That you think your summary conclusions "show" anything only speaks to your arrogance. "I say, therefore it is so". Moreover, even assuming you're right (which you're not), how are either Bober or myself "bigots" if we've both said we have no problems with legalized gay marriage?
That you think your summary conclusions "show" anything only speaks to your arrogance. "I say, therefore it is so". Moreover, even assuming you're right (which you're not), how are either Bober or myself "bigots" if we've both said we have no problems with legalized gay marriage?
Firstly, why do homosexuals want to be married, and is it in the legal sense or the religious sense or perhaps both?
Other examples of nature and human culture- I can give you real facts that present a different angle/polarization to those given here.
Australian aboriginals banish gay members of their tribe(a just about finished culture)
In Baboons, Mandrills, Gorillas, Orangutans and Chimpanzees, the "bull" or lead male kills any other males whom display homosexual behaviors. Maybe this is an evolutionary thing to reduce the hermaphrodite occurrences- unlike hyenas whom are born hermaphroditic.
I would like to ask about the ancient Chinese and their laws regarding homosexual marriage, which is used as an example of pre-Christian marriage although so many other cultures of a non-monotheist had marriage and also had strict rules regarding anti-homosexual wedlock. Norseman, Persians and Romans for example, not that those cultures shone homosexuality.
To be total honest the only issue I have personally is the idea of adoption, Inheritance legals and IVF been publically funded (what kind of genetically compatible sperm is obtained without a natural magnetism?).
There is no data about the success of homosexual parenting, I personally have seen a bad example- just as I have seen bad examples of heterosexual parents.
As for having a god like morality or lack of bias or "enlightenment" is subjective, everyone has their own take on things and even if your closer to the dead center you can never be perfect!
Are they just different forms/methods of personal rationalization?
What ever happens on this issue, I will have no real input on anyhow, even if I do empathize with the people who get the short straw, like the son of a lesbian couple who took his own life.
Respect for others and responsibility for your own actions is the fair thing.
Other examples of nature and human culture- I can give you real facts that present a different angle/polarization to those given here.
Australian aboriginals banish gay members of their tribe(a just about finished culture)
In Baboons, Mandrills, Gorillas, Orangutans and Chimpanzees, the "bull" or lead male kills any other males whom display homosexual behaviors. Maybe this is an evolutionary thing to reduce the hermaphrodite occurrences- unlike hyenas whom are born hermaphroditic.
I would like to ask about the ancient Chinese and their laws regarding homosexual marriage, which is used as an example of pre-Christian marriage although so many other cultures of a non-monotheist had marriage and also had strict rules regarding anti-homosexual wedlock. Norseman, Persians and Romans for example, not that those cultures shone homosexuality.
To be total honest the only issue I have personally is the idea of adoption, Inheritance legals and IVF been publically funded (what kind of genetically compatible sperm is obtained without a natural magnetism?).
There is no data about the success of homosexual parenting, I personally have seen a bad example- just as I have seen bad examples of heterosexual parents.
As for having a god like morality or lack of bias or "enlightenment" is subjective, everyone has their own take on things and even if your closer to the dead center you can never be perfect!
Are they just different forms/methods of personal rationalization?
What ever happens on this issue, I will have no real input on anyhow, even if I do empathize with the people who get the short straw, like the son of a lesbian couple who took his own life.
Respect for others and responsibility for your own actions is the fair thing.
BoberFett
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 37,562
- 9
- 81
Then ask yourself why is polygamist not a protected class? Do you think polygamy is a choice or are they born with a gene that makes them desire more than one spouse? What if it was a bisexual polygamist who wanted a husband and a wife? Are you going to deny them their happiness?
That's what I thought, bigot.
Polygamy introduces a host of issues that same sex marriage does not. They are completely different situations.
Don't call it marriage then, but call it state unions or civil unions that both hetero and homosexuals can engage in, with all the benefits afforded to both camps. Marriage can then be left to the denomination the couple belongs to. If the local religious venue doesn't sanction the union, that's their decision, but it doesn't affect the benefits/status afforded by the civil union.
This is the easiest solution out there. That way, all people are equal under the law. It makes no sense that a gay partner cannot legally participate in their partner's lives, just because of an anachronistic tradition being upheld by bigots and fundamentalists.
This is the easiest solution out there. That way, all people are equal under the law. It makes no sense that a gay partner cannot legally participate in their partner's lives, just because of an anachronistic tradition being upheld by bigots and fundamentalists.
Sorry if you thought I implied you're a bigot. My focus was on polygamy and why you would suggest it be just as legal. I made it clear, I thought, just before you spoke, why it isn't a parallel case, and you ignored that. And if you want to say I'm not right, you will have to make a case. You are the one just saying things. I explained to you and Bober that laws can be anything so long as they meet constitutional muster. If people decide that polygamy is to be illegal because they think it is a behavior common to religious cults and they want to ban it they have that right, just as they have a right to set marriage age at 16 or some other age. It doesn't matter if it's bigotry or not. It's constitutional. And it doesn't matter if polygamists are born with a gene. They are not a protected class. They can be discriminated against because nobody believes such a claim and there is not much reason to as it almost always manifests in some male dominated religious cult, cult being the operative word, not genes.
When you argue you have to try to make sense. If you can have two wives I should be able to marry your daughters at say age 5. Don't call me a bigot until you can not be one. And if you think I should be able to marry a 5 year old you are in my opinion scum. Marriage is all about two adults who have mutual love, no?
