The Intelligent & Relentless Pursuit of Muscle™
Politics and World Issues
 
Any Dudes Wanna Get Married?
 

Tiribulus
Level 1

Join date: Aug 2006
Posts: 16196

therajraj wrote:<<< So is there a valid non-religious argument against gay marriage? >>>
The religious reasons were the ones that set the trajectory of this nation while she was on her unprecedented meteoric ascent and its the abandonment of those very reasons that is as I type this ushering in our bloodless demise. You can line up egg headed bookworms, studies in hand from my front door to the Ambassador Bridge. Nothing, I MEAN NOTHING will dissuade me from what I see right in front of my face pounding me in the forehead. I gave my reasons already.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Grneyes
Level 3

Join date: May 2009
Posts: 8043

ZEB wrote:
Grneyes wrote:
ZEB wrote:
forlife wrote:
FrozenNinja wrote:
IMHO Gay marriage is wrong. IT should be called something else...like same sex union. Because it will never, ever in a million years be marriage by definition. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Give em rights all day long, but to disgrace the meaning of marriage is unacceptable.


I couldn't care less what you call it. I just want equal legal rights with my partner.



You have equal rights already. Each of us have the option of marrying any women who will say yes. That is EQUAL rights. What you want are special rights.


No, no he doesn't. In a hospital situation, he does not have the right to be with his partner or make choices for him if the partner is incapacitated. They will go to his IMMEDIATE family, which would be the partner's parents. A heterosexual's IMMEDIATE family is considered their spouse, which he would not be considered. He's just a lover or a partner. The word "spouse" has a lot more power than those words. That is not equal rights.


We've rehashed this countless times on this site. We all have equal rights. My best buddy who I've lifted weights with for years can't have a say when I'm in the hospital either (good thing he'd tell them to pull the plug:). The point is we all have the same rights. Homosexuals want special rights under the law.



No, they want the SAME rights. Why can't a gay couple have the same rights as a straight couple?

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

smh23
Level 3

Join date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3525

Tiribulus wrote:
Nothing, I MEAN NOTHING will dissuade me from what I see right in front of my face pounding me in the forehead. I gave my reasons already.


Well, in New York, you can now consecrate the bond between you and the owner of that mysterious object pounding you in the face.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Headhunter
Level 4

Join date: Oct 2002
Posts: 15061

Grneyes wrote:

No, they want the SAME rights. Why can't a gay couple have the same rights as a straight couple?


Because marriage is between a man and a woman. People of the same sex getting 'married' is not marriage, just by definition.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Grneyes
Level 3

Join date: May 2009
Posts: 8043

Headhunter wrote:
Grneyes wrote:

No, they want the SAME rights. Why can't a gay couple have the same rights as a straight couple?


Because marriage is between a man and a woman. People of the same sex getting 'married' is not marriage, just by definition.


So, it doesn't have anything to do with the fact the majority of opponents cite the Bible as the reason? It's just the definition of marriage that is the problem? BULLSHIT. If it was just the definition, we could just change it, add to it. No, this is a purely religious problem. Religion has taken over marriage and want to claim it all to itself. Marriage is not a religious institution, it's been taken over by religion. It's a legal institution, pure and simple. And because some people are religiously against homosexuals they are stopping people from having the same rights they do. It's the religious community discriminating against outsiders....like always.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

MikeTheBear
Level 3

Join date: Mar 2003
Posts: 3975

Tiribulus wrote:
MikeTheBear wrote:<<< Nope. Historically, marriage began as a legal institution. >>>
Read De Tocqueville's very studious and considered observations on marriage and the relations between the sexes in the United States in the 1830's and get back to me. He would think that interplanetary space travel had been perfected in his absence and this could not possibly be the same earth he studied this country on were he to rejoin us today. He'd think he'd been transported to some alternate universe where the United Sates has become a national whorehouse. Go ahead and see how legalistic the decidedly Judeo-Christian marriage model we were built on actually wasn't. See how he describes the abject misery the poor wenches were subsisting in then. In the normative main that is. Of course not absolutely everybody was the same.




Well, I was going back further in time to more like the 1400s when the purpose of marriage was to acquire wealth through land ownership through arranged marriages and to make sure that this wealth was passed down to the proper, "legitimate" heirs.

