerds · 03-29-13 09:29 PM

Weed-

Marriage isn't in trouble...marriage amongst the poor and uneducated is in trouble...that is why it is "half of all marriages" used when presenting the data.

at least one college graduate in the marriage, divorce rate drops

at least $50K+ in combined income, divorce rate drops

when you get into talking about two college graduates and income at $75K or higher, you are looking at sub 20% divorce rates. so the myth that marriage is in trouble is purposely misrepresented, but to what end?

Seaweed · 03-29-13 09:48 PM

Originally Posted by statnerds

Weed-

Marriage isn't in trouble...marriage amongst the poor and uneducated is in trouble...that is why it is "half of all marriages" used when presenting the data.

at least one college graduate in the marriage, divorce rate drops

at least $50K+ in combined income, divorce rate drops

when you get into talking about two college graduates and income at $75K or higher, you are looking at sub 20% divorce rates. so the myth that marriage is in trouble is purposely misrepresented, but to what end?

Your point proves that marriage is in trouble.

TheCentaur · 03-29-13 10:44 PM

Originally Posted by Seaweed

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w

ontGrowAutofit/> <w:UseFELayout/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplore r4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--> "marriage equality" is just elitism disguised as equality. Equality is enabling people to realize their natural and human right. Let government interfere in family life and rename our relationships in the souless word to define us as "partners" and take away the traditional words of "mother" "father" "husband" and "wife"? From a secular standpoint, it does not make sense that homosexuals redefine marraige when it's clear that they already have legal benefits from civil unions. Marriage is iconic and important for creating life and raising children. I am not against gay love, I believe in commitment, but that's not enough to make it marriage. Children are the missing element, do we want to exclude them? They are not less valuable just because it's not a marriage. <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w

ontGrowAutofit/> <w:UseFELayout/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplore r4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]-->The Gay rights movement, which was positive was about ejecting state from private relationships, and out of gay bars, is now inviting them in and asking for their recognition. <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w

ontGrowAutofit/> <w:UseFELayout/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplore r4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]-->

I respect history and how it has come into being. Am I threatened? I can have gay friends, I know same sex people that are living in long term loving committed stable relationships. But you know, those want to have nothing to do with same sex marriage. They see it as patronizing, andd they are happy with civil right privileges won by gay rights movement. They see marriage as a heterosexual institution for the good of society and they are happy that children are brought up with a mother and father. The purpose of state is to promote what is right and good for society. Spain legalized gay marriage in 2006 but only about 2000 have entered it. This means that it will not be popular even if it is introduced. By adopting same sex "marrriage", the state will be saying that there is no better way of bringing up a child one way than other. They will saying that it does not matter, and there is nothing special about the combination of man and woman. Over time, it will send the message to tell young people that its all about subjective partnerships. When you miss children, as the state does from its definition, what you do is you are putting the rights of adults above children. Marriage is in trouble, of course we know about divorce, but I put it to you that it is no reason to redefine marriage, undermine its fundamental characteristics, and send a message that that traditional understanding of marriage does no matter. Answer this, on what round of reason in 10, 20 years etc. when a case is made for polygamy or for polyandry, on what ground can you resist that call? You may disagree, but on what ground can you reject it? Stand up for what is right SBR and don't be afraid to speak up for what is right. There is a social function to marraige that a homosexual "marriage" or even a civil union does not fulfill. This is not a religious vs. secular debate. This is a social debate.

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w

ontGrowAutofit/> <w:UseFELayout/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplore r4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]-->

Well said Seaweed

The Kraken · 03-30-13 09:57 AM

Centaur I still need to respond to you, just been super busy with work. For some reason every fat mother penetrating smoking diabetic has recently decided to have a heart attack in the middle of the night. Meaning I get little to no sleep. Imagine that, being obese, smoking and diabetic really does increase chances of heart disease and heart attack.

The Kraken · 03-30-13 10:14 AM

Seaweed I was only able to skim your post but I think you're off point.

