Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Good thing there is no discrimination. We're just saying you need to marry someone of the opposite gender. Since all men have the exact same rights, and all women have the exact same rights, there is no issue.
Calvinist, go marry someone of the same gender and see how "equal" that feels.
...and those neanderthals who think it is sick will be castigated and laughed at for being so backwards.
The views on morality will "evolve" and "progress" to the point where it will be wrong to deny the love of two people, one of whom will be a child.
Conservatives will be seen as bigots who would deny men, women and children the right to express their love.
There will be nationwide celebrations as each state makes adult-child marriage legal. And the people who are deeply offended by what they call a gross and inappropriate act will be shunned by a "progressive, modern society" that will be touted in the mass media.
Mark my words.
That must have been some hell-fire sermon delivered last Sunday!
Actually, it's bull. Mircea uses links to a website called "newgon.com", which is as apparently as close as you'll get to a pro-paedophilia website. They in turn appear to have quote-mined actual, serious research to underscore their preferred viewpoint. (I'm not giving them any page clicks.)
Anyway, there's no such things as "research articles written by the APA". Members of the APA will publish research of varying quality in journals of varying respectability. That doesn't mean that the APA officially endorses said research.
And mysteriously, the APA's list of affiliated journals somehow leaves out Mircea's star witness, the "Journal of Homosexuality".
Quote:
People who support gay marriage but are against adult-child marriage are hypocrites, point blank.
Two words for you: Informed consent.
Quote:
That's why there's a deafening silence with regard to the above post.
Consider it broken. That post was spin, pure and simple.
...and those neanderthals who think it is sick will be castigated and laughed at for being so backwards.
The views on morality will "evolve" and "progress" to the point where it will be wrong to deny the love of two people, one of whom will be a child.
Conservatives will be seen as bigots who would deny men, women and children the right to express their love.
There will be nationwide celebrations as each state makes adult-child marriage legal. And the people who are deeply offended by what they call a gross and inappropriate act will be shunned by a "progressive, modern society" that will be touted in the mass media.
Mark my words.
You may be right. The elites supposedly already have the technology to live forever (or at least until age 250 or so). They obviously don't want to share this with the masses which I'm sure they think of as the lowly plebians.
They are trying to soft kill 80% of us in various ways. One is Bisphenol-A that has been put in plastics and used in canning that is a known carcinogen and also decreases fertility and even causes men to be less aggressive and more effeminate. There have been plenty of studies of its effects on animals and humans.
I didn't make this up either about soft-kill. John P Holdren, Obama's Science/Technology/Environment adviser writes all about depopulation strategies in his book ECOSCIENCE. There are a number of "interesting" readers reviews of the book on the Amazon site too. Suffice it to say they were shocked that a man advising the president could have written a book full of so much evil.
You may be right. The elites supposedly already have the technology to live forever (or at least until age 250 or so). They obviously don't want to share this with the masses which I'm sure they think of as the lowly plebians.
Hey, so you recognize that in several ways regarding homosexuality society can and should move in a progressive direction. You just seem to believe that the word "marriage" is a magic word that will trigger the acceptance of adults marrying children in future decades.
Keep attacking that strawman, it's falling apart beneath your crippling arguments!
You throw up two straw-men then accuse me of attacking straw-men!
You throw up two straw-men then accuse me of attacking straw-men!
Wow.
A strawman is an argument based on misrepresenting the other's argument. I stated that in some instances regarding homosexuality you believe society can and should move in a progressive direction. I base that on your statements that gay people should be out of the closet if they wish and be allowed to enter into civil unions. Both of those positions would have been fringe 20 years ago.
I base my statement that you believe marriage is a magic word that, if gays are accepted in doing so, will lead to the acceptance of adults marrying children on the very title of your thread and OP!
I referred to your statement about heterosexual marriage being something most people in this thread hate as a strawman because I don't recall anybody in this thread, or any recent thread, expressing an animosity against married heterosexual couples.
So again, please let me no where you think I misrepresented you in either of those statements, and how your argument that most people in this thread hate heterosexual marriage was NOT a blatant misrepresentation of an argument.
That's lovely. Lots of people on your side of this debate do care. A lot. And it won't happen on their watch, no sirree.
Which is one reason why the gays are forced to go through legislation to gain the right to visit a loved one on his/her deathbed. A right that comes with marriage.
(Incidentally, I'm happily married to wonderful woman. I moved to the US on a fiance visa, another right that comes with marriage. She's covered by my health plan, yet another right that comes with marriage. A pattern emerges.)
Once isn't enough?
No. Once isn't enough. We're talking about a fundamental rewrite of the definition of a very important part of our society. I feel bad for anyone that has had it happen...but is this reason enough to change our system? I've seen cases of people not being allowed to speak publicly about their faith...should we create new laws to makes sure they're never discriminated against?
Quote:
as long as you keep from harming others, I don't care about your morals. Live by them, if they make you a better person, excellent. If your morals put an obligation on you to call gays sinners, well - that's sort of rude, but if you must, you must. Only words, after all.
By changing the definition of "marriage" you are impacting others.
Quote:
I do care when you want to use legislation to enforce your morals on other people. I am not obliged to live by your moral code. I will gladly let you and yours live by it, it doesn't break my bones nor pick my pocket.
You can live however you want, but if you decide we need to change marriage, it does impact society.
Quote:
You advocate maintaining a legislative stance that directly causes gays to suffer. That's mean. That's rude. And a lot of mistreatment springs from it. I am powerless to imagine what you gain from it, but there must be something. Brownie points with God?
I'm sorry if a fringe part of society has determined they need to be recognized by the rest of us to be happy. I really am...but it's not enough reason to create special marriage laws.
Quote:
The "Right not to be Offended" must have fallen out of my copy of the Bill of Rights. Would you mind awfully pointing it out, there's a good fellow?
pot...kettle...
Quote:
Other people living in a way you don't approve of doesn't mean that you're oppressed. Suck it up.
And not being able to dictate the legal definition of marriage doesn't mean you're oppressed. Suck it up.
Quote:
Excuse me? Who introduced the " I am married, hence my opinion matters!" line of reasoning to this thread? Why, I believe you did.
As if I care. The point - which you've missed - is that (some) Catholics would tell me, with equal fervor and conviction, that my marriage is sham, an uprooting of centuries of tradition, a mockery of the institution - basically, they'd roll out every argument you've been able to come up with so far.
Some would, yes. They are wrong. But you are married to a woman--which falls within the basic definition of a marriage.
Quote:
There is no damage done to your marriage by gays marrying. None. And so far, you've failed to make an argument otherwise.
I doubt it. Look at the fervor authorities show when going after holders of child pornography.
Yea really...... (And rightfully so)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
huh?!
