Political Crossfire Forums

[connermt]

John Galt wrote: Sage Orator wrote:
Quote: i'm suprised homosexuals don't die out because they can't produce more children even if they wanted to.
Wow, then how can you explain to me how approximately 1/3 homosexual couples have children?

A very good, though seemingly not well researched, essay.

Souce?

As for gay marriage, the problem is love is not a necessary input for a marriage for it to 'work' and therefore claiming that everyone who is in love should be able to get married is quite asinine.

I do know that a slippery slope will happen so long as it slides through the courts and not through the legislature. Consider Romer, specifically Scalia's scathing dissent, and you will come to the same conclusion. The writer of the above calling this argument a fallacy and 'proving' it is a fallacy by using fallacies himself (but but but murderers get married!) gave me quite a chuckle. In truth it is wholly valid to point out that the exact same arguments in favor of gay marriage have been and continue to be used in justifying the subjectation of women through polygamous relationships, and, considering Romer and say, the Utah Constitution... well, it is a matter of years before it all comes to a head.

The author comes up with a few other numbers that are questionable, starts talking about how the world would be better off with less people, calls marriage a "right," and has all sorts of other problems, but I'm at work.

Quote: ...therefore claiming that everyone who is in love should be able to get married is quite asinine. Who claimed this? Did I miss something? I agree not everyone should get married, gay or straight, as it is not for everyone.
Quote: ...love is not a necessary input for a marriage for it to 'work' ... What do you mean? Do you mean for a marriage to work it doesn't need love? And what do you mean by 'work'?

[John Galt]

connermt wrote: John Galt wrote: Sage Orator wrote:
Quote: i'm suprised homosexuals don't die out because they can't produce more children even if they wanted to.
Wow, then how can you explain to me how approximately 1/3 homosexual couples have children?

A very good, though seemingly not well researched, essay.

Souce?

As for gay marriage, the problem is love is not a necessary input for a marriage for it to 'work' and therefore claiming that everyone who is in love should be able to get married is quite asinine.

I do know that a slippery slope will happen so long as it slides through the courts and not through the legislature. Consider Romer, specifically Scalia's scathing dissent, and you will come to the same conclusion. The writer of the above calling this argument a fallacy and 'proving' it is a fallacy by using fallacies himself (but but but murderers get married!) gave me quite a chuckle. In truth it is wholly valid to point out that the exact same arguments in favor of gay marriage have been and continue to be used in justifying the subjectation of women through polygamous relationships, and, considering Romer and say, the Utah Constitution... well, it is a matter of years before it all comes to a head.

The author comes up with a few other numbers that are questionable, starts talking about how the world would be better off with less people, calls marriage a "right," and has all sorts of other problems, but I'm at work.

Quote: ...therefore claiming that everyone who is in love should be able to get married is quite asinine. Who claimed this? Did I miss something? I agree not everyone should get married, gay or straight, as it is not for everyone.
Quote: ...love is not a necessary input for a marriage for it to 'work' ... What do you mean? Do you mean for a marriage to work it doesn't need love? And what do you mean by 'work'?

I said "should be able to," so you didn't miss anything as I did not even claim he said every "should" get married.

By "work" I mean "is a marriage."

[Jaxian]

John Galt wrote: As for gay marriage, the problem is love is not a necessary input for a marriage for it to 'work' and therefore claiming that everyone who is in love should be able to get married is quite asinine.

Yet since we are a free nation, and marriage is an agreement or union between two people, does it not make sense for marriage to work similar to contracts? I agree that love should not be a factor, but surely neither should gender.

Quote: I do know that a slippery slope will happen so long as it slides through the courts and not through the legislature. Consider Romer, specifically Scalia's scathing dissent, and you will come to the same conclusion.

Few changes to the law will not have effects on our law in the future. The true fallacy of the slippery is pretending to know what effects legalizing same-sex marriage will have. Opponents of same-sex marriage seem to believe that legalizing same-sex marriage will lead to legalizing all sorts of other "immoral" marriages.

