Why are people so against gay marriage?

Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

EXman

Lifer
Jul 12, 2001
20,079
15
81
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Do we see that you can tell a bigot, but you can't tell him much?

The bigot is totally blind to his bigotry.

c'mon I want an old school witty/obscure post.

I can see that craig is smoking crack he just started making shit up then saying that I was for that shit. Moonbeam I've been gone for 8 months and you seem to have lost your edge. If I had a quarter for some half assed attempt to color me a bigot with made up twisted words that come out of the Lib name calling playbook since way before there was a P&N i'd be rich. The level of debate with craig is zip. he's off his rocker.

"If you like hurting people!!!!!" then you are a bad guy.

wtf
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Do we see that you can tell a bigot, but you can't tell him much?

The bigot is totally blind to his bigotry.


I absolutely agree. I can't believe there are so many people out there that would oppose my right to view marriage as it has always been viewed since its inception in the most primitive form. That is,,,,the spiritual union between a Man and a Woman. Perhaps, if goverment wasn't involved in regulating marriage, it wouldn't be an issue.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Do we see that you can tell a bigot, but you can't tell him much?

The bigot is totally blind to his bigotry.


I absolutely agree. I can't believe there are so many people out there that would oppose my right to view marriage as it has always been viewed since its inception in the most primitive form. That is,,,,the spiritual union between a Man and a Woman. Perhaps, if goverment wasn't involved in regulating marriage, it wouldn't be an issue.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not opposed to you viewing marriage as anything you like...my problem comes from you trying to make the government view marriage through your particular lens. The right for people like you to view marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and gay couples to view marriage in their own way, would seem to be a pretty obvious interpretation of how America is supposed to work. I think you have to make an extra argument when you're arguing that everyone should have to live according to YOUR personal view of a topic, and gay marriage opponents have totally failed in that regard.

In other words, to answer the question posed by this thread title...you're done a great job saying why you're against gay marriage, you're just done a piss poor job arguing why the government should make your viewpoint the law of the land.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Do we see that you can tell a bigot, but you can't tell him much?

The bigot is totally blind to his bigotry.


I absolutely agree. I can't believe there are so many people out there that would oppose my right to view marriage as it has always been viewed since its inception in the most primitive form. That is,,,,the spiritual union between a Man and a Woman. Perhaps, if goverment wasn't involved in regulating marriage, it wouldn't be an issue.

You're honest enough to put your huge ignorance of the history of the definition of marriage on display, and your inability to ratioanally address homosexuality.

Too bad that honesty in this case is the best that can be said about the negative facts about you.
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
Originally posted by: EXman
No I'm saying I'm tired of Christian bashing and that being totally overlooked because the secular progressive media chooses to further the gay agenda while steamrolling over anything that has to do with Christianity.

It has nothing to do about marriage and everything about this "Liberty for all" that Libs decry then choose hide liberties stripped from Christians all the while making them the villains. "Equality for the minority" when trashing the majority I guarantee will only lead to a place no one wants to go.

Notice that the prop 8 people only go terrorizing Christians in white nieghborhoods. Do you think this is on accident? Nope. Cause they pull that crap in the black part of town or at a muslim place of worship they cannot be painted as the good guys any longer. The voice of reason. They'll just be mean gay people and not the victoms. And they'll get their ass kicked as well. I believe there will be a time in the not so distant future when some Christians will become more assertive. Jesus was the ultimate radical. Even he was pushed to far grabbed a whip and kicked some butt.

I'm just hoping the writing I'm seeing on the wall isn't just that. But pushing this Gay agenda thinking that marriage is just a word you can redefine on a whim because it suits you throwing out thousands of years of history is arrogant pure and simple. And if you don't take anything else away from this post read that last sentence again.

If you think that is biggoted great I don't care. I've been called that by little people with big causes that out number me here 25,000 to one. It takes no guts to call me anything with all your buddies here even moderated by big libs.

