U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-11-2013, 08:55 PM
 
Location: Montreal, Quebec
15,084 posts, read 13,745,886 times
Reputation: 9779

Advertisements

Quote:

I'm not going to convince you, nor anyone, that I'm right. People who are
this brainwashed are naturally going to believe that one such as myself is
illogically bigoted.

However, someday...... Romans 14:11 "For it
is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and
every tongue shall confess to God."

Every.

Including
yours.
Speaking of brainwashed.....
Rate this post positively

 
Old 09-11-2013, 09:56 PM
 
Location: Unperson Everyman Land
37,632 posts, read 24,706,945 times
Reputation: 12000
Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom View Post
This is what my records show, too.

The sex lives of any 2 consenting adults is none of my business.


FTR, what does sex have to do with marriage?

More to the point, what does homosexual copulation have to do with anything such that two homosexuals need to be married for any imaginable reason?

Don't you make the sex lives of two consenting adults your business when you set out to redefine marriage?
Rate this post positively
 
Old 09-11-2013, 10:27 PM
 
Location: Canada
2,158 posts, read 1,923,195 times
Reputation: 879
Quote:
Originally Posted by RomaniGypsy View Post
Lately I've been discussing this on another thread and to avoid derailing the conversation, I decided to post it in a different thread.

I've heard the argument made by those in favor of gay marriage, quite a lot in recent years. It boils down to equal treatment under the law, "it's only love", "to each his own", etc. One thing that has always escaped me is where the gay marriage supporters would "draw the line"... as in, where they would stop applying that rationale when considering other types of marriage. So I have a few questions for y'all, and let's see what type of response I get.

1) Should people who wish to marry their close relatives (sisters, brothers, children, parents, first cousins, etc) be permitted to do so because only then would they be getting equal treatment under the law? After all, it's only love. It may even be heterosexual love, and the two parties may be at or beyond the age of consent! There has even been a "condition" named for some people who feel this attraction - they call it "GSA" or "Genetic Sexual Attraction".

2) Should people who wish to marry multiple spouses be permitted to do so because only then would they be getting equal treatment under the law? Heck, some people even claim that their religion commands them to do so. If they can have a happy marriage and support multiple spouses, why not? After all, it's only love, and in so doing, each spouse would be relieved from a pressure oft felt by an exclusive spouse - the pressure to singlehandedly meet all of his/her spouse's needs!

3) Should people who wish to marry "children" be permitted to do so (assuming the children also want it) because only then would they be getting equal treatment under the law? Don't kid yourself... some kids know plenty about love. I've been a lover since age 2, and my development of feelings of romantic love was at least three years ahead of the average. I can't be the only one. Children can feel love too. The age of consent may be 16 but when people start dating, for real, around age 12 (or even younger, these days), that shows that they have an idea of what "love" is. And besides, many countries allow marriage of children for any number of reasons. It's legal on most continents in the world, and in most countries therein. American "children" engage in sexual relationships and get each other pregnant all the time. Why not legalize marriage of people under age 16 (without parental or judicial consent of any kind) in America?

4) Should people who wish to marry animals be permitted to do so, because only then would they be getting equal treatment under the law? Let's face it... animals have a pretty deep capacity for showing love. Certain types of animals are much less inclined to cause problems for people than people are. (I read this one time - "Try locking your wife, and your dog, in the trunk of your car for a few hours. When you open the lid, which one will be happy to see you?") It's only love... and how could it harm either the person or the animal?

Now... if you answer "no" to any of these questions, I'd like an explanation as to why... and to be fair, you should know that I will be examining the explanations to see how they differ from the explanations commonly used to support gay marriage. And if you start name-calling, your post will be reported. Let's keep this civil. Obviously I am not a gay marriage supporter, but liberal-minded people who support gay marriage often use the word "tolerance". Let's apply that and be tolerant of my views, seeing as I am coming at this civilly.
It'll all happen. Mark my words.
The gay marriage concession will open the floodgates eventually. Since they knocked over the traditional definition of marriage, how can politicians be consistent and deny it to those you listed?
Rate this post positively
 