But if those other marriages are truly bad ideas, why should we believe that they will be legalized by the "slippery slope"? Do we expect that people will lose all sense of reason, and legalize something like man-animal marriage? Why should we expect that? Such a marriage makes no sense, and people will not suddenly lose their sense as a result of legalizing same-sex marriage.

It may be valid to suggest that legalizing same-sex marriage might lead us toward legalizing other things which had previously been called "immoral", but to jump to the conclusion that we'll legalizing things which are illogical and irrational is not an attempt to make an accurate prediction of the future, it is an attempt to find any excuse to disagree with same-sex marriage.

Furthermore, I think looking at the slippery slope supports same-sex marriage more than it opposes it. Consider the slippery slope caused by failing to legalize same-sex marriage: morality based on tradition and majority religion will become stronger, and the rights of minority groups will become weaker. So I might say: if we deny the rights of homosexuals, we'll deny the rights of the next minority group that asks for them, and we'll start to pass laws which benefit only people who agree with the majority religion.

Even if legalizing same-sex marriage did somehow lead to polygamy, man-animal marriage, and incestuous marriage, aren't those things far better than establishing precedent to deny the rights of minority groups and favor the majority religion?

Quote: The writer of the above calling this argument a fallacy and 'proving' it is a fallacy by using fallacies himself (but but but murderers get married!) gave me quite a chuckle.

But do you consider it a fallacy to pose the question: "If legalizing same-sex marriage will lead us to legalizing polygamy, why is polygamous marriage not even being considered in nations which have long ago legalized same-sex marriage?" That seems to me a valid point.

Quote: In truth it is wholly valid to point out that the exact same arguments in favor of gay marriage have been and continue to be used in justifying the subjectation of women through polygamous relationships, and, considering Romer and say, the Utah Constitution... well, it is a matter of years before it all comes to a head.

The premises behind legalizing same-sex marriage is that it harms no one while helping many, it makes homosexuals equal, and people should have the freedom to choose who they marry.

Of those premises, the only one which polygamous marriage supporters could use is, "people should have the freedom to choose who they marry."

The other two premises disagree with polygamous marriage. Right in your quote you claimed that polygamous marriage harms women. So it maybe helps the man in a polygamous relationship, but harms many women in the process.

Further, it is very difficult, I think, to show that people in polygamous relationships aren't being treated fairly. While it should be clear that same-sex couples have the same needs as opposite-sex couples, it is not clear that people in a polygamous relationship have the need to add additional people to their marriage. In our current two-person marriage, each person can extend marriage benefits to one other, regardless of whether they are engaging in polygamy. That seems fair.

One might be able to argue that it is unequal to recognize two-person marriage under the law, for some people believe in polygamous marriage. While this might be true, it is more a justification to change our legal word for marriage to "civil union" for everyone.

[John Galt]

Jaxian wrote: John Galt wrote: As for gay marriage, the problem is love is not a necessary input for a marriage for it to 'work' and therefore claiming that everyone who is in love should be able to get married is quite asinine.

Yet since we are a free nation, and marriage is an agreement or union between two people, does it not make sense for marriage to work similar to contracts? I agree that love should not be a factor, but surely neither should gender.

There are pleanty of contracts that are denied people. "Price we pay for civilization" is what they say. I do not agree that they should be denied but I agree that the Constitution does not disallow it from happening.

Quote: Quote: I do know that a slippery slope will happen so long as it slides through the courts and not through the legislature. Consider Romer, specifically Scalia's scathing dissent, and you will come to the same conclusion.

Few changes to the law will not have effects on our law in the future. The true fallacy of the slippery is pretending to know what effects legalizing same-sex marriage will have. Opponents of same-sex marriage seem to believe that legalizing same-sex marriage will lead to legalizing all sorts of other "immoral" marriages.

But if those other marriages are truly bad ideas, why should we believe that they will be legalized by the "slippery slope"? Do we expect that people will lose all sense of reason, and legalize something like man-animal marriage? Why should we expect that? Such a marriage makes no sense, and people will not suddenly lose their sense as a result of legalizing same-sex marriage.

It may be valid to suggest that legalizing same-sex marriage might lead us toward legalizing other things which had previously been called "immoral", but to jump to the conclusion that we'll legalizing things which are illogical and irrational is not an attempt to make an accurate prediction of the future, it is an attempt to find any excuse to disagree with same-sex marriage.

Furthermore, I think looking at the slippery slope supports same-sex marriage more than it opposes it. Consider the slippery slope caused by failing to legalize same-sex marriage: morality based on tradition and majority religion will become stronger, and the rights of minority groups will become weaker. So I might say: if we deny the rights of homosexuals, we'll deny the rights of the next minority group that asks for them, and we'll start to pass laws which benefit only people who agree with the majority religion.

Even if legalizing same-sex marriage did somehow lead to polygamy, man-animal marriage, and incestuous marriage, aren't those things far better than establishing precedent to deny the rights of minority groups and favor the majority religion?

I said that if gay marriage was "legalized," to use the term liberally, by the despotic branch, and not by the people, the slippery slope would follow, since all the arguments are the same. If it was legalized by the people then I do not believe there would be any slope.

Quote: Quote: The writer of the above calling this argument a fallacy and 'proving' it is a fallacy by using fallacies himself (but but but murderers get married!) gave me quite a chuckle.

But do you consider it a fallacy to pose the question: "If legalizing same-sex marriage will lead us to legalizing polygamy, why is polygamous marriage not even being considered in nations which have long ago legalized same-sex marriage?" That seems to me a valid point.

True, but you have to look at their populations. Are there many mormons or muslims, the two main groups that subject women to polygamy? I think an evaluation of their demographics and past usage of polygamy (or even polyandry, although it is rare) would also be important to the discussion.

Quote: Quote: In truth it is wholly valid to point out that the exact same arguments in favor of gay marriage have been and continue to be used in justifying the subjectation of women through polygamous relationships, and, considering Romer and say, the Utah Constitution... well, it is a matter of years before it all comes to a head.

The premises behind legalizing same-sex marriage is that it harms no one while helping many, it makes homosexuals equal, and people should have the freedom to choose who they marry.

Apparently it harms some people, as alot of people get quite upset about it. Now, you may say they "shouldn't" be worked up about it, but they are. So it does harm them in some way. I believe the legal term is "mental anguish" and people awarded large sums of money if they have it in court. As for "equality" well, no, I do not think it "makes them equal." Individuals are already equal in this country. Marriage is not a "right." To marry homosexuals would be to change the defintion of marriage, which is different than family, so don't say it wouldn't. It would. Homosexuals can "marry." Just probabbly not whom they want. Too bad, I want a rich powerful woman. I can't marry whomever I want either.

Quote: Of those premises, the only one which polygamous marriage supporters could use is, "people should have the freedom to choose who they marry."

The other two premises disagree with polygamous marriage. Right in your quote you claimed that polygamous marriage harms women. So it maybe helps the man in a polygamous relationship, but harms many women in the process.

Further, it is very difficult, I think, to show that people in polygamous relationships aren't being treated fairly. While it should be clear that same-sex couples have the same needs as opposite-sex couples, it is not clear that people in a polygamous relationship have the need to add additional people to their marriage. In our current two-person marriage, each person can extend marriage benefits to one other, regardless of whether they are engaging in polygamy. That seems fair.

One might be able to argue that it is unequal to recognize two-person marriage under the law, for some people believe in polygamous marriage. While this might be true, it is more a justification to change our legal word for marriage to "civil union" for everyone.

Why "civil union"? What would that pervent? Nothing. Polygamy would still be allowed if this went through the courts. It is frankly undeniable. I believe it is also near certianity that incest would be "legalized" and a high probabolity that laws against beastiality ruled unconstitutional. The slope only happens if this goes through the courts, however. If it goes through the way the founders wrote -- not through the usurpation of the judical branch -- then it wouldn't happen. In any event, unfourtuante as it is, divorce is the main reason why the government has to be involved in marriage, since it has to have legal defientions of what it is for divorce proceedings. I think government should be completely out of it, as homosexuals who are not married are still going to be doing whatever, and the marriage is merely a title. But I do not see a reason why it would be unconstitutional for the people of each state to decide what to do on this issue. I support their right to not grant legal standing to homosexual marriages, even if I think they ought just forget about it.