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,983
- 31,539
- 146
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Originally posted by: zinfamous
it pisses you off that I completely agreed with you?
no lesson needed, tyvm. was just pointing out that marriage certainly existed before the Christian text...and in the very same book the Christians use. Which is funny.
Nobody is pissed off.....
First of all you did not say Christian text...
Second of all you did NOT know that the Torah was part of the bible.
Anyway you explain yourself you ended up looking like an idiot and very stoopid.
Obviously I DID know that the Torah was part of the Bible, which is exactly why I made that point.
You honestly thought I didn't know that? I find it amazing how horribly off-base your interpretation of my post lead to your accusation of me making a fool out of myself. Really, think about it.
OK, I can see how a quick reading of my original statement would lead to that misunderstanding, but I honestly didn't want to get into detail in that post, as I was merely agreeing with you by adding another level onto the fundy Christians claiming the Bible as the first appearance of the concept--Adam and Eve--when it was well before (as we all know, those early books are the Torah) the Bible existed.
Honestly...it is such a common, well-known concept that I didn't think it bore repeating. It amazes me that you so retardedly miss my point, inflate your e-peen needlessly by claiming "OMG HAHA YOU KNOW NOTHING YOU DUMB GENTILE FOOL!!! HAHA."
I mean, seriously...
Does it not make you look more foolish by trying to puff yourself up when you put interpretation into my words that was never there--over a ridiculously well-known fact that most people of at least a high school education realize?
First
Lifer
- Jun 3, 2002
- 10,518
- 271
- 136
Opposition to gay marriage will be a classic dead issue within the next decade, maybe two, at worst. There will be states that are late to the party (unless the SC makes it legal federally ala Roe v. Wade), but it's no different than interracial marriage opponents used to be. Based entirely on innuendo; like how gays can't reproduce, so they shouldn't get married, with absolutely no mention that there are thousands of straight couples that can't reproduce, so should they then be barred from marriage as well? (And Lesbians can quite easily get artificially inseminated anyway, like thousands of straight couples have).
JEDIYoda
Lifer
- Jul 13, 2005
- 33,986
- 3,321
- 126
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Originally posted by: zinfamous
it pisses you off that I completely agreed with you?
no lesson needed, tyvm. was just pointing out that marriage certainly existed before the Christian text...and in the very same book the Christians use. Which is funny.
Nobody is pissed off.....
First of all you did not say Christian text...
Second of all you did NOT know that the Torah was part of the bible.
Anyway you explain yourself you ended up looking like an idiot and very stoopid.
Obviously I DID know that the Torah was part of the Bible, which is exactly why I made that point.
You honestly thought I didn't know that? I find it amazing how horribly off-base your interpretation of my post lead to your accusation of me making a fool out of myself. Really, think about it.
OK, I can see how a quick reading of my original statement would lead to that misunderstanding, but I honestly didn't want to get into detail in that post, as I was merely agreeing with you by adding another level onto the fundy Christians claiming the Bible as the first appearance of the concept--Adam and Eve--when it was well before (as we all know, those early books are the Torah) the Bible existed.
Honestly...it is such a common, well-known concept that I didn't think it bore repeating. It amazes me that you so retardedly miss my point, inflate your e-peen needlessly by claiming "OMG HAHA YOU KNOW NOTHING YOU DUMB GENTILE FOOL!!! HAHA."
I mean, seriously...
Does it not make you look more foolish by trying to puff yourself up when you put interpretation into my words that was never there--over a ridiculously well-known fact that most people of at least a high school education realize?
well known by who? surely not you.....
Even your post that you were owned in made no mention of the ZTorah being the first 5 books of the Bible...sadly you fail!!
How was I puffing myself up? I was just pointing out how rediculous and foolish you made yourself look.
I can`t help if you children feel so threatened by a Jew(which I am and have ben for longer than you have been on this earth) that you would resort to trying to reexplain yourself.....
Tlak about dumb gentle fools......I might have added the word pathetic to describe you...but thats just me!!
Shalom!!
Homosexual marriage is a mutation from normal marriage and a sign of social and moral decay. It will never go far because the society itself is collapsing (look around and you can see it). The founders who wrote the Constitution advised penalties pf death and castration for sodomy/buggery etc so the idea it would protected by Constitution is a farce.
The main push for homosexual marriage did not come from 60's. It started with neo Maxist's of the Frankfurt school back in 20's and 30's. György Lukács was teaching radical sex ed in Hungary in the 1920's. Also see Herbert Marcuse ("Eros and Civilization" helped kick of the sexual liberation as political liberation movement in the 60's). The KGB put most of its efforts into ideological subversion and to get marginal groups to agitate against the central groups (churches, schools etc) and institutions of society - therefore destabilizing it. So this is what you see going on around you. A wild explanation of what KGB did (and how they got homosexuals to agitate) is in video of KGB defector below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...udOekY&feature=related
The main push for homosexual marriage did not come from 60's. It started with neo Maxist's of the Frankfurt school back in 20's and 30's. György Lukács was teaching radical sex ed in Hungary in the 1920's. Also see Herbert Marcuse ("Eros and Civilization" helped kick of the sexual liberation as political liberation movement in the 60's). The KGB put most of its efforts into ideological subversion and to get marginal groups to agitate against the central groups (churches, schools etc) and institutions of society - therefore destabilizing it. So this is what you see going on around you. A wild explanation of what KGB did (and how they got homosexuals to agitate) is in video of KGB defector below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...udOekY&feature=related
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
The only valid reason to oppose gay marriage IMO is the argument that marriage, being a religious custom/institution, should not be recognized by the state in the first place, much less should the state be able to control/dictate who can get married and who cannot.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter