Maine, Be HONEST with Gays

[paulbenedict]

This is borderline Washington Policy, but, as a part of the national momentum on this topic, I post:

The vote in Maine on gay marriage must be rejected by the people because it promotes homosexuality to homosexuals. Heterosexuals have no understanding of what this means. They should not be involved in such an evil because they feel “it’s only fair.” Heterosexuals have no idea what they are doing.

Just as almost 100 years ago smoking was embraced as good for serious athletes, a new sickness is, on our generation, being promoted. Just as nearly 75 years ago, quitting cigarettes was deemed by the “elite” as harder to quit than heroin—today an AVOIDBLE plague is being foiced on homosexuals as an inevitable, life ending state.

Perhaps the only decent thing Liberals have done in the last sixty years is to tax smoking into near oblivion. It is not a gene… It is simply stupid.

Maine don’t be the stool pigeons of this modern barbarism. People can be what they want. If they want marriage and a family, they can have it. This IS America. You don’t have to LIE to people to make them "feel" better. All the lies will not make a gay couple a family. It just makes them gay folks who were lied to --Nice… real nice. Be honest Maine. If folks in this country do not get honest quickly, no, this will no longer be the United States of America.

[HoracioMendez]

What condescending ********.

[FOX Watcher]

This is borderline Washington Policy, but, as a part of the national momentum on this topic, I post:

The vote in Maine on gay marriage must be rejected by the people because it promotes homosexuality to homosexuals. Heterosexuals have no understanding of what this means. They should not be involved in such as evil because they feel “it’s only fair.” Heterosexuals have no idea what they are doing.

Just as almost 100 years ago smoking was embraced as good for serious athletes, a new sickness is being promoted. Just as nearly 75 years ago, quitting cigarettes was deemed by the “elite” as harder to quit than heroin—today an AVOIDBLE plague is being foised on homosexuals as an inevitable, life ending state.

Perhaps the only decent thing Liberals have done in the last sixty years is tax smoking into near oblivion. It is not a gene… It is simply stupid.

Maine don’t’ be the stool pigeons of this modern barbarism. People can be what they want. If they want marriage and a family, they can have it. This IS America. You don’t have to LIE to people to make them feel better. All the lies will not make a gay couple a family. It just makes them gay folks who were lied to. Nice… real nice. Be honest Maine. If folks in this country do not get honest quick, no, this will no longer be the United States of America.

"It promotes Homosexuality to Homosexuals".



Well .... if it tried to convince Heterosexuals to become Homosexual, then maybe that would be a problem. It would be unwanted, yes, but I seriously doubt anyone who was really heterosexual would give in to Homosexual advances, unless they had Gay tendencies locked inside them.

However, for people who are already Gay, can you please explain why it is wrong to allow them to live their lives as they see fit, since they are of a Gay Orientation?

[paulbenedict]

A most intelligent response. Replete with evidence and articulation of one's individual circumstance and beliefs. I applaud the decorum and honor of this learned critic. However, I do not at all agree with his hypocritical, emotional, and deceiving response.

[FOX Watcher]

A most intelligent response. Replete with evidence and articulation of one's individual circumstance and beliefs. I applaud the decorum and honor of this learned critic. However, I do not at all agree with his hypocritical, emotional, and deceiving response.

What is hypocritical and what is deceiving about the response?

[paulbenedict]

You do MISS the rarely made point that homosexuality can be avoided at least as readily as cigarrette addiction...

Actors, ACTORS... are the spearhead of these initiatives. Homosexuality is NOT a crippling state, but if Maine affirms this nonsense it will be.

[FOX Watcher]

You do MISS the rarely made point that homosexuality can be avoided at least as readily as cigarrette addiction...

Actors, ACTORS... are the spearhead of these initiatives. Homosexuality is NOT a crippling state, but if Maine affirms this nonsense it will be.

How can Homosexuality be avoided in comparison to Cigarrette addiction and what scientific evidence do you have that supports this theory?

[MrBojangles2012]

I don't really have a problem with being gay, but I think marraige should be between a man and a woman!!

[HoracioMendez]

A most intelligent response. Replete with evidence and articulation of one's individual circumstance and beliefs. I applaud the decorum and honor of this learned critic. However, I do not at all agree with his hypocritical, emotional, and deceiving response.

You'll find the standard of debate increases when you tone down the condescending tone of your thread.

[Trip]

"It promotes Homosexuality to Homosexuals".



Well .... if it tried to convince Heterosexuals to become Homosexual, then maybe that would be a problem. It would be unwanted, yes, but I seriously doubt anyone who was really heterosexual would give in to Homosexual advances, unless they had Gay tendencies locked inside them.

However, for people who are already Gay, can you please explain why it is wrong to allow them to live their lives as they see fit, since they are of a Gay Orientation?

If there's one thing that hetersosexuality has taught me is that I can go longer without embibing, than a camel can without humps.

Given that last night we did you repeatedly arguing for "gulls", why are you asserting your expertise on "real heterosexuality" and "orientation"? Thus far my only real problems with gays are two. They want to usurp two things they should not legitimately have any right to: marriage and the St Pats Parade.

[Trip]

How can Homosexuality be avoided in comparison to Cigarrette addiction and what scientific evidence do you have that supports this theory?

Both are promoting an advancement of behaviors by increasing exposure and making them seem more appealing. A psychologist summed it up with the phrase "What you focus on, grows". This is more of a consideration in the more cognitive species.

[Kelzan]

I have no problem with same-sex marriage. I hope the voters in Maine vote to legalize it. People will see it won't cause the downfall of civilization.

[Antrel]

This is one of the stupidest posts I've seen on these forums since I joined.

[HoracioMendez]

This is one of the stupidest posts I've seen on these forums since I joined.
Hey now, lets give some credit to the ones encouraging civil war here.

[FOX Watcher]

If there's one thing that hetersosexuality has taught me is that I can go longer without embibing, than a camel can without humps.

Given that last night we did you repeatedly arguing for "gulls", why are you asserting your expertise on "real heterosexuality" and "orientation"? Thus far my only real problems with gays are two: they want to usurp two things they should not legitimately have any right to: marriage and the St Pats Parade.

If Heterosexuals have a right to Marriage and the benefits provided, then Gay couples have a right to Marriage and the benefits provided. If you want to take the marriage benefits away from Heterosexual Couples, then we should remove the opportunity for Gays to receive marriage benefits, as well.

Now, as far as the issue of Orientation, can you tell me specifically how Orientation is determined? And whatever your answer may be, has science proven that beyond a shadow of a doubt?

One acting on their feelings is a choice, granted, and I don't think anyone is disputing that. However, is the Orientation itself and the feelings associated with that Orientation, a "choice".

Is Orientation a "choice" for both Heterosexuals and Homosexuals, or is Orientation simply a "choice" for Homosexuals?

[Trip]

If Heterosexuals have a right to Marriage and the benefits provided, then Gay couples have a right to Marriage and the benefits provided. If you want to take the marriage benefits away from Heterosexual Couples, then we should remove the opportunity for Gays to receive marriage benefits, as well.


Now this sort of "fuzzy logic " can only come from the same sorts that equate "gulls" with "galls". Marriage is not just the "union of two people for their happiness", contrary to what your superficial analysis may want to believe.

Gays, or a union of two like homosexuals, do not have any right to "marriage benefits" and have never had them so that they must be "taken away", because marriage is and has always been the union of a man and woman.

This is not "denying gays" anything, because they are entitled to the same benefit of marriage as anyone else if they unite with a person of the opposite sex.



Now, as far as the issue of Orientation, can you tell me specifically how Orientation is determined? And whatever your answer may be, has science proven that beyond a shadow of a doubt?

No, and it's entirely irrelevant.

The enduring union of a man and a woman is and has always been recognized in societies as "marriage" because this is how mankind has and continues to reproduce so as to expand, extend and promote society itself.


One acting on their feelings is a choice, granted, and I don't think anyone is disputing that. However, is the Orientation itself and the feelings associated with that Orientation, a "choice".

Is Orientation a "choice" for both Heterosexuals and Homosexuals, or is Orientation simply a "choice" for Homosexuals?

Ultimately, it is a choice. , If you want marriage you choose a person of the opposite sex.

If you're trying to argue that being "homosexual" is merely an inability to involve their upper reasoning skills, then I would question that, and it would also not be a good argument to benefit and advance gays in society.

[gleaner63]

Now, as far as the issue of Orientation, can you tell me specifically how Orientation is determined? And whatever your answer may be, has science proven that beyond a shadow of a doubt?

I've never heard of a standard of evidence like "beyond a shadow of a doubt". Perhaps you mean beyond a reasonable doubt? I am not sure exactly what science would say about it, but if you approached it from the standpoint of evolution, how does homosexuality pass muster as normal? How can it confer any advantage to a species? If there is anything to survival of the fittest, homosexuality would seem to me to be abnormal simply because they cannot reproduce. And if they can't reproduce, they can't pass on any of their good DNA. Simply put, if we all become homosexuals tomorrow, then humans will be extinct with 120 years. Surely, that wouldn't be normal. But hell, what do I know? I believe in UFOs and used to follow professional wrestling...

[Mobulis]

Now this sort of "fuzzy logic " can only come from the same sorts that equates "gulls" with "galls". Marriage is not just the "union of two people for their happiness", contrary to what your superficial analysis may want to believe.

Gays, or a union of two like homosexuals, do not have any right to "marriage benefits" and have never had them so that they must be "taken away", because marriage is and has always been the union of a man and woman.

This is not "denying gays" anything, because they are entitled to the same benefit of marriage as anyone else if they unite with a person of the opposite sex.






No, and it's entirely irrelevant.

The union of a man and a woman is and has been always recognized in societies as "marriage" because this is how mankind has and continues to reproduce so as to expand, extend and promote society itself.



Ultimately, it is a choice. , If you want marriage you choose a person of the opposite sex.

If you're trying to argue that being "homosexual" is merely an inability to involve their upper reasoning skills, then I would question that, and it would also not be a good argument to benefit and advance gays in society.

Its not all that marriage is but its one of the things that marriage is. And what proof do you have that marriage has always been the union of a man and woman.

[blackcatrun]

"It promotes Homosexuality to Homosexuals".



Well .... if it tried to convince Heterosexuals to become Homosexual, then maybe that would be a problem. It would be unwanted, yes, but I seriously doubt anyone who was really heterosexual would give in to Homosexual advances, unless they had Gay tendencies locked inside them.

However, for people who are already Gay, can you please explain why it is wrong to allow them to live their lives as they see fit, since they are of a Gay Orientation?

Has nothing to do with converting anyone of age. It goes to the hearts of the young directly.

Homsexuals already have legal protections and nothing would change under the current cercumstances however if the are allowed to legally marry the teaching of the very young would begin in earnist.

The desire to over ride any moral teachings of parents in a closed enviroments like school
has been a homosexual agenda for years.
The lifestyle is about ones "sexual habits" and in most cases CANNOT be explianed without extremely graphic discription.

Living ones life as they are hetrosexual or homosexual is not the problem. The problem is the constant need for the homosexual community trying to shove that sexual choice down the throats of others. Which always comes with the hertos do it arguement back like it justifys their going after children.

Marrige is man and wife male/ female.

Homosexuals are only asking for more hate and malice towards themselves in demand of a right held in cherished time honered history of mankind for the man and wife.

[Trip]

Its not all that marriage is but its one of the things that marriage is. And what proof do you have that marriage has always been the union of a man and woman.

well, marriage has always involved a contract between a man and a woman, even across society divides, and across divisions of time and geography. Even when you have polygamy marriage is still the union of a man and a woman in each case.

It's what marriage is.

The reason marriage has been so recognized is because it is the backbone of society itself. It is how we reproduce and how society is expanded and extended, promoted and advanced. It is how the future citizens are raised in a healthy environment to provide their contributions to society.

Do you have any other means all this occurs in mind?

[Clamp]

well, marriage has always involved a contract between a man and a woman, even across society divides, and across divisions of time and geography. Even when you have polygamy marriage is still the union of a man and a woman in each case.

It's what marriage is.

The reason marriage has been so recognized is because it is the backbone of society itself. It is how we reproduce and how society is expanded and extended, promoted and advanced. It is how the future citizens are raised in a healthy environment to provide their contributions to society.

Do you have any other means all this occurs in mind?

Artificial insemination and adoption?

[Trip]

Artificial insemination and adoption?

So you're imagining this is somehow a brilliant answer that bypassed what marriage is? How many here do you believe actually are the product of artificial insemination? Probably not a lot. Probably NO ONE!

The fact is everyone, everywhere is the byproduct of heterosexual fertilization!


Even in vitro involves combining the gametes (plural), female ovum and male sperm, in a laboratory. During this process the gamete combines with the gametes fusing genetic information in the zygote.

Curiously the terms "gamete" and "gametes" come from ancient greek γαμέτης and mean "wife" and "husband" respectively, (not just "female" and "Male").

So how about "Adoption":

My sister was adopted.

I still remember the scrutiny my family went through to be sure she was provided not only a good, stable home, but also that the psychology of my parents was correct for adopting a child.

When gays adopt they are looking to validate their relationship, with that relationship specifically having been a choice that could not have possibly resulted in a child. Given this fact, they are quite obviously looking to validate the relationship. The child's adoption becomes a utilitarian purpose.

Now switch to the adoption agency's point of view:

The adoption agencies suddenly have ignored the psychology of the adopting relationship and the fact it is CHOOSING to find its validation in being awarded a child, something that lifestyle deliberately has chosen not to do, even perhaps having disdain for. And these adoption agencies ignore this, .....

.... and go further, themselves violating their duty, their SOLE duty to the well-being of the child and, instead, supporting the validation of a "lifestyle choice."

