how to explain gay rights to an idiot

[ScreamingEagle]

OK, so we can put you down as NOT being in favor of the government encouraging gay couples to make lasting stable relationships with their loved ones.

yup...homosexual relationships should not be promoted.....

Homosexual relationships have been going on since the beginning of time. But you don't want to encourage STABLE, LOVING relationships...we get that now.

Even tho it is clear you are cruel and vindictive when it comes to gay couples, I will not reciprocate. I wish nothing but good for heterosexual relationships..and that the government encourage STABLE, LOVING relationships. I just wish the same for us.

If promoting STABLE, LOVING relationships means legalizing gay marriage......u r right....i don't want to promote them....

calling me "cruel and vindictive" just showcases your bigotry and standard Leftie attack mode.....because with the tolerance for gays that exists today in this country you can still have a STABLE, LOVING gay relationship if you and your partner choose to work on it....

...fyi marriage licenses don't provide heterosexuals with STABLE, LOVING relationships.....

 

[bodecea]

yup...homosexual relationships should not be promoted.....

Homosexual relationships have been going on since the beginning of time. But you don't want to encourage STABLE, LOVING relationships...we get that now.

Even tho it is clear you are cruel and vindictive when it comes to gay couples, I will not reciprocate. I wish nothing but good for heterosexual relationships..and that the government encourage STABLE, LOVING relationships. I just wish the same for us.

If promoting STABLE, LOVING relationships means legalizing gay marriage......u r right....i don't want to promote them....

calling me "cruel and vindictive" just showcases your bigotry and standard Leftie attack mode.....because with the tolerance for gays that exists today in this country you can still have a STABLE, LOVING gay relationship if you and your partner choose to work on it....

...fyi marriage licenses don't provide heterosexuals with STABLE, LOVING relationships.....

Then, lets get rid of them and save the government a lot of money on benefits, privileges, etc. That would be just as equal and is fine with me.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Homosexual relationships have been going on since the beginning of time. But you don't want to encourage STABLE, LOVING relationships...we get that now.

Even tho it is clear you are cruel and vindictive when it comes to gay couples, I will not reciprocate. I wish nothing but good for heterosexual relationships..and that the government encourage STABLE, LOVING relationships. I just wish the same for us.

If promoting STABLE, LOVING relationships means legalizing gay marriage......u r right....i don't want to promote them....

calling me "cruel and vindictive" just showcases your bigotry and standard Leftie attack mode.....because with the tolerance for gays that exists today in this country you can still have a STABLE, LOVING gay relationship if you and your partner choose to work on it....

...fyi marriage licenses don't provide heterosexuals with STABLE, LOVING relationships.....

Then, lets get rid of them and save the government a lot of money on benefits, privileges, etc. That would be just as equal and is fine with me.

sure thing idiot....just toss out something that has worked for society for eons.....just because some queers today think they wanna be "equal"....

the institution of marriage is basically set up for our children and for the order and future of society....gays together cannot create children so their inclusion is unnecessary and problematic if they were....

 

[bodecea]

If promoting STABLE, LOVING relationships means legalizing gay marriage......u r right....i don't want to promote them....

calling me "cruel and vindictive" just showcases your bigotry and standard Leftie attack mode.....because with the tolerance for gays that exists today in this country you can still have a STABLE, LOVING gay relationship if you and your partner choose to work on it....

...fyi marriage licenses don't provide heterosexuals with STABLE, LOVING relationships.....

Then, lets get rid of them and save the government a lot of money on benefits, privileges, etc. That would be just as equal and is fine with me.

sure thing idiot....just toss out something that has worked for society for eons.....just because some queers today think they wanna be "equal"....

the institution of marriage is basically set up for our children and for the order and future of society....gays together cannot create children so their inclusion is unnecessary and problematic if they were....

Wait one....you just finished telling us that marriage licenses don't provide heterosexuals with STABLE, LOVING relationships.....and now you say it "worked for society for eons"?




Make up your silly mind, eh?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Then, lets get rid of them and save the government a lot of money on benefits, privileges, etc. That would be just as equal and is fine with me.

sure thing idiot....just toss out something that has worked for society for eons.....just because some queers today think they wanna be "equal"....

the institution of marriage is basically set up for our children and for the order and future of society....gays together cannot create children so their inclusion is unnecessary and problematic if they were....

Wait one....you just finished telling us that marriage licenses don't provide heterosexuals with STABLE, LOVING relationships.....and now you say it "worked for society for eons"?




Make up your silly mind, eh?

no you fool.....just because marriage encourages the raising of children together does not necessarily guarantee the parent's relationship is STABLE and LOVING....