What I want to know is the exact mechanism by which gay marriage will destroy traditional marriage and child-raising. The only way I can see this happening is if heterosexuals who otherwise would have entered into heterosexual relationship, got married, and had kids, decided instead to try the gay thing since laws allowing gay marriage signify that it's okay to be gay.

My question is sincere because I'm really trying to see the mechanism for this societal breakdown. I'm a big believer in strong marriages as evidenced, in part at least, by my own marriage of 20 years. I have no intention of moving to NY and hooking up with some gay guy. And if this law had been around 20 years ago I guarantee you that I still would have married my wife. Because of my experiences, I'm having trouble seeing how this would impact heterosexuals at all.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Tiribulus
Level 1

Join date: Aug 2006
Posts: 16196

Just for you Mike. Once again:

Otep wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
smh23 wrote:<<< If we heterosexuals are so virtuous, >>>
You're smarter than this. That is not what I said. Heterosexual hedonism has been and IS, far and away more destructive than homosexuality if for no other reason than sheer numbers. Gay marriage is simply a natural step in devaluing THE single component that most accounted for our rise and is now the direct cause of our fall. Gays can do what they want. I will not be kicking their doors down, but DO NOT attempt to sell that to me as marriage or a family. Reread the whole post please. All of it is required to get the message.


Maybe I'm missing something. You're suggesting that 'THE single component that most accounted for our rise' is heterosexual marriage?

I realize it was a page ago. Seemed pretty important to understanding your argument about America's downhill course.
No, I'M not saying, the founders told us that religious morality was essential for their experimental government to work. Denying that the religious morality they were talking about was Christianity doesn't pass the chuckle test. THE major social component of that morality was,,, is, the new testament model of monogamous marriage, family and sex. The God of the bible was recognized there and everywhere else. It's simply false to say otherwise. Yes, that was the bedrock for absolutely everything else. While God was acknowledged and that family model was considered normative this country ascended on every level like no other in human history.

When that was abandoned in the 60's the decline began immediately and is now in a full flaming tailspin.

I'm not typing this all over again (for the 100th time), but here from a few pages ago when somebody told me this would have no appreciable effect on our future har dee har har.:
Tiribulus said:Gay marriage is the latest component in a national suicide that began in earnest in the 1960's. It HAS AND IS having an appreciable effect. A devastating suicidal one. This country was built on the social/political/economic foundation of very limited public government through privately and voluntarily practiced Judeo-Christian morality.

Oh yes it was. Our founders clearly told us that. "The reason we can give you so few rules boys n girls is because you're already so well behaved on the whole" to paraphrase in a nutshell. Even the total hypocritical pagans like Jefferson and Franklin clearly understood this.

The soil out of which new citizens grow is their family or lack thereof. Every single last issue killing this country is a direct consequence of that. The founders assumed that we would continue in the new testament model of one man and one woman for life wherein boundaries that engender self sacrifice, self control, decency, modesty and HONESTY in the act of upholding one's vows because one's word actually meant something. All of this was predicated upon the assumption that God designed it that way. That was the soil for new citizens they absolutely counted on for their experiment in self government to succeed and it did.

We skyrocketed into the most prosperous, powerful, feared and respected nation in all of human history over the course of a few generations BECAUSE despite our human foibles we were the most moral because we were the most Christian. Look at the soil our citizens are growing in now. Children of the hippies. Hedonistic, self obsessed, narcissistic, materialistic whores whose mission in life is bringing themselves the most pleasure in the most rapid fashion possible.

ALL the economic woes we are now in ARE, make no mistake, the consequence of the sexually moral degeneration of this nation's citizenry resulting in the destruction of the foundational social unit upon which she was built and out of which her members are spawned. Even Stalin understood this. He told the world that the United Sates would never be defeated as long as she maintained her spirituality and hence MORality.

Wanna know what's rotting this nation dead from the inside out like an oozing flesh eating virus? Go look in your Sex and the Male Animal forum. We will destroy OURSELVES to the snickering glee of our many enemies without a shot being fired, all in the name of getting laid. Gay marriage is just the latest chapter.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Brother Chris
Level 2

Join date: May 2005
Posts: 17056

garcia1970 wrote:
FYI-- The world has enough people! We should discourage procreation. The only people having kids in America are the poor and the Mormons anyway.


