How come none of the right-wing predictions about gay marriage came true?

[garbage can]

What is it you fear if two men or two women marry? What is the actual or objective damage? Not some esoteric bullshite (such as may as well allow bestial marriage), but actual provable harms to society.

List them, prove them or shut the fuck up and call someone else a collectivist.

Uhmm, let's say I have a 300 lb behemoth (middle linebacker) bent over, with his asshole pointing toward me.

Next to him, a 4 foot tall sheep, with a nicely shaved clean pussy.

Which one would I fuck?.............................

 

[mercury14]

Marriage, between a man and a woman has purpose and intent, can be defined, explained and justified in almost any manner you wish. Marriage between two men or two women, cannot, which is why you continue to avoid defending the concepts and offer only criticism of those who do.

Marriage between to women can't be defined, explained, or justified? How about, they enter into a lifelong commitment, because they love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together, and they complete/compliment one another? You know, the same exact way hetero marriage is defined, explained, and justified?

One cannot understand why, in bountiful times such as now, why the 'ideal' relationship of marriage between a man and a woman is being challenged.

YOUR "ideal' relationship is with a woman. Not everyone thinks like you.

Every psychological and sociological text prior to 1973, and most after that date, offer studies that prove the ideal circumstances in which to raise and nurture a child is in traditional marriage.

Patently wrong. This is an area receiving extensive research. Would you like me to show you the results?

Blah... well defined gender roles.

Doesn't really matter what your personal opinion on gender roles is.

Originally Posted by amicus
If there are no moral absolutes, then everything is acceptable and by consequence, nothing is valued.

Okay fine, my moral absolute involves freedom and liberty to the point of not oppressing others. Please abide by it - it's an absolute. If you don't, you value nothing. See how that works?

There is no such thing as a 'gay' gene, homosexuality is not innate, no matter how many times you say it or believe in it?

Never said it as a gene. I said it as innate, and yes it is. Did you "pick" to be straight?

well...thas enough fun for one sitting...I will close with another request to anyone willing, to actually set forth your principles and defend them, the opposite on the continual attack on my principles.

You're more than free to have all the principals you want. My principals highly value personal liberty, therefore I believe it's not the government's (or your) place to restrict who I can and cannot marry. Attack away.

 

[badbabysitter]

Uhmm, let's say I have a 300 lb behemoth (middle linebacker) bent over, with his asshole pointing toward me.

Next to him, a 4 foot tall sheep, with a nicely shaved clean pussy.

Which one would I fuck?.............................

The fact that you're torn between which one to fuck says more about you then wether you're gay or not

 

[garbage can]

The fact that you're torn between which one to fuck says more about you then wether you're gay or not

Oh, what does it say? I want to hear.

 

[badbabysitter]

Oh, what does it say? I want to hear.

You're the one debating sheep-fucking, not me

 

[garbage can]

You're the one debating sheep-fucking, not me

 

[Peregrinator]

Me? I'd favor the government getting out of the marriage business altogether. Issue 'Partnership Contracts' that, when signed, have essentially the same effect as what is currently called a 'marriage license' and do away with the term 'marriage' altogether. If someone wants a marriage ceremony just go to whoever is willing to perform said ceremony to the participants satisfaction and get a nice little diploma looking form that you can frame and hang on the wall. And if you want to dissolve the partnership, just go to a business attorney.

Ishmael

I'll sign on to this. It's more or less what I've been saying all along. Let churches and jop's and ships' captains and whoever else decide who they will or will not "marry" and get the State out of the way. I have no problem with polygamy either, as long as all parties agree. Incest does carry a demonstrable harm in the incidence of birth defects and such. The State has a legitimate interest in a healthy populace. There's no argument that makes any sense to me that gay marriage or polygamy--or polyandry, for that matter--will cause a health issue of any significance. No more so than single parents do, or grandparents raising kids or any of a million current permutations.

Now that I think of it, I was a guest at a wedding of two men in Oregon, which at the time didn't "allow" them to get married. One of them pointed out that it didn't matter who performed the ceremony. I thought that was to their benefit. I suppose they've got some sort of power of attorney contract or something. I never asked, figuring it was none of my business. They never asked about Lady P's and my finances either.

 

[mercury14]

Amicus' anthropological argument against gay marriage is a trip - since there has been little or no gay marriage in society then we should not allow it today. Just a few gaping holes in that argument:

1) Many or even most societies threatened to punish homosexuality with prison, torture, medical "treatment" (torture), exile, death, oppression, etc. Does this mean we should follow their example, since traditionally this is what humanity has done?

2) Any anthropologist will tell you that societies evolve. Victorian England bears very little resemblance to modern London, etc. Therefore it's silly to say that we need to fight change for change's sake. And looking back at human history and cherry picking things that should not change is flawed logic to say the least.