 

[Luissa]

That's the point of these efforts to normalize homosexuality and homosexual relationships. No one gets to decide what is normal. It's all normal. Every kind and type of degeneracy and perversion is normal and we have to make sure everyone feels that way. The completely non-judgmental culture. Totally amoral. The future. Jerry Sandusky was born too early.

I sometimes find it hard to believe that some people cannot understand the difference between behavior between consenting adults that hurts no one and behavior that is harmful to others.

And then I read posts like yours and realize that there ARE people like that.

That's because you are willfully stupid. What consenting adults do is not my concern and I have seen consenting adults do some pretty bizarre things that end up with someone in prison. It has to do with what I am to consider normal behavior and how perverted normal behavior is becoming. This is not going to stop with homosexuality, it is going to go right on down the drain.

So your argument is because we make gay marriage legal, our government then will over turn every child molestation law etc? And that parents will let their ten year old who is not a consenting adult marry a 40 year old man?

 

[bodecea]

I sometimes find it hard to believe that some people cannot understand the difference between behavior between consenting adults that hurts no one and behavior that is harmful to others.

And then I read posts like yours and realize that there ARE people like that.

That's because you are willfully stupid. What consenting adults do is not my concern and I have seen consenting adults do some pretty bizarre things that end up with someone in prison. It has to do with what I am to consider normal behavior and how perverted normal behavior is becoming. This is not going to stop with homosexuality, it is going to go right on down the drain.

So your argument is because we make gay marriage legal, our government then will over turn every child molestation law etc? And that parents will let their ten year old who is not a consenting adult marry a 40 year old man?

And she appears to be concerned about the feelings of such people too.

 

[bodecea]

sure thing idiot....just toss out something that has worked for society for eons.....just because some queers today think they wanna be "equal"....

the institution of marriage is basically set up for our children and for the order and future of society....gays together cannot create children so their inclusion is unnecessary and problematic if they were....

Wait one....you just finished telling us that marriage licenses don't provide heterosexuals with STABLE, LOVING relationships.....and now you say it "worked for society for eons"?




Make up your silly mind, eh?

no you fool.....just because marriage encourages the raising of children together does not necessarily guarantee the parent's relationship is STABLE and LOVING....

So...how have marriage licenses worked for society for eons? Explain that one for us. Better yet, show us marriage licenses being around for eons.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Wait one....you just finished telling us that marriage licenses don't provide heterosexuals with STABLE, LOVING relationships.....and now you say it "worked for society for eons"?




Make up your silly mind, eh?

no you fool.....just because marriage encourages the raising of children together does not necessarily guarantee the parent's relationship is STABLE and LOVING....

So...how have marriage licenses worked for society for eons? Explain that one for us. Better yet, show us marriage licenses being around for eons.

quit trying to derail the argument with your idiotic questions.....

marriage provides for children.....traditional marriage works....and thus provides stability to society....

historically you got married by the preacher.....of course that was not an option for queers back then......not much today either for that matter.... except by their minority sect preacher...

 

[Dragon]

quit trying to derail the argument with your idiotic questions.....

marriage provides for children.....traditional marriage works....and thus provides stability to society....

historically you got married by the preacher.....of course that was not an option for queers back then......not much today either for that matter.... except by their minority sect preacher...

You know, I have to say that you chose your posting name well. It fits with the usual caliber of your posts much better than, say, "CalmlyDiscoursingEagle" or "RationallyThinkingEagle."

Be that as it may, marriage traditionally was a property arrangement in which a woman went from being the property of her father or other male relative to being the property of her husband, who had the right to have sex with her whether she wanted to or not. As he was her possession, no one else had the right to have sex with her without her husband's permission -- her own permission was irrelevant, but his was necessary. Her husband had the right to rape her anytime he wanted, but if another man did so, that was a property crime and incurred payment of compensation to the offended husband.

Traditionally, men were not condemned for committing adultery, only women, except as noted when a man committed adultery with another man's wife, or with the unmarried virginal daughter of another man.

As for children, it was routine to expose unwanted babies, especially girl babies, at birth. (In those days, although some herbal methods existed generally abortions were not available.) In many cultures, a father had absolute authority over his children, up to and including life and death. So no, traditional marriage was certainly not for the benefit of the children. It was to ensure paternity of the children, and otherwise was unconcerned with them.

Any gentler and more egalitarian conceptions of marriage are not the "traditional" concept, but rather transitional phases of our transformation from traditional society to modern civilization. Acceptance of gay marriage is part of that transformation.

 

[bodecea]

no you fool.....just because marriage encourages the raising of children together does not necessarily guarantee the parent's relationship is STABLE and LOVING....

So...how have marriage licenses worked for society for eons? Explain that one for us. Better yet, show us marriage licenses being around for eons.

quit trying to derail the argument with your idiotic questions.....

marriage provides for children.....traditional marriage works....and thus provides stability to society....

historically you got married by the preacher.....of course that was not an option for queers back then......not much today either for that matter.... except by their minority sect preacher...

ME? Derail the argument by...by....by...QUOTING words YOU said?

 

[bodecea]

quit trying to derail the argument with your idiotic questions.....

marriage provides for children.....traditional marriage works....and thus provides stability to society....

historically you got married by the preacher.....of course that was not an option for queers back then......not much today either for that matter.... except by their minority sect preacher...

You know, I have to say that you chose your posting name well. It fits with the usual caliber of your posts much better than, say, "CalmlyDiscoursingEagle" or "RationallyThinkingEagle."

Be that as it may, marriage traditionally was a property arrangement in which a woman went from being the property of her father or other male relative to being the property of her husband, who had the right to have sex with her whether she wanted to or not. As he was her possession, no one else had the right to have sex with her without her husband's permission -- her own permission was irrelevant, but his was necessary. Her husband had the right to rape her anytime he wanted, but if another man did so, that was a property crime and incurred payment of compensation to the offended husband.

Traditionally, men were not condemned for committing adultery, only women, except as noted when a man committed adultery with another man's wife, or with the unmarried virginal daughter of another man.

As for children, it was routine to expose unwanted babies, especially girl babies, at birth. (In those days, although some herbal methods existed generally abortions were not available.) In many cultures, a father had absolute authority over his children, up to and including life and death. So no, traditional marriage was certainly not for the benefit of the children. It was to ensure paternity of the children, and otherwise was unconcerned with them.

Any gentler and more egalitarian conceptions of marriage are not the "traditional" concept, but rather transitional phases of our transformation from traditional society to modern civilization. Acceptance of gay marriage is part of that transformation.

It also amazes me at how ignorant so many of them are with what "traditional marriage" REALLY means....especially for women. I mean, do they WANT to be treated as chattel? Really?

 

[Katzndogz]

quit trying to derail the argument with your idiotic questions.....

marriage provides for children.....traditional marriage works....and thus provides stability to society....

historically you got married by the preacher.....of course that was not an option for queers back then......not much today either for that matter.... except by their minority sect preacher...

You know, I have to say that you chose your posting name well. It fits with the usual caliber of your posts much better than, say, "CalmlyDiscoursingEagle" or "RationallyThinkingEagle."

Be that as it may, marriage traditionally was a property arrangement in which a woman went from being the property of her father or other male relative to being the property of her husband, who had the right to have sex with her whether she wanted to or not. As he was her possession, no one else had the right to have sex with her without her husband's permission -- her own permission was irrelevant, but his was necessary. Her husband had the right to rape her anytime he wanted, but if another man did so, that was a property crime and incurred payment of compensation to the offended husband.

Traditionally, men were not condemned for committing adultery, only women, except as noted when a man committed adultery with another man's wife, or with the unmarried virginal daughter of another man.

As for children, it was routine to expose unwanted babies, especially girl babies, at birth. (In those days, although some herbal methods existed generally abortions were not available.) In many cultures, a father had absolute authority over his children, up to and including life and death. So no, traditional marriage was certainly not for the benefit of the children. It was to ensure paternity of the children, and otherwise was unconcerned with them.

Any gentler and more egalitarian conceptions of marriage are not the "traditional" concept, but rather transitional phases of our transformation from traditional society to modern civilization. Acceptance of gay marriage is part of that transformation.

That transformation will continue, until the eventual cultural collapse under the power of a stronger people as is the historical path. No degenerate culture survives.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

So...how have marriage licenses worked for society for eons? Explain that one for us. Better yet, show us marriage licenses being around for eons.

quit trying to derail the argument with your idiotic questions.....

marriage provides for children.....traditional marriage works....and thus provides stability to society....

historically you got married by the preacher.....of course that was not an option for queers back then......not much today either for that matter.... except by their minority sect preacher...

ME? Derail the argument by...by....by...QUOTING words YOU said?

i never said marriage LICENSES were around for eons......i was speaking of traditional marriage....

maybe you need some help with your reading comprehension......

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That's because you are willfully stupid. What consenting adults do is not my concern and I have seen consenting adults do some pretty bizarre things that end up with someone in prison. It has to do with what I am to consider normal behavior and how perverted normal behavior is becoming. This is not going to stop with homosexuality, it is going to go right on down the drain.

