Post Reply
Page 6 of 70  •  Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... 70 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Federal court rules centerpiece of gay marriage law unconstitutional
2 years ago  ::  Jun 03, 2012 - 2:55PM #51
Do_unto_others
Posts: 8,375

Jun 3, 2012 -- 1:24AM, arielg wrote:


Say WHAT? There are TWO males (Count 'em!) in our marriage. This is delusional nonsense. And, again, no "good reason" to deny us marriage equality.



There is a very good reason:  it is an imitation  that wants to be considered on  the same level  as the real thing, even though it doesn't meet  the requirements.



My marriage (of more than 8 years now) most assuredly DOES meet the requirements - the legal criteria - in the jurisdiction where I live. Just not the ones YOU would impose on others, apparently.


Jun 3, 2012 -- 1:24AM, arielg wrote:

Pretending  to be a "wife" in spite of the bulges, or pretending to have bulges where there are none, is make believe.



Gay men do not "pretend to be the 'wife' ". Your delusion is showing again.


If YOUR "marriage" is about "bulges", then I think it is YOUR "marriage" that is "make believe". Where/when did these "requirements" you spoke of above start to involve "bulges"? Did the clerk at City Hall inquire about your "bulges" when you applied for the marriage license? LMFA@U.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 03, 2012 - 3:01PM #52
Do_unto_others
Posts: 8,375

Jun 3, 2012 -- 10:19AM, TENAC wrote:


Jun 2, 2012 -- 11:47PM, Fodaoson wrote:


The divorce rate has damaged the marriage tradition more than the union of same sex couples ever could. Serial marriage, extra marital relationships, abandonment of spouse all damage marriage more than a loving caring faithful same sex relationship could.




Probably the most poignant post in the thread.





Maybe. But how come you don't spend an equal amount of time ranting about any of those issues, but spend an inordinate amount of time focussing on (and being dismissive of) other people's families that aren't any of your business in the first place?

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 03, 2012 - 3:09PM #53
Do_unto_others
Posts: 8,375

Jun 3, 2012 -- 10:29AM, TENAC wrote:

if you had a society where homosexuality is the norm and heterosexuality was the deviant, then you determined to add heterosexuality to marriage, marriage would no longer represent what it had. 



Unpossible hypotheticals do not for interesting debate points make. Like, what if people had no sexual organs? What if people ate through their kneecaps?


Jun 3, 2012 -- 10:29AM, TENAC wrote:

But I realize not even that is a reasonable senario because marriage cannot in that senario represent a single pure relationship.



Could someone translate this into English for me please? WTF has your concept of a "single pure relationship" got to do with a Federal Appeals Court ruling?


Jun 3, 2012 -- 10:29AM, TENAC wrote:

Why you cannot see that as a dilution of what marriage has been and stood for I cant grasp.




Because gay people are not de facto inferior to str8 people. We do not "dilute" an institution by our equal participation in it, any more than the fact that heterosexual bigots can still get legally married "dilutes" the institution of marriage.


Your repitition of words like "dilute" are an obvious, blatant attempt to make us into lesser beings in someone's eyes (not sure who's). It's a dismissive strategy that demeans, diminishes and debases homosexual persons and our relationships. Sad. But typical.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 03, 2012 - 3:17PM #54
amcolph
Posts: 17,157

Jun 3, 2012 -- 2:36PM, TENAC wrote:


  It is not Germane how it affects my personal marriage.....or not. 



That is the only germane question, TENAC.


I cannot get you, anyone on the left, or any gay people among us on the board to comment on the Beyond Marriage piece I continue to post.  Is that what you are supposing to be "propoganda"?  I can assure you it is not.  Do you support it yourself?  It is substantive I can assure you.






And that is just a fib.


May 29, 2012 -- 10:44PM, amcolph wrote:


May 29, 2012 -- 10:18PM, TENAC wrote:



Am, two men or two women are not the same union as a union of a man and woman.


Lets hear DUO denounce the aims of the Beyond Marriage site.  Its quite clear.  Do you support them as well?



It's just a website, TENAC, with a few signatories.  I don't care very much about it.  What evidence do you have that it represents a monolithic homosexual conspiracy?


    

Your definition was roundly panned by him.



The 'manifesto' did not discuss my definition, which was not a definition at all but a proposal to remove gay marriage from the immediate political sphere.