I think I'm gonna need some asbestos underwear now :)

First off, you act like calling you a "bigot" is a bad word. Everyone has their own particular form of bigotry; it's basic human nature. Prejudices are not inherently evil; when you attempt to codify them as law, I think you've crossed a line, but having prejudices and realizing that you have prejudice is simply part of being a human. No one is completely free from bigotry, and if they tell you they are, they're lying. That said, your bigotry is immediately relevant to the matter at hand, because you're trying to justify having your prejudice codified as law, which is bigotry taken to its extreme. You keep denying that you're a bigot and saying that people calling you a bigot is somehow unfair, but that's simply horseshit, and I think you know it.

Now then. There are churches where gay people can get married. You knew that of course. I know for a fact that Unitarians and Episcopalians recognize gay marriage because I've attended gay weddings at both congregations. If they can "rename marriage on a whim," why can't the government? We "renamed marriage on a whim" when we struck down miscegenation laws in 1967. But no, thousands of years of history back up the definition of marriage despite the occasional updates here and there...
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Do we see that you can tell a bigot, but you can't tell him much?

The bigot is totally blind to his bigotry.


I absolutely agree. I can't believe there are so many people out there that would oppose my right to view marriage as it has always been viewed since its inception in the most primitive form. That is,,,,the spiritual union between a Man and a Woman. Perhaps, if goverment wasn't involved in regulating marriage, it wouldn't be an issue.

You're honest enough to put your huge ignorance of the history of the definition of marriage on display, and your inability to ratioanally address homosexuality.

Too bad that honesty in this case is the best that can be said about the negative facts about you.



Huh?????? Show me something different.
 

freegeeks

Diamond Member
May 7, 2001
5,460
1
81
same-sex marriage and even adoption has been legal here in Belgium for years
our society has not fallen apart and the world is still turning
 

L00PY

Golden Member
Sep 14, 2001
1,101
0
0
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Ozoned
I absolutely agree. I can't believe there are so many people out there that would oppose my right to view marriage as it has always been viewed since its inception in the most primitive form. That is,,,,the spiritual union between a Man and a Woman. Perhaps, if goverment wasn't involved in regulating marriage, it wouldn't be an issue.
You're honest enough to put your huge ignorance of the history of the definition of marriage on display, and your inability to ratioanally address homosexuality.
Huh?????? Show me something different.
Since you were the one to bring it up, it ought to fall upon you to prove your point. Nevertheless, out of convenience let's take a quick look at the Wikipedia page.

From a Eurocentric point of view, there's no mention of marriage being "a spiritual union between a man and a woman" for the ancient Greeks, nor for the ancient Romans. Oddly enough, the page that same-sex marriage was legal before 342 CE after which Christian emperors banned it.

From a that religious frame point, religions predating Christianity don't seem to define as you phrased it either. Buddhism neither encourages nor discourages marriage. While Hinduism does enumerate eight types of marriages, they're more about defining how different marriages might be arranged than about spirituality or the sex of the spouses. Within Judaism, if you'd like to point out the spirituality laid out within kiddushin or nissu'in, I'd appreciate it. They seem to be more about exchange of money, and contracts than spirituality though. I guess that last one might be your strongest argument for "a spiritual union between a Man and a Woman" since inception. I'm no Talmudic scholar though.
 

AlienCraft

Lifer
Nov 23, 2002
10,539
0
0
Originally posted by: L00PY

Since you were the one to bring it up, it ought to fall upon you to prove your point. Nevertheless, out of convenience let's take a quick look at the Wikipedia page.

From a Eurocentric point of view, there's no mention of marriage being "a spiritual union between a man and a woman" for the ancient Greeks, nor for the ancient Romans. Oddly enough, the page that same-sex marriage was legal before 342 CE after which Christian emperors banned it.

From a that religious frame point, religions predating Christianity don't seem to define as you phrased it either. Buddhism neither encourages nor discourages marriage. While Hinduism does enumerate eight types of marriages, they're more about defining how different marriages might be arranged than about spirituality or the sex of the spouses. Within Judaism, if you'd like to point out the spirituality laid out within kiddushin or nissu'in, I'd appreciate it. They seem to be more about exchange of money, and contracts than spirituality though. I guess that last one might be your strongest argument for "a spiritual union between a Man and a Woman" since inception. I'm no Talmudic scholar though.
Oh SNAP ! :laugh:
This should be printed and laminated and distributed from orbit.

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,235
6,338
126
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Do we see that you can tell a bigot, but you can't tell him much?