First, it is about equality. I guess I don't see your point there. Gays want equal rights and recognition under law, not elitist status. Being straight and married is no more a natural or human right than being gay and married, it's only been accepted and legal much loner, likely as a result of religion.

second and lastly, as I have to run, straight marriage has failed. Failed as a commitment and failed the kids. This is where I disagree most with your post because it seemed to be the main point. The divorce rates are astronomical now. Divorces are ugly and good for no one, especially children as they often become a pawn. Whether or not having a mother and father is better than having two moms or dads seems to be nothing more than your opinion. But logically, is it better for children to grow up in an environment with two people that love them dearly, protect and raise them and provide for them or two individuals that do very little of each and end up divorcing and each getting the kid every other week?

the answer is obvious. It's not that kids need a mommy and daddy, this is just the way it's always been. They need they need attention, caring, loving, providing, guidance etc.... Regardless of the makeup of the household.

stefan084 · 03-30-13 03:56 PM

homosexual couples never break up? you seem to be saying that two moms or dads don't have the same problems that heterosexual couples have.

The Kraken · 03-30-13 04:13 PM

Originally Posted by stefan084

homosexual couples never break up? you seem to be saying that two moms or dads don't have the same problems that heterosexual couples have.

You must have misunderstood me then. I never said homosexual couples don't break up, fight, divorce, etc... That goes without saying.

What matters in regards to kids (per Seaweeds post), is that the children deserve to have a good home and upbringing, regardless of the makeup of the parents. This is the result of having two loving and caring parents. And that's where the focus should lie. Not in making sure one parent is male and the other is female.

The Kraken · 03-30-13 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by TheCentaur

Ok I think I see the misunderstanding here. The error isn't not wanting to reproduce, it is not wanting to have sex with a woman, which results in reproduction.

For example, you don't need to know that you need water for the infinite number of cellular reactions required for you to live, you just know you want water. Reproduction is the mother of all biological necessities, the reason we eat, drink, and breathe (biologically speaking). Just because you have made a conscious choice to not have children, it has not changed your biological urge to reproduce because you still are attracted to women.

I would also venture to say that a man who has had intercourse with a woman enough to produce children but also has sex with men is bisexual, not gay. To be honest I am not sure how to classify bisexuality, whether it is a result of a less drastic hormonal imbalance during gestation or a result of certain ultra curious personality types, I don't know.

These are my opinions, but I would say they are educated opinions, not one based on hate or fear. Everyone of us have many biological errors. Some people are dyslexic, some people have poor eyesight, some are born with spina bifida, etc. Hell some people are born left handed which is an abnormality, but would be hard to classify as an error because it doesn't seem to have a significant effect on survival or reproduction.

There are a multitude of pieces required to put together the complicated puzzle that is the human being. Some of these pieces can be missing, misshapen, or put together improperly during development. If you want to take the stance that homosexuality is not a choice, which is what I believe also, then you would have to acknowledge it is an error.

I can understand why you believe what you believe. I just disagree.

The core of your belief seems to come from this: "Reproduction is the mother of all biological necessities, the reason we eat, drink, and breathe (biologically speaking)" and "The error isn't not wanting to reproduce, it is not wanting to have sex with a woman, which results in reproduction".

My retort again would be this, gay individuals are capable of reproduction and this is a very important point. Therefore I fail to see where the error is. I do not believe that wanting to have intercourse with the same sex is a biological error. Only sexual variance. Because of this, I choose to view a gay couple the same as a straight couple that chooses not to reproduce. Gay couples choose happiness in being together over forcing reproduction and this is their choice, the same as a straight couple choosing to be together and not forcing reproduction.

Anyways, thanks for the explanation. You obviously have thought this through and came to a conclusion, one I disagree with but one that seems to be well thought. As I said, Im certainly not trying to change your mind, just wanted to know where you were coming from.

face · 03-30-13 05:00 PM

maybe i am immature but loshak cracks me up

Seaweed · 03-30-13 05:44 PM

Originally Posted by The Kraken

Seaweed I was only able to skim your post but I think you're off point.