I think I have made my point with extreme effect.




You' ve asserted your point over and over but you haven't made it.  All of your arguments about SSM destroying heterosexual marriage seem to be about marriage in the abstract, not about actual marriages.


How will SSM destroy my marriage?  Until you can tell me that, I'm not interested.






 

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 03, 2012 - 3:23PM #55
Do_unto_others
Posts: 8,375

Jun 3, 2012 -- 1:13PM, christzen wrote:

I cannot see it as a dilution of marriage because it is not.Simple as that. WHEN, capitalized and bolded for emphasis, you can show how your marriage is somehow less than what it was before gays could marry, you will have a valid point. But not until then.



Agreed.


Jun 3, 2012 -- 1:13PM, christzen wrote:

So, to ask the question I have asked a number of times already without anything resembling a reasonable answer, please explain how YOUR marriage will change if gays can get married.



I wouldn't expect an answer if I were you. He hasn't been able to come up with one yet. But I would caution you to use the correct tense when you post. That should read, 'please explain how YOUR marriage HAS CHANGED SINCE gays have been allowed to get married'. He's had more than 8 years to come up with a reply and hasn't yet, so like I say, don;t hold your breath.


Likewise, when you type, "Please explain how in the future in which gays can get married", this too is outdated by more than 8 years now.


And, "Please explain how your children will not be as married when the gays can marry also" should read, ' ... how your children ARE NOT as married now that gay people can marry ... '. (Heck, this even presumes all of TENAC's children are str8 and ,,, well, who knows, apart from them, eh? I sure wouldn't want him as MY Dad.)


 

Jun 3, 2012 -- 1:13PM, christzen wrote:

This is your problem.



Yes, it is. Utterly, solely his to deal with. Hey, some people 'deal with' things they find unpleasant by denying reality. It does happen.


Jun 3, 2012 -- 1:13PM, christzen wrote:

 You make  nebulous and meaningless statements about the dilution of marriage, but never can offer even the beginnings of an answer to the question of how your marriage, or any other heterosexuals marriage, will be diluted. Or how you and other heterosexuals will be "less" married (the meaning of dilution is to water down  and make a less concentrated product than the original) when gays can marry also.



Again, forgive the trope, but TENAC should be able to explain how his marriage already HAS BEEN DILUTED or IS now "less" since we've been getting legally married for most of a decade already.


Jun 3, 2012 -- 1:13PM, christzen wrote:

You have failed miserably to offer anything to answer this.



"Failed"??? He hasn't even TRIED. He just keeps repeating that it 'will'.


Jun 3, 2012 -- 1:13PM, christzen wrote:

Allowing others to marry only dilutes your marriage if you lose some rights, or a part of your marriage is lessened somehow. This will not happen,and you repeatedly fail to explain how it will when asked.



'HAS not happened'


Jun 3, 2012 -- 1:13PM, christzen wrote:

Twp other points. I do not see or claim homosexuality as  the norm. Homosexuality is not the norm, heterosexuality is.But so what? There is no harm in 2 people of the same gender that for some reason are wired to be attracted to the same gender  pursuing such a relationship. For most who oppose this,they do so because their religion teaches them this is a sin. My position is that any such issues are between God and those He made, without God needing me to sit in judgement of them on His behalf.



You sound like a good follower of Christ, so unlike some "Christians" who post here. 


Jun 3, 2012 -- 1:13PM, christzen wrote:

Second,the claim that gays cannot engage in a pure monogamous relationship is nothing less than a lie.



Correct.


Jun 3, 2012 -- 1:13PM, christzen wrote:

You should learn more about the situation than the propaganda your religious leaders tell you is the truth.I know a number of homosexual couples who were together in a monogamous relationship long before I knew them and are still together  decades later. When you have to misrepresent the "facts" about the other side, it is a sure sign that you have nothing of substance to offer.





Agreed.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 03, 2012 - 3:34PM #56
Do_unto_others
Posts: 8,375

Jun 3, 2012 -- 2:36PM, TENAC wrote:


Jun 3, 2012 -- 1:13PM, christzen wrote:


Jun 3, 2012 -- 10:29AM, TENAC wrote:


Why you cannot see that as a dilution of what marriage has been and stood for I cant grasp.