The bigot is totally blind to his bigotry.


I absolutely agree. I can't believe there are so many people out there that would oppose my right to view marriage as it has always been viewed since its inception in the most primitive form. That is,,,,the spiritual union between a Man and a Woman. Perhaps, if goverment wasn't involved in regulating marriage, it wouldn't be an issue.

You're honest enough to put your huge ignorance of the history of the definition of marriage on display, and your inability to ratioanally address homosexuality.

Too bad that honesty in this case is the best that can be said about the negative facts about you.



Huh?????? Show me something different.

You can't show a bigot anything. Please try to understand that in this area you can't see anything.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
60
91
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

I used to think he was intelligent and for the most part respectful but lately he's gone the way of the BDS crowd like harvey.

Leave it to a Bushwhacko loser like CAD to be so lost and out of touch that he dosen't even understand that BDS is a bogus term coined by another neocon jackass, Charles Krauthammer, in a futile attempt to discredit those of us who were smart enough to recognize the tragic criminality of his Traitor In Chief and his entire administration.

Leave it to a BIGOTED Bushwhacko loser like CAD to try to distract attention from his own BIGOTED support for banning gay marriage by referring to the correct understanding of and disgust with his Traitor In Chief and his gang of traitors, murderers, torturers and war criminals by "the BDS crowd."

Personally, Im proud of my BDS. Thanks for the compliment. :beer: :laugh:

Maybe you'd like to explain why knowing that George W. Bush is the worst criminal ever to hold the office of President has anything to do with your BIGOTRY against gays. :roll:
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Do we see that you can tell a bigot, but you can't tell him much?

The bigot is totally blind to his bigotry.


I absolutely agree. I can't believe there are so many people out there that would oppose my right to view marriage as it has always been viewed since its inception in the most primitive form. That is,,,,the spiritual union between a Man and a Woman. Perhaps, if goverment wasn't involved in regulating marriage, it wouldn't be an issue.

You're honest enough to put your huge ignorance of the history of the definition of marriage on display, and your inability to ratioanally address homosexuality.

Too bad that honesty in this case is the best that can be said about the negative facts about you.



Huh?????? Show me something different.

You can't show a bigot anything. Please try to understand that in this area you can't see anything.

What you can do is show them that the particular excuse they have chosen to defend their bigotry with is factually inaccurate. However, that has no effect on them; they virtually never change their position in response, but instead abandon the issue as unimportant after all and come up with a new excude for their position. The funny thing is that they themselves don't seem to realize what they are doing or why.

The only thing I know that works is to get them to shift their thinking from the question being 'defend your position', for which they can find 1000 excuses, to the whole different way of looking at the issue, which typically involves recognizing the humanity of the person they are dehumanizing in some way, and when they are dehumanizing the other person because of their own lack of development, getting some payoff for their own self worth from the bigotry, that's next to impossible to do.

It's why we so often see only in the strongest cases, such as when a beloved family member or close friend, in in the target group that bigots can make that change in view.

So, we can show Ozoned how his facts on the history of marriage are wrong, but it's pointless for our time or his, since the response will not be "oh, then he changes his position on gay marriage". It serves *some* purpose for going through the exercise to show my statement about how he won'tchange his position is true, but that's been done so many times with posters, it's pointless to keep repeating it.

And the other thing is, that *it doesn't matter* if he were right - the issue on the right and wrong of gay marriage is not what the historical tradition has been any more than the right and wrong of slavery was what the traditional system had been, and so arguing the facts of the historical definition has the harmful effect of appearing to agree that that's a legitimate issue for deciding gay marriage, instead of the real issue, the immorality of treating people born gay as second-class citizens who are ok to deny equal marital rights.

Are gays similarly adult human beings to straights? Yes. Do they have similar needs for love, relationships, long-term commitments, societal respect? Yes.

Is there any rationals justification for denying them the same rights, as there is with, say, pedophiles? No. Therefore, it is *immoral harm* to discriminate.

But unfortunately, nothing compels Ozoned and others to act morally, to not be cretins who casually inflict harm on others as the tyrany of the bigoted majority.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

I used to think he was intelligent and for the most part respectful but lately he's gone the way of the BDS crowd like harvey.

