Gay marriage

[Trinity]

Same-Sex Couple Already Seeking Divorce

It might be to soon to start saying 'I told you so,' but
evidence confirming what many already know -- homosexual
relationships are notoriously unstable and short lived --
is already filtering in. One homosexual couple issued a
marriage license by the city of San Francisco and Mayor
Gavin Newsom just a few months ago is already trying to
dissolve that decision.

Stories like this and others only give more credence to
the voice of those fighting for the preservation of
marriage as between one man and one woman -- but gay
activists press on.

Michelangelo Signorile, a homosexual activist and writer,
said that he and others like him will fight for same-sex
marriage in order to "redefine the institution of marriage
completely, to demand the right to marry, not as a way of
adhering to society's moral codes, but rather to debunk a
myth and radically alter an archaic institution."

The California couple's attorney stated that they are
waiting on the outcome of the California Supreme Court
decision as to whether the license was valid in the first
place. If the court's ruling voids the license, then no
further action will be needed. If the court affirms the
licenses, then the couple will proceed with a "divorce."

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by khafley
Same-Sex Couple Already Seeking Divorce

It might be to soon to start saying 'I told you so,' but
evidence confirming what many already know -- homosexual
relationships are notoriously unstable and short lived --
is already filtering in. One homosexual couple issued a
marriage license by the city of San Francisco and Mayor
Gavin Newsom just a few months ago is already trying to
dissolve that decision.

Stories like this and others only give more credence to
the voice of those fighting for the preservation of
marriage as between one man and one woman -- but gay
activists press on.

Michelangelo Signorile, a homosexual activist and writer,
said that he and others like him will fight for same-sex
marriage in order to "redefine the institution of marriage
completely, to demand the right to marry, not as a way of
adhering to society's moral codes, but rather to debunk a
myth and radically alter an archaic institution."

The California couple's attorney stated that they are
waiting on the outcome of the California Supreme Court
decision as to whether the license was valid in the first
place. If the court's ruling voids the license, then no
further action will be needed. If the court affirms the
licenses, then the couple will proceed with a "divorce."

I and others have been making that argument for months. Homosexuals are about as faithful, monogamous and engage in lasting relationships as much as a lone rooster in a coop full of hens. This will start to pick up with each passing day until its epidemic.

 

[mattskramer]

Originally posted by musicman
Matts:

For like the fourth time - "...regardless of the limitations or preferences of the parties involved.....". Can you please try to get your mind around that? It really answers all of your childish, argumentative questions, if you'll just try to comprehend and apply it.

Okay. I didn't pay attention to your phrase "regardless of the limitations". I apologize. Wow. You seem to focus more on anatomy than on the feelings of love and commitment that a couple may have. Okay. So if men get their penises removed and have vaginas installed (thought the vaginas may be limited), then they can get married to men who have not had the procedure done, right?

 

[mattskramer]

Originally posted by OCA
I and others have been making that argument for months. Homosexuals are about as faithful, monogamous and engage in lasting relationships as much as a lone rooster in a coop full of hens. This will start to pick up with each passing day until its epidemic.

Yeah...and Heterosexual men don't get a divorce. No. They simply pack up and leave, abandoning their wives and children.

 

[musicman]

You're being deliberately opaque, Matts. I expected better. My bad.

 

[mattskramer]

Originally posted by musicman
You're being deliberately opaque, Matts. I expected better. My bad.

Just being solidly logical and trying to show you, as easily as I can, the silliness and foolishness of your reason why gay marriage should not be allowed. "proper anatomy defines a marriage"? Right.

 

[OCA]

Man and woman, woman and man. No matter which argument you try you can't get around the simple fact that thats how its supposed to be.

 

[musicman]

Matts:

Since you've already diplayed a tendency to skim over things and see only what you want to see, do me a favor. If you really want to know my rationale for opposing gay marriage(which you may not - maybe you just like to argue), check out a few of my previous posts - particularly the one at the bottom of pg. 13, and then get back to me.

 

[mattskramer]

Originally posted by OCA
Man and woman, woman and man. No matter which argument you try you can't get around the simple fact that thats how its supposed to be.