So, what you're saying is you fear poor people.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Brother Chris
Level 2

Join date: May 2005
Posts: 17056

Grneyes wrote:
60s with the Civil Rights


Um, sexual revolution is not the Civil Rights movement. I'm sure the black folks really like being compared to homosexuals.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Brother Chris
Level 2

Join date: May 2005
Posts: 17056

Grneyes wrote:
Homosexuality happens. It's genetic. Heterosexual people create and give birth to them. If homosexuality wasn't supposed to exist, then it wouldn't happen since your God wiped out Sodom and Gomorrah. If your God had done it the right way the first time, we wouldn't still have this "problem", would we?


It's not genetics, unless you got some awesome proof that I haven't seen. If so, please put it forward. Otherwise, I'll sit with the psychological proof that homosexuality happens by nurture and not nature.

Well, by destroying Sodom and Gomorrah, God didn't destroy evil as folks still have the free will to remove themselves from the love of God.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Brother Chris
Level 2

Join date: May 2005
Posts: 17056

Grneyes wrote:
Cortes wrote:
Grneyes wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Thunderbolt hits himself another homer here. There is no meaningful correlation between race and homosexuality whatsoever, regardless of what some very wrong people attempted to say in the past. One is a morally neutral state of self and one is THE most morally charged of all human issues.

ZEB is correct here too. I go to a Christian church full of black people where the people I love most in all this world are and know some interracial couples there. Go ahead n tell them that their godly union is the moral equivalent of elder forlife and his "partner". You may be shortly introduced to the ministry of the laying on of hands =] (jist kiddin) You would however get a very sound biblical exposition on the matter. My very black pastor has denounced this argument many times from the pulpit.



And, again, I would say, why does religion have to be brought in to this? Homosexuality happens. It's genetic. Heterosexual people create and give birth to them. If homosexuality wasn't supposed to exist, then it wouldn't happen since your God wiped out Sodom and Gomorrah. If your God had done it the right way the first time, we wouldn't still have this "problem", would we?


Pedophilia "happens," too.

I am NOT equating the two, but your argument certainly does not seem to allow for the distinction.



Yes, but that is a crime against someone who does not have the understanding of what is going on or the ability to say yes or no (which makes the answer automatically NO). Homosexuality is done between consenting adults who know what's going on. Yes, homosexuality used to be a crime and I think still is in some jurisdictions that have all those old laws on the books, but again, it's done between consenting adults.


I think NYC still has sodomy laws. Gonna be interesting if it is.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Brother Chris
Level 2

Join date: May 2005
Posts: 17056

therajraj wrote:
So is there a valid non-religious argument against gay marriage?

I haven't seen one presented in this thread yet.

EDIT: If we re-name gay marriage to shmarriage (since marriage is a heterosexual union) is there any other non-religious reason to withhold these rights?


Yes, economical. It will force small businesses to have higher over head they didn't agree to.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Brother Chris
Level 2

Join date: May 2005
Posts: 17056

Grneyes wrote:
Jewbacca wrote:
Grneyes wrote:
And, again, I would say, why does religion have to be brought in to this?

Because marriage has been historically a religious institution. A better question is why did the State butt into the marriage business.


Homosexuality happens. It's genetic.


Maybe. But then, maybe alcoholism, pedophilia, and breast cancer is genetic, too. Genetic does not mean "good."


If homosexuality wasn't supposed to exist, then it wouldn't happen since your G-d wiped out Sodom and Gomorrah. If your God had done it the right way the first time, we wouldn't still have this "problem", would we?


G-d lets lots of bad things happen. People have lots of explanations why. I defer to G-d's answer to Job, which was "where were you when I created the Heavans and the Earth."

In short, His ways are way above our pay scale

(Also, G-d made no pretense of whiping out ALL homosexuals in S&G. There were lots and lots of things wrong in S&G.)



The State butts in because there are legal issues that arise when one person dies. Who gets their pension benefits? What about medical insurance? What about any children? How are they protected? The State HAS to butt in. Marriages were never about religion in the past. It was about what the woman could bring to the man in her dowry and what the father could sell her to the man for in recompense. It was never about religion. It was to align families, lands, money. NOT religion.


Done within religion. Everything was religion.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Brother Chris
Level 2

Join date: May 2005
Posts: 17056

Grneyes wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Grneyes wrote:

No, they want the SAME rights. Why can't a gay couple have the same rights as a straight couple?


Because marriage is between a man and a woman. People of the same sex getting 'married' is not marriage, just by definition.


So, it doesn't have anything to do with the fact the majority of opponents cite the Bible as the reason? It's just the definition of marriage that is the problem? BULLSHIT. If it was just the definition, we could just change it, add to it. No, this is a purely religious problem. Religion has taken over marriage and want to claim it all to itself. Marriage is not a religious institution, it's been taken over by religion. It's a legal institution, pure and simple. And because some people are religiously against homosexuals they are stopping people from having the same rights they do. It's the religious community discriminating against outsiders....like always.


Well, we can cite Aristotle if you want, or Plato, or any number of philosophers, but there will be something that you'll find fault at with it. So, I'll just state that it is unnatural, because the all or almost all of the world's societies, cultures, and religions never elevated gay relationships to the level of marriage or the bond between man and woman. Ergo, unnatural and as Aristotle pointed out, what is unnatural is immoral. :)

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Brother Chris
Level 2

Join date: May 2005
Posts: 17056

The bigots in the house!

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

smh23
Level 3

Join date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3525

Brother Chris wrote:

Well, we can cite Aristotle if you want, or Plato, or any number of philosophers, but there will be something that you'll find fault at with it. So, I'll just state that it is unnatural, because the all or almost all of the world's societies, cultures, and religions never elevated gay relationships to the level of marriage or the bond between man and woman. Ergo, unnatural and as Aristotle pointed out, what is unnatural is immoral. :)


That Aristotle said it does not make it so. The genetic mutations responsible for evolution are "unnatural", and they produced humanity. Swimming pools filled with chocolate ice cream are unnatural, and fucking awesome.

The flip side would be that, since homosexuality exists, it is natural.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Brother Chris
Level 2

Join date: May 2005
Posts: 17056

smh23 wrote:
genetic mutations


Bad analogy.

The flip side would be that, since homosexuality exists, it is natural.


That doesn't make sense, because something exists doesn't make it natural, what is exist in all or almost all is what is natural. :)

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

MikeTheBear
Level 3

Join date: Mar 2003
Posts: 3975

Tirib, let me focus on this part of your statement:

"Gay marriage is simply a natural step in devaluing THE single component that most accounted for our rise and is now the direct cause of our fall. Gays can do what they want. I will not be kicking their doors down, but DO NOT attempt to sell that to me as marriage or a family."

It sounds like you don't have a problem with gays per se. I mean, unlike those folks at Westboro Baptist, you're not looking to round up gays and put them in prison. I'm guessing you probably don't care if gay couples buy houses together, live together, make medical decisions for one another, and inherit property when one partner passes away. You have a problem with attaching the word "marriage" and "family" to such relationships. Is that right?

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

MikeTheBear
Level 3

Join date: Mar 2003
Posts: 3975

Brother Chris wrote:
Grneyes wrote:
Jewbacca wrote:
Grneyes wrote:
And, again, I would say, why does religion have to be brought in to this?

Because marriage has been historically a religious institution. A better question is why did the State butt into the marriage business.


Homosexuality happens. It's genetic.


Maybe. But then, maybe alcoholism, pedophilia, and breast cancer is genetic, too. Genetic does not mean "good."


If homosexuality wasn't supposed to exist, then it wouldn't happen since your G-d wiped out Sodom and Gomorrah. If your God had done it the right way the first time, we wouldn't still have this "problem", would we?


G-d lets lots of bad things happen. People have lots of explanations why. I defer to G-d's answer to Job, which was "where were you when I created the Heavans and the Earth."

In short, His ways are way above our pay scale

(Also, G-d made no pretense of whiping out ALL homosexuals in S&G. There were lots and lots of things wrong in S&G.)



The State butts in because there are legal issues that arise when one person dies. Who gets their pension benefits? What about medical insurance? What about any children? How are they protected? The State HAS to butt in. Marriages were never about religion in the past. It was about what the woman could bring to the man in her dowry and what the father could sell her to the man for in recompense. It was never about religion. It was to align families, lands, money. NOT religion.


Done within religion. Everything was religion.


What came first: the legal relationship or religion? I would argue that the legal relationship came first and religion got involved as a convenient enforcement mechanism to appease the wealthy and keep them coming and contributing to the local cathedral.

A young, handsome son of a wealthy landowner is told he must marry his troll of a cousin who is 15 years older than he is because her family has land.

Son: "Gee, dad, what if I don't like being married to her and want to marry someone else?"