Old 09-11-2013, 10:30 PM
 
Location: McKinleyville, California
6,413 posts, read 10,133,025 times
Reputation: 4285
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiFi View Post
I do not see it as a right to be part of something that you were excluded from by definition of that thing. Big deal, you were born one way so just do your thing, make your own institution, no one will mind. You wouldn't try to force your way into a red headed club if you don't have red hair, why would you expect to force your way into a heterosexual institution if you are not heterosexual? Why not wait to be welcomed in, as societal attitudes change, wouldn't that be more rewarding anyways? Banging on the gates with a gay pride parade (perversity and fetishism on display if you've ever seen a gay pride parade) is no way to behave if you want to be respected. (not saying you would do that, but some do)
So, for that matter, then blacks should have just sat aside and waited to be invited into the whites only club of rights, not fought tooth and nail for their full equality? At the time of the civil rights movement in the 60's, black people did not have full equality, nor the right to marry the one they chose if that person was white. In the 60's most people did not support interracial marriage in any way, something like 70% against it, the government forced interracial marriage upon society. Learn some history, lest it be repeated. Talk about respectful behaviour, have you ever seen spring break or Mardi Gras?

ANYTHING WORTH HAVING IS WORTH FIGHTING FOR!!!
Rate this post positively
 
Old 09-11-2013, 10:41 PM
 
Location: McKinleyville, California
6,413 posts, read 10,133,025 times
Reputation: 4285
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiFi View Post
I assure you that the parades did nothing for anyone on the fence, outside of repulsing them.

50% is a pretty divisive number.
Only 30% supported interracial marriage, yet the government stopped the bans against interracial marriage with Loving verses the state of Virginia. Again, do you think black people and other races should have just waited till the majority was okay with mixed races marrying?
Rate this post positively
 
Old 09-11-2013, 10:43 PM
 
Location: Soldotna
2,256 posts, read 2,049,074 times
Reputation: 1076
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiFi View Post
I assure you that the parades did nothing for anyone on the fence, outside of repulsing them.

50% is a pretty divisive number.
Good thing we aren't a majority rules based nation eh?
Rate this post positively
 
Old 09-11-2013, 10:50 PM
 
Location: McKinleyville, California
6,413 posts, read 10,133,025 times
Reputation: 4285
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiFi View Post
Sure, freak shows can be fun, but it's no way to get accepted into mainstream society. You will always be seen as those sex-crazed freaks who we throw money at twice a year to amuse us. Completely degrading to normal gay people.
And you "normal people" are okay with throwing money at Mardi Gras? You are okay with what happens during spring break? All that sex crazed heterosexual behavior is okay? They are not freaks? Ever think that not all gays go to gay pride events? I never have been to any, up here where I live, nor down in the S F bay area where I grew up, but I see no problem with it all, it is not really any different than spring break or Mardi Gras, sex is part of our humanity and so are events celebrating it. If you do not like the events, you have the option of not going, wether it be a gay pride parade, Mardi Gras or spring break.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 09-11-2013, 10:57 PM
 
Location: McKinleyville, California
6,413 posts, read 10,133,025 times
Reputation: 4285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Globe199 View Post
That's the second time you've used that cop-out in response to a legitimate question. Translation: you have no real problem, you just like to b**ch.
Dang, beat me to it. I was going to say "cop out". Well I will second you, Cop out!! There is no difference between Spring break, Mardi Gras or a gay pride parade, actually spring break and Mardi gras go on longer with more display of sexuality and open sex then a gay pride parade does. Spring break is two weeks of raunchy open display of blatant hetersexuality. Hey there HiFi, why is that okay and a gay pride parade that lasts just one day is not? And not another cop out.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 09-11-2013, 11:05 PM
 
Location: McKinleyville, California
6,413 posts, read 10,133,025 times
Reputation: 4285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuselage View Post
I am not exactly a spring chicken but even I know what this acronym means. I must admit that I wonder about people who, in this day and age, are not familiar with such abbreviations. Sure, I understand it in cases of rarity or novelty, but not knowing what ROFLMAO means is akin to not understanding what IRS or LOL stands for.