I cannot see it as a dilution of marriage because it is not.Simple as that. WHEN, capitalized and bolded for emphasis, you can show how your marriage is somehow less than what it was before gays could marry, you will have a valid point. But not until then. So, to ask the question I have asked a number of times already without anything resembling a reasonable answer, please explain how YOUR marriage will change if gays can get married. Please explain how in the future in which gays can get married, heterosexuals will be "less" married than they are now.Please explain how your children will not be as married when the gays can marry also as you were when gays could not marry. This is your problem. You make  nebulous and meaningless statements about the dilution of marriage, but never can offer even the beginnings of an answer to the question of how your marriage, or any other heterosexuals marriage, will be diluted.Or how you and other heterosexuals will be "less" married (the meaning of dilution is to water down  and make a less concentrated product than the original) when gays can marry also.


 Chriz, when marriage has been one man and one woman monogamous, then you add to it to include multiple arrangements, it is clearly NOT the same. 


Good GRIEF! No one mentioned polygamy - especially not christzen - but you throw it in to the mix as if it were the topic or even relevant to the topic. Another red herring. Is this really all you've got?


How does it change?  Marriage no longer represents one man and one woman.  Period. 


So frigging WHAT? Period.


 That is indisputable. 


It's also IRRELEVANT to the topic.


It is not Germane how it affects my personal marriage.....or not.


When you claim that our participation in marriage dilutes yours (by way of 'diluting' the institution itself) then yes, it's VERY germaine, because you've made a false claim. It either does or does not affect your marriage. Which is it?


  But it will affect American society going into the future without question, in ways neither you nor I can understand.  but it wont be the same.


And the price of gas isn't the same as it use dto be either. Deal already. Nothing in my marriage alters or affects your in the least.


You have failed miserably to offer anything to answer this.I cannot see why you continue with this claim when you repeatedly fail to offer adequate answers when asked. Allowing others to marry only dilutes your marriage if you lose some rights ,or a part of your marriage is lessened somehow.This will not happen,and you repeatedly fail to explain how it will when asked.


 I have accurately answered this over and over.  You simply dont like the answer.


I've seen not ONE post even regarding nevermind answering cz's question from you.


Twp other points. I do not see or claim homosexuality as  the norm. Homosexuality is not the norm, heterosexuality is.But so what? There is no harm in 2 people of the same gender that for some reason are wired to be attracted to the same gender  pursuing such a relationship. For most who oppose this,they do so because their religion teaches them this is a sin. My position is that any such issues are between God and those He made, without God needing me to sit in judgement of them on His behalf.


 You need then to listen to what God said on the matter.  But you wont like those answers either.  There is no judging.


WHICH "God"? Zeus? Thor? Ra? Krishna? America is not a theocracy.


Second,the claim that gays cannot engage in a pure monogamous relationship is nothing less than a lie. 


Please point to the post where I stated this and then admit you are the liar here.


You DID use the term "pure" and said something to the effect that gay couples could never achieve such a state/relationship, just a couple of posts ago.


You should learn more about the situation than the propaganda your religious leaders tell you is the truth.I know a number of homosexual couples who were together in a monogamous relationship long before I knew them and are still together  decades later. When you have to misrepresent the "facts" about the other side, it is a sure sign that you have nothing of substance to offer.


I cannot get you, anyone on the left, or any gay people among us on the board to comment on the Beyond Marriage piece I continue to post.  Is that what you are supposing to be "propoganda"?  I can assure you it is not.  Do you support it yourself?  It is substantive I can assure you.









It's a bunch of people's opinions. Just like the "letter" from the poor black pastors who's feeling got hurt by Obama's announcement. Just like all the news releases put out by Gary Bauer, Bryan Fischer, the Pope, Maggie Gallagher (not her real name), Tony Perkins, et al.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 03, 2012 - 5:44PM #57
LeahOne
Posts: 16,126

IF 'marriage' is a *religious* enterprise, then the State has no business being involved.


The State, otoh, has every right to create a status of 'Civil Union' and extend it to same-sex couples OR to two people establishing a partnership for creation of a household (for tax, etc status). 


I truly think that a way to do right by everyone is available here:  simply define 'marriage' as a subset of 'civil union' which has been blessed by an official clergy, and give 'civil union' the same treatment under our legal system as 'marriage' has already got.  And let whichever Churches marry whoever they see fit to marry.


That's only a small change from what we've been doing so far.....