[connermt]

John Galt wrote: connermt wrote: John Galt wrote: Sage Orator wrote:
Quote: i'm suprised homosexuals don't die out because they can't produce more children even if they wanted to.
Wow, then how can you explain to me how approximately 1/3 homosexual couples have children?

A very good, though seemingly not well researched, essay.

Souce?

As for gay marriage, the problem is love is not a necessary input for a marriage for it to 'work' and therefore claiming that everyone who is in love should be able to get married is quite asinine.

I do know that a slippery slope will happen so long as it slides through the courts and not through the legislature. Consider Romer, specifically Scalia's scathing dissent, and you will come to the same conclusion. The writer of the above calling this argument a fallacy and 'proving' it is a fallacy by using fallacies himself (but but but murderers get married!) gave me quite a chuckle. In truth it is wholly valid to point out that the exact same arguments in favor of gay marriage have been and continue to be used in justifying the subjectation of women through polygamous relationships, and, considering Romer and say, the Utah Constitution... well, it is a matter of years before it all comes to a head.

The author comes up with a few other numbers that are questionable, starts talking about how the world would be better off with less people, calls marriage a "right," and has all sorts of other problems, but I'm at work.

Quote: ...therefore claiming that everyone who is in love should be able to get married is quite asinine. Who claimed this? Did I miss something? I agree not everyone should get married, gay or straight, as it is not for everyone.
Quote: ...love is not a necessary input for a marriage for it to 'work' ... What do you mean? Do you mean for a marriage to work it doesn't need love? And what do you mean by 'work'?

I said "should be able to," so you didn't miss anything as I did not even claim he said every "should" get married.

By "work" I mean "is a marriage."

So you are saying love isn't necessary to have a marriage?
Not trying to be difficult, but having problems getting my mind around that one!
I SUPPOSE it could be if both parties don't love each other & are married for reasons other than love, but wouldn't that be the opposite of a Godly marriage?

[John Galt]

connermt wrote: John Galt wrote: connermt wrote: John Galt wrote: Sage Orator wrote:
Quote: i'm suprised homosexuals don't die out because they can't produce more children even if they wanted to.
Wow, then how can you explain to me how approximately 1/3 homosexual couples have children?

A very good, though seemingly not well researched, essay.

Souce?

As for gay marriage, the problem is love is not a necessary input for a marriage for it to 'work' and therefore claiming that everyone who is in love should be able to get married is quite asinine.

I do know that a slippery slope will happen so long as it slides through the courts and not through the legislature. Consider Romer, specifically Scalia's scathing dissent, and you will come to the same conclusion. The writer of the above calling this argument a fallacy and 'proving' it is a fallacy by using fallacies himself (but but but murderers get married!) gave me quite a chuckle. In truth it is wholly valid to point out that the exact same arguments in favor of gay marriage have been and continue to be used in justifying the subjectation of women through polygamous relationships, and, considering Romer and say, the Utah Constitution... well, it is a matter of years before it all comes to a head.

The author comes up with a few other numbers that are questionable, starts talking about how the world would be better off with less people, calls marriage a "right," and has all sorts of other problems, but I'm at work.

Quote: ...therefore claiming that everyone who is in love should be able to get married is quite asinine. Who claimed this? Did I miss something? I agree not everyone should get married, gay or straight, as it is not for everyone.
Quote: ...love is not a necessary input for a marriage for it to 'work' ... What do you mean? Do you mean for a marriage to work it doesn't need love? And what do you mean by 'work'?

I said "should be able to," so you didn't miss anything as I did not even claim he said every "should" get married.

By "work" I mean "is a marriage."

So you are saying love isn't necessary to have a marriage?
Not trying to be difficult, but having problems getting my mind around that one!
I SUPPOSE it could be if both parties don't love each other & are married for reasons other than love, but wouldn't that be the opposite of a Godly marriage?

Divorces disn't happen in ages past when love was not part of the marriage. You think the lower class of London ever got divorced, even though their King had created another religion over the issue? It just wasn't part of things. But their marriages still worked. Love was not the basis.

