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.
Also, since you have suddenly decided to come to the defense of traditional American marriage (one adult male to one adult female)...WELCOME!!
Glad to see you've joined our side!
Advocating for gay marriage does not equate to or even imply a desire to see the abolition of heterosexual marriage. Your strawman arguments are getting tiresome, your inability to buttress your posts with anything other than stupid smileys reflects the shallowness of your thought process in this thread.
You're unable or unwilling to have a rational discussion, so you resort to cheap and senseless one liners. Pity, I thought we could actually have a reasonable discussion here.
Though I support ssm, I agree with you that it's different than the unconstitutional anti-miscegenation laws. I'm also with you that being against ssm isn't a sign of bigotry.
I'd have to say that it isn't the fact that someone is against ssm, but the reasons behind their "disapproval" that engenders an accusation of bigotry.
Advocating for gay marriage does not equate to or even imply a desire to see the abolition of heterosexual marriage. Your strawman arguments are getting tiresome, your inability to buttress your posts with anything other than stupid smileys reflects the shallowness of your thought process in this thread.
You're unable or unwilling to have a rational discussion, so you resort to cheap and senseless one liners. Pity, I thought we could actually have a reasonable discussion here.
You must be bored because you claim to be tired of this yet you return over and over like a dog to a chewing bone. <----Another "smiley" for you.
Your definition of "discussion" is ranting until I agree with you.
The fact is society is changing. What today is unthinkable will most likely be commonplace 40 years from now. I don't know why pointing that simple fact out is so offensive to so many but for some reason it is.
A lot of us understand that society is changing. But some of us also realize that without a core belief in morality and a sense of right and wrong those changes may lead to something akin to the DRC or DRPK.
Just because you think you are better than conservatives because you are a "progressive" and have the backing of the mainstream media doesn't make it so.
It may make steam come out of your ears but there will always be some of us who look up to morals and down on "intellectual" elitists such as yourself.
And I've specifically been told on these boards by one poster that he will gleefully watch me react as every state in the country eventually accepts same-gender marriage.
Considering that every couple on the face of the earth defines their own marriage according to their own beliefs, in what way could the legalization of same sex marriage redefine YOUR marriage?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
Does it matter? Why is your opinion any more valid than anyone else's on the topic?
All I did was ask a question, which you seem either unable or unwilling to answer. In over a dozen years of this kind of discussion, I have yet to see any opponent to ssm answer that question.
The fact is society is changing. What today is unthinkable will most likely be commonplace 40 years from now. I don't know why pointing that simple fact out is so offensive to so many but for some reason it is.
All societies change over time.
Quote:
A lot of us understand that society is changing. But some of us also realize that without a core belief in morality and a sense of right and wrong those changes may lead to something akin to the DRC or DRPK.
See, I don't get this self-contradiction you engage in. What was unthinkable 40 years ago (gays and lesbians able to be out of the closet openly without constant thread of physical violence) and support for civil unions (which you have supported) are commonplace today. And yet you keep implying that support for gay marriage is the same as opposition to heterosexual marriage. After all, the "proof is in the pudding."
So you believe that gays should have the right to be out of the closet and should have the right to enter civil unions (does this equality under the law to you?) but that support for gay marriage implies a lack of morality that may lead to this country becoming the DRC or DPRK. So I guess what I'm saying is that I have a hard time seeing the distinction that you're making here between your statements that gays should be able to be freely out of the closet and enter into civil unions (again, honest question: does that mean equality under the law to you), but that gay marriage or support for it implies wanting to see the end of heterosexual marriage and a lack of core belief in morality that may lead to this country becoming a failed state or absolute dictatorship.
All I did was ask a question, which you seem either unable or unwilling to answer. In over a dozen years of this kind of discussion, I have yet to see any opponent to ssm answer that question.
..and you never will. I have not read one specific answer to that question and yet they continue to repeat ad nauseum that it denigrates their own marriage.
.Conservatives will be seen as bigots who would deny men, women and children the right to express their love.
We can be sure that after legalization of so-called gay "marriage" Liberals will demand to legalize not only the adult-child sexual relationship but also a "politically correct", "progressive" and "not bigot" sexual intercourse between human and animals.
See, I don't get this self-contradiction you engage in. What was unthinkable 40 years ago (gays and lesbians able to be out of the closet openly without constant thread of physical violence) and support for civil unions (which you have supported) are commonplace today. And yet you keep implying that support for gay marriage is the same as opposition to heterosexual marriage. After all, the "proof is in the pudding."
So you believe that gays should have the right to be out of the closet and should have the right to enter civil unions (does this equality under the law to you?) but that support for gay marriage implies a lack of morality that may lead to this country becoming the DRC or DPRK. So I guess what I'm saying is that I have a hard time seeing the distinction that you're making here between your statements that gays should be able to be freely out of the closet and enter into civil unions (again, honest question: does that mean equality under the law to you), but that gay marriage or support for it implies wanting to see the end of heterosexual marriage and a lack of core belief in morality that may lead to this country becoming a failed state or absolute dictatorship.
Bill Clinton and Barack Obama...two hard-core progressives agree with me on this...
President Barack Obama called for equal rights for gay couples Thursday, but stopped short of voicing support for legalizing same-sex marriage at a gala LGBT fundraiser held in the heart of a state whose legislature is on the verge of taking a vote on the issue.
The president couched the notion of rights for the nation’s gay community in the framework of civil rights, casting his own election as part of an evolutionary process in the nation over the last two-and-a-half years, one that also involved economic woes and overseas wars.
So we need to make it loud and clear, all of us -- so loud that even the Court can hear -- that we haven’t given up on mariage. In fact, we can’t! We can’t betray the truth of the creation covenant in Genesis 2, where God joined man and woman as one flesh.
Just as important, as Daly said, those who are fighting for the traditional family must set an example. If we don’t honor the sanctity of marriage, our non-believing neighbors won’t, either.
The fight will continue and can't be settled here but tradition matters. This is not supposed to be an attack on the gay lifestyle. But some things ARE sacred (no offense).
The conservative political leadership is trying its best to slow things down...
House Speaker John Boehner said Friday he is convening a bipartisan legal group to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
But the one thing we can agree on is that America is heading in one direction...very, very fast.
I also think it changes the definition and thus weakens the institution of marriage.
What tangible harm is done to you? Please be specific.
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.
<----Another "smiley" for you. 