First, it is about equality. I guess I don't see your point there. Gays want equal rights and recognition under law, not elitist status. Being straight and married is no more a natural or human right than being gay and married, it's only been accepted and legal much loner, likely as a result of religion.

second and lastly, as I have to run, straight marriage has failed. Failed as a commitment and failed the kids. This is where I disagree most with your post because it seemed to be the main point. The divorce rates are astronomical now. Divorces are ugly and good for no one, especially children as they often become a pawn. Whether or not having a mother and father is better than having two moms or dads seems to be nothing more than your opinion. But logically, is it better for children to grow up in an environment with two people that love them dearly, protect and raise them and provide for them or two individuals that do very little of each and end up divorcing and each getting the kid every other week?

the answer is obvious. It's not that kids need a mommy and daddy, this is just the way it's always been. They need they need attention, caring, loving, providing, guidance etc.... Regardless of the makeup of the household.

First, I hope you know that Marriage is not a religious institution, as marriage predates religion and civil law. Although there were gay couples in the past, people preserved the sacredness and importance of marriage between one man and one woman. It's only in the past 40 years or so that any society has thought of making gay marriage the equivalent of actual marriage.

Second, and most importantly, I am confused on what you think marriage is. So, before i can even begin to converse with you on this subject, i will need you to fill in the following definition and then i will be happy to hear the critique:

Marriage, n. ________________________________________ __________________

If you can’t do that, then I’m not really interested in what you have to say. If you can define marriage AND accept the radical consequences of your definition, including extending marriage rights to siblings, platonic friends, groups of people, or even parents and their adult children, then I would at least respect your consistency even though I wouldn’t share your view of marriage.

Dutch · 03-30-13 06:30 PM

In 100 yrs, after gay marriage has been around for 80yrs, they'll look back and wonder what the big fuking deal was and why it bothered so many people.

The Kraken · 03-30-13 07:30 PM

I never said it was a religious institution nor insinuated it. Only that religion has strongly influenced the views of what marriage is and should be. Regardless of whether or not our country was founded on Christianity, we are predominately a Christian country and thus Christian views tend to find there ways into most things, especially marriage.

It sounds like you've already defined my view of marriage for me. Apparently whatever it is, it must be radical and consistent with allowing siblings to marriage.

DwightShrute · 03-30-13 07:40 PM

Seaweed · 03-30-13 08:14 PM

Originally Posted by The Kraken

I never said it was a religious institution nor insinuated it. Only that religion has strongly influenced the views of what marriage is and should be. Regardless of whether or not our country was founded on Christianity, we are predominately a Christian country and thus Christian views tend to find there ways into most things, especially marriage.

It sounds like you've already defined my view of marriage for me. Apparently whatever it is, it must be radical and consistent with allowing siblings to marriage.

I'm still waiting for your definition before we can move on.

Chi_archie · 03-30-13 08:35 PM

wait did they change the law yet

are gays getting married?

have they already? like in other states?

i don't really keep up on all the details

oddly enough my life hasn't been ruined or changed by what a bunch of strangers are doing or not doing in the name of love, committment, and fidelity while I wasn't paying too much attention

Seaweed · 03-30-13 08:43 PM

Originally Posted by Dutch

In 100 yrs, after gay marriage has been around for 80yrs, they'll look back and wonder what the big fuking deal was and why it bothered so many people.

I do not agree with you. This is a big deal whether you like it or not. Religious freedom and same sex marriage cannot co-exist. Why should we care? Because it will gradually lead to the destruction of society. When marriage is devalued, more people will no longer marry. They will live together, they will have a variety of sexual liaisons, but they don't marry. And as a result, societal stability suffers. I should also point out that the arguments made for same sex marriage could also be applied to pedophile marriage. I'm not necessarily saying I equate the two, but i can see where an organization like NAMBLA might like "equal rights" just like kraken claims gay couples are seeking. They would argue that their own sexual orientation is just as inborn as homosexuality, and that they ought to have the right to express it and to marry their lovers. Therefore, children who are older than the age of reason should not be denied the right to choose to marry an older adult, and that the state should not have the right to interfere. Why can't they have the same rights to marry? Do you see what happens when you change the definition? Yeah sure it seems outrageous but i COULD see NAMBLA making the same claim. When we take a look at the law, we see that it often discriminates for the greater good of society. Pensions discriminate against people under 65, but if you applied it to everyone you would devalue and undermine the point of it. There is always a tendency by those who support same sex marriage to look at critics who support the traditional meaning of marriage as backward, uneducated creatures whose mind has been worped by religion and attacked as homophobia. Psychologists agree that in general it is SO much better raising children with a mother and father.