[connermt]

John Galt wrote: connermt wrote: John Galt wrote: connermt wrote: John Galt wrote: Sage Orator wrote:
Quote: i'm suprised homosexuals don't die out because they can't produce more children even if they wanted to.
Wow, then how can you explain to me how approximately 1/3 homosexual couples have children?

A very good, though seemingly not well researched, essay.

Souce?

As for gay marriage, the problem is love is not a necessary input for a marriage for it to 'work' and therefore claiming that everyone who is in love should be able to get married is quite asinine.

I do know that a slippery slope will happen so long as it slides through the courts and not through the legislature. Consider Romer, specifically Scalia's scathing dissent, and you will come to the same conclusion. The writer of the above calling this argument a fallacy and 'proving' it is a fallacy by using fallacies himself (but but but murderers get married!) gave me quite a chuckle. In truth it is wholly valid to point out that the exact same arguments in favor of gay marriage have been and continue to be used in justifying the subjectation of women through polygamous relationships, and, considering Romer and say, the Utah Constitution... well, it is a matter of years before it all comes to a head.

The author comes up with a few other numbers that are questionable, starts talking about how the world would be better off with less people, calls marriage a "right," and has all sorts of other problems, but I'm at work.

Quote: ...therefore claiming that everyone who is in love should be able to get married is quite asinine. Who claimed this? Did I miss something? I agree not everyone should get married, gay or straight, as it is not for everyone.
Quote: ...love is not a necessary input for a marriage for it to 'work' ... What do you mean? Do you mean for a marriage to work it doesn't need love? And what do you mean by 'work'?

I said "should be able to," so you didn't miss anything as I did not even claim he said every "should" get married.

By "work" I mean "is a marriage."

So you are saying love isn't necessary to have a marriage?
Not trying to be difficult, but having problems getting my mind around that one!
I SUPPOSE it could be if both parties don't love each other & are married for reasons other than love, but wouldn't that be the opposite of a Godly marriage?

Divorces disn't happen in ages past when love was not part of the marriage. You think the lower class of London ever got divorced, even though their King had created another religion over the issue? It just wasn't part of things. But their marriages still worked. Love was not the basis.
Things have changed since ages past. Love should be the basis of a marriage unless both parties are in it for other reasons

[LostSoul3412]

John Galt wrote: Divorces disn't happen in ages past when love was not part of the marriage. You think the lower class of London ever got divorced, even though their King had created another religion over the issue? It just wasn't part of things. But their marriages still worked. Love was not the basis.

What other reason is there to marry someone and spend the rest of your life with them if it isn't love? I suppose that it is a personal choice, but still, I would not want to spend my life with someone I did not love. Money and materials are not, and should not, be the basis of marriage. If that was the case, then only the wealthy would be married. Yet, people marry those in poverty all the time. Marriage is an institute of love, anything else is just a "Social Contract".

[Conserv\Traditionalist]

This is a trick question: Should homosexuals be aloud to get married?

The answer is "yes" and they have been able to for some time.

As one Conservative, Fundamentalist, Traditionalist, yea, even Republican Christian, I say it is entirely legal and fine for homosexuals to get married.

As long as it is to the opposite sex. In that mind set, no one has take away anyone's "rights."

Ok, Emotions may run wild..... NOW!

:arhhg:

[spearsy23]

Conserv\Traditionalist wrote: This is a trick question: Should homosexuals be aloud to get married?

The answer is "yes" and they have been able to for some time.

As one Conservative, Fundamentalist, Traditionalist, yea, even Republican Christian, I say it is entirely legal and fine for homosexuals to get married.

As long as it is to the opposite sex. In that mind set, no one has take away anyone's "rights."

Ok, Emotions may run wild..... NOW!

:arhhg:

Legal binding contract with anyone sound familiar? No? didn't think so.

[Enoch]

Conserv\Traditionalist wrote: This is a trick question: Should homosexuals be aloud to get married?

The answer is "yes" and they have been able to for some time.

As one Conservative, Fundamentalist, Traditionalist, yea, even Republican Christian, I say it is entirely legal and fine for homosexuals to get married.

As long as it is to the opposite sex. In that mind set, no one has take away anyone's "rights."

Ok, Emotions may run wild..... NOW!

:arhhg:

That is the lamest of all the anti-gay rights arguments. "You already have your rights, it's not my fault that you can't marry someone you love like I can. Just pretend to be straight, and you'll be fine." :roll:

[Conserv\Traditionalist]

Well, I thought I was being quite witty, but obiviously it was with the wrong crowd.

The Idea that those who are against gay marriage are against them having rights is wrong. They have the same rights.
They refuse to yield to the thought that there should be a legitament union for two of the opposet sex since that union would have
no real use to that of society. Marriage is the foundation of the family. The "marriage" of two homosexuals would cause an ustable family
or none at all. These happen to be my beliefs and I will stand by that belief.

Oh, and by the way. I am soo sorry for making that Crazy face. I should have for seen the irritation it would cause.

[spearsy23]

Conserv\Traditionalist wrote: Well, I thought I was being quite witty, but obiviously it was with the wrong crowd.
You were being quite witty with a tired old argument that is quite frankly stupid. Also you never answered legal binding contract with anyone sounc familiar?

Quote: The Idea that those who are against gay marriage are against them having rights is wrong. They have the same rights.
The right to marry someone they love? Sorry don't think so bud.

Quote: They refuse to yield to the thought that there should be a legitament union for two of the opposet sex since that union would have
no real use to that of society.
Logically speaking, no marriage has a use to society.
Quote: Marriage is the foundation of the family. The "marriage" of two homosexuals would cause an ustable family or none at all
Would you mind backing up your b.s. claims?

Quote: These happen to be my beliefs and I will stand by that belief. your belief makes no sense.

Quote: Oh, and by the way. I am soo sorry for making that Crazy face. I should have for seen the irritation it would cause.

You really think people were debating you because of a smiley?

[Enoch]

Conserv\Traditionalist wrote: Well, I thought I was being quite witty, but obiviously it was with the wrong crowd.

The Idea that those who are against gay marriage are against them having rights is wrong. They have the same rights.
They refuse to yield to the thought that there should be a legitament union for two of the opposet sex since that union would have
no real use to that of society. Marriage is the foundation of the family. The "marriage" of two homosexuals would cause an ustable family
or none at all. These happen to be my beliefs and I will stand by that belief.

Oh, and by the way. I am soo sorry for making that Crazy face. I should have for seen the irritation it would cause.

And, again, I point out that your tired "gays have the same rights" argument is complete and utter bullsh*t. You know it, I know it, your dog knows it. The only reason people trot that argument out is because they have no logical argument to present, so they have to resort to a strawman such as this.

Face it, everyone has the right to marry someone they don't love. But, only straight people, for now, have the right to marry a person they are in love with.

In addition, do you have anything to support your contention that homosexual couples would "cause an unstable family?" Unstable based on what criteria?

[ToonArmyIsComing]

Conserv\Traditionalist wrote: This is a trick question: Should homosexuals be aloud to get married?

The answer is "yes" and they have been able to for some time.

As one Conservative, Fundamentalist, Traditionalist, yea, even Republican Christian, I say it is entirely legal and fine for homosexuals to get married.

As long as it is to the opposite sex. In that mind set, no one has take away anyone's "rights."

Ok, Emotions may run wild..... NOW!

:arhhg:

Exactly! Tell it like it is! These people are really pushing it right now wanting to be married like normal people. If you want to be married, start acting normal and stop harming the society with your morally decedent ways!

Leviticus 20:13 "And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

[spearsy23]

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: Conserv\Traditionalist wrote: This is a trick question: Should homosexuals be aloud to get married?

The answer is "yes" and they have been able to for some time.

As one Conservative, Fundamentalist, Traditionalist, yea, even Republican Christian, I say it is entirely legal and fine for homosexuals to get married.

As long as it is to the opposite sex. In that mind set, no one has take away anyone's "rights."

Ok, Emotions may run wild..... NOW!

:arhhg:

Exactly! Tell it like it is! These people are really pushing it right now wanting to be married like normal people. If you want to be married, start acting normal and stop harming the society with your morally decedent ways!

Leviticus 20:13 "And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
You don't define normal. I contend that YOU are hurting society with your biggoted ways. You sir are a hypocrite, "I am a christian who believes in loving everyone, except them god damn f**s."

And your bible passage while stupid is also quite irrelevant in a country with seperation of church and state.

[George W Bush]

This issue has shown, or brought out, the people who want to control others lives to an unreasonable extent.

Obviously, two people marrying affects no one...

BUT THE TWO PEOPLE MARRYING.

the overzealoutry of expressing contempt over this brinks on the edge of insanity. I mean, why concern yourself with what 2 people you will never know or see again, do with their time together?


And dont give me s**t about "oh, well I have CHILDREN" because your CHILDREN have to be exposed to learn about life. Then again, its not your childs decision either. Who should filter their decisions through a "What will someone elses child think?" filter?

This is America and we are not as close to each other as you anti-marriage people think.

Get a clue and learn to mind your business and quit thinking everyone has to raise your kid.

[Enoch]

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: Leviticus 20:13 "And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Leviticus 1:9 But his inwards and his legs shall he wash in water: and the priest shall burn all on the altar, [to be] a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD. (Animal sacrifices)

Leviticus 11:7 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he [is] unclean to you. (No bacon or ham)

Leviticus 11:10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which [is] in the waters, they [shall be] an abomination unto you. (No shellfish)

Leviticus 11:29-30 These also [shall be] unclean unto you among the creeping things that creep upon the earth; the weasel, and the mouse, and the tortoise after his kind, And the ferret, and the chameleon, and the lizard, and the snail, and the mole. (No turtle soup or escargot)

Leviticus 19:19 Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee. (No poly-cotton, nor planting multiple crops in one garden)

Leviticus 19:27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard. (No haircuts or beard trims)

Leviticus 19:28 Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I [am] the LORD. (No tattoos)

Leviticus 24:16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, [and] all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name [of the LORD], shall be put to death. (Stone to death anyone who blasphemes)

Leviticus 24:17 And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death. (Affirmation of the death penalty)

Leviticus 25:44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, [shall be] of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. (Buying slaves from neighboring nations)

Look...I can quote the bible too! :lol:

If you want to use the bible as any sort of condemnation, you may want to pick a book other than Leviticus, AND do it in a country where religious teachings are also law. That, my friend, is not the United States. Although, I hear Iran is nice this time of year.

[ToonArmyIsComing]

The Underground wrote: ToonArmyIsComing wrote: Exactly! Tell it like it is! These people are really pushing it right now wanting to be married like normal people. If you want to be married, start acting normal and stop harming the society with your morally decedent ways!

You don't define normal. I contend that YOU are hurting society with your biggoted ways. You sir are a hypocrite, "I am a christian who believes in loving everyone, except them god damn f**s."

I'm not defining anything and I am not calling anyone anything. Besides, I don't hate anyone. I'm just stating that the fact is that it is obvious that the ever since the start of various "liberation" movements, the society has become a place where fringe groups such as the gays have come to define the way that people live their lives in the West. Look at Europe and how these morally challenged groups are destroying the very foundations of their societies for their own sexual pleasures.

I'm not a hypocrite. The gays are hypocrites though as they are destroying the very society that cared for them and brought them up.

UrielsFyre wrote: Look...I can quote the bible too! :lol:

If you want to use the bible as any sort of condemnation, you may want to pick a book other than Leviticus, AND do it in a country where religious teachings are also law. That, my friend, is not the United States. Although, I hear Iran is nice this time of year.

Immorality at its best. Fringe groups attempting to destroy the very foundations of the US.

You see I'm not advocating government involvement, but the society has to ostracize these fringe groups. That way there will be no theocracy in the US and the gays will be punished for their sinful behaviour without the government involvement and without their constitutional rights being infringed. It's a very efficient way as more and more people subscribe to it. If the trends are anything to go by, the US is fertile for doing these works.

[Conserv\Traditionalist]

ok...... Let us try a question instead.

"In your mind, can those who oppose gay marriage possibly have a feasible reason, in their mind, for opposing it?"

And can we try to aswer this with less vulgarity? It only shows a lack of vocabulary and a mind in the gutter that does not help the arguement on the side with which it is spoken.