Santorum backs nullifying existing gay marriages

[mrCide]

Did you ever think then, that being gay is not normal? It isn't by even your definition and actions.

I think the problem here is that you're too stupid/bigoted to understand the issue at hand.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Since the legal framework for marriage was designed to mirror the religious institution, the use of the word marriage for the legal item was not challenged. It should have been...it should never have been used by government since it was a religious instutition long before the US government was created.

Marriage was an institution before Christianity, before Judaism, before Islam, before the polytheistic religions of Rome or Greece or Mesopotamia or Egypt or the Celts or Hindus. You continue to base your arguments around the idea that marriage is the sole property of religion, and only a religion which expressly forbids homosexuals from using the term. This, for lack of a better word, is bullshit. The fact is that government has been using the word for long enough that it has a secular, legal meaning, regardless of how it came about. A secular, legal meaning can be discussed without bringing religion into it. So please stop. Switch do a different line of logic, or, if you have no other debate, move on.

 

[a777pilot]

I think the problem here is that you're too stupid/bigoted to understand the issue at hand.

You could be right, Lord knows I'm not gay.

 

[HumblePie]

Marriage was originally intended as a transfer of land and assets between the wealthy and noble families. It had nothing to do with religion at first cybersage. Although most cultures had a form of "marriage" or sole sexual relationships between a man and woman. This helped prevent rivalry fights over women and sex. The other and last, but definitely not least, possible origin for marriage as an institute was legitimacy for men who wanted to know their heritage and which children are actually theirs.

 

[a777pilot]

Marriage was an institution before Christianity, before Judaism, before Islam, before the polytheistic religions of Rome or Greece or Mesopotamia or Egypt or the Celts or Hindus. You continue to base your arguments around the idea that marriage is the sole property of religion, and only a religion which expressly forbids homosexuals from using the term. This, for lack of a better word, is bullshit. The fact is that government has been using the word for long enough that it has a secular, legal meaning, regardless of how it came about. A secular, legal meaning can be discussed without bringing religion into it. So please stop. Switch do a different line of logic, or, if you have no other debate, move on.

Good point...

Marriage was an institution before Christianity, before Judaism, before Islam, before the polytheistic religions of Rome or Greece or Mesopotamia or Egypt or the Celts or Hindus.

Of those civilizations you mentioned, Rome, Greece, Mesopotamia, Egypt and the Hindus, did any of them recognize gay "marriage".

I don't know. I never read anything about gay marriage in the histories. So did they? You would think that in the open/hedonistic societies of Greece and Rome they might have, but I don't know.

I like this. You make a great point.

 

[HumblePie]

Good point...



Of those civilizations you mentioned, Rome, Greece, Mesopotamia, Egypt and the Hindus, did any of them recognize gay "marriage".

I don't know. I never read anything about gay marriage in the histories. So did they? You would think that in the open/hedonistic societies of Greece and Rome they might have, but I don't know.

I like this. You make a great point.

Actually they did. Rome and Greece both accepted "gay" marriages.

In many parts of the world, "marriages" were neither monogamous, polygamy, or polyandry. They were multi couple. 2 men and 2 women or more of each. They were rarely considered monogamous until much later. Just depends on what part of the world you want to look at first. Religion never entered the picture until the Roman Catholic church became a legal power and made it a sacrament of their church. They would not see marriages as legal unless blessed by the church.

 

[a777pilot]

Actually they did. Rome and Greece both accepted "gay" marriages.

In many parts of the world, "marriages" were neither monogamous, polygamy, or polyandry. They were multi couple. 2 men and 2 women or more of each. They were rarely considered monogamous until much later. Just depends on what part of the world you want to look at first. Religion never entered the picture until the Roman Catholic church became a legal power and made it a sacrament of their church. They would not see marriages as legal unless blessed by the church.

Interesting.

Could you direct me to a source for further study? Thanks.

 

[zsdersw]

Did you ever think then, that being gay is not normal? It isn't by even your definition and actions.

Why should being "normal" or "abnormal" determine how you're treated by others?

 

[a777pilot]

Why should being "normal" or "abnormal" determine how you're treated by others?

Good question. In theory it shouldn't but I guess the onus of being accepted is on the part of the one not like the rest. So stop crying about it, stop this "in your face" advocacy, and just shut up about your life and go about your business.

Quite honestly, I really don't care what you do to whom, I just don't want to be bombarded with the details.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I think it's only a matter of time until gay marriage is widely legal in the US - this development is overdue and I can't see any legitimate, non-religious reason why it shouldn't be permitted. I'd rather see us accept that as a form of social progress (similar to ending laws against miscegenation) and move on.