Leave it to a Bushwhacko loser like CAD to be so lost and out of touch that he dosen't even understand that BDS is a bogus term coined by another neocon jackass, Charles Krauthammer, in a futile attempt to discredit those of us who were smart enough to recognize the tragic criminality of his Traitor In Chief and his entire administration.

Leave it to a BIGOTED Bushwhacko loser like CAD to try to distract attention from his own BIGOTED support for banning gay marriage by referring to the correct understanding of and disgust with his Traitor In Chief and his gang of traitors, murderers, torturers and war criminals by "the BDS crowd."

Personally, Im proud of my BDS. Thanks for the compliment. :beer: :laugh:

Maybe you'd like to explain why knowing that George W. Bush is the worst criminal ever to hold the office of President has anything to do with your BIGOTRY against gays. :roll:

lol. I am not bigoted against gays.

But I am always amused by your wild eyed rants/macros. Keep it up... it's always good for a laugh.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
60
91
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

lol. I am not bigoted against gays.

If you're not opposed to gay marriage, good for you. That would be an improvement. :thumbsup:

Now, if you're not trying to make some anti-gay point, maybe you'd like to explain what you were trying to say with your idiotic, irrelevant "BDS" attack against those of us who were smart enough to know long ago that your Traitor In Chief and his gang of criminals were every bit the traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals, war profiteers and general incompetents we've been telling you they were for years.

But I am always amused by your wild eyed rants/macros. Keep it up... it's always good for a laugh.

The chidren are so easily amused... Not very bright, not very informed, but easily amused. :roll:
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

lol. I am not bigoted against gays.

If you're not opposed to gay marriage, good for you. That would be an improvement. :thumbsup:

Now, if you're not trying to make some anti-gay point, maybe you'd like to explain what you were trying to say with your idiotic, irrelevant "BDS" attack against those of us who were smart enough to know long ago that your Traitor In Chief and his gang of criminals were every bit the traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals, war profiteers and general incompetents we've been telling you they were for years.

But I am always amused by your wild eyed rants/macros. Keep it up... it's always good for a laugh.

The chidren are so easily amused... Not very bright, not very informed, but easily amused. :roll:

I am not opposed to gay unions and think if the gov't wants to sanction(provide legal contracts) for gay couples it should also only sanction hetro unions. This puts marriage back into the church where it belongs. Marriage has been a religious union and thus the gov't should remove itself from it - IF it is going to consider homosexual unions "marriage" or any other union as "marriage". However, this is possible at the moment regardless of sexual choices one makes... but that's a different part of this issue.

However, I did not make an "anti-gay" point, I was responding to a different poster regarding craig234 and his derangement as of late. I used you as an example of someone who craig was becoming like due to BDS. You came in and showed us all you still suffer from it. :)
 

LumbergTech

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2005
3,622
1
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
There is nothing to be gained by arguing with you. You take some absurd position and dig in, making an art form out of stupid. There is no can of worms here. Sexual preferences refers to gender attraction not how many marriage partners you want. Everybody who can't marry more than one person is having his rights equally and fairly limited. Everybody can only marry one Not this one can only marry that one or this one can't marry that one but ALL can only marry One. There is no class of natural polygamists in society clamoring for their rights. Marriage is between two consenting adults. You have to be a certain age and competent to enter into a contract. You can't marry a minor and you can't marry two adults. The age of majority and the number of spouses is arbitrary but without illegal discrimination. It's the law and it can be changed by new law and no constitutional challenge could be made.
No sexual preference? How about bi-sexuals? While some bi-sexuals often settle on one side or the other, many others continue to play both sides. And your myopic viewpoint that marriage should only be between two people is just as nearsighted and stubborn as those who believe marriage should be solely restricted to a man and a woman. If there is no class of natural polygamists then why are there nearly 40,000 polygamous families in this country alone, where it's not even widely accepted?

Next time, before you kneejerkedly accuse someone else of making an artform of stupid, you should check yourself to make sure you're not the one being stupid, Moonie.

it seems that the priority would be to make sure that everyone can have at least one marriage with another person of their choosing before worrying about letting them marry 50 people
 

LumbergTech

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2005
3,622
1
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

lol. I am not bigoted against gays.