Take a look at the gay affirming societies like the Netherlands where they have had legal gay marriage for almost fifteen years. It is the most gay-affirming society in the world. Yet they have documented persistent extreme promiscuity in the homosexual population compared to the heterosexual population (according to a 2003 article in the medical journal AIDS). The average length of steady partnerships was two years, and these had an avg. of 8 casual sex partners annually (those without a steady partner had an avg. of 22 casual sex partners annually).

Here are some facts:

“Archives of General Psychiatry - concluded that gay, lesbian, and bisexual people were at a much higher risk for mental illness, specifically six times more likely to have suicide.”
*The Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 1992: half of the sexually-molested children were molested by homosexuals
* Archives of Sexual Behavior, 2001: 46% of male homosexuals and 22% of lesbians reported homosexual molestation in childhood
* Children of homosexual parents have a 50-fold increased risk of suffering incest from parent
*Homosexuals account for 150 boy victims per sex abuser compared to 19 female victims per heterosexual child abuser
*In the Archives of Sexual Behavior, 86% of offenders against malesdescribed themselves as homosexual or bisexual.
Also, like i said before, if we legalize homosexual "marriage" or civil unions, why can't we allow polygamy, or marriage within families. If love and commitment is the only qualifier? Or why can't two heterosexual men get "married" or gain a civil union for the legal rights (most of which can be obtained without marriage)?

In schools, children will be indoctrinated about the correctness of homosexuality. There will be reading homosexual books to children about two gay princes who bone each other in their bedroom. This means it is all good and right. Option to opt out is not an option. Your kids will be exposed to it. This is not a private issue, it is a public issue with public implications for us. Same sex is legal, your kids are educated on it. Presenting that which is wrong to our kids in society. Schools job is to change the minds of children. They will send the message that “Its okay and you could be gay too”. If legal, you cant stop them from talking about it. It exposes children to homosexual material and undermines parental rights.

Chi_archie · 03-30-13 08:47 PM

Originally Posted by Seaweed

I Religious freedom and same sex marriage cannot co-exist.

really?

HERBJONES · 03-30-13 09:00 PM

man i totally agree. while were at it, i dont think we should call just apples, apples anymore. i want to call oranges apples too. everyone stop and change the definition of apples to include oranges as well to appease me. and i want to go around in public with my dong hangin out so its easier for me to stop and take a piss on the grass, nothing wrong with that because im a consenting adult. its ok for dogs to piss in public so why not me? change to laws to appease me goddamnit. its all about me me me. it doesnt matter that im only one of a small percentage of the population, do what i want or im gonna throw a shit fit. gays say that being gay is not a chioce, its genetic. that means they are genetically broken. everyone is to some point, whether one has webbed feet, down syndrome, a cleft palate, etc... for whatever reason nature decided that you should not reproduce. its ok to be gay, just remember that you are different. you should not be allowed to marry, that is not the definition of marriage, and it should not be changed to appease the few, you should not be allowed to have kids, you gave that up by being gay. kids are very impressionable and should not be put in an environment where pro homo agendas are being pushed and condoned. if you were meant to have kids then you would be able to reproduce asexually. consider it the cost of doing business. just like if i wanted to to be a heart surgeon, i couldnt do it having multiple sclerosis. do you think everyone should change the rules for me so i could be a heart surgeon anyway? bottom line is if youre gay be gay, but dont think that everyone should change things around to suit you. im so fvkking sick of all this politically correct bullshit being pushed by every single person or group with the tiniest difference from what is considered the norm thinking that their agenda should take precedence over everyone elses.

Seaweed · 03-30-13 09:03 PM

Originally Posted by Chi_archie

really?

Really.

Also

Religious freedom is first before other freedoms in states.