 

[HumblePie]

Interesting.

Could you direct me to a source for further study? Thanks.

Easy enough, google Origins of Marriage.

 

[zsdersw]

Good question. In theory it shouldn't but I guess the onus of being accepted is on the part of the one not like the rest.

I neither desire nor require you or anyone else's "acceptance".

So stop crying about it, stop this "in your face" advocacy, and just shut up about your life and go about your business.

I'm not aware of anyone in this thread who is "crying about it", but I'm not going stop advocating for what I want to advocate, nor am I going to shut up about what I want to talk about.

If that's a problem for you, too bad. I'll refer you to "fags" like this one:

Quite honestly, I really don't care what you do to whom, I just don't want to be bombarded with the details.

Quite honestly, I don't give a shit about what you want. You're free to ignore or pay attention to whatever you want, so if you're being "bombarded" by anything, it's no one's fault but your own.

 

[a777pilot]

I neither desire nor require you or anyone else's "acceptance".



I'm not aware of anyone in this thread who is "crying about it", but I'm not going stop advocating for what I want to advocate, nor am I going to shut up about what I want to talk about.

If that's a problem for you, too bad. I'll refer you to "fags" like this one:

Quite honestly, I don't give a shit about what you want. You're free to ignore or pay attention to whatever you want, so if you're being "bombarded" by anything, it's no one's fault but your own.

Good. You don't have my acceptance.

Looks like your "i love you" could use some kill training. I bet he fights like a little girl.

p.s., It is NOT my fault. I'm a breeder.

 

[zsdersw]

Good. You don't have my acceptance.

Looks like your "i love you" could use some kill training. I bet he fights like a little girl.

p.s., It is NOT my fault. I'm a breeder.

I bet you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Consider Shad Smith.. the first openly gay MMA fighter:

Sorry, gay people don't fit into the stereotypes that your ignorance says they do.

 

[a777pilot]

I bet you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Fortunately for me and younger people, those with attitudes like yours are getting fewer and fewer.

You're funny.

Thanks for the laughs.

 

[zsdersw]

You're funny.

Thanks for the laughs.

You're a tool.

Thanks for the laughs.

 

[shira]

Is this your long winded way of saying "I was wrong, sorry!"?

Saying simply that you are wrong would not be a substantive response. It's the way YOU would respond to you if your were me, because you never back up your statements. You just hurl labels and think that constitutes a rational argument.

So, yes, I included that statement that you are wrong wrong. But, no, I wasn't being long-winded. I was being helpful. Alas, you still don't understand.

But you're doing the best that YOU can do. So I feel pity, not anger.

 

[a777pilot]

You're a tool.

Thanks for the laughs.

Well, if anyone here knew about "tools" I guess it would you.

 

[a777pilot]

Sorry, gay people don't fit into the stereotypes that your ignorance says they do.

I'm not ignorant at all, and yes, they all fall into a "stereotype". That is, they don't like normal sex. If they did, they would not be gay.

 

[zsdersw]

I'm not ignorant at all, and yes, they all fall into a "stereotype". That is, they don't like normal sex. If they did, they would not be gay.

The stereotype you expressed was that he "fights like a little girl". Clearly that's bullshit... and you should know better, but you don't.. so...

 

[zsdersw]

Well, if anyone here knew about "tools" I guess it would you.

Yes, I can and have used hammers, wrenches, screwdrivers, saws, pliers, and Swiss army knives.

 

[piasabird]

Marriage is a States Rights issue. Has nothing to do with the Federal Government. Dont understand why you need the State's permission to get married. It is mostly just to protect the people's right that get married. This is a racket created to earn lawyers money.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Well, if anyone here knew about "tools" I guess it would you.

What constitutes a personal attack around here if not a thinly-veiled "i love you" joke? I mean, honestly, is this all your arguments amount to? Picking on the gay guy? "Ha ha, tool also means penis and he likes the cock!" What a sad, pathetic display you're putting on here.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Well, if anyone here knew about "tools" I guess it would you.

You're a bigoted, nasty old kook.

 

[a777pilot]

What constitutes a personal attack around here if not a thinly-veiled "i love you" joke? I mean, honestly, is this all your arguments amount to? Picking on the gay guy? "Ha ha, tool also means penis and he likes the cock!" What a sad, pathetic display you're putting on here.

ROFLMAO!

A personal attack? Really? You want to see a real personal attack, may I suggest you read my "signature".

p.s., I love those personal attacks.