These adoption agencies are engaging in social engineering and, ignoring their duty to the child, and are forcing a lifestyle upon that child that it COULD NOT POSSIBLY have originated from, and doing so to advance an ABJECT FALSEHOOD, that gay unions are the same as heterosexual marriage.

This is a disgrace and a gross breach of responsibility to the adopted children.

Ultimately, looking for some contrived, obscure scenario to undermine marriage being between a man and woman, you overlook the OVERWHELMING numbers of people that are produced by marriage, making it "The Rule" of how society is advanced and promoted.

Even if doctors were to make it more common for two female lesbians to be able to reproduce taking two female gametes and combining them to form a human being, the problem is that the overwhelming RULE of how society is and has been promoted and advanced WILL STILL BE ............. a man and a woman -- which is why society recognized, created and institutionalized --- Marriage!

Invariably this "social engineering" runs into some real problems, among which is biological design.

[kaydahl]

well, marriage has always involved a contract between a man and a woman, even across society divides, and across divisions of time and geography. Even when you have polygamy marriage is still the union of a man and a woman in each case.

It's what marriage is.

The reason marriage has been so recognized is because it is the backbone of society itself. It is how we reproduce and how society is expanded and extended, promoted and advanced. It is how the future citizens are raised in a healthy environment to provide their contributions to society.

Do you have any other means all this occurs in mind?

You're talking about two different things here. First is the physical foundation of a society, which is human bodies. Second is the aggregate quality of life produced by those bodies.

The first is, as you note, solely dependent upon a biological pairing of opposite sex bodies.
The second is not. It requires relationship factors that transcend biology.

So it can be effectively argued that two males or two females cannot propagate the species. A relationship of two males or two females may or may not contribute to a desired aggregate quality of life.

OTOH, a heterosexual couple can typically propagate the species. A heterosexual relationship may or may not contribute to a desired aggregate quality of life.

IMO it is valid to argue that marriage should be limited to heterosexual unions because marriage is the foundation of biological reproduction and without it the species will die.

But to claim that quality of life is built solely upon heterosexual marriage is not valid.

[Trip]

You're talking about two different things here. First is the physical foundation of a society, which is human bodies. Second is the aggregate quality of life produced by those bodies.

The first is, as you note, solely dependent upon a biological pairing of opposite sex bodies.
The second is not. It requires relationship factors that transcend biology.

So it can be effectively argued that two males or two females cannot propagate the species. A relationship of two males or two females may or may not contribute to a desired aggregate quality of life.

OTOH, a heterosexual couple can typically propagate the species. A heterosexual relationship may or may not contribute to a desired aggregate quality of life.

IMO it is valid to argue that marriage should be limited to heterosexual unions because marriage is the foundation of biological reproduction and without it the species will die.

But to claim that quality of life is built solely upon heterosexual marriage is not valid.

You're distorting and grossly simplifying things for the purpose of your philosophy (agenda).

Mere human bodies do not make the foundation of society, but rather the involvement in and positive interaction with that society is what's relevant. We have lots of people here currently who are "present" but not inherently an overall positive involvement with society (illegals).

Also, the mere improvement to society does not result in that improvement being commensurate with marriage, which provides the proto-citizens, brings those citizens up to self-sufficiency, and trains those citizens in the values of that society, not to mention that marriage being a biologic and genetic trace of that citizen-progeny.

Also your indicating that homosexual unions is some sort of positive thing because it "transcends biology" is a flimsy argument which has no extension to anything meaningful. Committed heterosexual unions also do many things that involve "transcending biological" impulse, including resisting that impulse to find what appears to be "greener pasture." There is some question, as indicated in my previous post, whether or not homosexual unions are able to "transcend" the impulse for self-gratification and validation.

Never has it ever been anywhere a part of my argument that "quality of life" is "solely built on heterosexual marriage". That is a false strawman argument of your own making with no relevance to any of my points.


Just as heterosexual couple unions have not been recognized by society because of any individual-case compulsion to reproduce, so too has that recognition not been resisted because of failure of individual-case couples to provide equal benefit to society. In fact the consideration of individual cases here is entirely moot and irrelevant.

What is relevant is the overall contribution by heterosexual unions in advancing and promoting society over time. Gay unions, no matter how positive, will never equate to heterosexual marriage nor should they be considered to be such. The false equivalence of two inherently unlike things is, and can only be, a lie.

[ThinkingMan]

I don't really have a problem with being gay, but I think marraige should be between a man and a woman!!

That's because that is how it is defined.

That is like saying "I think something is warm because it contains heat."

[ThinkingMan]

I have no problem with same-sex marriage. I hope the voters in Maine vote to legalize it. People will see it won't cause the downfall of civilization.

Destruction of the institution of marriage in all its forms is very inimical to our society.

Look at the damage single motherhood has caused, and is causing. Single motherhood as in babies born out of wedlock, inner city style.

[kenpoman]

well, marriage has always involved a contract between a man and a woman, even across society divides, and across divisions of time and geography. Even when you have polygamy marriage is still the union of a man and a woman in each case.

It's what marriage is.

The reason marriage has been so recognized is because it is the backbone of society itself. It is how we reproduce and how society is expanded and extended, promoted and advanced. It is how the future citizens are raised in a healthy environment to provide their contributions to society.

Do you have any other means all this occurs in mind?

sorry, historically incorrect.

marriage came about as a way on ensuring a male passes his
inhertance along to his biological offspring. the only way to be
sure the kid was his was to own - therefore marry - the woman
in question.

wax as romantic as you wish about it, but get your facts correct.

had society figured out another way to do it, this wouldn't even
be an issue.

[kenpoman]

Destruction of the institution of marriage in all its forms is very inimical to our society.

Look at the damage single motherhood has caused, and is causing. Single motherhood as in babies born out of wedlock, inner city style.

then why deny someone the opportunity if its so vital to society?

[ThinkingMan]

sorry, historically incorrect.

marriage came about as a way on ensuring a male passes his
inhertance along to his biological offspring. the only way to be
sure the kid was his was to own - therefore marry - the woman
in question.

wax as romantic as you wish about it, but get your facts correct.

had society figured out another way to do it, this wouldn't even
be an issue.

Marriage defined as a man and a woman is one of the foundations of our culture.

No scientific evidence is needed.

[ThinkingMan]

then why deny someone the opportunity if its so vital to society?

No one is denied the opportunity.

But marriage refers to opposite genders.

Making all things to all people is not providing opportunity.

[kenpoman]

So you're imagining this is somehow a brilliant answer that bypassed what marriage is? How many here do you believe actually are the product of artificial insemination? Probably not a lot. Probably NO ONE!

The fact is everyone, everywhere is the byproduct of heterosexual fertilization!


Even in vitro involves combining the gametes (plural), female ovum and male sperm, in a laboratory. During this process the gamete combines with the gametes fusing genetic information in the zygote.

Curiously the terms "gamete" and "gametes" come from ancient greek γαμέτης and mean "wife" and "husband" respectively, (not just "female" and "Male").

So how about "Adoption":

My sister was adopted.

I still remember the scrutiny my family went through to be sure she was provided not only a good, stable home, but also that the psychology of my parents was correct for adopting a child.

When gays adopt they are looking to validate their relationship, with that relationship specifically having been a choice that could not have possibly resulted in a child. Given this fact, they are quite obviously looking to validate the relationship. The child's adoption becomes a utilitarian purpose.

Now switch to the adoption agency's point of view:

The adoption agencies suddenly have ignored the psychology of the adopting relationship and the fact it is CHOOSING to find its validation in being awarded a child, something that lifestyle deliberately has chosen not to do, even perhaps having disdain for. And these adoption agencies ignore this, .....

.... and go further, themselves violating their duty, their SOLE duty to the well-being of the child and, instead, supporting the validation of a "lifestyle choice."

These adoption agencies are engaging in social engineering and, ignoring their duty to the child, and are forcing a lifestyle upon that child that it COULD NOT POSSIBLY have originated from, and doing so to advance an ABJECT FALSEHOOD, that gay unions are the same as heterosexual marriage.

This is a disgrace and a gross breach of responsibility to the adopted children.

Ultimately, looking for some contrived, obscure scenario to undermine marriage being between a man and woman, you overlook the OVERWHELMING numbers of people that are produced by marriage, making it "The Rule" of how society is advanced and promoted.

Even if doctors were to make it more common for two female lesbians to be able to reproduce taking two female gametes and combining them to form a human being, the problem is that the overwhelming RULE of how society is and has been promoted and advanced WILL STILL BE ............. a man and a woman -- which is why society recognized, created and institutionalized --- Marriage!

Invariably this "social engineering" runs into some real problems, among which is biological design.


you've got to be kidding.

the summation of this disertation implies if gays marry
straight folks will quit having children.

I know serveral gays folks, and it has not changed my
desire for hetrosexual sex with my wife.

your argement is bad swiss cheese - full of hugh holes.

[kenpoman]

Marriage defined as a man and a woman is one of the foundations of our culture.

No scientific evidence is needed.

so proof be damned you got your opinion?

you are as entitled to your opinion as you wish,
you're still factually wrong.

[ThinkingMan]

you've got to be kidding.

the summation of this disertation implies if gays marry
straight folks will quit having children.

I know serveral gays folks, and it has not changed my
desire for hetrosexual sex with my wife.

your argement is bad swiss cheese - full of hugh holes.

Marriage as it has been in the country since Jamestown is a sacred institution.

Making it all things to all people makes it less sacred, if at all. It means less, if anything at all.

Why get married (and remember - this was important in our culture) if it doesn't mean anything anymore.

[kenpoman]

No one is denied the opportunity.

yes, they are.
that's the whole point of the Maine vote.

[ThinkingMan]

so proof be damned you got your opinion?

you are as entitled to your opinion as you wish,
you're still factually wrong.

This is what the left wants - to demand "scientific evidence" that the critical parts of our dominant culture are not figments of our imagination or in need of correction, or redefinition.

"Scientifically prove that marriage is important in our culture" is the left's approach.

[ThinkingMan]

yes, they are.
that's the whole point of the Maine vote.

Homosexuals are free to get married like anyone else.

[kenpoman]

Marriage as it has been in the country since Jamestown is a sacred institution.

Making it all things to all people makes it less sacred, if at all. It means less, if anything at all.

Why get married (and remember - this was important in our culture) if it doesn't mean anything anymore.

now you're moving the goalposts.
and it still falls flat.

if its so vital to our culture, then make it as available as possible to
those who wish.

funny: more and more straight folks make a mockery of marriage or
just plain ingore it. and few folks on Hannity are making moral out
rage theads.

gays WANT to marry and suddenly society is falling apart.

again, your logic is way beyond faulty.

if you just don't want "them" getting married, that's your
perogative and you have every right to it.

you don't have the right to enforce your preferences on
others.

[kenpoman]

This is what the left wants - to demand "scientific evidence" that the critical parts of our dominant culture are not figments of our imagination or in need of correction, or redefinition.

"Scientifically prove that marriage is important in our culture" is the left's approach.


you keep running in reverse much longer you're gonna burn
out your engine.

and you keep arguing against yourself - funny.

[Trip]

you've got to be kidding.

the summation of this disertation implies if gays marry
straight folks will quit having children.

I know serveral gays folks, and it has not changed my
desire for hetrosexual sex with my wife.

your argement is bad swiss cheese - full of hugh holes.

No, nowhere in my argument do I imply anything about "gays marrying straight folks" and these ceasing to have children.

Yours is another silly strawman of your own making, nowhere indicated or implied in anything I said.

Your "hugh holes" are really "hugh" failings in your own reasoning.

[kenpoman]

Homosexuals are free to get married like anyone else.

facts are against you.

they can't in most states in the union.

again, that's the whole stinking reason for the Maine vote.

[ThinkingMan]

now you're moving the goalposts.
and it still falls flat.

if its so vital to our culture, then make it as available as possible to
those who wish.

funny: more and more straight folks make a mockery of marriage or
just plain ingore it. and few folks on Hannity are making moral out
rage theads.

gays WANT to marry and suddenly society is falling apart.

again, your logic is way beyond faulty.

if you just don't want "them" getting married, that's your
perogative and you have every right to it.

you don't have the right to enforce your preferences on
others.

That's just it - they are not MY preferences. It is the culture.

Why does the left think they have to change the dominant culture to fit their needs?

I'll answer - because the left thinks they are here to make all things to all people.

It is like hundreds of years of American culture and human history mean nothing now that they are here.

[kenpoman]

No, nowhere in my argument do I imply anything about "gays marrying straight folks" and these ceasing to have children.

Yours is another silly strawman of your own making, nowhere indicated or implied in anything I said.

Your "hugh holes" are really "hugh" failings in your own reasoning.

"Invariably this "social engineering" runs into some real problems, among which is biological design"

your own words son.
if you can't understand the implications of your rants, stop
making them

[kenpoman]

That's just it - they are not MY preferences. It is the culture.

Why does the left think they have to change the dominant culture to fit their needs?

I'll answer - because the left thinks they are here to make all things to all people.

It is like hundreds of years of American culture and human history mean nothing now that they are here.

so you support gay marriage?

[Trip]

facts are against you.

they can't in most states in the union.

again, that's the whole stinking reason for the Maine vote.

The facts are actually against you:

Gay persons are equally entitled to marry, just as every other person. They can select a partner of the opposite sex and become married. They don't have any obligation to have sex with them or reproduce. There is no sort of "discrimination" in this anywhere.

What gays want is to have their own choice validated, demanding they get recognition for that choice beyond others - expecting to be a "special case" when there is no cause for society to even recognize this case at all.

[kenpoman]

it really very simple:

if you don't want a gay marriage, don't have one.