Wealthy Landowner: "Son, I'll let the good priest here explain it."

Priest: "Sorry young man, the church says that if you divorce her or cheat on her you'll go to hell."

Son: "Oh. Guess I better stay married to her, then."

Landowner to Priest: "Thanks for your help, padre. I'll be sure to place a little something extra in the collection plate this Sunday."

Yes, my little scene contains language that is anachronistic for Medieval times, but I'll bet that such conversations took place more than once in Medieval Europe.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Tiribulus
Level 1

Join date: Aug 2006
Posts: 16196

MikeTheBear wrote:
Tirib, let me focus on this part of your statement:
"Gay marriage is simply a natural step in devaluing THE single component that most accounted for our rise and is now the direct cause of our fall. Gays can do what they want. I will not be kicking their doors down, but DO NOT attempt to sell that to me as marriage or a family."

It sounds like you don't have a problem with gays per se. >>>
Follow me please. According to the Word of God it is an abomination. A damnable perversion of the created order of the holy designer. Therefore I abhor the practice accordingly as one who proclaims Jesus as my Lord. HOWEVER, my life before Christ was also a damnable abomination and I regularly committed acts of all kinds that should have bought me a one way ticket to the lake of fire. It is only by the unsearchable grace of a merciful God that I type this as a new creature in Christ having been transformed by the power of His blood and resurrection. I am not allowed to hate or self righteously condescend to ANYBODY.

Take elder forlife as an example. I honestly and truly pray for him AND his "partner". He may not know or believe this, but I have invested myself in him. I care about him. I want him as my brother. How can that ever be if somebody were to round him up and kill him? That's not what I want. This is not theocratic Israel. One strike and you're out. I should have been struck dead where I stood ten thousand times. How am I gonna put my nose in the air and cringe and wince at the "filthy fag and his homo boyfriend"? No sir. To me he's just another lost man who needs Jesus. My hand is always out to him.
MikeTheBear wrote:<<< I mean, unlike those folks at Westboro Baptist, you're not looking to round up gays and put them in prison. >>>
Phelps and his Westboro crew are traitors to the very gospel of grace they claim to preach. They do not know their own sin and it is that that produces their anti-Christian holier than thou hatred.
MikeTheBear wrote:I'm guessing you probably don't care if gay couples buy houses together, live together, make medical decisions for one another, and inherit property when one partner passes away. You have a problem with attaching the word "marriage" and "family" to such relationships. Is that right? >>>
As I said. I have a major problem with homosexuality period. My purpose in their regard on this planet though is to reflect to them the everlasting lovingkindness shown to me. As I read the scriptures, that purpose is not served by unduly suffocating their lives. I would like it if nobody was gay, but being that some are, I'm not going to be the one to tell otherwise peaceable citizens who can legally do what within the context of their private life. I will however never relent from calling them to repentance and declaring their lifestyle the horrific sin that it is.

Lastly for now, NO NO NO a thousand times NO!!! Making homosexuality marriage and or family is as I say, another indicative of a society that has clearly lost it's way and is not long for this world in anything like it's historical stature. To sum up? I would enter a burning building to drag elder forlife to safety. I really would (as I'm preaching the gospel to him even if he was unconscious =] ) That is not just talk and I would not be sorry I did even if he told to f**k off after I saved his life. The Lord loved me and did not give up on me long after I had given up on myself. How can I give anybody else less? Homosexuality is still a capitol crime before the throne of the most high God and I will never dare call it anything else or accept it's being given social status reserved for a man, his female wife and their children. Many will write me off (again) as an anachronistic fanatical religious antique best put away in an attic somewhere. I couldn't care less.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

therajraj
Level 1

Join date: Dec 2008
Posts: 11053

Brother Chris wrote:
therajraj wrote:
So is there a valid non-religious argument against gay marriage?

I haven't seen one presented in this thread yet.

EDIT: If we re-name gay marriage to shmarriage (since marriage is a heterosexual union) is there any other non-religious reason to withhold these rights?


Yes, economical. It will force small businesses to have higher over head they didn't agree to.


Care to elaborate?

Even if the net economic effect is negative (which I'm not conceding it is) it's still not good enough reason to deny people certain rights.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

kaaleppi
Level 1

Join date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1333

Tiribulus wrote:
Phelps and his Westboro crew are traitors to the very gospel of grace they claim to preach. They do not know their own sin and it is that that produces their anti-Christian holier than thou hatred.