To me, it is often a sign of a general disconnect from societal developments - barring the obvious reasons for not being familiar with such usage (cultural, language, etc.). It certainly shows a very firm divorce from our younger generations.

Mind you, I am not a fan of this type of mutilation, but I have no idea how one manages to escape this stuff, especially if one uses a computer and the internet regularly.

But perhaps you were just trying to get welt's goat (ttgwg, so to speak).
I too am not a spring chicken and knew what you meant. If I do not know an acronym, I type it in google to see what it means. I have several friends from a bike team and they are spring chickens who use acronyms all the time, I just look them up. That way I am adapting to change, not fighting it.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 09-11-2013, 11:24 PM
 
167 posts, read 157,212 times
Reputation: 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by RomaniGypsy View Post
Lately I've been discussing this on another thread and to avoid derailing the conversation, I decided to post it in a different thread.

I've heard the argument made by those in favor of gay marriage, quite a lot in recent years. It boils down to equal treatment under the law, "it's only love", "to each his own", etc. One thing that has always escaped me is where the gay marriage supporters would "draw the line"... as in, where they would stop applying that rationale when considering other types of marriage. So I have a few questions for y'all, and let's see what type of response I get.

1) Should people who wish to marry their close relatives (sisters, brothers, children, parents, first cousins, etc) be permitted to do so because only then would they be getting equal treatment under the law? After all, it's only love. It may even be heterosexual love, and the two parties may be at or beyond the age of consent! There has even been a "condition" named for some people who feel this attraction - they call it "GSA" or "Genetic Sexual Attraction".

2) Should people who wish to marry multiple spouses be permitted to do so because only then would they be getting equal treatment under the law? Heck, some people even claim that their religion commands them to do so. If they can have a happy marriage and support multiple spouses, why not? After all, it's only love, and in so doing, each spouse would be relieved from a pressure oft felt by an exclusive spouse - the pressure to singlehandedly meet all of his/her spouse's needs!

3) Should people who wish to marry "children" be permitted to do so (assuming the children also want it) because only then would they be getting equal treatment under the law? Don't kid yourself... some kids know plenty about love. I've been a lover since age 2, and my development of feelings of romantic love was at least three years ahead of the average. I can't be the only one. Children can feel love too. The age of consent may be 16 but when people start dating, for real, around age 12 (or even younger, these days), that shows that they have an idea of what "love" is. And besides, many countries allow marriage of children for any number of reasons. It's legal on most continents in the world, and in most countries therein. American "children" engage in sexual relationships and get each other pregnant all the time. Why not legalize marriage of people under age 16 (without parental or judicial consent of any kind) in America?

4) Should people who wish to marry animals be permitted to do so, because only then would they be getting equal treatment under the law? Let's face it... animals have a pretty deep capacity for showing love. Certain types of animals are much less inclined to cause problems for people than people are. (I read this one time - "Try locking your wife, and your dog, in the trunk of your car for a few hours. When you open the lid, which one will be happy to see you?") It's only love... and how could it harm either the person or the animal?

Now... if you answer "no" to any of these questions, I'd like an explanation as to why... and to be fair, you should know that I will be examining the explanations to see how they differ from the explanations commonly used to support gay marriage. And if you start name-calling, your post will be reported. Let's keep this civil. Obviously I am not a gay marriage supporter, but liberal-minded people who support gay marriage often use the word "tolerance". Let's apply that and be tolerant of my views, seeing as I am coming at this civilly.

First, I do support gay marriage.
1. Incest is illegal. Why? I have no idea. If you wanna marry your brother, sister, kids (as long as they are older than 18), I don't see why not.

2. I believe in polygamy. I don't see a big deal with it.

3. Because that is just wrong. Until the kid turns 18, they aren't considered an adult, so they shouldn't get married until then. That is a personal opinion.

4. Because humans and animals are different. Sure, you could say your dog is loyal and loves you, but could you say 100% your dog wants to have consensual sex with you?
Rate this post positively
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.


Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:34 AM.

© 2005-2023, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top