Same sex marriage

[dank69]

Why do you have to resort to this?

Because you are a grade A imbecile.

Doesn't matter if it doesn't "hurt anyone" because nature is nature, period.

You don't get to cherry pick nature. Nature doesn't stop because it "hurts people" -- it does what it does.

Deal with it.

Who said anything about stopping nature? You are the one who wants to stop nature, so you better have a good case explaining why you want to restrict people's freedom.

 

[dank69]

If you are worried about slippery slope seems best not to modify marriage to allow same-sex marriage then doesn't it?:sneaky:

No, because allowing SSM keeps the important consent part intact.

 

[Vaux]

What the body is "supposed to be" is purely subjective. Should we make it illegal to have babies that are missing limbs?

It's not subjective at all. You know what a human body is supposed to look like and what it is made to do, don't be silly.

And no, it should not be illegal to have babies with defects. However, it should not be celebrated when a baby has a defect, and that is what gay marriage is doing.

 

[SlitheryDee]

If you are worried about slippery slope seems best not to modify marriage to allow same-sex marriage then doesn't it?:sneaky:

I'm only worried about it in regards to both parties' ability to consent. The other side of that slippery slope isn't as precipitous anyway IMO.

 

[Vaux]

Yes, it certainly does.

So at least we agree that the argument that marriage is a contract is worthless! Give the man a toaster.

 

[dank69]

It's not subjective at all. You know what a human body is supposed to look like and what it is made to do, don't be silly.

And no, it should not be illegal to have babies with defects. However, it should not be celebrated when a baby has a defect, and that is what gay marriage is doing.

Okay, I'll let everyone who has given birth to a baby with any type of birth defect know that they are now to feel ashamed of their baby. You should start picketing the Special Olympics, what an abomination.

 

[IronWing]

In case anyone hadn't noticed, the OP left the thread over one hundred posts ago. Well done Felix, well done.

 

[Retro Rob]

Who said anything about stopping nature? You are the one who wants to stop nature, so you better have a good case explaining why you want to restrict people's freedom.

Because, you can't say being gay is natural so you accept it on those grounds, and then turn right around and ignore the millions of other things that happen in nature that you condemn (murder, cannibalism, genocide to name a few).

That's grade-A Christian bible "cherry picking" you're quick to point out and condemn, but now the shoe is on the other foot, and you're willing to cherry pick yourself.

Hypocrite!

Secondly, I think every tax-payer should be able to do what every other tax payer does. That's not an argument FOR gay marriage as much as it is a reason why I don't fight it.

 

[dank69]

In case anyone hadn't noticed, the OP left the thread over one hundred posts ago. Well done Felix, well done.

That's why I said he should be banned. There is no question this was his motive and I wouldn't be surprised if he has started many other threads about the exact same topic.

 

[Vaux]

Okay, I'll let everyone who has given birth to a baby with any type of birth defect know that they are now to feel ashamed of their baby. You should start picketing the Special Olympics, what an abomination.

Don't have to be ashamed.

You just don't get to pretend that it's normal.

 

[soulcougher73]

What about the thousands of people born with 3 arms and 2 heads? Is that natural too?

No it's not. And neither is homosexuality.

If they were born that way than it was natural

Is it normal? Not really lol

 

[dank69]

Because, you can't say being gay is natural so you accept it on those grounds, and then turn right around and ignore the millions of other things that happen in nature that you condemn (murder, cannibalism, genocide to name a few).

...

And if you were not an imbecile, you would know that I've never said I accept homosexuality because it is natural. Vaux claimed it is not natural. That claim is false. End of story.

 

[Tombstone1881]

Murder, cannibalism and genocide cause harm to people.

A gay couple wanting to marry each other does not.

 

[dank69]

Don't have to be ashamed.

You just don't get to pretend that it's normal.

So now abnormality is grounds for discrimination?

 

[SlitheryDee]

Doesn't matter if it doesn't "hurt anyone" because nature is nature, period.