[ThinkingMan]

facts are against you.

they can't in most states in the union.

again, that's the whole stinking reason for the Maine vote.

You mean to others of the same gender. I don't.

That's not what marriage is.

Too bad for them.

They shouldn't change it just to fit their lifestyle. Too many others (like the dominant culture) prefer it means what it presently means, so it still has significance. Like 2/3.

[ThinkingMan]

it really very simple:

if you don't want a gay marriage, don't have one.

Is is simpler than that. If you want to marry - go right ahead. Just don't change the definition if it does not suit you.

[kenpoman]

The facts are actually against you:

Gay persons are equally entitled to marry, just as every other person. They can select a partner of the opposite sex and become married. They don't have any obligation to have sex with them or reproduce. There is no sort of "discrimination" in this anywhere.

What gays want is to have their own choice validated, demanding they get recognition for that choice beyond others - expecting to be a "special case" when there is no cause for society to even recognize this case at all.

I'll concede your point.

OK, I'll be more specific.
gays are not allowed to marry the folks of their choice.

happy?

[ThinkingMan]

so you support gay marriage?

There's no such thing.

Do you support the sanctity of marriage?

[Trip]

"Invariably this "social engineering" runs into some real problems, among which is biological design"

your own words son.
if you can't understand the implications of your rants, stop
making them

Exactly, those are my words. And nowhere in my words there do I indicated anything about gays somehow prohibiting hetersexuals from reproducing, which was your indication.

What my words there indicate is that social engineering, the push to make gays unions be the same as heterosexual unions, is denied by the fact they cannot ever be equal, by biological design. This simplifies to "We do not reproduce via joining two of the same".

If you cannot understand the implication of the English language and biological fact, a fact by which even you, yourself are here, then exactly WHAT do you grasp?

[kenpoman]

You mean to others of the same gender. I don't.

That's not what marriage is.

Too bad for them.

They shouldn't change it just to fit their lifestyle. Too many others (like the dominant culture) prefer it means what it presently means, so it still has significance. Like 2/3.


ah yes, the dominant culture dictating the good of society.

lets see:
slavery.
internment of Americans based on race
refusal to allow women to vote
anti semitism
jim crow
attempted genocide of the Indians
denial of mixed race HETROSEXUAL marriage.

shall I go on?

the essential reason this whole nation was founded was to
protect individuals from the tyrany of the "dominant" culture

right now the dominant culture wants Obama.
you good with that?

[Celtic Pax]

Maine ballot question:
"Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry and allows individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages?"

Seems straight forward in it's wording but wonder if it makes sense other than "We don't want children to suffer by being singled out for their parents difference" AS a Mainer, I have issues with the law. I feel that gays etc. should have legal protection against discrimination in society and in the work place. They should have the"legal" protections any citizen has in the US. BUT, marriage? I am concerned that the issue is nothing more than an agenda item for those who would push homosexuality in the schools etc. Already, many gays have advocated gay counselors in schools. Encouraged gays teachers to come out as well. Elementary schools already push acceptance of "diversity" http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51gs0TbcY2L._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA240_SH20_OU01_.jpg That I feel has not been in the best interest of the child BUT for the interests of the gay community. While I have met a number of very nice gay individuals and "couples", they are generally discrete and not in your face types. Legalizing gay marriage would be too blatant an act for many and I am not sure beneficial for them or their children. Also, "marriage" (regardless of legal and historical development) is seen in our society as "religious" in nature and symbolism, trampling on social customs long held. Civil unions I can back BUT "marriage" I am not so sure. Will make up my mind by Tuesday whe I go to the polls.

[kenpoman]

where's the dozens of threads dealing with the outrage
over how HETROSEXUALS are destroying marriage?

they're killing it faster than anything.

[Trip]

I'll concede your point.

OK, I'll be more specific.
gays are not allowed to marry the folks of their choice.

happy?

Gays are not allowed to redefine marriage to whatever they want. The word has a long extant meaning. Marriage's definition involves a man and woman.

Similarly no state in these United States created the institution of marriage; states have only recognized marriage. Therefore none of these states have any right to to redefine something that long predates this country by more than thrice its duration.

[kenpoman]

Maine ballot question:


Seems straight forward in it's wording but wonder if it makes sense other than "We don't want children to suffer by being singled out for their parents difference" AS a Mainer, I have issues with the law. I feel that gays etc. should have legal protection against discrimination in society and in the work place. They should have the"legal" protections any citizen has in the US. BUT, marriage? I am concerned that the issue is nothing more than an agenda item for those who would push homosexuality in the schools etc. Already, many gays have advocated gay counselors in schools. Encouraged gays teachers to come out as well. Elementary schools already push acceptance of "diversity" http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51gs0TbcY2L._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA240_SH20_OU01_.jpg That I feel has not been in the best interest of the child BUT for the interests of the gay community. While I have met a number of very nice gay individuals and "couples", they are generally discrete and not in your face types. Legalizing gay marriage would be too blatant an act for many and I am not sure beneficial for them or their children. Also, "marriage" (regardless of legal and historical development) is seen in our society as "religious" in nature and symbolism, trampling on social customs long held. Civil unions I can back BUT "marriage" I am not so sure. Will make up my mind by Tuesday whe I go to the polls.


I'm curious why civil unions work for you but marriage does not?

[Trip]

where's the dozens of threads dealing with the outrage
over how HETROSEXUALS are destroying marriage?

they're killing it faster than anything.

Society and its lack of values, one of which being the belief that marriage has no meaning of value, is the cause for the decline of marriage.

[ThinkingMan]

ah yes, the dominant culture dictating the good of society.

lets see:
slavery.
internment of Americans based on race
refusal to allow women to vote
anti semitism
jim crow
attempted genocide of the Indians
denial of mixed race HETROSEXUAL marriage.

shall I go on?

the essential reason this whole nation was founded was to
protect individuals from the tyrany of the "dominant" culture

right now the dominant culture wants Obama.
you good with that?

No - you shall not go on with the typical leftist's response.

Ills in our society (even though we've solved them) is not justification for redefining the good things in our society.

[ThinkingMan]

I'm curious why civil unions work for you but marriage does not?

Because marriage is not a civil union.

Another group has dibs on the marriage thing. What the left hates is that the group is large - the culture at large.

[kenpoman]

Gays are not allowed to redefine marriage to whatever they want. The word has a long extant meaning. Marriage's definition involves a man and woman.

Similarly no state and in these United States created the institution of marriage; states have only recognized marriage. Therefore none of these states have any right to to redefine something that long predates this country by more than thrice its duration.

its calles states rights.

anything not expressely given to the fed, or denied the fed, is the juristiction
of states rights.

ergo, individual states may choose to define marriage however they wish.

for your own good, please stop with the failing attempts at logical arguements.
keep with the rants.

[ThinkingMan]

where's the dozens of threads dealing with the outrage
over how HETROSEXUALS are destroying marriage?

they're killing it faster than anything.

Yes they are. But you can't fix a problem by making it worse - by redefining it, and making it less sacred.

[ThinkingMan]

its calles states rights.

anything not expressely given to the fed, or denied the fed, is the juristiction
of states rights.

ergo, individual states may choose to define marriage however they wish.

for your own good, please stop with the failing attempts at logical arguements.
keep with the rants.

We support the sacred institutions in our culture and want to maintain them, while allowing whatever aggrieved groups do whatever they want, as long as it does not redefine our culture. That is not ranting.

But I know that's what the MSM makes everyone think.

I see they got to you too.

[kenpoman]

No - you shall not go on with the typical leftist's response.

Ills in our society (even though we've solved them) is not justification for redefining the good things in our society.

in short, you just got bitch slapped with facts and you
don't care for it.

funny how fast some folks cry "liberal" when hit with facts
they don't like

lynching black folks in the south was culturally accpetable
might still be in some places where they don't care for
yankee laws.

want to let them lynch?

[Trip]

No - you shall not go on with the typical leftist's response.

Ills in our society (even though we've solved them) is not justification for redefining the good things in our society.

Man, they do have this impulse to create supferficial analogies and irrelevant, hypothetical scenarios, don't they?

I can almost see them becoming apoplectic when confronted with the fact that this isn't about individual cases, but rather overall contribution to society. This concept is in direct conflict with their need to validate each and every individual choice.

[kenpoman]

We support the sacred institutions in our culture and want to maintain them, while allowing whatever aggrieved groups do whatever they want, as long as it does not redefine our culture. That is not ranting.

But I know that's what the MSM makes everyone think.

I see they go to you too.

you guys gotta pick a point and stick with it.

your full scale intellectual retreat is amusing and sad at
the same time.

the only "sacred" institutions in our secular republic are
the ones codified in the US Constitution.

[ThinkingMan]

in short, you just got bitch slapped with facts and you
don't care for it.

funny how fast some folks cry "liberal" when hit with facts
they don't like

lynching black folks in the south was culturally accpetable
might still be in some places where they don't care for
yankee laws.

want to let them lynch?

You are talking about lynching blacks. I am talking about the sanctity of marriage.

Now who's ranting?

[Trip]

in short, you just got bitch slapped with facts and you
don't care for it.

funny how fast some folks cry "liberal" when hit with facts
they don't like

lynching black folks in the south was culturally accpetable
might still be in some places where they don't care for
yankee laws.

want to let them lynch?

No, you didn't "bitch slap" anyone, and certainly provided no facts.

Creating false correlations with no relevance in some vague, undetailed argument does not constitute "facts".

[kenpoman]

Man, they do have this impulse to create supferficial analogies and irrelevant, hypothetical scenarios, don't they?

I can almost see them becoming apoplectic when confronted with the fact that this isn't about individual cases, but rather overall contribution to society. This concept is in direct conflict with their need to validate each and every individual choice.

are you denying the things I listed took place
with the tacit and often outright support of the
"dominant" culture?

freedom scare you that badly?

[ThinkingMan]

you guys gotta pick a point and stick with it.

your full scale intellectual retreat is amusing and sad at
the same time.

the only "sacred" institutions in our secular republic are
the ones codified in the US Constitution.

As if Judeo-Christian values have no part in our society.

More leftist position.

So, the definition of everything is up to the vagaries of man's whims.

[ThinkingMan]

you guys gotta pick a point and stick with it.

your full scale intellectual retreat is amusing and sad at
the same time.

the only "sacred" institutions in our secular republic are
the ones codified in the US Constitution.

And it is only "sad" to the aggrieved groups who can't make all things to all people.

But I know - I am moving the goalposts again. :rolleyes:

[Trip]

you guys gotta pick a point and stick with it.

your full scale intellectual retreat is amusing and sad at
the same time.

the only "sacred" institutions in our secular republic are
the ones codified in the US Constitution.


Your running amok does not constitute our 'retreat'.

Sorry but institutions did not begin with the Constitution, and even that Constitution recognized rights and freedoms that are not detailed within.

[ThinkingMan]

are you denying the things I listed took place
with the tacit and often outright support of the
"dominant" culture?

freedom scare you that badly?

Why do you hate America?

[kenpoman]

You are talking about lynching blacks. I am talking about the sanctity of marriage.

Now who's ranting?

I'm just trying to pin you down on just how much
leeway you wish to give the cultural majority.

you brought it up - lets see how far you're willing to go.

I'm guessing you're not bitching about Obama and his
policies since he was elected by the majority.
if you're being intellectually honest.

[Trip]

are you denying the things I listed took place
with the tacit and often outright support of the
"dominant" culture?

freedom scare you that badly?

I'm indicating the fact that your "things" have no relevance to the fact that marriage has a defined meaning and gays have no right to re-define it.

[kenpoman]

Why do you hate America?

and he runs up the surrender flag!

have absolutley, postively, utterly no coherant response,
claim the person you left you undressed and whimpering

"hates America"


what are you, in the third grade?

[Trip]

I'm just trying to pin you down on just how much
leeway you wish to give the cultural majority.

you brought it up - lets see how far you're willing to go.

I'm guessing you're not bitching about Obama and his
policies since he was elected by the majority.
if you're being intellectually honest.

This country does not operate under majority rule any more than it operates by minority expectation. This is not a democracy but rather a Republic.

[Celtic Pax]

I'm curious why civil unions work for you but marriage does not?Religious symbolism I suppose. More of an emotional view than a legalistic one.

[kenpoman]

I'm indicating the fact that your "things" have no relevance to the fact that marriage has a defined meaning and gays have no right to re-define it.

yes or no.
did they occur?

and in this nation, any citizen, even the gays ones, have

EVERY RIGHT

to attempt to seek redress for any percieved issue.

ouch!
look guys, it fun slapping you around, but my arm is getting tired.

stick to your opinons - you're more than welcome to them -
but quit killing yourself with your "facts"

[ThinkingMan]

I'm just trying to pin you down on just how much
leeway you wish to give the cultural majority.

you brought it up - lets see how far you're willing to go.

I'm guessing you're not bitching about Obama and his
policies since he was elected by the majority.
if you're being intellectually honest.

Marriage and its sanctity have nothing to do with a popularity contest won by someone spending 0.75 billion dollars (from the inner cities, of course) to win it.

Obama and his train wreck policies and administration are going to be disaster enough for this soon to be formerly great country.

[kenpoman]

This country does not operate under majority rule any more than it operates by minority expectation. This is not a democracy but rather a Republic.

and he proves my point without realising it.

[ThinkingMan]

and he runs up the surrender flag!

have absolutley, postively, utterly no coherant response,
claim the person you left you undressed and whimpering

"hates America"


what are you, in the third grade?

Coming from someone who just asked " freedom scare you that badly?" in the adjoining post.

Alice in Wonderland logic.

[kenpoman]

Religious symbolism I suppose. More of an emotional view than a legalistic one.

that's more than fair enough.

I support gay marriages in a civil sense, but do not believe
they should be allowed to force religious unions on faiths/
denominations who don't approve.

religion is optional in our society.

[Trip]

yes or no.
did they occur?

and in this nation, any citizen, even the gays ones, have

EVERY RIGHT

to attempt to seek redress for any percieved issue.

ouch!
look guys, it fun slapping you around, but my arm is getting tired.

stick to your opinons - you're more than welcome to them -
but quit killing yourself with your "facts"

No one denied they occured. TM and I have only indicated they are irrelevant to marriage.

The right to seek redress is not construed to be any absolute right for that redress.

That "ouch" was only you slapping yourself in your unrefined flailing.

[ThinkingMan]

that's more than fair enough.

I support gay marriages in a civil sense, but do not believe
they should be allowed to force religious unions on faiths/
denominations who don't approve.

religion is optional in our society.

Except if it is public display, or outside of the church on Sunday morning.

May how we've decayed.

[kenpoman]

Coming from someone who just asked " freedom scare you that badly?" in the adjoining post.

Alice in Wonderland logic.

you realise this makes less sense than anything you've
posted yet.

quite an acomplishment, but not one to be proud of.

[kenpoman]

Except if it is public display, or outside of the church on Sunday morning.

May how we've decayed.

OK, now you're babbling.
maybe you should get coffee.

[ogibillm]

i've been married for 8 months now. in that time iowa, vermont, and new hampshire have begun issuing same-sex marriage licenses.

turns out, it hasn't affected my marriage at all. i still love my wife, i don't lust after men, and frankly if someone else wants to spend the rest of their life with the person they love more power to them.

[Trip]

that's more than fair enough.

I support gay marriages in a civil sense, but do not believe
they should be allowed to force religious unions on faiths/
denominations who don't approve.

religion is optional in our society.

Religions don't have any more right to marriage either.

Religions only sanctify marriage, recognizing it in their own way, just as governments choose to recognize marriage in their own way.

Marriage is not able to be re-created by either of these current social institution as they did not create it.

I can recognize the boundary of my neighbor's property. I can choose to celebrate that boundary by raising a fence or wall. But I am not entitled to redefine that boundary to my pleasure whenever he isn't looking.

[kenpoman]

No one denied they occured. TM and I have only indicated they are irrelevant to marriage.

The right to seek redress is not construed to be any absolute right for that redress.

That "ouch" was only you slapping yourself in your unrefined flailing.

are they irrevellant to marriage?
absolutely.

but that dies when you started making linking the "cultural majority"
wants something.

y'all opened the door.

hint: if you don't want to be kicked, stop wearing the kick me sign

[ogibillm]

Religions don't have any more right to marriage either.

Religions only sanctify marriage, recognizing it in their own way, just as governments choose to recognize marriage in their own way.

Marriage is not able to be re-created by either of these current social institution as they did not create it.

I can recognize the boundary of my neighbor's property. I can choose to celebrate that boundary by raising a fence or wall. But I am not entitled to redefine that boundary to my pleasure whenever he isn't looking.

so... in your opinion, who created the legal institution of marriage?

[Trip]

i've been married for 8 months now. in that time iowa, vermont, and new hampshire have begun issuing same-sex marriage licenses.

turns out, it hasn't affected my marriage at all. i still love my wife, i don't lust after men, and frankly if someone else wants to spend the rest of their life with the person they love more power to them.

You've used this irrelant claim before.

Marriage isn't recognized based on any singular case basis, nor by your personal opinion, nor that of any state.

Nowhere has it been any claim that "gay marriage" (which doesn't exist) somehow diminishes marriage as any part of the arguments presented here.

[ogibillm]

You've used this irrelant claim before.

Marriage isn't recognized based on any singular case basis, nor by your personal opinion, nor that of any state.

Nowhere has it been any claim that "gay marriage" (which doesn't exist) somehow diminishes marriage as any part of the arguments presented here.

okay, so it doesn't harm heterosexual marriages.

what's the problem with it then?

[kenpoman]

Religions don't have any more right to marriage either.

Religions only sanctify marriage, recognizing it in their own way, just as governments choose to recognize marriage in their own way.

Marriage is not able to be re-created by either of these current social institution as they did not create it.

I can recognize the boundary of my neighbor's property. I can choose to celebrate that boundary by raising a fence or wall. But I am not entitled to redefine that boundary to my pleasure whenever he isn't looking.

who's not looking?
based on the hysteria, you're on the roof with binoculars.

nothing is happening in the dead of night. a group of Americans are
using their rights -same ones we all have- to seek redress of something
they deem wrong.

its not "not looking" when your head in buried in the ground.

[Trip]

so... in your opinion, who created the legal institution of marriage?

First, marriage is not a legal institution. Marriage is a societal institution which government has given legal recognition to.

No singular person or group created marriage. Societies at large, across time and even separated by geographic divides, have consistently recognized the union of a man and woman as an inherent and valuable structure to that society. And this is no surprise because invariable those man-woman unions and the offspring they produce are how we advance and promote any society.

[kenpoman]

okay, so it doesn't harm heterosexual marriages.

what's the problem with it then?

can't wait for this answer.

BTW: since I'm now a leftist and hate America, can you
recommend any literature?

[ogibillm]

First, marriage is not a legal institution. Marriage is a societal institution which government has given legal recognition to.

No singular person or group created marriage. Societies at large, across time and even separated by geographic divides, have consistently recognized the union of a man and woman as an inherent and valuable structure to that society. And this is no surprise because invariable those man-woman unions and the offspring they produce are how we advance and promote any society.

well here in the us it's also a legal institution. we give marriage legal standing, and it carries with it certain rights.

so who or what suffers if those rights are granted to gay couples?

[kenpoman]

First, marriage is not a legal institution. Marriage is a societal institution which government has given legal recognition to.

No singular person or group created marriage. Societies at large, across time and even separated by geographic divides, have consistently recognized the union of a man and woman as an inherent and valuable structure to that society. And this is no surprise because invariable those man-woman unions and the offspring they produce are how we advance and promote any society.

you can keep posting this as often as you wish and its still factually missing.
marriage began as a way of owning a woman (or women) to ensure our
offspring is tryly ours.

our species is biologically driven to pair bond, there is the basis for what
you consider marriage. and some are biologically driven to bond with
same sex partners.

[Trip]

who's not looking?
based on the hysteria, you're on the roof with binoculars.

nothing is happening in the dead of night. a group of Americans are
using their rights -same ones we all have- to seek redress of something
they deem wrong.

its not "not looking" when your head in buried in the ground.

Oh, we're looking and we're saying "no".

In fact we cut off those seeking to dishonestly leverage "gay marriage" and force it upon all Americans through local state Judiciaries and Legislatures, having gotten a bill back in 1996 known as DOMA.

[ogibillm]

can't wait for this answer.

BTW: since I'm now a leftist and hate America, can you
recommend any literature?

i always recommend catch-22. it's just a damn good book.

also dune.

but no, i don't read political books. too depressing.

[kenpoman]

well here in the us it's also a legal institution. we give marriage legal standing, and it carries with it certain rights.

so who or what suffers if those rights are granted to gay couples?

I've been married to the same woman for nearly 22 years.
had the union blessed by a Priest and everything.

nothing anyone external to us does: gay or straight, married or single,
pretty or ugly has any effect on our bond.

[Trip]

you can keep posting this as often as you wish and its still factually missing.
marriage began as a way of owning a woman (or women) to ensure our
offspring is tryly ours.

our species is biologically driven to pair bond, there is the basis for what
you consider marriage. and some are biologically driven to bond with
same sex partners.

No marriage began as a means to genetically identify a man's offspring, as there was a species interest to protect his own offspring.

Marriage is not about ownership. You have some very ****ed up and grossly mistaken beliefs about marriage.

[kenpoman]

Oh, we're looking and we're saying "no".

In fact we cut off those seeking to dishonestly leverage "gay marriage" and force it upon all Americans through local state Judiciaries and Legislatures, having gotten a bill back in 1996 known as DOMA.

now make up your mind:
are you looking or aren't you?

dishonest leverage? WTH is that?

[kenpoman]

No marriage began as a means to genetically identify a man's offspring, as there was a species interest to protect his own offspring.

Marriage is not about ownership. You have some very ****ed up and grossly mistaken beliefs about marriage.

history and sociology not your thing?
pity.

may I recommend the local library?

[Trip]

okay, so it doesn't harm heterosexual marriages.

what's the problem with it then?

It is a fact that the false equivalency of two inherently unlike things is a lie.

Marriage is not the same as gay-unions. It is just... that.. simple.

[kenpoman]

i always recommend catch-22. it's just a damn good book.

also dune.

but no, i don't read political books. too depressing.

darn! I really wanted a handbook.

how to hate America in 90 days, something like that.

is there a secret handshake?

[Trip]

history and sociology not your thing?
pity.

may I recommend the local library?

Ya know if you are going to behave as a punk, I am more than capable of abusing you.

I know quite a lot about history and I've shown you to be wrong repeatedly.

[ogibillm]

I've been married to the same woman for nearly 22 years.
had the union blessed by a Priest and everything.

nothing anyone external to us does: gay or straight, married or single,
pretty or ugly has any effect on our bond.

congratulations!

(please don't take the following the wrong way)
i got to be honest, one of my big concerns for my marriage is the future 20-25 years down the road. a buddy of mine sent me an article a while back about the divorce rates among people in their 40's and 50's... turns out when a lot of people find themselves with an empty nest and just their spouse at home they realize that over the last 18+ years of raising kids they've grown apart and that they don't really have a relationship anymore.

i worry about that kind of thing... but i guess it just shows that marriage never becomes something you don't have to work at.

[kenpoman]

Ya know if you are going to behave as a punk, I am more than capable of abusing you.

I know quite a lot about history and I've shown you to be wrong repeatedly.

keyboard commandos neither impress or intimdate me.
but it is often funny.

as to proving me wrong....
uh, no.

but thanks for playing. be sure to see Alex on the way out the door
for some lovely parting gifts.

[ogibillm]

It is a fact that the false equivalency of two inherently unlike things is a lie.

Marriage is not the same as gay-unions. It is just... that.. simple.

okay... so you seem to be having a problem with nomenclature. if gay civil unions are allowed, with all the legal benefits and responsibilities of heterosexual marriage, but they're called something else, would you have a problem with that?

[ogibillm]

darn! I really wanted a handbook.

how to hate America in 90 days, something like that.

is there a secret handshake?

nah, there's no handbook. you just have to feel the hatred for america. it's gotta come from inside, it's not something you can teach. ;)

and we don't really have a handshake. we do terrorist fist jabs.

[FOX Watcher]

Gays are not allowed to redefine marriage to whatever they want.

You're right. That is why there is a legal process to redefine marriage, if need be.


The word has a long extant meaning. Marriage's definition involves a man and woman.

And so it has in the past.

Slavery also had a long extant meaning in American culture. White landowners enslave Blacks to do hard labor against their will.

The definition of marriage can change. You don't feel it should, as you have certain prejudices. However, your prejudices alone with the argument "well, that simply is the way we have always done things" isn't enough to justify continuing to do or not to do any given thing.



Similarly no state in these United States created the institution of marriage; states have only recognized marriage. Therefore none of these states have any right to to redefine something that long predates this country by more than thrice its duration.

Sure they do. That is why we have a legal process to do just that.

Marriage is what the people say it is. Tradition really doesn't matter, to be frank. There have been a lot of bad "traditions" in the United States that have since been outlawed or modified.

Unfortunately, the only reason you have this philosophy of marriage being between one man / one woman is because of religion. However, homosexuality long predates Judaism, as you probably know. Since Judaism and the Christian Faith were not the first forms of religion in existence, how can one necessarily make a claim that something that has arisen from that (marriage between one man and one woman) was necessarily what was intended to be?

Man made the decision at one point to make marriage between one man and one woman. What gives Man of the past any more authority over Man of today to make decisions about what is best for society in this day and age?

And please spare us the "social contribution" BS. When there is a divorce rate of well over 50% in this country, I hardly consider this to be a "social contribution to society".

[kenpoman]

congratulations!

(please don't take the following the wrong way)
i got to be honest, one of my big concerns for my marriage is the future 20-25 years down the road. a buddy of mine sent me an article a while back about the divorce rates among people in their 40's and 50's... turns out when a lot of people find themselves with an empty nest and just their spouse at home they realize that over the last 18+ years of raising kids they've grown apart and that they don't really have a relationship anymore.

i worry about that kind of thing... but i guess it just shows that marriage never becomes something you don't have to work at.

no offense, I understand your point.
in truth I had similiar concerns.

there is (IMO) a single trick to making a marriage last

-not being gay, of course :) -

work your ass off. make a point of staying connected,
of developing some common interests, and keeping the
love alive. what I've seen time and again are folks who
get lazy and expect things will tend themselves.

and give 100% expecting 0% in return. if you've
chosen the right mate they'll do the same.

[Trip]

keyboard commandos neither impress or intimdate me.
but it is often funny.

as to proving me wrong....
uh, no.

but thanks for playing. be sure to see Alex on the way out the door
for some lovely parting gifts.

You've been beaten silly this whole exchange, and if you imagine i was in any way behaving as a "keyboard commando" then you're very obnoxious posturing is only cover for your very thin skin.

[Trip]

okay... so you seem to be having a problem with nomenclature. if gay civil unions are allowed, with all the legal benefits and responsibilities of heterosexual marriage, but they're called something else, would you have a problem with that?

No problem at all. Perhaps some would but that would involve other arguments than my own.

[kenpoman]

nah, there's no handbook. you just have to feel the hatred for america. it's gotta come from inside, it's not something you can teach. ;)

and we don't really have a handshake. we do terrorist fist jabs.

let me see if I can do this ....
(! indicates a fist pump)

freedom of religion!
freedom of peacefully assembly !
right to seek redress or wrongs!
freedom of speech/espression!
freedom to peacefully live your life however
you wish within the bounds of Constitutional law!

am I hating America correctly?

[kenpoman]

You've been beaten silly this whole exchange, and if you imagine i was in any way behaving as a "keyboard commando" then you're very obnoxious posturing is only cover for your very thin skin.

what color is the sky in your world?

[ThinkingMan]

what color is the sky in your world?

Try to keep you discussion relevant, even if you are debating from a losing position.

[ogibillm]

No problem at all. Perhaps some would but that would involve other arguments than my own.

that's cool. i thought you had a problem with the unions themselves.

but i hope you realize that no matter what the legal term if/whe gay unions and heterosexual marriage are the same legally eventually they will be called the same thing in the common vernacular.

and, you guessed it, it'll be called marriage.

[ThinkingMan]

i've been married for 8 months now. in that time iowa, vermont, and new hampshire have begun issuing same-sex marriage licenses.

turns out, it hasn't affected my marriage at all. i still love my wife, i don't lust after men, and frankly if someone else wants to spend the rest of their life with the person they love more power to them.

What good is your marriage now that everyone makes it what THEY want?

What good is a trophy if everyone gets one?

[kenpoman]

Try to keep you discussion relevant, even if you are debating from a losing position.

I am.
you guys are operating in an alternate reality where
logic, history, and facts hold no sway.

I'm just trying to get a sense of things to understand you
better.

[kenpoman]

What good is your marriage now that everyone makes it what THEY want?

What good is a trophy if everyone gets one?

so you just wanna feel special?

[Trip]

You're right. That is why there is a legal process to redefine marriage, if need be.



And so it has in the past.

Slavery also had a long extant meaning in American culture. White landowners enslave Blacks to do hard labor against their will.

The definition of marriage can change. You don't feel it should, as you have certain prejudices. However, your prejudices alone with the argument "well, that simply is the way we have always done things" isn't enough to justify continuing to do or not to do any given thing.




Sure they do. That is why we have a legal process to do just that.

Marriage is what the people say it is. Tradition really doesn't matter, to be frank. There have been a lot of bad "traditions" in the United States that have since been outlawed or modified.

Unfortunately, the only reason you have this philosophy of marriage being between one man / one woman is because of religion. However, homosexuality long predates Judaism, as you probably know. Since Judaism and the Christian Faith were not the first forms of religion in existence, how can one necessarily make a claim that something that has arisen from that (marriage between one man and one woman) was necessarily what was intended to be?

Man made the decision at one point to make marriage between one man and one woman. What gives Man of the past any more authority over Man of today to make decisions about what is best for society in this day and age?

And please spare us the "social contribution" BS. When there is a divorce rate of well over 50% in this country, I hardly consider this to be a "social contribution to society".

TO have legal right to do something, you have to have authority over it. No state nor federal government have any authority over marriage because they did not bring it into existence. They can create some other institution and give it equal rights, but there is no established right within the law to do so for marriage. What they've done thus far is only a false usurpation of the law to force a re-definition.

I'm not arguing from any prejudice; you are. My case is based entirely upon the existing meaning of marriage, with this being established by others.

Your case involves your prejudice (pre judgment) that marriage can as easily be "two anythings together for their happiness" when this is not the definition of marriage nor does it have anything whatsoever to do with why marriage was recognized and institutionalized by societies (plural), across societal, geographic and temporal divides.

This has nothing to do with slavery which is only another superficial and fabricated argument on your part, having nothing to do with the case at hand. For slavery to be relevant someone would have had to re-define slavery. They didn't. What they did is re-define "citizen" and "freedom", and these were both defined in the Constitution of this country, thereby giving the government the right to re-define these.

[ogibillm]

let me see if I can do this ....
(! indicates a fist pump)

freedom of religion!
freedom of peacefully assembly !
right to seek redress or wrongs!
freedom of speech/espression!
freedom to peacefully live your life however
you wish within the bounds of Constitutional law!

am I hating America correctly?

depends. sometimes those things can mean you love america. but sometimes those same principles can cause you to hate america, if they lead you to disagree with the right pundit, they can cause you to hate america.

however one of the big ways to prove you love america is you have to be for personal responsibility but not national responsibility. therefore even suggesting that we as a nation may have done something wrong in the past that is causing problems now is the best and easiest way to prove how much you hate america.

[ThinkingMan]

You're right. That is why there is a legal process to redefine marriage, if need be.



And so it has in the past.

Slavery also had a long extant meaning in American culture. White landowners enslave Blacks to do hard labor against their will.

The definition of marriage can change. You don't feel it should, as you have certain prejudices. However, your prejudices alone with the argument "well, that simply is the way we have always done things" isn't enough to justify continuing to do or not to do any given thing.




Sure they do. That is why we have a legal process to do just that.

Marriage is what the people say it is. Tradition really doesn't matter, to be frank. There have been a lot of bad "traditions" in the United States that have since been outlawed or modified.

Unfortunately, the only reason you have this philosophy of marriage being between one man / one woman is because of religion. However, homosexuality long predates Judaism, as you probably know. Since Judaism and the Christian Faith were not the first forms of religion in existence, how can one necessarily make a claim that something that has arisen from that (marriage between one man and one woman) was necessarily what was intended to be?

Man made the decision at one point to make marriage between one man and one woman. What gives Man of the past any more authority over Man of today to make decisions about what is best for society in this day and age?

And please spare us the "social contribution" BS. When there is a divorce rate of well over 50% in this country, I hardly consider this to be a "social contribution to society".

This is a key post, because you said "tradition doesn't really matter."

Tradition DOES matter. But the left denigrates tradition, thinking that slavery and racism are "traditions."

Well they are NOT. The real tradition is to rid our culture of these ills, not to maintain them.

The left looks to slavery as the catch-all excuse to do whatever they want to the culture, believing that it must be "redefined."

When it is actually deconstruction.

[ogibillm]

What good is your marriage now that everyone makes it what THEY want?

What good is a trophy if everyone gets one?

what good is my marriage? my wife and i have pledged to love each other until the day we die. frankly i don't give a damn what anyone else pledges. it won't change our vows and they will always have meaning and value for me.

[kenpoman]

depends. sometimes those things can mean you love america. but sometimes those same principles can cause you to hate america, if they lead you to disagree with the right pundit, they can cause you to hate america.

however one of the big ways to prove you love america is you have to be for personal responsibility but not national responsibility. therefore even suggesting that we as a nation may have done something wrong in the past that is causing problems now is the best and easiest way to prove how much you hate america.


when we're wrong, we're wrong.

my biggest concerns there stem from two areas
1) usually you need the fullness of time to know. snap political judgements
are often wrong
2) I'm not into generational guilt. ex: I would never support slavery reperations
since none of us alive now, and probably not our parents, owned slaves.

[ThinkingMan]

I am.
you guys are operating in an alternate reality where
logic, history, and facts hold no sway.

I'm just trying to get a sense of things to understand you
better.

The left is ignoring and defying at least hundreds of years of tradition and culture in marriage, yet WE are the ones denying history.

You really ought to try reading your posts out loud before posting them. Just make sure no one is sitting near an open window.

[kenpoman]

what good is my marriage? my wife and i have pledged to love each other until the day we die. frankly i don't give a damn what anyone else pledges. it won't change our vows and they will always have meaning and value for me.


ouch!

that'll leave a mark.

[ThinkingMan]

what good is my marriage? my wife and i have pledged to love each other until the day we die. frankly i don't give a damn what anyone else pledges. it won't change our vows and they will always have meaning and value for me.

Vows? What good are vows when everyone is making up their own, for whatever they want?

Voes and pledges are only meaningful when they are unique, and sacred.

And it doesn't do any good for those considering or about to consider marriage either.

[kenpoman]

The left is ignoring and defying at least hundreds of years of tradition and culture in marriage, yet WE are the ones denying history.

yup.
you got it, and on the first try.

it is patently American to ignore and defy tradition.
ya know, the whole break from england thing.

[ogibillm]

Vows? What good are vows when everyone is making up their own, for whatever they want?

Voes and pledges are only meaningful when they are unique, and sacred.

And it doesn't do any good for those considering or about to consider marriage either.

my vow to love and honor my wife is unique and sacred.

[ThinkingMan]

yup.
you got it, and on the first try.

it is patently American to ignore and defy tradition.
ya know, the whole break from england thing.

What in the world are you talking about?

I think you may have run out of gas.

[Trip]

ouch!

that'll leave a mark.

Again you guys imagine that marriage is defined by, and came into existence from, individual cases.

This is not the truth.

Marriage came into existence from overwhelming overall contribution to society. Thus far only heterosexual unions have promoted and advanced society, hence the recognition of marriage.

The only mark left was self-inflicted.

[kenpoman]

Vows? What good are vows when everyone is making up their own, for whatever they want?

Voes and pledges are only meaningful when they are unique, and sacred.

And it doesn't do any good for those considering or about to consider marriage either.


yup.
you just wanna be special.

so tell me, who's vows?
mulsim vows?
catholic vows?
mormon vows?
jewish vows?
the civic vows at the courthouse?
lutheran vows?
Jehoviah witness vows?

[ThinkingMan]

my vow to love and honor my wife is unique and sacred.

Not when someone is making the same vows, and pledging the same love, to whatever or whomever they want, based on their deviant lifestyle.

[kenpoman]

my vow to love and honor my wife is unique and sacred.

I'm sorry, but it seems that's not the correct vow.
I guess you're not married after all.

[ogibillm]

Again you guys imagine that marriage is defined by, and came into existence from, individual cases.

This is not the truth.

Marriage came into existence from overwhelming overall contribution to society. Thus far only heterosexual unions have promoted and advanced society, hence the recognition of marriage.

The only mark left was self-inflicted.

the point thinkingman was trying to make was that my marriage, or every marriage really, would somehow be diminished if homosexuals were allowed to marry.

this is an argument that you yourself have disagreed with.

[FOX Watcher]

TO have legal right to do something, you have to have authority over it. No state nor federal government have any authority over marriage because they did not bring it into existence. They can create some other institution and give it equal rights, but there is no established right within the law to do so for marriage. What they've done thus far is only a false usurpation of the law to force a re-definition.

I'm not arguing from any prejudice; you are. My case is based entirely upon the existing meaning of marriage, with this being established by others.

Your case involves your prejudice (pre judgment) that marriage can as easily be "two anythings together for their happiness" when this is not the definition of marriage nor does it have anything whatsoever to do with why marriage was recognized and institutionalized by societies (plural), across societal, geographic and temporal divides.

This has nothing to do with slavery which is only another superficial and fabricated argument on your part, having nothing to do with the case at hand. For slavery to be relevant someone would have had to re-define slavery. They didn't. What they did is re-define "citizen" and "freedom", and these were both defined in the Constitution of this country, thereby giving the government the right to re-define these.

Marriage CAN be re-defined to whatever society deems it to be. You may not agree with it, but YES it is possible.

That is why we already have Gay Marriage legally allowed in 6 states today.

Through the legal process, society can really define anything it wants. Don't believe me? Watch it happen.

[ThinkingMan]

yup.
you just wanna be special.

so tell me, who's vows?
mulsim vows?
catholic vows?
mormon vows?
jewish vows?
the civic vows at the courthouse?
lutheran vows?
Jehoviah witness vows?

All of those vows are between a man and a woman, by the way.

:))

Sorry.

[kenpoman]

What in the world are you talking about?

actually, that's the saddest post you've made yet.
and you don't even know why.

[ogibillm]

Not when someone is making the same vows, and pledging the same love, to whatever or whoever they want, based on their deviant lifestyle.

their vow, to love and honor their partner, has no effect and nothing to do with my vow to love and honor my wife.

[kenpoman]

All of those vows are between a man and a woman, by the way.

:))

Sorry.

stop moving the goalposts. (I know, you can't help yourself)

you make such a fuss over some vows being sacred and implying others
are not. since you are so knowledgeable about it, please tell us all which
vows are valid and which are not.

[ThinkingMan]

their vow, to love and honor their partner, has no effect and nothing to do with my vow to love and honor my wife.

Well, you can look at it that way, but if I win a trophy, but everyone gets one too, the trophy has no meaning to me.

You may choose to keep thinking the trophy is special.

I doubt everyone who actually earns one will.

[ThinkingMan]

stop moving the goalposts. (I know, you can't help yourself)

you make such a fuss over some vows being sacred and implying others
are not. since you are so knowledgeable about it, please tell us all which
vows are valid and which are not.

The ones that are not changed to serve the whims of several, disparate aggrieved groups.

Think about it!

Just don't hurt yourself.

[kenpoman]

their vow, to love and honor their partner, has no effect and nothing to do with my vow to love and honor my wife.

a vow is only as good as the intentions of those making it.

how many STRAIGHT, HETROSEXUAL, NON GAY folks make the
approved vows and end up divorced?

[ThinkingMan]

a vow is only as good as the intentions of those making it.

how many STRAIGHT, HETROSEXUAL, NON GAY folks make the
approved vows and end up divorced?

This is not made better by redefining what the vows are about.

[Conservative16]

I agree with the original post. There is no need to promote homosexuality, Maine needs to vote this down.

[kenpoman]

The ones that are not changed to serve the whims of several, disparate aggrieved groups.

Think about it!

Just don't hurt yourself.

c'mon, don't be shy.
specifics - surely you have specifics.
it is, after all, your claim.