I can get around that "fact". I've done it before and I'll do it again. It is a "fact" according to whom or what - history (so was slavery and the rule of not allowing women to vote), God and the Bible (a myth and a fictional book. Atheist and Agnostics exist), let's see...ummm...popular opinion (popular opinion has been wrong before)...what else...oh yes the "natural" and "purpose" argument (Just because something is not natural is not a reason to outlaw it. It is not natural to wear a coat in summer.) (the purpose of marriage need not be to have children. A married couple is not required to have children. A non-married couple is not restricted from having children.) Well, I think that that covers everything. Anything else?

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by mattskramer
I can get around that "fact". I've done it before and I'll do it again. It is a "fact" according to whom or what - history (so was slavery and the rule of not allowing women to vote), God and the Bible (a myth and a fictional book. Atheist and Agnostics exist), let's see...ummm...popular opinion (popular opinion has been wrong before)...what else...oh yes the "natural" and "purpose" argument (Just because something is not natural is not a reason to outlaw it. It is not natural to wear a coat in summer.) (the purpose of marriage need not be to have children. A married couple is not required to have children. A non-married couple is not restricted from having children.) Well, I think that that covers everything. Anything else?

Didn't get around it, you were rejected at the starting point for usage of same ridiculous argument again. Face it man and woman, its just the way it is.

 

[mattskramer]

Originally posted by musicman
Matts:

Since you've already diplayed a tendency to skim over things and see only what you want to see, do me a favor. If you really want to know my rationale for opposing gay marriage(which you may not - maybe you just like to argue), check out a few of my previous posts - particularly the one at the bottom of pg. 13, and then get back to me.

Do you mean Whether we use the term,"marriage"or "civil union", what is really at issue here is the acceptance of homosexuality. Not "tolerance", mind you - not in the "live and let live" sense, but absolute acceptance, with society's blessing. Homosexuality must be viewed as just another lifestyle choice - no better or worse than any other - and if I as much as attempt to impart any negative connotation onto it whatsoever, I am a hateful bigot. I must sit idly by while elitist educators and other cultural luminaries extol - to my children - the virtues of a behavior I know to be immoral and dangerous. This I cannot do. ?

That is easy to rebut. Many people think it is okay to smoke cigarettes. The government has even legalized this disgusting activity. I don't like it. I don't even like to see other people do it. I will never "accept" it. No law and no public pressure can ever force me to accept it - much less bless it. Even though the government subsidizes tobacco farmers, I will forever be opposed to cigarettes in every way. I may be hateful because of it, but I have been called worse. I must sit idly by while people smoke and some people even tell other people that it is okay to smoke. "Smoke 'em if you got 'em" - yuck. The virtues of a behavior I know to be immoral and dangerous.

Look, pal. We are all entitled to our opinion and to our views. I disagree with many things that many people (if not most people) support. You learn to live with people who disagree with you.

 

[musicman]

Matts:

Well, in the first place, thanks for actually reading the post. I think conversations go a lot more smoothly when both sides are listening, don't you?

Second, we are self-destructive beings, without a doubt. Always trying to feel just a little bit better, trying to find that "edge". And whether it's the cocaine abuse at the turn of the twentieth century, the rampant alcoholism of the roaring twenties, the Hollywood glamorization of cigarettes, or the drug culture of the sixties, it always seems to find a temporary kind of acceptance. We learn, though, and we move on, until the next "cool" thing comes along.

But homosexuality simply does not fall into this category. We ultra-hip denizens of this bold new century are not nearly so advanced or unique as we'd like to think. Human beings keep on doing the same things, making the same mistakes, over and over again. Through industrious labor and diligent self-restraint, brilliant civilizations rise and prosper, only to grow lazy, arrogant, and self-indulgent. The most absolutely reliable signpost, informing the world that a once great people are about to be trampled into the dust, is the breakdown of morals.

You speak at length of the evils that used to be acceptable in this country. This, by way of saying that perceptions change, and that one day, we will marvel that a debate on something as reasonable as homosexual marriage even took place. You're missing several points. First, slavery was accepted for over 6,000 years, and women have been treated worse than cattle for the majority of recorded history. These evils are gone for one reason - America. America has made the world a vastly better place to live in the historical equivalent of the blink of an eye.

But, America did this through hard work and diligent self-restraint. Our Founding Fathers were moral people. The ordinary, hard-working people who built this nation were moral people. No one went around asking, "Who am I to say what's right for somebody else?" There wasn't time for that shit. Right was right and wrong was wrong and everybody knew the difference. At no time during the formative years of this nation would the idea of legitimizing sexually deviant behavior have even been entertained. It is only now, that the hard work has been done, and we, the fat, lazy and bored beneficiaries can delude ourselves into believing that we are SO advanced and enlightened, and that our ancestors were SO superstitious and intolerant, that we can even POSE a question like, "Who am I to tell two men who love each other that they can't get married?" How educated do you have to be to say something that STUPID?

This country was founded, and rose to greatness, on solid, wise, unambiguous moral principles.Those principles are under attack,from within, by proponents of a vulgar barbarianism that seeks to obliterate any and all restraints on human behavior. No, PAL, I don't like it, and I'm not going to lay down and learn to live with it, either. This is a great country, and I'll fight to save it.

 

[NewGuy]

Musicman.....

 

[musicman]

Thanks, NewGuy!

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by musicman
Thanks, NewGuy!

ANYtime!

 

[mattskramer]

And whether it's the cocaine abuse at the turn of the twentieth century, the rampant alcoholism of the roaring twenties, the Hollywood glamorization of cigarettes, or the drug culture of the sixties, it always seems to find a temporary kind of acceptance. We learn, though, and we move on, until the next "cool" thing comes along.

Alcohol and cigarettes are still legal.

But homosexuality simply does not fall into this category. We ultra-hip denizens of this bold new century are not nearly so advanced or unique as we'd like to think.

Homosexuality does fit into the category as just another option. Our thinking and understanding has grown. We no longer have slavery. Women are allowed to vote.

First, slavery was accepted for over 6,000 years, and women have been treated worse than cattle for the majority of recorded history. These evils are gone for one reason - America. America has made the world a vastly better place to live in the historical equivalent of the blink of an eye.

So, what is your point? In due time we will look back and be amazed that with so much advancement in reasoning and understanding we continued to deny homosexual marriage. By the way, I support the legalization of drugs. People should be free to do as they please as long as they don't interfere with the freedoms of others. They must also accept the consequences for the decisions that they make. Said another way, people should be free to make mistakes and be forced to accept the consequences.

Our Founding Fathers were moral people. The ordinary, hard-working people who built this nation were moral people. No one went around asking, "Who am I to say what's right for somebody else?" There wasn't time for that shit. Right was right and wrong was wrong and everybody knew the difference. This country was founded, and rose to greatness, on solid, wise, unambiguous moral principles.

They were not entirely moral. They continued to push the American Indian to the West, they condoned slavery, and they understood that women were not to be allowed to vote. To a large extent this country was founded on land practically taken from the Indians. It grew, for a long time, on the backs of Blacks.

This is a great country, and I'll fight to save it.

Yes, despite a questionable past and despite the blemishes that stain our American history. This country is great and I will also fight to save it and to make it even better. The question remains: What should be done (or not done) to save and/or improve America. It is with this that we seem to agree to disagree.

 

[musicman]

matts:

Well, I see you chose to ignore the meat of my statement, and decided instead to address the trimmings. Fine.

The primitive tribes who occupied North America (immigrants themselves, by the way), were unable to withstand the huge numbers of Europeans willing to risk life and limb to carve out a new life in the New World. Much injustice was done, to be sure, and atrocities were commited by both sides. But, can we stop flogging our ancestors long enough to consider one glorious possibility? Suppose a great work were being done, and a moral, enlightened people were building a nation that would shine a beacon of hope to a hopeless world? Suppose the evils of time immemorial were about to be wiped away in the blink of an eye? Suppose a powerful, faithful guardian of freedom were about to be born? If you could wave a magic wand, and give this land back to the Indians, so that they could hunt and fish in peace forever, would you do it? Would it prove to have been worth it to the world? Remember - it would be a world with no America in it. Unless I miss my guess, you'd be chillin' in Europe someplace. How do you think your "People should be free to do as they please" philosophy would fly with the descendants of Hitler, or Stalin?

Questioning the morality of the founders and builders of this nation, you say, "...they condoned slavery, and they understood that women were not to be allowed to vote.". Slavery, and maltreatment of women, were the way of the world for thousands of years. America wiped these evils away in a comparitive heartbeat, and people still talk shit about her "questionable past" and "blemishes that stain her history". It's almost as if history were being rewritten by people with a special loathing for America, and everything she stands for.

Now, to the meat. I figure, if I type this twice, I might get at least one answer to it. The most absolutely reliable signpost, informing the world that a once great people are about to be trampled into the dust, is the breakdown of morals. At no time during the formative years of this nation would the idea of legitimizing sexually deviant behavior have even been entertained. It is only now, that the hard work has been done, and we, the fat, lazy, and bored beneficiaries can delude ourselves into believing that we are SO advanced and enlightened, and that our ancestors were SO superstitious and intolerant, that we can even POSE a question like, "Who am I to tell two men who love each other that they can't get married?" How educated do you have to be to say something that STUPID?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by mattskramer

They were not entirely moral. They continued to push the American Indian to the West, they condoned slavery, and they understood that women were not to be allowed to vote. To a large extent this country was founded on land practically taken from the Indians. It grew, for a long time, on the backs of Blacks.

You show your ignorance, mat.

1. Slavery was ECONOMIC slavery.
2. Pushing an Indian and warring were normal for any place/any time at that point in history. Judging by todays overpopulated planet's rules is invalid.
3. Women shouldn't vote according to their morals back then, and given the situation it was entirely correct.

Everything listed was moral and ethical for the time, and more advanced morally than anywhere else on the planet.

We could go into details, but you owe an explanation to another post first.

 

[Bonnie]

Originally posted by dilloduck
Getting married and allowing them to adopt kids are 2 different things.

Well there in lies a problem, how do you draw the line once pandoras box is opened??

 

[Bonnie]

Originally posted by musicman
Matts:

Well, in the first place, thanks for actually reading the post. I think conversations go a lot more smoothly when both sides are listening, don't you?

Second, we are self-destructive beings, without a doubt. Always trying to feel just a little bit better, trying to find that "edge". And whether it's the cocaine abuse at the turn of the twentieth century, the rampant alcoholism of the roaring twenties, the Hollywood glamorization of cigarettes, or the drug culture of the sixties, it always seems to find a temporary kind of acceptance. We learn, though, and we move on, until the next "cool" thing comes along.

But homosexuality simply does not fall into this category. We ultra-hip denizens of this bold new century are not nearly so advanced or unique as we'd like to think. Human beings keep on doing the same things, making the same mistakes, over and over again. Through industrious labor and diligent self-restraint, brilliant civilizations rise and prosper, only to grow lazy, arrogant, and self-indulgent. The most absolutely reliable signpost, informing the world that a once great people are about to be trampled into the dust, is the breakdown of morals.

You speak at length of the evils that used to be acceptable in this country. This, by way of saying that perceptions change, and that one day, we will marvel that a debate on something as reasonable as homosexual marriage even took place. You're missing several points. First, slavery was accepted for over 6,000 years, and women have been treated worse than cattle for the majority of recorded history. These evils are gone for one reason - America. America has made the world a vastly better place to live in the historical equivalent of the blink of an eye.

But, America did this through hard work and diligent self-restraint. Our Founding Fathers were moral people. The ordinary, hard-working people who built this nation were moral people. No one went around asking, "Who am I to say what's right for somebody else?" There wasn't time for that shit. Right was right and wrong was wrong and everybody knew the difference. At no time during the formative years of this nation would the idea of legitimizing sexually deviant behavior have even been entertained. It is only now, that the hard work has been done, and we, the fat, lazy and bored beneficiaries can delude ourselves into believing that we are SO advanced and enlightened, and that our ancestors were SO superstitious and intolerant, that we can even POSE a question like, "Who am I to tell two men who love each other that they can't get married?" How educated do you have to be to say something that STUPID?

This country was founded, and rose to greatness, on solid, wise, unambiguous moral principles.Those principles are under attack,from within, by proponents of a vulgar barbarianism that seeks to obliterate any and all restraints on human behavior. No, PAL, I don't like it, and I'm not going to lay down and learn to live with it, either. This is a great country, and I'll fight to save it.

WOWY.............Well Said!!!!!!!!!!!!