If you're not opposed to gay marriage, good for you. That would be an improvement. :thumbsup:

Now, if you're not trying to make some anti-gay point, maybe you'd like to explain what you were trying to say with your idiotic, irrelevant "BDS" attack against those of us who were smart enough to know long ago that your Traitor In Chief and his gang of criminals were every bit the traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals, war profiteers and general incompetents we've been telling you they were for years.

But I am always amused by your wild eyed rants/macros. Keep it up... it's always good for a laugh.

The chidren are so easily amused... Not very bright, not very informed, but easily amused. :roll:

I am not opposed to gay unions and think if the gov't wants to sanction(provide legal contracts) for gay couples it should also only sanction hetro unions. This puts marriage back into the church where it belongs. Marriage has been a religious union and thus the gov't should remove itself from it - IF it is going to consider homosexual unions "marriage" or any other union as "marriage". However, this is possible at the moment regardless of sexual choices one makes... but that's a different part of this issue.

However, I did not make an "anti-gay" point, I was responding to a different poster regarding craig234 and his derangement as of late. I used you as an example of someone who craig was becoming like due to BDS. You came in and showed us all you still suffer from it. :)

how about eliminating marriage entirely as a legal matter, and only classifying them as a legal union in the eyes of the state, and leaving the term marriage to the church
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
60
91
Originally posted by: LumbergTech

how about eliminating marriage entirely as a legal matter, and only classifying them as a legal union in the eyes of the state, and leaving the term marriage to the church

Better yet, let's eliminate recognizing religious weddings and uphold the civil laws regarding marriage equally for all couples. The churches can have their own ceremonies for their own purposes, but they should be out of the business of acting as agents of the state in providing weddings recognized under civil law.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: LumbergTech
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

lol. I am not bigoted against gays.

If you're not opposed to gay marriage, good for you. That would be an improvement. :thumbsup:

Now, if you're not trying to make some anti-gay point, maybe you'd like to explain what you were trying to say with your idiotic, irrelevant "BDS" attack against those of us who were smart enough to know long ago that your Traitor In Chief and his gang of criminals were every bit the traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals, war profiteers and general incompetents we've been telling you they were for years.

But I am always amused by your wild eyed rants/macros. Keep it up... it's always good for a laugh.

The chidren are so easily amused... Not very bright, not very informed, but easily amused. :roll:

I am not opposed to gay unions and think if the gov't wants to sanction(provide legal contracts) for gay couples it should also only sanction hetro unions. This puts marriage back into the church where it belongs. Marriage has been a religious union and thus the gov't should remove itself from it - IF it is going to consider homosexual unions "marriage" or any other union as "marriage". However, this is possible at the moment regardless of sexual choices one makes... but that's a different part of this issue.

However, I did not make an "anti-gay" point, I was responding to a different poster regarding craig234 and his derangement as of late. I used you as an example of someone who craig was becoming like due to BDS. You came in and showed us all you still suffer from it. :)

how about eliminating marriage entirely as a legal matter, and only classifying them as a legal union in the eyes of the state, and leaving the term marriage to the church


Isn't that what I stated? Rereading my post maybe I worded it a but funny but basically IF the state is going to sanction a union of gays then it needs to be out of the "marriage" business and make them all the same in a legal sense. But I do not support gay "marriage" as I don't think the state has any right to co-opt a religious union for it's own PC reasons.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
60
91
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

However, I did not make an "anti-gay" point, I was responding to a different poster regarding craig234 and his derangement as of late. I used you as an example of someone who craig was becoming like due to BDS. You came in and showed us all you still suffer from it. :)

Ah! If that's all it was, it was not only irrelevant to the discussion, but it was hair raisingly stupid and more importantly, dead ass wrong.

Your Traitor In Cheif and his criminal cabal are guilty of treason, murder, torture, crimes against humanity, war crimes, war profiteering and more. The only ones who still think BDS is something negative are those like you and Krauthammer who don't understand how wise and correct it is to continue to stand against them and press for their prosecutions for their multiple heinous crimes.

If you want to derail the thread further by challenging the truth, I'll be glad to post one of my famous "macros" proving all of them. It's no problem. It's just a text file on my hard drive. :cool:
 

EXman

Lifer
Jul 12, 2001
20,079
15
81
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: LumbergTech
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

lol. I am not bigoted against gays.