[ogibillm]

I'm sorry, but it seems that's not the correct vow.
I guess you're not married after all.

i will save money on anniversary gifts...

which is a big deal to me since i'll have two anniversaries a year.

my wife and i were married in a courthouse before she deployed. not a rush thing, we'd been together for 3 years and lived together for more than one of those. but when she gets back we'll be able to do the whole church wedding thing since we'll have time to plan it and it won't be in the dead of winter.

so end of the day, i'll have two anniversaries to remember. the good news is they'll be more than a year apart, so i'm off the hook for remembering how many years we've been married.

[kenpoman]

LIB, your'e awfully quiet...

[ogibillm]

Well, you can look at it that way, but if I win a trophy, but everyone gets one too, the trophy has no meaning to me.

You may choose to keep thinking the trophy is special.

I doubt everyone who actually earns one will.

you really think straight people are going to care less about their own marriages if gays are allowed to marry?

[kenpoman]

i will save money on anniversary gifts...

which is a big deal to me since i'll have two anniversaries a year.

my wife and i were married in a courthouse before she deployed. not a rush thing, we'd been together for 3 years and lived together for more than one of those. but when she gets back we'll be able to do the whole church wedding thing since we'll have time to plan it and it won't be in the dead of winter.

so end of the day, i'll have two anniversaries to remember. the good news is they'll be more than a year apart, so i'm off the hook for remembering how many years we've been married.

its a good try, but you're sunk.

most women will remember 1st date, 1st kiss, 1st everything...
and expect compensation.
just accept it and get a second job.

oh, and never, ever, ever, get her an appliance. even if she
swears she wants it. unless you got a really comfy couch.

where'd she deploy (assuming you can tell)?

[ThinkingMan]

you really think straight people are going to care less about their own marriages if gays are allowed to marry?

Yes.

As does 2/3 of those who are married.

[kenpoman]

Yes.

As does 2/3 of those who are married.

oh, you gotta have links to this.
you gotta.

[Trip]

the point thinkingman was trying to make was that my marriage, or every marriage really, would somehow be diminished if homosexuals were allowed to marry.

this is an argument that you yourself have disagreed with.

Again, it's not about your individual case.

Overall the term "marriage" and the social institution of marriage, and the REASONS for its long recognition across cultures and time, would be diluted and diminished by the distortion of marriage to be something else.

You obviously will admit that there have been repeated recognition by politicians and sociologists of the decline in marriage and the effects of this on society. We've all heard the problem of "single moms" among the black community. Even yesterday I had a discussion with someone about health care and why we supposedly have a higher infant mortality rate not only in this country, and that this is particularly among blacks. (http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?p=63250971&highlight=mortality#post63250971) The fact is that the prevalence of single motherhood and a dearth of stable marriages in the black community have contributed to this.

WHY would anyone with any real "social responsibility" want to diminish the meaning and significance of marriage in society when all this is true and Marriage of two heterosexuals serves a difinitive and acknowledged benefit to socity. I submit that it is an extreme LACK of social responsibility to advocate the distortion of marriage and thereby blur its meaning and significance within society.

There's an expression you need to consider: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

[ogibillm]

its a good try, but you're sunk.

most women will remember 1st date, 1st kiss, 1st everything...
and expect compensation.
just accept it and get a second job.

oh, and never, ever, ever, get her an appliance. even if she
swears she wants it. unless you got a really comfy couch.

where'd she deploy (assuming you can tell)?

yeah, she doesn't like it when i tell her that i can remember our anniversary because it's 2-20, you know, like dryer voltage. ;) i think i'm supposed to remember for other reasons...

she's in afghanistan. frankly the only reason i'm online this morning is because this is when she has reliable internet access and we can email each other.

[ogibillm]

Yes.

As does 2/3 of those who are married.

i feel sorry for the people that are in those marriages - if true, which i doubt very, very much.

[kenpoman]

I just checked with my wife.

we're solid no matter what.
so it looks like two of you folks are screwed.

[ThinkingMan]

oh, you gotta have links to this.
you gotta.

At your service.

"According to a FOX News poll conducted in the days following the Supreme Judicial Court ruling in Massachusetts, 66 percent of Americans oppose and 25 percent favor same-sex marriage. These new results are similar to those from August 2003, as well as results from 1996, when 65 percent of the public said they opposed allowing same-sex couples to marry."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,103756,00.html

Now I'm no mathmetician, but I think 66% is close to 2/3. Maybe one of the math heads on the forum can confirm this.

You may now begin to ignore it, or say "Fox News - :))"

[kenpoman]

yeah, she doesn't like it when i tell her that i can remember our anniversary because it's 2-20, you know, like dryer voltage. ;) i think i'm supposed to remember for other reasons...

she's in afghanistan. frankly the only reason i'm online this morning is because this is when she has reliable internet access and we can email each other.

you're a guy.
presumably :)

she shoud be glad you can remember it at all. regardless of reason.

all my best while she's deployed. I hope she comes home safely and soon.

[Trip]

I just checked with my wife.

we're solid no matter what.
so it looks like two of you folks are screwed.

You've been getting gay come-ons during this?

:lol:

I'm taken and hetero.

[ThinkingMan]

I just checked with my wife.

we're solid no matter what.
so it looks like two of you folks are screwed.

I just checked with mine. She said if gays get married in PA, we're "through."

[ogibillm]

you're a guy.
presumably :)

she shoud be glad you can remember it at all. regardless of reason.

all my best while she's deployed. I hope she comes home safely and soon.

we just hit the (supposed) half way point.

and thanks for the well wishes.

[kenpoman]

At your service.

"According to a FOX News poll conducted in the days following the Supreme Judicial Court ruling in Massachusetts, 66 percent of Americans oppose and 25 percent favor same-sex marriage. These new results are similar to those from August 2003, as well as results from 1996, when 65 percent of the public said they opposed allowing same-sex couples to marry."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,103756,00.html

Now I'm no mathmetician, but I think 66% is close to 2/3. Maybe one of the math heads on the forum can confirm this.

You may now begin to ignore it, or say "Fox News - :))"

ouch
problem for you. the link doesn't back up your claim

[Scot]

Is anyone here capable of looking at this from an honest perspective? The fact is that MOST people are DISGUSTED by the acts of homosexuality. And it's the MANSEX!

I'm going to get a bit graphic here, but I think I need to to make my point. To cast a vote to legalize marriage, you must believe that it is okay for two men to suck on each others tongues. It's okay for two men to tear up each others rectums with their penises, all while providing the courtessy of a reach around.

Call me whatever name you want, but this is sick, and a vote for gay marriage is not a step in the right direction. Guess what Gay People, marriage is no walk in the park. Check the divorce rates. Maine is already #2 in the nation. Gay people will admit that they already have a greater tendency to change partners than straight people, so I hardly believe that they are going to do better than the current average.

Yeah, and the next thing will be adoption. They're married, so they should be able to adopt children, expecially since they can't make thier own. So then you've got kids FORCED to view or hear these acts. But how's that my business, what they do in their own home is their business. Yeah, until little Johnny has a birthday party and invites all the neighborhood kids over. "Oh, so you don't want your kids to play with my kids, well you're a homophobe." It's going to on and on and on and on.

Lastly, marriage is already losing its sanctity in America. There is almost no shame in divorce. I know people under the age of 35 that have been married and divorced three times and they think nothing of it. This in and of itself has far reaching negative effects on American values. Divorce is horrible thing and should carry more serious social ramifications. Allowing homosexuals to be married is only going to further pollute the institution of marriage.

[ThinkingMan]

ouch
problem for you. the link doesn't back up your claim

Ouch indeed. The ugly truth is a beautiful thing, isn't it?

(Or is it "the beautiful truth is an ugly thing?" either way.)

[kaydahl]

You're distorting and grossly simplifying things for the purpose of your philosophy (agenda).

Mere human bodies do not make the foundation of society, but rather the involvement in and positive interaction with that society is what's relevant. We have lots of people here currently who are "present" but not inherently an overall positive involvement with society (illegals).

Also, the mere improvement to society does not result in that improvement being commensurate with marriage, which provides the proto-citizens, brings those citizens up to self-sufficiency, and trains those citizens in the values of that society, not to mention that marriage being a biologic and genetic trace of that citizen-progeny.

Also your indicating that homosexual unions is some sort of positive thing because it "transcends biology" is a flimsy argument which has no extension to anything meaningful. Committed heterosexual unions also do many things that involve "transcending biological" impulse, including resisting that impulse to find what appears to be "greener pasture." There is some question, as indicated in my previous post, whether or not homosexual unions are able to "transcend" the impulse for self-gratification and validation.

Never has it ever been anywhere a part of my argument that "quality of life" is "solely built on heterosexual marriage". That is a false strawman argument of your own making with no relevance to any of my points.


Just as heterosexual couple unions have not been recognized by society because of any individual-case compulsion to reproduce, so too has that recognition not been resisted because of failure of individual-case couples to provide equal benefit to society. In fact the consideration of individual cases here is entirely moot and irrelevant.

What is relevant is the overall contribution by heterosexual unions in advancing and promoting society over time. Gay unions, no matter how positive, will never equate to heterosexual marriage nor should they be considered to be such. The false equivalence of two inherently unlike things is, and can only be, a lie.




You say that my argument--relationship "transcends biology"-- is flimsy with no extension to anything meaningful. Yet you assert the exact same argument: "Mere human bodies do not make the foundation of society, but rather the involvement in and positive interaction with that society is what's relevant."

In addition, if 'overall contribution is what is relevant, and individual cases are moot'....then the inability of a homosexual relationships to biologically reproduce is equivalent to the inability of an infertile couple to reproduce or equivalent to a couple who chooses not to reproduce. It simply doesn't matter to the goal of advancing and promoting society over time.

Of course I'm simplifying things for the sake of my agenda. Assertion of complexity is typically an example of what???

Keep it simple and what really matters is much easier to see.

[kenpoman]

and as always, polls are the fodder for the insecure and are grossly inaccurate.
I've never held faith and substance in any poll, except for elections.

on of my many jobs is to help create polls. we know the results before they
ever go out. why? we set it up that way.

oh, and while I hate to beat you to the punch, check my history.
its a rare time you'll find me supporting any poll.

[ogibillm]

At your service.

"According to a FOX News poll conducted in the days following the Supreme Judicial Court ruling in Massachusetts, 66 percent of Americans oppose and 25 percent favor same-sex marriage. These new results are similar to those from August 2003, as well as results from 1996, when 65 percent of the public said they opposed allowing same-sex couples to marry."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,103756,00.html

Now I'm no mathmetician, but I think 66% is close to 2/3. Maybe one of the math heads on the forum can confirm this.

You may now begin to ignore it, or say "Fox News - :))"
your poll doesn't support your claim that 2/3 of married couples would care less about their own marriages if gays were allowed to marry.

it doesn't even break down responses by those who are married.

but here's a poll you may find interesting.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20090921/NEWS10/909210321/1001/NEWS
The overwhelming majority of Iowans - 92 percent - say gay marriage has brought no real change to their lives.

who's willing to bet the other 8% are gay? ;)

[kenpoman]

Ouch indeed. The ugly truth is a beautiful thing, isn't it?

(Or is it "the beautiful truth is an ugly thing?" either way.)

it's a beautiful thing your link doesn't support your post?
if you say so.....

[ThinkingMan]

and as always, polls are the fodder for the insecure and are grossly inaccurate.
I've never held faith and substance in any poll, except for elections.

on of my many jobs is to help create polls. we know the results before they
ever go out. why? we set it up that way.

oh, and while I hate to beat you to the punch, check my history.
its a rare time you'll find me supporting any poll.


"you gotta post the poll"

Then

"I don't pay attention to polls"

All I can say is:

:rolleyes:

[ogibillm]

"you gotta post the poll"

Then

"I don't pay attention to polls"

All I can say is:

:rolleyes:

maybe you can't see it when kenpo posts it but...

YOUR POLL DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM

[kenpoman]

your poll doesn't support your claim that 2/3 of married couples would care less about their own marriages if gays were allowed to marry.

it doesn't even break down responses by those who are married.

but here's a poll you may find interesting.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20090921/NEWS10/909210321/1001/NEWS


who's willing to bet the other 8% are gay? ;)

great.
now we have dueling polls.

next thing you know, folks are gonna say there was a second gunman in
Dallas and the moon landing was faked.

see what you started?

[ogibillm]

great.
now we have dueling polls.

next thing you know, folks are gonna say there was a second gunman in
Dallas and the moon landing was faked.

see what you started?

actually the poll i posted from the des moines register doesn't disagree with thinking man's. the numbers are slightly different but for the most part people in iowa don't like gay marriage.

but they also say it hasn't effected their own lives, which is a direct refutation of his claim that 2/3 or married couples would care less about their own vows if gays were allowed to marry.

[kenpoman]

but they also say it hasn't effected their own lives, which is a direct refutation of his claim that 2/3 or married couples would care less about their own vows if gays were allowed to marry.


ta-da!

[kenpoman]

anyone heard from Who lately?

[Trip]

You say that my argument--relationship "transcends biology"-- is flimsy with no extension to anything meaningful. Yet you assert the exact same argument: "Mere human bodies do not make the foundation of society, but rather the involvement in and positive interaction with that society is what's relevant."

I did not assert the "same argument" because my argument did not end there with what you cite. My comment there (in what you cited) was only specifically referencing YOUR comment about the "physical foundation" of society being "human bodies".


In addition, if 'overall contribution is what is relevant, and individual cases are moot'....then the inability of a homosexual relationships to biologically reproduce is equivalent to the inability of an infertile couple to reproduce or equivalent to a couple who chooses not to reproduce. It simply doesn't matter to the goal of advancing and promoting society over time.