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 03, 2012 - 6:03PM #58
christzen
Posts: 6,376

Jun 3, 2012 -- 2:36PM, TENAC wrote:


 Chriz, when marriage has been one man and one woman monogamous, then you add to it to include multiple arrangements, it is clearly NOT the same. 


How does it change?  Marriage no longer represents one man and one woman.  Period.  That is indisputable.  It is not Germane how it affects my personal marriage.....or not.  But it will affect American society going into the future without question, in ways neither you nor I can understand.  but it wont be the same.



 


So marriage no longer represensts 1 man 1 woman? So what? I asked how it changes YOUR marriage,or any other heterosexuals marriage. Once again,you fail to answer.The fact that the definition of marriage changes top allow for any genders matters not one bit,except as to how it affects a heterosexual marriage.And since it doesn't,your complaint is irrelevant.



 


 


Jun 3, 2012 -- 2:36PM, TENAC wrote:


I have accurately answered this over and over.  You simply dont like the answer.



 


No you haven't,not once.If you will insist you have, then link the answer where you showed how YOUR marriage will be changed in any way.


 


 


 


Jun 3, 2012 -- 2:36PM, TENAC wrote:


Please point to the post where I stated this and then admit you are the liar here.



 


Why would I admit to lying when I can quote your words? From your post 44



"But I realize not even that is a reasonable senario because marriage cannot in that senario represent a single pure relationship."


 


I suppose you will now claim that by these words you didn't really mean that gays could not engage in a pure monogamous relationship,but if so,then you need to be clearer in what you DO mean.



"



Jun 3, 2012 -- 2:36PM, TENAC wrote:


I cannot get you, anyone on the left, or any gay people among us on the board to comment on the Beyond Marriage piece I continue to post.  Is that what you are supposing to be "propoganda"?  I can assure you it is not.  Do you support it yourself?  It is substantive I can assure you.




 


I have never heard of this piece,so I cannot comment on what I haven't read or listened to. My only stance is that gays shouldn't be discriminated against on religious grounds.And denying them marriage does just that. I'll try and find it and see if it has anything worth commenting on.


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 03, 2012 - 6:14PM #59
christzen
Posts: 6,376

Jun 3, 2012 -- 5:27PM, arielg wrote:



 



Jun 3, 2012 -- 2:24AM,


arielg wrote:


Pretending to be a "wife" in spite of the bulges, or pretending to have bulges where there are none, is make believe.


Gay men do not "pretend to be the 'wife' ". Your delusion is showing again.


If YOUR "marriage" is about "bulges", then I think it is YOUR "marriage" that is "make believe". Where/when did these "requirements" you spoke of above start to involve "bulges"? Did the clerk at City Hall inquire about your "bulges" when you applied for the marriage license?


LMFA@U.



Yes, the marriage institution is based on the bulges.  You can go on an esoteric gobbledegooks  about the evolution of marriages and how pèople in Timbuktu on in Babylon aproached the issue or what they thought in biblical times, but without the bulges you got nothing  to hang your hat on.  Homosexual relations are based on them, just like any straight  relation.  You just want to rearrange the function of the bulges to fit your preferences.




 


 


LOL. Gays should copy and paste your nonsense everywhere to show the level of intelligence of those that oppose gays being treated equal..


 


PS.I'm quite sure the lesbians are not concerned about the bulges.But you are good for a laugh.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 03, 2012 - 7:05PM #60
Fodaoson
Posts: 11,131

Lets take a moment to look at some of the “reason/facts” being tossed around.


Norm/normal; in statistics that number that occurs the most.


Deviant: statistics distance numerically from the center of the norm


Normal:medicine/medically , biology: free from infection , a natural occurrence


Psychology: Normal : Approximate average of intelligence, behavior, social adjustment free from a mental disorder.



Homosexuality and lesbianism are are deviance because they occur in minority of the population. They are normal because they are a natural occurrence .



Marriage has differing meanings. Civilly it means the state regulation and licensing for establishment of a familial unit for all pertinent legal purposes.


Religiously it is a rite that sanctifies sexual activity.




Gays and lesbians are more concerned with the state family unit.


Religions are concerned with the sanctification of sexual activity.  

“I seldom make the mistake of arguing with people for whose opinions I have no respect.” Edward Gibbon
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 6 of 70  •  Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... 70 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook