Gay marriage advocates, on the wrong track?

[Nosmo King]

BOBO, these people understand that the general public will never accept their lifestyle, so they need the Government to step in and FORCE the public to recognize their immoral and disgusting acts as legitimate forms of activity and not the abhorant act that they truly are. These people are not strong enough in their beliefs to simply say.... "I am who I am, no matter what anyone else thinks." Instead they need the Legal recognition to empower them to continue their deplorable lifestyle.

So, because you don't like them, it's fine and dandy to discriminate against them and deny them access to contract law and the protections and benefits provided by it.

What are you doing wandering the Earth? Your line of thinking was supposed to have been killed off in the bomb craters of Berlin. And you call yourself an American. Shame on you.

 

[RDD_1210]

BOBO, these people understand that the general public will never accept their lifestyle, so they need the Government to step in and FORCE the public to recognize their immoral and disgusting acts as legitimate forms of activity and not the abhorant act that they truly are. These people are not strong enough in their beliefs to simply say.... "I am who I am, no matter what anyone else thinks." Instead they need the Legal recognition to empower them to continue their deplorable lifestyle.

So, because you don't like them, it's fine and dandy to discriminate against them and deny them access to contract law and the protections and benefits provided by it.

What are you doing wandering the Earth? Your line of thinking was supposed to have been killed off in the bomb craters of Berlin. And you call yourself an American. Shame on you.

How are you not on his ignore list?? Such disrespectful speech is sure to land you there Mister!

 

[cbirch2]

Getting married in a church means nothing without a marriage license. Two atheists can go get married by a justice of the peace in a parking lot. Therefore your argument that christian religious doctrine somehow applies to who the city provides a civil service to is nothing more than wishful thinking.

 

[ShackledNation]

Eliminate marriage? No. Privatize marriage? Yes. What is this talk of general agreement? George and Martha Washington never had to get a marriage license. Marriage then was solely a private matter.

Marriage licenses for all citizens is fairly new. It began in the 1800's, when citizens which wanted an interracial marriage had to petition to the government for permission. As far as I can tell, marriage existed before the 1800s. And the divorce rate was lower, so it would appear the policy worked far better.

I am pretty sure there was no gay marriage in Washington's day. Actually I think homosexuality was pretty much illegal.
And they had much less crime than we do today so maybe they were on to something.

Right and people owned slaves. You probably would have liked it more back then.

Two different issues. Congratulations on using a logical fallacy as a response. I am referencing the past as proof you do not need government for marriage to work. You failed to prove otherwise. If you would like to continue using logical fallacies, please do so somewhere else.

 

[Nosmo King]

BOBO, these people understand that the general public will never accept their lifestyle, so they need the Government to step in and FORCE the public to recognize their immoral and disgusting acts as legitimate forms of activity and not the abhorant act that they truly are. These people are not strong enough in their beliefs to simply say.... "I am who I am, no matter what anyone else thinks." Instead they need the Legal recognition to empower them to continue their deplorable lifestyle.

So, because you don't like them, it's fine and dandy to discriminate against them and deny them access to contract law and the protections and benefits provided by it.

What are you doing wandering the Earth? Your line of thinking was supposed to have been killed off in the bomb craters of Berlin. And you call yourself an American. Shame on you.

How are you not on his ignore list?? Such disrespectful speech is sure to land you there Mister!

You mean a bigot is going to ignore me? Someone who believes his morality is the only morality worth observing is going to become upset?

I'm sure someone wound that tight gets upset the way most normal people get hungry~ every four hours or so.

 

[The Rabbi]

Eliminate marriage? No. Privatize marriage? Yes. What is this talk of general agreement? George and Martha Washington never had to get a marriage license. Marriage then was solely a private matter.

Marriage licenses for all citizens is fairly new. It began in the 1800's, when citizens which wanted an interracial marriage had to petition to the government for permission. As far as I can tell, marriage existed before the 1800s. And the divorce rate was lower, so it would appear the policy worked far better.

I am pretty sure there was no gay marriage in Washington's day. Actually I think homosexuality was pretty much illegal.
And they had much less crime than we do today so maybe they were on to something.

I'm pretty sure several founding fathers wrote editorials specifically opposing the harsh treatment of gay people during their time. Wrong again.

Have any proof?
Nahhh.

 

[RDD_1210]

I am pretty sure there was no gay marriage in Washington's day. Actually I think homosexuality was pretty much illegal.
And they had much less crime than we do today so maybe they were on to something.

Right and people owned slaves. You probably would have liked it more back then.

Two different issues. Congratulations on using a logical fallacy as a response. I am referencing the past as proof you do not need government for marriage to work. You failed to prove otherwise. If you would like to continue using logical fallacies, please do so somewhere else.

I don't think I was talking to you. I was talking to the resident racist and stubborn asshole Rabbi. Logic is not a part of his equation. Please check that notion at the door.

 

[cbirch2]

I am pretty sure there was no gay marriage in Washington's day. Actually I think homosexuality was pretty much illegal.
And they had much less crime than we do today so maybe they were on to something.

I'm pretty sure several founding fathers wrote editorials specifically opposing the harsh treatment of gay people during their time. Wrong again.

Have any proof?
Nahhh.

Gay Marriage? Blame It On Jefferson...

That took under a minute to find.

 

[RDD_1210]

I am pretty sure there was no gay marriage in Washington's day. Actually I think homosexuality was pretty much illegal.
And they had much less crime than we do today so maybe they were on to something.

I'm pretty sure several founding fathers wrote editorials specifically opposing the harsh treatment of gay people during their time. Wrong again.

Have any proof?
Nahhh.

Like your proof that black people can't be good leaders.

 

[RDD_1210]

I'm pretty sure several founding fathers wrote editorials specifically opposing the harsh treatment of gay people during their time. Wrong again.