If you're not opposed to gay marriage, good for you. That would be an improvement. :thumbsup:

Now, if you're not trying to make some anti-gay point, maybe you'd like to explain what you were trying to say with your idiotic, irrelevant "BDS" attack against those of us who were smart enough to know long ago that your Traitor In Chief and his gang of criminals were every bit the traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals, war profiteers and general incompetents we've been telling you they were for years.

But I am always amused by your wild eyed rants/macros. Keep it up... it's always good for a laugh.

The chidren are so easily amused... Not very bright, not very informed, but easily amused. :roll:

I am not opposed to gay unions and think if the gov't wants to sanction(provide legal contracts) for gay couples it should also only sanction hetro unions. This puts marriage back into the church where it belongs. Marriage has been a religious union and thus the gov't should remove itself from it - IF it is going to consider homosexual unions "marriage" or any other union as "marriage". However, this is possible at the moment regardless of sexual choices one makes... but that's a different part of this issue.

However, I did not make an "anti-gay" point, I was responding to a different poster regarding craig234 and his derangement as of late. I used you as an example of someone who craig was becoming like due to BDS. You came in and showed us all you still suffer from it. :)

how about eliminating marriage entirely as a legal matter, and only classifying them as a legal union in the eyes of the state, and leaving the term marriage to the church


Isn't that what I stated? Rereading my post maybe I worded it a but funny but basically IF the state is going to sanction a union of gays then it needs to be out of the "marriage" business and make them all the same in a legal sense. But I do not support gay "marriage" as I don't think the state has any right to co-opt a religious union for it's own PC reasons.

My typical EXman I like to keep things easy answer = Yup this seems to be a winnar, i went there too but gheys have egos like Terrell Owens and won't stop short of trashing our beliefs just to feel "Normal!"

My revised I'm a pompous/sarcastic/overanalyzer AT&PN deep thinker answer=Their repressed feelings of hatered of normalcy boils to a fervor and retribution that has somehow manifested itself in destroying a sacred sacrament somehow fills their emptiness therefore removes a scarlet letter that has clashed on their haute couture lifestyle.

Irregardless of anything someones rights will be trashed. Since Trashing Christians is en vogue and almost encouraged, they will feed our beliefs to the Lions of Secular Progressives.

I know I just insulted Cowboy Fans! Not my intention but jonky boy or craigy poo will distort this into some sort of carnal bigotry!
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,235
6,338
126
Originally posted by: LumbergTech
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
There is nothing to be gained by arguing with you. You take some absurd position and dig in, making an art form out of stupid. There is no can of worms here. Sexual preferences refers to gender attraction not how many marriage partners you want. Everybody who can't marry more than one person is having his rights equally and fairly limited. Everybody can only marry one Not this one can only marry that one or this one can't marry that one but ALL can only marry One. There is no class of natural polygamists in society clamoring for their rights. Marriage is between two consenting adults. You have to be a certain age and competent to enter into a contract. You can't marry a minor and you can't marry two adults. The age of majority and the number of spouses is arbitrary but without illegal discrimination. It's the law and it can be changed by new law and no constitutional challenge could be made.
No sexual preference? How about bi-sexuals? While some bi-sexuals often settle on one side or the other, many others continue to play both sides. And your myopic viewpoint that marriage should only be between two people is just as nearsighted and stubborn as those who believe marriage should be solely restricted to a man and a woman. If there is no class of natural polygamists then why are there nearly 40,000 polygamous families in this country alone, where it's not even widely accepted?

Next time, before you kneejerkedly accuse someone else of making an artform of stupid, you should check yourself to make sure you're not the one being stupid, Moonie.

it seems that the priority would be to make sure that everyone can have at least one marriage with another person of their choosing before worrying about letting them marry 50 people

You are talking to TLC deep in the throws of the creative act of being stupid. He has made up his stupid mind that any legal ban on polygamy is equivalent to a legal ban on gay marriage and that is it. He has cast his stupid opinion in cement and that is where it's going to stay. That a ban on polygamy is no different than a ban on marrying children is something he will eventually decide is bigotry against those who want child brides.