Religious liberty is number one if you don’t have that, you don’t have other liberties

These libertarians will have to decide what they value more, single digit percentage of Americans to get married or the first amendment

Seaweed · 03-30-13 09:09 PM

Originally Posted by HERBJONES

man i totally agree. while were at it, i dont think we should call just apples, apples anymore. i want to call oranges apples too. everyone stop and change the definition of apples to include oranges as well to appease me. and i want to go around in public with my dong hangin out so its easier for me to stop and take a piss on the grass, nothing wrong with that because im a consenting adult. its ok for dogs to piss in public so why not me? change to laws to appease me goddamnit. its all about me me me. it doesnt matter that im only one of a small percentage of the population, do what i want or im gonna throw a shit fit. gays say that being gay is not a chioce, its genetic. that means they are genetically broken. everyone is to some point, whether one has webbed feet, down syndrome, a cleft palate, etc... for whatever reason nature decided that you should not reproduce. its ok to be gay, just remember that you are different. you should not be allowed to marry, that is not the definition of marriage, and it should not be changed to appease the few, you should not be allowed to have kids, you gave that up by being gay. kids are very impressionable and should not be put in an environment where pro homo agendas are being pushed and condoned. if you were meant to have kids then you would be able to reproduce asexually. consider it the cost of doing business. just like if i wanted to to be a heart surgeon, i couldnt do it having multiple sclerosis. do you think everyone should change the rules for me so i could be a heart surgeon anyway? bottom line is if youre gay be gay, but dont think that everyone should change things around to suit you. im so fvkking sick of all this politically correct bullshit being pushed by every single person or group with the tiniest difference from what is considered the norm thinking that their agenda should take precedence over everyone elses.

Well said. Also, there is NO scientific proof people are born gay. This is fact. They are influenced by their enviornment. There are SO many stories of homosexuals who have changed to become straight. Or homosexuals who have denied to act on their homosexuality. Just do a few searches on Youtube to see this. It is not genetic, as science proves this.Like i said before, most gay people don't want to marry.

TheCentaur · 03-30-13 10:38 PM

Originally Posted by Seaweed

Well said. Also, there is NO scientific proof people are born gay. This is fact. They are influenced by their enviornment. There are SO many stories of homosexuals who have changed to become straight. Or homosexuals who have denied to act on their homosexuality. Just do a few searches on Youtube to see this. It is not genetic, as science proves this.Like i said before, most gay people don't want to marry.

I don't believe it is genetic either, because if you recognize that there are genetics, homosexuality would have been deselected very early. How can something subtle like our ear shape be "chosen" over many many years because it is slightly advantageous, but not being attracted to potential mates is still around?

No, I believe it is due to some hormonal imbalance in the womb during gestation. We may not know for sure in our lifetime because studies on the subject are discouraged or met with opposition.

Whenever humans are involved people make these issues much more complicated than they are. Remove the pressures and feelings and just ask if it is natural. Is there a purpose for this urge or behavior? You get thirsty because you need water. You love your children because they represent the survival of your genetics. You are tired because your body needs sleep. You are physically attracted to the same sex...why? What purpose does it serve? None

TheCentaur · 03-30-13 10:43 PM

Originally Posted by The Kraken

My retort again would be this, gay individuals are capable of reproduction and this is a very important point. Therefore I fail to see where the error is.

Not having the urge to do something biologically important to your survival, whether you are able to or not, is a biological error. I guess we just disagree on this.

PAULYPOKER · 03-30-13 10:59 PM

Originally Posted by ACoochy

PS am str8 as a pool cue

A bar pool cue?

TheCentaur · 03-30-13 11:03 PM

Originally Posted by PAULYPOKER

A bar pool cue?

retard · 03-30-13 11:24 PM

Originally Posted by Dutch

In 100 yrs, after gay marriage has been around for 80yrs, they'll look back and wonder what the big fuking deal was and why it bothered so many people.