Now you're trying to argue that universality of individual cases make overall contribution moot? It doesn't work that way; that's false logic.

*ALL* gay couples are unable to reproduce.

Only *SOME* hetersexual couples are unable to or choose not to reproduce.

Both of these are irrelevent (moot) because *ALL* persons in society are the result of hetersexual biological reproduction.

Advancing and promoting society over time *DOES MATTER* to society and has mattered to widely diverse societies, despite geographic , sociologic and temporal barriers. The fact that these hetersexual unions do matter is because each society is based on these.


Of course I'm simplifying things for the sake of my agenda. Assertion of complexity is typically an example of what???

Keep it simple and what really matters is much easier to see.

There's no complexity to my argument. I don't have to contrive hypothetical individual cases. The fact is all people come from heterosexual unions and these are the backbone of society. No matter how good or nice or positive a gay couple might be, their union will never be the same as a heterosexual union - marriage.

[kenpoman]

actually the poll i posted from the des moines register doesn't disagree with thinking man's. the numbers are slightly different but for the most part people in iowa don't like gay marriage.

but they also say it hasn't effected their own lives, which is a direct refutation of his claim that 2/3 or married couples would care less about their own vows if gays were allowed to marry.


unsolicited advice:

if you haven't figured it out yet, doing the laundry and dishes
is the greatest arousal tool for women there is.

I draw the line at scrubbing toilets, however.

[Trip]

actually the poll i posted from the des moines register doesn't disagree with thinking man's. the numbers are slightly different but for the most part people in iowa don't like gay marriage.

but they also say it hasn't effected their own lives, which is a direct refutation of his claim that 2/3 or married couples would care less about their own vows if gays were allowed to marry.

No one has claimed that any married couple would care less about there own vows if gays were able to marry.

THAT claim is only your own strawman which you keep beating the crap out of ...and, frankly, people are becoming sort of embarrassed by it.

[kenpoman]

Steven Hawkins couldn't reproduce.
Pope John Paul II didn't reproduce.

God knows neither of them have contributed to
hetrosexual society

[kenpoman]

No one has claimed that any married couple would care less about there own vows if gays were able to marry.

THAT claim is only your own strawman which you keep beating the crap out of ...and, frankly, people are becoming sort of embarrassed by it.

wrong yet again.
check thinking man's claims.


if you're becoming embarrassed, you might wish to find a
different thread to particiapte in. you can stop your own
bleeding.

[ogibillm]

No one has claimed that any married couple would care less about there own vows if gays were able to marry.

THAT claim is only your own strawman which you keep beating the crap out of ...and, frankly, people are becoming sort of embarrassed by it.

thinking man has made that very claim.
http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=63259441&postcount=152

[toreyj01]

Destruction of the institution of marriage in all its forms is very inimical to our society.

Look at the damage single motherhood has caused, and is causing. Single motherhood as in babies born out of wedlock, inner city style.

So not single motherhood, babies born out of wedlock, Alaska style?

[Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese]

I do enjoy how the anti-gay marriage folks interpret people not caring if gays get married to membership in the Secret Elders of Fabulousness' great gay conspiracy.

[Trip]

wrong yet again.
check thinking man's claims.


if you're becoming embarrassed, you might wish to find a
different thread to particiapte in. you can stop your own
bleeding.


I saw thinkingman's claim.. It wasnt about his own marriage but rather marriage overall.

You're becoming *STUCK* on individual cases again when this has nothing to do with why marriage is recognized BY SOCIETY overall.

[LOOPYATL]

Taking the religious aspect out of it, am I being too simplistic by stating that laws of nature alone are unions between male and female. I know there are asexual species that reproduce but I have not heard of any that are female and female or male and male. If so please enlighten me.
Of course Free Will does separate us from the other species so I guess it is ok.

[toreyj01]

Marriage as it has been in the country since Jamestown is a sacred institution.

Making it all things to all people makes it less sacred, if at all. It means less, if anything at all.

Why get married (and remember - this was important in our culture) if it doesn't mean anything anymore.

Things that are sacred should not be subject to legislation.

[kenpoman]

"you gotta post the poll"

Then

"I don't pay attention to polls"

All I can say is:

:rolleyes:


I asked for a link, not a poll.
and your own poll cut your legs out from under you
BY NOT SUPPORTING YOUR STUPID CLAIM

[ThinkingMan]

So not single motherhood, babies born out of wedlock, Alaska style?

Correct - that is destructive to our society.

But there's so much more to bash Palin on, isn't there?

[Trip]

thinking man has made that very claim.
http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=63259441&postcount=152

He's talking about marriage being disregarded overall.

He's not saying he'd value his own marriage less, although cheapening marriage overall would diminish the institution and that would devalue his own marriage within society.

[ogibillm]

I saw thinkingman's claim.. It wasnt about his own marriage but rather marriage overall.

You're becoming *STUCK* on individual cases again when this has nothing to do with why marriage is recognized BY SOCIETY overall.

his claim was that individuals would care less about their own marriages if gays were allowed to marry.

question: you really think straight people are going to care less about their own marriages if gays are allowed to marry?
answer: yes.
http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=63259441&postcount=152

[ThinkingMan]

Things that are sacred should not be subject to legislation.

Well, they shouldn't have to be legislated, to maintain the culture. I'm with you there.

[kenpoman]

I saw thinkingman's claim.. It wasnt about his own marriage but rather marriage overall.

You're becoming *STUCK* on individual cases again when this has nothing to do with why marriage is recognized BY SOCIETY overall.

and yet ,

STILL WRONG.

guess you were too busy with your sinde implying gays were
hitting on me. BTW- wouldn't freak me out. I'm
comfortable in my own skin and sexuality.

try it some time.

for a keyboard commando, you really don't bring
game.

[ogibillm]

He's talking about marriage being disregarded overall.

He's not saying he'd value his own marriage less, although cheapening marriage overall would diminish the institution and that would devalue his own marriage within society.

you are being far too kind to thinking man in your generous interpretation of what his 'yes' response to the question "you really think straight people are going to care less about their own marriages if gays are allowed to marry?"

[kenpoman]

you are being far too kind to thinking man in your generous interpretation of what his 'yes' response to the question "you really think straight people are going to care less about their own marriages if gays are allowed to marry?"

cause the truth shoots him in the foot.
again.

[Trip]

his claim was that individuals would care less about their own marriages if gays were allowed to marry.

question: you really think straight people are going to care less about their own marriages if gays are allowed to marry?
answer: yes.
http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=63259441&postcount=152

Straight people would care less about marriage is not HIM stating that he'd care less about his own marriage.

The indication here is that marriage overall would be diminished, and it would. If I were married, which I will be shortly, then my own marriage would indeed be diminished just as society's value of that marriage would have been diminished.

[ThinkingMan]

his claim was that individuals would care less about their own marriages if gays were allowed to marry.

question: you really think straight people are going to care less about their own marriages if gays are allowed to marry?
answer: yes.
http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=63259441&postcount=152


Are you really intent on clearing up my claim, or are you deflecting away from the fact the 2/3 of people oppose gay marriage?

Good grief.

Rhetorical Roshambo.

[kenpoman]

ogibillm,
don't bother. unless you're just facinated by the spin

[akuma]

Well, you can look at it that way, but if I win a trophy, but everyone gets one too, the trophy has no meaning to me.

You may choose to keep thinking the trophy is special.

I doubt everyone who actually earns one will.
then you need to stop putting so much sstock in trophies

or stop caring so much about what someone else thinks about your marriage versus someone elses.

[kenpoman]

Are you really intent on clearing up my claim, or are you deflecting away from the fact the 2/3 of people oppose gay marriage?

Good grief.

Rhetorical Roshambo.


you made -yet again- a specific claim which your own
link could't support.

no matter how badly you try, you're sunk.

[akuma]

Steven Hawkins couldn't reproduce.
Pope John Paul II didn't reproduce.

God knows neither of them have contributed to
hetrosexual society

they contributed to SOCIETY - there isnt a "gay" or "heterosexual" society

gays are just as much a part of society as heteros- much like women and men are JUST as much a part of society

[ogibillm]

Are you really intent on clearing up my claim, or are you deflecting away from the fact the 2/3 of people oppose gay marriage?

the number of people that oppose it doesn't matter to me. i've never said that people like it or want it. what is interesting is that you tried to interpret that opposition as 2/3 of married couples believing they would care less about their own marriages if gays were allowed to marry.

[kenpoman]

then you need to stop putting so much sstock in trophies

or stop caring so much about what someone else thinks about your marriage versus someone elses.

you've just asked him to abandon his whole arguement

[toreyj01]

It is a fact that the false equivalency of two inherently unlike things is a lie.

Marriage is not the same as gay-unions. It is just... that.. simple.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_NUbPhaVyuGs/Rd6DpVlJRtI/AAAAAAAAADA/_1QLAcutCsQ/s400/movie-+because+i+said+so+1.jpg

[Lima India Bravo]

can't wait for this answer.

BTW: since I'm now a leftist and hate America, can you
recommend any literature?

Try this:

[kenpoman]

they contributed to SOCIETY - there isnt a "gay" or "heterosexual" society

gays are just as much a part of society as heteros- much like women and men are JUST as much a part of society

shhhh

don't confuse them

[akuma]

there are plenty of heterosexuals screwing up the intitution of marriage - a few gay couples will hardly do anything to an institution that Britney Spears, Donald Trump, Anna Nicole Smith or Liz Taylor have had at....

[toreyj01]

yup.
you just wanna be special.

so tell me, who's vows?
mulsim vows?
catholic vows?
mormon vows?
jewish vows?
the civic vows at the courthouse?
lutheran vows?
Jehoviah witness vows?Except for the courthouse one, Cons generally are not opposed to churches marrying Gays.

They just don't want them to get the same advantages as straight married couples.

So its rather vindictive, to me.

[Trip]

they contributed to SOCIETY - there isnt a "gay" or "heterosexual" society

gays are just as much a part of society as heteros- much like women and men are JUST as much a part of society

That may be true that gays are as much a part of society as heterosexuals ....


.... but gay unions are not as intetegral part and backbone of society as hetersexual marriage, and they never will be no matter how much false equivalence is forced upon society.

[ThinkingMan]

the number of people that oppose it doesn't matter to me. i've never said that people like it or want it. what is interesting is that you tried to interpret that opposition as 2/3 of married couples believing they would care less about their own marriages if gays were allowed to marry.

Well, I don't pretend to know "exactly" why 2/3 of people oppose it - you got me there.

But I bet a lot of it has to do with valuing marriage.

[ThinkingMan]

you made -yet again- a specific claim which your own
link could't support.

no matter how badly you try, you're sunk.

And yet you post nothing to support your claims. If you even made any.

I guess it is safer that way.

Taking forever to say nothing sure must be tiresome.

You never even "floated" - you just stayed on the bottom.

:)

[Trip]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_NUbPhaVyuGs/Rd6DpVlJRtI/AAAAAAAAADA/_1QLAcutCsQ/s400/movie-+because+i+said+so+1.jpg

NO, not because "i said so" but because of biological fact.

Your falsely distorting marriage to be ... "two people together for their happiness" has nothing to do with why marriage is recognized by society, not even because "you said so".

Heterosexual unions are the means by which societies are advanced and promoted and each society's citizens are brought in a healthy manner to a positive, contributing adulthood. Heterosexual unions are the very backbone of society and this is why SOCIETIES (plural) have invariable recognized and institutionalized hetersexual unions despite the geographic, cultural and temporal barriers between them.

Your distortion of marriage to just be "any two people choosing together" does not change what marriage is and why, "just because you say so".

[akuma]

Correct - that is destructive to our society.

But there's so much more to bash Palin on, isn't there?


reality television, the remote control myspace and camera cellphones also are destructive to society - i would gather moreso than two gay guys getting married.


funny how when this issue is discussed gay guys are inserted into the argument ..but you never see the object of many guys fantasy ( girl girl action ) somehow held out as "bad"

i guess if girl-girl action was so "bad" all the uber hetero men shouldnt be so feverishly consuming it in their "Girls Gone Wild" videos.....

[toreyj01]

Correct - that is destructive to our society.

But there's so much more to bash Palin on, isn't there?

Nope just your swipe on poor people reproducing.

[Lima India Bravo]

LIB, your'e awfully quiet...

Working my way through, trying not to spit coffee onto the monitor.

[kaydahl]

I did not assert the "same argument" because my argument did not end there with what you cite. My comment there (in what you cited) was only specifically referencing YOUR comment about the "physical foundation" of society being "human bodies".



Now you're trying to argue that universality of individual cases make overall contribution moot? It doesn't work that way; that's false logic.

*ALL* gay couples are unable to reproduce.

Only *SOME* hetersexual couples are unable to or choose not to reproduce.

Both of these are irrelevent (moot) because *ALL* persons in society are the result of hetersexual biological reproduction.

Advancing and promoting society over time *DOES MATTER* to society and has mattered to widely diverse societies, despite geographic , sociologic and temporal barriers. The fact that these hetersexual unions do matter is because each society is based on these.



There's no complexity to my argument. I don't have to contrive hypothetical individual cases. The fact is all people come from heterosexual unions and these are the backbone of society. No matter how good or nice or positive a gay couple might be, their union will never be the same as a heterosexual union - marriage.

I agree that a gay relationship will never be the same as a heterosexual union when it comes to the production of human bodies.

If you weren't trying to equate 'production of human bodies' to 'development of a positive society' I would have to argument with you.

[ThinkingMan]

Nope just your swipe on poor people reproducing.

Not poor people. I never said poor.

Just irresponsible. IE, Democrats.