You can take any single disfavorable trait in society and lift it up as the cause of most or all evil that exists in society. I would like to lift up this Westboro stuff, why do I know about them in the first place? Why report it, do they have something meaningful to say?
If the 60's hadn't happened in the 60's, it would happen now, in the era of "communication". It's kind of sad that a political forum on the website of a company manufacturing supplements is one of the few interesting places on the net. Seems more like a refuge to me. Mankind wont be able to handle the amount of mental crap it produces.

I'm not in any way targeting your posts, tirib, but it was just a couple of days ago when I wondered why am I told what Westbro baptists think about this Jackass dudes drunken driving and death?

Ja ja, it's an inbuilt flaw in humankind, indulgence. I guess it's the only thing common for us who inhabit this forum, to at least try to control it. By more indulgence in opposite direction :/

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

ZEB
Level

Join date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19363

therajraj wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
therajraj wrote:
So is there a valid non-religious argument against gay marriage?

I haven't seen one presented in this thread yet.

EDIT: If we re-name gay marriage to shmarriage (since marriage is a heterosexual union) is there any other non-religious reason to withhold these rights?


Yes, economical. It will force small businesses to have higher over head they didn't agree to.


Care to elaborate?

Even if the net economic effect is negative (which I'm not conceding it is) it's still not good enough reason to deny people certain rights.



There is legal discrimination which goes on every day and everyone is fine with it. For example, I cannot join the Marines because I am too old. It matters not that I would ace the fitness test. One cannot drink until they are 21 years of age. The list is endless. Marriage is between one man and one woman. The social liberals who are successfully tinkering with this will have limited success. Changing a 5000 year old institution for far less than 1% of the population (The number of gays that actually care) is absolutely foolish! It epitomizes what the politically correct do, that is they want to force the majority to bend to the whims of a few.

And while some of the liberal states have gone this way, I don't think the vast majority of states where sanity rules (what can we expect from states like NY, CA or VT?) will vote this nonsense into law. I hope the homosexuals enjoy their victory in New York because that will be one of the last states to accept homosexuals getting "married".

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

thunderbolt23
Level

Join date: Mar 2003
Posts: 8162

Ok, I'll repost the question (and context), and let's - for once - have a good, honest answer:

And, of course, I always offer this up, but gay marriage advocates always shrink away from it - if gay marriage is the equivalent to the Civil Rights issue of inter-racial marriage, then ipso facto that must mean that opponents to gay marriage are the moral equivalent to opponents of inter-racial marriage during the Civil Rights movement.

Okey dokey, well, then - the black community overwhelmingly disapproves of gay marriage. So, of course, based on the above, that means that black Americans are the moral equivalent to those that opposed inter-racial marriage. They have to be. They are the modern KKK on this issue.

So, why won't gay marriage advocates just come up and say this to black Americans?


C'mon, enough whistling past the issue. Let's call a bigot a bigot.

Let's go, gay marriage advocates. Time's wasting. If gays who can't marry are "victims", then the most sizeable chunk of "oppressors" come from the African American community.

Let's have it. Surely, armed with The Truth (tm), you are perfectly comfortable calling out these modern versions of Bull Connors and Klansmen?

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Headhunter
Level 4

Join date: Oct 2002
Posts: 15061

Grneyes wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Grneyes wrote:

No, they want the SAME rights. Why can't a gay couple have the same rights as a straight couple?


Because marriage is between a man and a woman. People of the same sex getting 'married' is not marriage, just by definition.


So, it doesn't have anything to do with the fact the majority of opponents cite the Bible as the reason? It's just the definition of marriage that is the problem? BULLSHIT. If it was just the definition, we could just change it, add to it. No, this is a purely religious problem. Religion has taken over marriage and want to claim it all to itself. Marriage is not a religious institution, it's been taken over by religion. It's a legal institution, pure and simple. And because some people are religiously against homosexuals they are stopping people from having the same rights they do. It's the religious community discriminating against outsiders....like always.


Marriage is between a man and a woman. Its ours. Go form your own club. Shit in your own yard. America is a heterosexual country. If you want the benefit of living here, then we have rules -- think of us as the mom and dad, junior, and 'here are the house rules'.

If you want to be a homosexual pervert, fine, go ahead. But if you break the house rules, you won't get any support from us...and you can GTFO to Netherlands or some other homo haven.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report