Have any proof?
Nahhh.

Gay Marriage? Blame It On Jefferson...

That took under a minute to find.

Source attacks begin in 3,2,1.....

 

[ShackledNation]

I'm pretty sure several founding fathers wrote editorials specifically opposing the harsh treatment of gay people during their time. Wrong again.

Have any proof?
Nahhh.

Gay Marriage? Blame It On Jefferson...

That took under a minute to find.

You reference to Jefferson is incorrect. Jefferson supported legislation that would mandate castration for gay people. Just google it. The article didn't reference Jefferson speaking about gays or marriage once.

I do believe, however, that government should get out of marriage and allow private individuals and churches to facilitate marriage contracts.

 

[Nosmo King]

Have any proof?
Nahhh.

Gay Marriage? Blame It On Jefferson...

That took under a minute to find.

You reference to Jefferson is incorrect. Jefferson supported legislation that would mandate castration for gay people. Just google it. The article didn't reference Jefferson speaking about gays or marriage once.

I do believe, however, that government should get out of marriage and allow private individuals and churches to facilitate marriage contracts.

But the argument is that allowing gay marriage will damage the institition of marriage. Your solution is a suicide pact with marriage.

 

[cbirch2]

Have any proof?
Nahhh.

Gay Marriage? Blame It On Jefferson...

That took under a minute to find.

You reference to Jefferson is incorrect. Jefferson supported legislation that would mandate castration for gay people. Just google it. The article didn't reference Jefferson speaking about gays or marriage once.

I do believe, however, that government should get out of marriage and allow private individuals and churches to facilitate marriage contracts.

Well clever twist, nice spin. I never said he supported gay marriage. I said he wrote against the harsh treatment of gay people. Gay people could be put to death, the law you speak about was in order to lessen punishments for being gay.

 

[The Rabbi]

I am pretty sure there was no gay marriage in Washington's day. Actually I think homosexuality was pretty much illegal.
And they had much less crime than we do today so maybe they were on to something.

Right and people owned slaves. You probably would have liked it more back then.

Two different issues. Congratulations on using a logical fallacy as a response. I am referencing the past as proof you do not need government for marriage to work. You failed to prove otherwise. If you would like to continue using logical fallacies, please do so somewhere else.

Actually people had marriage certificates going back to the 18th century. So you start with a fallacy yourself.
There was general agreement as to what marriage was and meant. So there wasn't too much dispute about it and that made it easy.
Today we live in a much more diverse society.

 

[The Rabbi]

Have any proof?
Nahhh.

Gay Marriage? Blame It On Jefferson...

That took under a minute to find.

You reference to Jefferson is incorrect. Jefferson supported legislation that would mandate castration for gay people. Just google it. The article didn't reference Jefferson speaking about gays or marriage once.

I do believe, however, that government should get out of marriage and allow private individuals and churches to facilitate marriage contracts.

Cbirch is rapidly approaching my ignore list.

 

[ShackledNation]

Gay Marriage? Blame It On Jefferson...

That took under a minute to find.

You reference to Jefferson is incorrect. Jefferson supported legislation that would mandate castration for gay people. Just google it. The article didn't reference Jefferson speaking about gays or marriage once.

I do believe, however, that government should get out of marriage and allow private individuals and churches to facilitate marriage contracts.

But the argument is that allowing gay marriage will damage the institition of marriage. Your solution is a suicide pact with marriage.

My argument is that government intervention in marriages damages the institution of marriage more than anything else.

 

[ShackledNation]

Gay Marriage? Blame It On Jefferson...

That took under a minute to find.

You reference to Jefferson is incorrect. Jefferson supported legislation that would mandate castration for gay people. Just google it. The article didn't reference Jefferson speaking about gays or marriage once.

I do believe, however, that government should get out of marriage and allow private individuals and churches to facilitate marriage contracts.

Well clever twist, nice spin. I never said he supported gay marriage. I said he wrote against the harsh treatment of gay people. Gay people could be put to death, the law you speak about was in order to lessen punishments for being gay.

The article you provided contained no quotes in which Jefferson made any reference to the treatment of gays. There is no spin, your article simply didn't support your claim. Also, the article was titled "gay marriage? blame jefferson." If that doesn't insinuate that Jefferson would have been pro gay marriage, I don't know what would.

 

[cbirch2]

Gay Marriage? Blame It On Jefferson...

That took under a minute to find.

You reference to Jefferson is incorrect. Jefferson supported legislation that would mandate castration for gay people. Just google it. The article didn't reference Jefferson speaking about gays or marriage once.

I do believe, however, that government should get out of marriage and allow private individuals and churches to facilitate marriage contracts.

Cbirch is rapidly approaching my ignore list.

Um, what exactly about my post was wrong?

 

[The Rabbi]

You reference to Jefferson is incorrect. Jefferson supported legislation that would mandate castration for gay people. Just google it. The article didn't reference Jefferson speaking about gays or marriage once.

I do believe, however, that government should get out of marriage and allow private individuals and churches to facilitate marriage contracts.

But the argument is that allowing gay marriage will damage the institition of marriage. Your solution is a suicide pact with marriage.

My argument is that government intervention in marriages damages the institution of marriage more than anything else.

People have been getting married for 200 years. How is that damaging?

 

[The Rabbi]

You reference to Jefferson is incorrect. Jefferson supported legislation that would mandate castration for gay people. Just google it. The article didn't reference Jefferson speaking about gays or marriage once.

I do believe, however, that government should get out of marriage and allow private individuals and churches to facilitate marriage contracts.

Cbirch is rapidly approaching my ignore list.

Um, what exactly about my post was wrong?

Jefferson obviously had a problem with homosexuals. Like any moral person. And you missed it.