Humanity lasting another 100 years

The Kraken · 03-30-13 11:48 PM

Originally Posted by HERBJONES

man i totally agree. while were at it, i dont think we should call just apples, apples anymore. i want to call oranges apples too. everyone stop and change the definition of apples to include oranges as well to appease me. and i want to go around in public with my dong hangin out so its easier for me to stop and take a piss on the grass, nothing wrong with that because im a consenting adult. its ok for dogs to piss in public so why not me? change to laws to appease me goddamnit. its all about me me me. it doesnt matter that im only one of a small percentage of the population, do what i want or im gonna throw a shit fit. gays say that being gay is not a chioce, its genetic. that means they are genetically broken. everyone is to some point, whether one has webbed feet, down syndrome, a cleft palate, etc... for whatever reason nature decided that you should not reproduce. its ok to be gay, just remember that you are different. you should not be allowed to marry, that is not the definition of marriage, and it should not be changed to appease the few, you should not be allowed to have kids, you gave that up by being gay. kids are very impressionable and should not be put in an environment where pro homo agendas are being pushed and condoned. if you were meant to have kids then you would be able to reproduce asexually. consider it the cost of doing business. just like if i wanted to to be a heart surgeon, i couldnt do it having multiple sclerosis. do you think everyone should change the rules for me so i could be a heart surgeon anyway? bottom line is if youre gay be gay, but dont think that everyone should change things around to suit you. im so fvkking sick of all this politically correct bullshit being pushed by every single person or group with the tiniest difference from what is considered the norm thinking that their agenda should take precedence over everyone elses.

The definition of marriage has changed many times throughout history. So what makes those previous changes acceptable and this one unacceptable?

Imagine if everyone thought the same way as you during the days when when segregating blacks from whites was acceptable. I mean, blacks were just a small percentage of society then so why did they deserve equal rights as their white counterparts? I guess that was just a me me me thing as well.

But ya, I can see how blacks and gays asking for equal rights is equivalent to you having the right to walk around town with your dong hanging out *rollseyes*

Its not about being politically correct its about doing the right thing.

Seaweed · 03-31-13 12:50 AM

Originally Posted by The Kraken

The definition of marriage has changed many times throughout history. So what makes those previous changes acceptable and this one unacceptable?

Imagine if everyone thought the same way as you during the days when when segregating blacks from whites was acceptable. I mean, blacks were just a small percentage of society then so why did they deserve equal rights as their white counterparts? I guess that was just a me me me thing as well.

But ya, I can see how blacks and gays asking for equal rights is equivalent to you having the right to walk around town with your dong hanging out *rollseyes*

Its not about being politically correct its about doing the right thing.

Homosexuals are not being discriminated against. They can marry anyone they want who is within the boundaries of age and opposite sex. They can't marry their dog, they can't marry their toaster, they can't marry their mom. There are boundaries. The fact that they've chosen deviant behavior doesn't change that.

I guess you are talking about equal protection under the law...yes? Well...let's go along with your logic. How much money has this government spent on HIV/HepC? Do you know that the one group of people that have spread that deadly virus are ... LGBT. Now...how is the "fair" to the rest of us? Not only has the government reached into our wallets for this...now they want to add a little juice to the epidemic by legitimizing it. With what I've seen, LGBT people are the ones discriminating against non-LGBT people and getting the government to help force non-LGBT people to associate with LGBT people. My my "protection" under the law is infringed on. How...if I have any blood contact with a Gay person...I could contract the disease. I thought your country was about eradicating it...not promoting it. In the other states that do not recognize gay marriage, is that due to the vote of the populace living in that state? And would you usurp their right to choose whether they will support traditional values within that state for the sake of imposing the "rights" of a special interest group? Would you support government-imposed action to succeed in this goal?

The argument that gay people are being discriminated against doesn't wash. The legal definition of marriage is stated as "one man to one woman". No natural rights are being complied to SSM. Fine line between perception and reality. Discrimination may exist in the minds of SSM supporters, but legally they dont have a leg to stand on. Historically, procreation has been one of the most significant factors for preserving traditional marraige. For centuries on end, it has served that purpose.

The family is a natural right and you are infringing on us. What two people do behind closed doors is their business but you have brought it out in the open and you are infringing on us. Don't the children whose parents dont want them to learn now in public education that Billy has two mothers. That Susie has two fathers. Don't you go into court and demand that same-sex people can adopt children. Don't you demand that churches perform same-sex marriages. What perversion. I don't want elementary school children to learn the perverted acts. You have infringed on us and I am sick of it. Further, a gay couple being granted the same legal rights and privileges as a straight couple does infringe on the rights of others when efforts are made to utilize those privileges in a manner that undermines and destroys the religious freedoms of other citizens. And that's definitely the direction this situation is heading in. Which presents a very real dangers, particularly in regards to what we may or may not be allowed to teach children pertaining to right and wrong.

