• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Santorum backs nullifying existing gay marriages

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
cybrsage said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Atomic Playboy said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
a777pilot said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
HumblePie said:
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.
Click to expand...

Interesting.

Could you direct me to a source for further study? Thanks.
 
zsdersw said:
Why should being "normal" or "abnormal" determine how you're treated by others?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
a777pilot said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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:

Daddy.jpg


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

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.
 
Last edited:
zsdersw said:
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:

Daddy.jpg




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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
a777pilot said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

shad-smith.jpg


Sorry, gay people don't fit into the stereotypes that your ignorance says they do.
 
Last edited:
cybrsage said:
Is this your long winded way of saying "I was wrong, sorry!"?
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
a777pilot said:
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.
Click to expand...

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...

heres-your-sign.jpg
 
Last edited:
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.
 
a777pilot said:
Well, if anyone here knew about "tools" I guess it would you.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Atomic Playboy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top