The vast majority of human existence rejected the notion of democracy or repressed such reasoning - should we then reject democracy in America because didn't have it or made it illegal?

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

~~~



leonard.greene@nypost.com


Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/divorce_lawyers_cheering_too_Gy9OpZfKySYn4pLWPUFwBJ#ixzz1RwZweWIa

Not that it matters, but I heard a news item that Gay divorce was on the rise, then found pages and pages of articles denying the assertion.

Not that I am the least bit influenced by the claims that the media, in general, is Liberal, I mean, hey, you got rid of Beck, right ?

ami

Um, no, you didn't hear that. There was NOTHING in the article supporting your claim that gay marriage is on the rise.

As I said before, you made it up to support your homophobia.

 

[kbate]

~~~

You inched just a little bit closer to a rational thought with the bolded question above, congratulations.

Perhaps if you attempted to answer your own question, you might edge towards understanding of why it has always been that way, eh?

amicus

You have no claim to rationality or any right to assign that title to others. You are the one who equates a freely executed contract between two consenting adults with a man deciding to have sex with an animal.

As usual - no proofs for your argument, simply a deflection. As expected.

 

[Ishmael]

You have no claim to rationality or any right to assign that title to others. You are the one who equates a freely executed contract between two consenting adults with a man deciding to have sex with an animal.

As usual - no proofs for your argument, simply a deflection. As expected.

Scroll back sweetheart.

Ishmael

 

[richard_daily]

Not that I am the least bit influenced by the claims that the media, in general, is Liberal, I mean, hey, you got rid of Beck, right ?

The free market got rid of Glen Beck.

 

[kbate]

Scroll back sweetheart.

Ishmael

His parroting of the christian right's points - without any empirical proof to back up his claims for one male/one female households - are not proofs of anything other than that he can read various family oriented websites.

Until he can explain why marriage is still sacred and permitted when an 80 year old man marries an 80 year old woman - he needs to stop with the "Government has a duty to ensue a proper childrearing environment and that is One Male/One Female". Until he explains marriages of convenience and marriages for political or financial gain - he needs to stop pretending that marriage is a holy sacrament with great historical value.

Until he can explain the heterosexual divorce rate (including his own) he needs to stop pretending that homosexual divorce is a coming tragedy to the nation.

Amicus is simply attempting to justify bigotry with religion, just as he posted about the pressing need to disenfranchise anyone whose "group does not vote" to support his version of liberty (blacks, women, minorities).

Amicus may as well just quote Genesis 3:16, fold his arms and state "discussion over."

 

[Ishmael]

His parroting of the christian right's points - without any empirical proof to back up his claims for one male/one female households - are not proofs of anything other than that he can read various family oriented websites.

Until he can explain why marriage is still sacred and permitted when an 80 year old man marries an 80 year old woman - he needs to stop with the "Government has a duty to ensue a proper childrearing environment and that is One Male/One Female".

Amicus is simply attempting to justify bigotry with religion, just as he posted about the pressing need to disenfranchise anyone whose "group does not vote" to support his version of liberty (blacks, women, minorities).

Amicus may as well just quote Genesis 3:16, fold his arms and state "discussion over."

So you have a hard on. Get over it, let's talk turkey.

Ishmael

 

[richard_daily]

So you have a hard on. Get over it, let's talk turkey.

Ishmael

This is good news... At least one of the two of you can get a hard on.

 

[kbate]

So you have a hard on. Get over it, let's talk turkey.

Ishmael

Not me. I am and have always been for liberty in this issue, not for social engineering on any level conducted by government. I do not care who marries, how they do it, or where they conduct the ceremonies - as long as there is no special privilege granted by government to any one group for having performed the ceremony. But if one demographic gets special privilege under law - all should get it and that's the whole story.

Anyone who thinks otherwise - has lost the idea of liberty and cannot claim to be a true liberal.

Time will prove that homosexuals marrying - will have no effect whatsoever on the rate, incidence or success of heterosexual marriage and heterosexual childrearing.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Not me. I am and have always been for liberty in this issue, not for social engineering on any level conducted by government. I do not care who marries, how they do it, or where they conduct the ceremonies - as long as there is no special privilege granted by government to any one group for having performed the ceremony. But if one demographic gets special privilege under law - all should get it and that's the whole story.

Anyone who thinks otherwise - has lost the idea of liberty and cannot claim to be a true liberal.

Time will prove that homosexuals marrying - will have no effect whatsoever on the rate, incidence or success of heterosexual marriage and heterosexual childrearing.

That's already been proven.

This thread isn't about facts. It's about how some are racist & homophobic. You can't have a discussion with people who are irrational about the topic.

 

[Ishmael]

Not me. I am and have always been for liberty in this issue, not for social engineering on any level conducted by government. I do not care who marries, how they do it, or where they conduct the ceremonies - as long as there is no special privilege granted by government to any one group for having performed the ceremony. But if one demographic gets special privilege under law - all should get it and that's the whole story.