You don't get to cherry pick nature. Nature doesn't stop because it "hurts people" -- it does what it

That's exactly right. Funny thing about nature is that it doesn't need you to enforce it either. You don't get to define what nature is. The moment you start trying to impress your religious and political leanings on it, whatever you are espousing, it isn't nature. Nature just happens, and we have to accept what it gives is. Gays are something it gave us.

 

[nehalem256]

Those poor cave men back in the day procreating the human race without knowing what marriage is. Scum bags. Lock em up.

So you are suggesting we go back to the days where you clubbed women over the head and dragged them back to your cave when you wanted to mate with them?

 

[Vaux]

If they were born that way than it was natural

Is it normal? Not really lol

Yeah I screwed that up.... it is natural for humans to be born with defects. But it is not natural in the way that they are not supposed to be born that way, is what I was getting at.

 

[Retro Rob]

Nature just happens, and we have to accept what it gives is. Gays are something it gave us.

It also gave us Hitler, Stalin, Dahmer, Gacy...because murder is a huge occurring in nature, so we agree and that's also acceptable.

Aside from it "hurting people", why reject what nature has given us?

 

[nehalem256]

I'm only worried about it in regards to both parties' ability to consent. The other side of that slippery slope isn't as precipitous anyway IMO.

Sure it is. Your argument is that marriage shouldn't discriminate against sexual minorities. Object sexuals are clearly a sexual minority and so allowing object-sexual marriage is just the next step down the slope from same-sex marriage.

So now abnormality is grounds for discrimination?

What is next we wont let blind people drive? Or get concealed carry permits?

 

[SlowSpyder]

Ok, fine. So it's natural to be born with a defect. But you can't sit here and tell me that is the way the body is supposed to be, which was the point I was attempting to make.

What does that have to do with marriage? This is what I've been trying to get out of you. I'll agree that homosexuality is an alternate lifestyle, but that doesn't make it wrong and it certainly doesn't mean they should have less rights.

My mom is married to a man, his third marriage, her second marriage, they're older. No kids together. What does what their bodies are designed to do have to do with marriage? Marriage is about who you love, not having kids, not penis-vagina sex only.

Nothing you are saying makes sense to stop two gay people from marrying. This is why you don't even realize what a bigot you are. Stop worrying about what other people do and let them find happiness however works for them. If it doesn't infringe on your rights, which gay marriage doesn't, then you shouldn't worry about it.

 

[Retro Rob]

And if you were not an imbecile, you would know that I've never said I accept homosexuality because it is natural.

OK, that's fair, so why do you accept it then?

 

[SlowSpyder]

Because, you can't say being gay is natural so you accept it on those grounds, and then turn right around and ignore the millions of other things that happen in nature that you condemn (murder, cannibalism, genocide to name a few).

That's grade-A Christian bible "cherry picking" you're quick to point out and condemn, but now the shoe is on the other foot, and you're willing to cherry pick yourself.

Hypocrite!

Secondly, I think every tax-payer should be able to do what every other tax payer does. That's not an argument FOR gay marriage as much as it is a reason why I don't fight it.

All of those things you mention infringe on the rights of others (murder, cannibalism, genocide). I don't care what consenting adults do if they aren't stomping on anyone else's foot, you shouldn't either. Two dudes playing with each other's balls in their own home is their business. Them getting married, is their business. Killing someone is not the same.

 

[soulcougher73]

In case anyone hadn't noticed, the OP left the thread over one hundred posts ago. Well done Felix, well done.

So? The topic is out there to be discussed. That is all that matters. Obviously people enjoy it as its like 7 pages long already. You want to restrict freedoms too? Asshole

 

[dank69]

It also gave us Hitler, Stalin, Dahmer, Gacy...because murder is a huge occurring in nature, so we agree and that's also acceptable.

Aside from it "hurting people", why reject what nature has given us?

There is no aside. The line IS hurting others. You don't get to ignore the one thing that matters. Why do you need more justification other than hurting others? Oh that's right, because you are an imbecile.

...



What is next we wont let blind people drive? Or get concealed carry permits?

Pretty sure that would result in others getting hurt.

 

[Homerboy]

Why is it "not right"?
Somebody please explain that to me.