The paths are one and the same and always have been. The Judeo-Christian principles on which your nation was established is the strongest of bedrocks, proven and tried over centuries of human civilization. But we have those who do not want to accept that as being the truth because it means that behaviors are defined in the context of what is morally right versus morally wrong. Rather than accept the reality that the scope of behaviors they choose for their lives are morally wrong, they deliberately and intentionally seek to undermine that basis of differentiation in the order to pursue and obtain societal acceptance of their own sexual behaviors. They pay no heed to the damage that it does to our society as a whole or how it undermines the validity of the form of government our founding fathers intended.

TheCentaur · 03-31-13 01:14 AM

Originally Posted by The Kraken

Imagine if everyone thought the same way as you during the days when when segregating blacks from whites was acceptable. I mean, blacks were just a small percentage of society then so why did they deserve equal rights as their white counterparts? I guess that was just a me me me thing as well.

By your own arguments in this thread homosexuals can still choose to reproduce and have heterosexual intercourse. Blacks cannot choose to be white.

The Kraken · 03-31-13 01:56 AM

Originally Posted by TheCentaur

By your own arguments in this thread homosexuals can still choose to reproduce and have heterosexual intercourse. Blacks cannot choose to be white.

True. I wasn't trying to equate the two. Only arguing that laws are not always appropriate and even minorities do have and deserve protection under the law, whether black or gay. And that should not be held against them. A bad law is a bad law. It wasn't the black people's fault there were laws in place to segregate them from whites. Laws made by white people. Nor is it gays people fault that the legal definition states marriage is a recognized union between a man and woman.

It was mainly a side rant on something off topic.

greenhippo · 03-31-13 03:14 AM

Originally Posted by Seaweed

Really.

Also

Religious freedom is first before other freedoms in states.

Religious liberty is number one if you don’t have that, you don’t have other liberties

These libertarians will have to decide what they value more, single digit percentage of Americans to get married or the first amendment

You realize that religious freedom was enacted to keep religion from bring forced onto other people right? And not an attempt at protecting the religion itself? Lots of talk in here from people who don't understand something this simple.

Seaweed · 03-31-13 03:25 AM

Originally Posted by greenhippo

You realize that religious freedom was enacted to keep religion from bring forced onto other people right? And not an attempt at protecting the religion itself? Lots of talk in here from people who don't understand something this simple.

You mean those founding fathers who had lived in a nation where the environment was one of tyranny at the hands of government with persecution of religion as a means of breaking the spirit of citizens under the power of that government rule? The same founding fathers who established a society based on the rule of law whose foundation was premised on the bedrock of Judeo-Christian principles that our modern-day society seeks to destroy? The founding fathers who realized that liberty isn't entirely free, that it comes with responsibilities as well as rights? The founding fathers who designed a system of government that applied checks and balances as a means of attempting to ensure that the power of government could not be misuse or abused? The founding fathers who believed that only through upholding a moral society based on Judeo-Christian principles could our form of government survive?

Seaweed · 03-31-13 03:28 AM

Originally Posted by The Kraken

True. I wasn't trying to equate the two. Only arguing that laws are not always appropriate and even minorities do have and deserve protection under the law, whether black or gay. And that should not be held against them. A bad law is a bad law. It wasn't the black people's fault there were laws in place to segregate them from whites. Laws made by white people. Nor is it gays people fault that the legal definition states marriage is a recognized union between a man and woman.

It was mainly a side rant on something off topic.

SBR Top-Rated Sportsbooks				Best Sportsbooks List
#1 FanDuel	SBR rating 4.8/5	Review	#6 BetRivers	SBR rating 4.1/5	Review
#2 Caesars	SBR rating 4.7/5	Review	#7 Fanatics	SBR rating 4.1/5	Review
#3 DraftKings	SBR rating 4.7/5	Review	#8 Betway	SBR rating 3.8/5	Review
#4 BetMGM	SBR rating 4.6/5	Review	#9 Borgata	SBR rating 3.5/5	Review
#5 bet365	SBR rating 4.6/5	Review	#10 ClutchBet	SBR rating 2.9/5	Review

New Symbol On Facebook If You Believe In "Marriage Equality"

Thread Tools