Anyone who thinks otherwise - has lost the idea of liberty and cannot claim to be a true liberal.

Time will prove that homosexuals marrying - will have no effect whatsoever on the rate, incidence or success of heterosexual marriage and heterosexual childrearing.

So, overall you agree with my post.

Ishmael

 

[kbate]

So, overall you agree with my post.

No, your post agrees with rational liberal philosophy.

 

[Ishmael]

No, your post agrees with rational liberal philosophy.

I can assure you that there are many who would attribute your post to temporary insanity, contrarian bitch.

ishmael

 

[amicus]

Chuckles...you folks remain slippery and slimy and difficult to get a handle on; so perfectly evasive and non committal that I marvel you have the audacity to claim Modern Liberal philosophy as rational, as it certainly is not.

As you instinctively seem to shy away from a philosophical discussion, a psychological one, even a sociological one, because you can see around the corner that I have you hoisted by your own Petards, then let us consider, momentarily, the legal aspect of marriage in terms of precedent and 'settled law', as the Supreme Court delves into from time to time in their decisions.

But then, even as I typed that, I realized you would not respond to that, either, as precedent and settled law makes my case over and over and over again.

I realize it may be an impossible task to tug you out of your personal preferences and drag you screaming into a full spectrum analysis of human relationships, but I can only try.

In times past, our history, formal relationships between people, began with people, not governments; families, extended families and the close knit communities of the past with an investment in the expanding relationships of people, gave or withheld approval of alliances for a variety of reasons depending upon the culture and the environment. I will stress again, that we live in a time unlike any other, where there are few famililial ties, the extended or nuclear family is almost a thing of the past and child bearing and family building is no longer the end all and be all of relationships or even communities.

That being so...just where is it going, what does it mean, and how do people cope with ever changing goals and aspirations?

Of recent, there has been a surge in late in life child bearing events, women in their forties and even later, sensing the biological clock ticking down, hasten to bear a child and engage in traditional behavior.

I have never pretended to be a prophet or a soothsayer with special knowledge of the future, but I do pride myself on asking questions that few others ask and seeking answers instead of faith and belief in dogma or mantra's that reflect a secluded and secular faith acquired by some osmosic method.

For those still in the student mode, do some research on children who grew up without a father figure and parse the opinions, studies, results and predictions as to what it portends for the future.

Perhaps indeed the era of the alpha male is over and gone, but then, without decisive action in a crisis, where will that lead?

Rather than accept at face value that same sex marriage, promiscuity and abortion are now the accepted norms and should be respected; I question just where this lifestyle will lead.

Perhaps you might join me in a quest for knowledge....or not...

amicus

 

[Sonny Limatina]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JLbAePwoHQ

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

AMICUS

Gays are to the Democrats what Baptists are to the GOP. No right thinking person cares to associate with either group but the votes are useful. And both groups use their votes as leverage to show their asses in public.

 

[amicus]

AMICUS

Gays are to the Democrats what Baptists are to the GOP. No right thinking person cares to associate with either group but the votes are useful. And both groups use their votes as leverage to show their asses in public.

~~~

Yes, I suppose the votes are useful...one could always imagine that all Gays became Babtists and all Babtists became Gay, then we could build a communal corral and charge for tickets?

meh

ami (Hi, James, howzit in Fla?)

 

[kbate]

Rather than accept at face value that same sex marriage, promiscuity and abortion are now the accepted norms and should be respected; I question just where this lifestyle will lead.

Perhaps you might join me in a quest for knowledge....or not...

amicus

Your quest for knowledge? You are citing the fixed and rigid texts of the Bible as truths immortal. You wrote that Christian Morals are immortal and immutable and argue that deviation from them is death. How quaint - how anti-quest for knowledge.

Get real and stop pretending to be the erudite gentleman of education. There is no point in philosophical debate with you, you cannot even admit to the stupidity of your "Animal marriage" statement and rigidly defend even your most inane statements (not with facts of course but with more inane statements).

Hoisted? You have not offered even one fact concerning the supposed damages of homosexual marriage. You offer opinions and ridicule to anyone who disagrees with you.

Grow up and when you have, come back and perhaps you might be worthy of more than scorn.

**

And your "late life surge" - also includes many single women, gay women and married women using artificial means of conception. It is not a shining example of the necessity for your "One Male Dominates One woman household.

You believe that only an Alpha Male can be decisive in times of crisis? The English call and raise you Victoria.

You have assigned the moniker of "collectivist" to me and many others - simply because we do not agree with your bigoted viewpoints. Agree with Amicus2k6 or you must be a democrat, a socialist or a collectivist.

The first line in your post, based on your stupidly blinkered vision and on your emotional assumptions about me, was wrong in totality.