[ThinkingMan]

reality television, the remote control myspace and camera cellphones also are destructive to society - i would gather moreso than two gay guys getting married.


funny how when this issue is discussed gay guys are inserted into the argument ..but you never see the object of many guys fantasy ( girl girl action ) somehow held out as "bad"

i guess if girl-girl action was so "bad" all the uber hetero men shouldnt be so feverishly consuming it in their "Girls Gone Wild" videos.....


These are all examples of how the MSM is perpetuating the myth that this is accepted in our society.

That is, until is actually is accepted, thanks to the MSM.

[akuma]

NO, not because "i said so" but because of biological fact.

Your falsely distorting marriage to be ... "two people together for their happiness" has nothing to do with why marriage is recognized by society, not even because "you said so".

Heterosexual unions are the means by which societies are advanced and promoted and each society's citizens are brought in a healthy manner to a positive, contributing adulthood. Heterosexual unions are the very backbone of society and this is why SOCIETIES (plural) have invariable recognized and institutionalized hetersexual unions despite the geographic, cultural and temporal barriers between them.

Your distortion of marriage to just be "any two people choosing together" does not change what marriage is and why, "just because you say so".

youd be wrong about that - most of human history has been polygamy - not monagamy not on an institutional level at least.. gay or hetero has nothing to do with either of those things.

and marriage "for love" has only come about in the last hundred years or so....if even that - most "marriages" thoughout history( and even now) has been about "property" and an arrangement for social position and "status"...

[Trip]

reality television, the remote control myspace and camera cellphones also are destructive to society - i would gather moreso than two gay guys getting married.


funny how when this issue is discussed gay guys are inserted into the argument ..but you never see the object of many guys fantasy ( girl girl action ) somehow held out as "bad"

i guess if girl-girl action was so "bad" all the uber hetero men shouldnt be so feverishly consuming it in their "Girls Gone Wild" videos.....

False Ideas Promoted Above:

1) Marriage is merely about pairing
2) Marriage is merely about sex.
3) rejecting the falsehood of "gay marriage" is merely about rejecting gay males
4) all uber hetero men are equally turned on by girl-girl displays and somehow this relates to marriage.


Summation: Waste of bandwidth and time.

[toreyj01]

NO, not because "i said so" but because of biological fact.

Your falsely distorting marriage to be ... "two people together for their happiness" has nothing to do with why marriage is recognized by society, not even because "you said so".

Heterosexual unions are the means by which societies are advanced and promoted and each society's citizens are brought in a healthy manner to a positive, contributing adulthood. Heterosexual unions are the very backbone of society and this is why SOCIETIES (plural) have invariable recognized and institutionalized hetersexual unions despite the geographic, cultural and temporal barriers between them.

Your distortion of marriage to just be "any two people choosing together" does not change what marriage is and why, "just because you say so".
Comprehension FTW.

The picture was in response to your post, which lays out an explicit definition under the premise that thats JUST HOW IT IS.

Or, in other words, "because I said so, thats why"

Glad I could help.

[toreyj01]

Not poor people. I never said poor.

Just irresponsible. IE, Democrats.

So all "inner city style" people are irresponsible?

[ogibillm]

Well, I don't pretend to know "exactly" why 2/3 of people oppose it - you got me there.

But I bet a lot of it has to do with valuing marriage.

that might be it. but again, 2/3 of all people not supporting gay marriage is not the same as 2/3 or married couples saying they'd care less about their own marriages if gays could marry.

and you've yet to address the poll i posted from the des moines register about how iowans feel legal gay marriage has affected them.

[akuma]

These are all examples of how the MSM is perpetuating the myth that this is accepted in our society.

That is, until is actually is accepted, thanks to the MSM.

wait wait - are you saying that men REALLY dont like girl girl action? and havent always? or that Girl-Girl fantasy is just some recent concoction???

oh and interracial unions/sex was once not acceptable in our "society "- heck even inter-FAITH unions were even UNACCPETABLE - and thats as recent as the last 3 or 4 decades.

your arguments really is pretty contradictory .

[toreyj01]

Quick question for the Cons here that oppose gay marriage....

Does a church have the right to marry gay people without the consent of the state they perform the ceremony in?

[Trip]

youd be wrong about that - most of human history has been polygamy - not monagamy not on an institutional level at least.. gay or hetero has nothing to do with either of those things.

and marriage "for love" has only come about in the last hundred years or so....if even that - most "marriages" thoughout history( and even now) has been about "property" and an arrangement for social position and "status"...

No, what is "wrong" is what you present as my argument.


My argument was not ever about "most of human history" but rather what is the "backbone" of and "most positive for society".

I never mentioned "marriage for love": strawman of your own making.

Social position and status have relevancy to society, but not relevancy to why society recognized marriage. People wanting social position and status did not create marriage. Rather Marriage was created and institutionalized to recognized the importance of stable hetersexual unions to society.

You libs really have a problem with employing false logic and vague arguments leading to unsupported conclusions. I was a liberal once, but i grew out of it once I dealt with the tumult of puberty.

[Trip]

Quick question for the Cons here that oppose gay marriage....

Does a church have the right to marry gay people without the consent of the state they perform the ceremony in?

No.

Nor do they have a right to marry someone with the consent of the state they marry in.

No state nor federal authority created marriage so they have no inherent right to re-define marriage.

[ogibillm]

No.

Nor do they have a right to marry someone with the consent of the state they marry in.

No state nor federal authority created marriage so they have no inherent right to re-define marriage.

but it is legally defined by the states. is it your argument that the states cannot change their legal definition?

[toreyj01]

No.

Nor do they have a right to marry someone with the consent of the state they marry in.

No state nor federal authority created marriage so they have no inherent right to re-define marriage.

So you are saying that the state or the feds have the right to tell the churches which ceremonies they are allowed to perform for which people, is that correct?

[Lima India Bravo]

unsolicited advice:

if you haven't figured it out yet, doing the laundry and dishes
is the greatest arousal tool for women there is.

I draw the line at scrubbing toilets, however.

My mother always claimed that no woman ever shot a man while he was washing dishes.

[akuma]

False Ideas Promoted Above:

1) Marriage is merely about pairing
2) Marriage is merely about sex.
3) rejecting the falsehood of "gay marriage" is merely about rejecting gay males
4) all uber hetero men are equally turned on by girl-girl displays and somehow this relates to marriage.


Summation: Waste of bandwidth and time.

no im showing your argument for the hypocritical contradictory piece of garbage it is - the argument against gays have ranged from being about the "Sex" as in Gender to the "sex' that might occur to whether someone "approves" of who someone has sex with.

my shot about heteroguys is merely to illustrate that even hetro sexual men contradict themselves about not liking "gay sex"- since MANY men are perfectly accepting of looking at or tolerating two women( if they are attractive looking to men) getting it on ...

[Trip]

Comprehension FTW.

The picture was in response to your post, which lays out an explicit definition under the premise that thats JUST HOW IT IS.

Or, in other words, "because I said so, thats why"

Glad I could help.

FAIL FTL

As i said in my post, I did not ever indicate marriage just marriage because that's "JUST HOW IT IS". That is YOU indicating that and it's a strawman argument having no accuracy nor relevancy.

What I said was Marriage is recognized and institutionalized because it is the backbone of society due to how we reproduce.

Gays will never ever be able to reproduce that way, and even once science manages this somehow it will still not be as prevalent as hetersexual unions and reproduction are to the promotion and advancement of society (more people will still reproduce the biological way).

[Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese]

So all "inner city style" people are irresponsible?

Yes, we are attempting to redefine a concept of marriage that has almost existed for less than seventy years. Gasp!

[Trip]

So you are saying that the state or the feds have the right to tell the churches which ceremonies they are allowed to perform for which people, is that correct?

No state has the right, nor the fed, nor any church to re-define marriage. Marriage is what it is, which has been defined by the biological fact of our reproduction and how stablizing this unit and institutionalizing it benefits society.

You yourself are a product of these facts. Why you have such a problem dealing with these facts is a result of your failed reasoning and trying to project some emotionalized sense of "equality" and "social justice" on the situation, one failing to recognized the truths.

It's not about "feelings" nor "justice" nor "rights" and never will be.

[Trip]

Yes, we are attempting to redefine a concept of marriage that has almost existed for less than seventy years. Gasp!

The concept of marriage existed since the first cave kid had to figure out who was going to protect him come nightfall.

"Seventy years" -- that's amusing.

[Lima India Bravo]

After 23 + pages, I can only conclude that the Flat Earth Society meeting must have adjourned early.

[Trip]

no im showing your argument for the hypocritical contradictory piece of garbage it is - the argument against gays have ranged from being about the "Sex" as in Gender to the "sex' that might occur to whether someone "approves" of who someone has sex with.

my shot about heteroguys is merely to illustrate that even hetro sexual men contradict themselves about not liking "gay sex"- since MANY men are perfectly accepting of looking at or tolerating two women( if they are attractive looking to men) getting it on ...

No, you're creating strawmen having nothing whatsoever to do with my argument.

It's not about approval. Its not about sex. It's not about any argument *against* gays, but rather about the factual value of hetersexual unions to society's very backbone.

The fact that men are aroused visually and even that men are aroused visually by more than one woman does not undermine the reason for marriage but rather supports the need for it.

As I said, FAIL, and massive FAIL at that.

[Mobulis]

No problem at all. Perhaps some would but that would involve other arguments than my own.

So the sole reason your against gay marriage is because its called "marriage"

THAT IS THE MOST CHILDISH THING IVE EVER HEARD!

[Mobulis]

What good is your marriage now that everyone makes it what THEY want?

What good is a trophy if everyone gets one?

So for you marrage is a trophy.

[Trip]

So the sole reason your against gay marriage is because its called "marriage"

THAT IS THE MOST CHILDISH THING IVE EVER HEARD!

No the reason i am against "gay marriage" is that it is a lie to FALSELY equivalence two inherently different things. This false equivalence of gay unions with marriage undermines marriage and, as a result, undermines society itself.

What's "childish" is your simpleton argument and use of caps to try and make some valid point out of your vapid thought.

[Trip]

So for you marrage is a trophy.

Another strawman.

You've got so much straw there, you must have a horse somewhere! Reminds me of the joke about the optimist kid whose brother substituted his present with horse**** and he was convinced there was a pony *somewhere.*

If you keep making strawmen, maybe you'll find some reward, but i doubt it.

[Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese]

The concept of marriage existed since the first cave kid had to figure out who was going to protect him come nightfall.

"Seventy years" -- that's amusing.

Puh-lease, traditional marriage is an arranged marriage for a dowry based on economic and/or political reasons where the woman has no say. The modern concept of marriage that you claim is ten thousand years old didn't come into vogue until the Thirties and Forties, and that's just in First World countries.

[WorldWatcher]

I just checked with mine. She said if gays get married in PA, we're "through."


I would suggest an intermission at this point.


The post above providing a segue to our musical interlude of the day -->> Link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rixkck8QnjY)



>>>>

[Trip]

Puh-lease, traditional marriage is an arranged marriage for a dowry based on economic and/or political reasons where the woman has no say. The modern concept of marriage that you claim is ten thousand years old didn't come into vogue until the Thirties and Forties, and that's just in First World countries.

You only went so far back as one period of time, a time that was convenient for your rationalization. Dowries and arranged marriages were only a period of history in which marriage was used to advance social standing. These have nothing to do with any origin of marriage. Again, Marriage was not created by those wanting to advance in society (using dowry and arrangements), but were employed those wanting to advance in society because marriage already existed and had a recognized social value.

The concept of marriage I'm arguing is not one founded on "love" but rather a recognition by society of how we reproduce. Even the most primitive societies have recognized these male-female unions as a part of the social fabric.

[Guvnah]

Gays in Maine have taken over Ogunquit. Isn't that enough already?

[Antrel]

No state has the right, nor the fed, nor any church to re-define marriage. Marriage is what it is, which has been defined by the biological fact of our reproduction and how stablizing this unit and institutionalizing it benefits society.

You yourself are a product of these facts. Why you have such a problem dealing with these facts is a result of your failed reasoning and trying to project some emotionalized sense of "equality" and "social justice" on the situation, one failing to recognized the truths.

It's not about "feelings" nor "justice" nor "rights" and never will be.If marriage were simply defined by the biological aspects, there would be no need or merit for the government's intrusion into the practice. Now I know, the literally 1000+ federal benefits provided to married couples just pop up and aren't in any way subsidized, but the government's sanction of marriage on infertile couples contradicts the tenants you claim it's founded on, which makes government marriage itself just as much of a degradation of the term as allowing homosexuals the privilege to one another. People that really cared for the preservation of the sanctity or natural context would be marching on DC and tearing up their county-issued marriage certificates.

[Mobulis]

Straight people would care less about marriage is not HIM stating that he'd care less about his own marriage.

The indication here is that marriage overall would be diminished, and it would. If I were married, which I will be shortly, then my own marriage would indeed be diminished just as society's value of that marriage would have been diminished.


So because gay marriage exists in several states already does that mean your marriage is diminished from the very start?

[ThinkingMan]

So for you marrage is a trophy.

Is that what you want me to say?

[ThinkingMan]

So because gay marriage exists in several states already does that mean your marriage
is diminished from the very start?


Yes - it does.

Unless you don't really value marriage.

[Mobulis]

No the reason i am against "gay marriage" is that it is a lie to FALSELY equivalence two inherently different things. This false equivalence of gay unions with marriage undermines marriage and, as a result, undermines society itself.

What's "childish" is your simpleton argument and use of caps to try and make some valid point out of your vapid thought.



Your argument against gay marriage is like someone standing in the rain proclaiming that its not raining.

[Mobulis]

Yes - it does.

Unless you don't really value marriage.

Does your impending spouse know this?