You and other conservatives are entitled to believe whatever you like, the problem arises when you try to ‘do something’ about it, violating the Constitution in the process.

What you consider ‘normal’ or ‘abnormal’ behavior is thankfully irrelevant.

marriage provides for children.....traditional marriage works....and thus provides stability to society....

historically you got married by the preacher.....of course that was not an option for queers back then......not much today either for that matter.... except by their minority sect preacher...

Neither history nor ‘tradition’ are legitimate justifications for preempting Due Process rights, nor is procreation a requisite for making marriage legitimate:

[T]he fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice; neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attack. Second, individual decisions by married persons, concerning the intimacies of their physical relationship, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, this protection extends to intimate choices by unmarried as well as married persons.

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

 

[bripat9643]

It also amazes me at how ignorant so many of them are with what "traditional marriage" REALLY means....especially for women. I mean, do they WANT to be treated as chattel? Really?

For purposes of this discussion, "traditional" means one man and one woman. It doesn't mean we repeal all the rights women have gained in the last 100 years.

Standing up straw men is the favorite hobby of left-wingers.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

quit trying to derail the argument with your idiotic questions.....

marriage provides for children.....traditional marriage works....and thus provides stability to society....

historically you got married by the preacher.....of course that was not an option for queers back then......not much today either for that matter.... except by their minority sect preacher...

You know, I have to say that you chose your posting name well. It fits with the usual caliber of your posts much better than, say, "CalmlyDiscoursingEagle" or "RationallyThinkingEagle."

Be that as it may, marriage traditionally was a property arrangement in which a woman went from being the property of her father or other male relative to being the property of her husband, who had the right to have sex with her whether she wanted to or not. As he was her possession, no one else had the right to have sex with her without her husband's permission -- her own permission was irrelevant, but his was necessary. Her husband had the right to rape her anytime he wanted, but if another man did so, that was a property crime and incurred payment of compensation to the offended husband.

Traditionally, men were not condemned for committing adultery, only women, except as noted when a man committed adultery with another man's wife, or with the unmarried virginal daughter of another man.

As for children, it was routine to expose unwanted babies, especially girl babies, at birth. (In those days, although some herbal methods existed generally abortions were not available.) In many cultures, a father had absolute authority over his children, up to and including life and death. So no, traditional marriage was certainly not for the benefit of the children. It was to ensure paternity of the children, and otherwise was unconcerned with them.

Any gentler and more egalitarian conceptions of marriage are not the "traditional" concept, but rather transitional phases of our transformation from traditional society to modern civilization. Acceptance of gay marriage is part of that transformation.

It also amazes me at how ignorant so many of them are with what "traditional marriage" REALLY means....especially for women. I mean, do they WANT to be treated as chattel? Really?

no matter how miserable marriage was for women in the past.....it still was marriage between a man and a woman.....

acceptance of gay marriage is certainly not a requirement for the transformation to modern civilization...

 

[Katzndogz]

quit trying to derail the argument with your idiotic questions.....

marriage provides for children.....traditional marriage works....and thus provides stability to society....

historically you got married by the preacher.....of course that was not an option for queers back then......not much today either for that matter.... except by their minority sect preacher...

You know, I have to say that you chose your posting name well. It fits with the usual caliber of your posts much better than, say, "CalmlyDiscoursingEagle" or "RationallyThinkingEagle."

Be that as it may, marriage traditionally was a property arrangement in which a woman went from being the property of her father or other male relative to being the property of her husband, who had the right to have sex with her whether she wanted to or not. As he was her possession, no one else had the right to have sex with her without her husband's permission -- her own permission was irrelevant, but his was necessary. Her husband had the right to rape her anytime he wanted, but if another man did so, that was a property crime and incurred payment of compensation to the offended husband.

Traditionally, men were not condemned for committing adultery, only women, except as noted when a man committed adultery with another man's wife, or with the unmarried virginal daughter of another man.

As for children, it was routine to expose unwanted babies, especially girl babies, at birth. (In those days, although some herbal methods existed generally abortions were not available.) In many cultures, a father had absolute authority over his children, up to and including life and death. So no, traditional marriage was certainly not for the benefit of the children. It was to ensure paternity of the children, and otherwise was unconcerned with them.

Any gentler and more egalitarian conceptions of marriage are not the "traditional" concept, but rather transitional phases of our transformation from traditional society to modern civilization. Acceptance of gay marriage is part of that transformation.

So every act of sexual intercourse between husband and wife is rape. I haven't heard that one since a NOW meeting in 1983. Traditionally a man who raped the virginal daughter of another man wasn't condemned, he is likely murdered where he stood. Raping another man's wife incurred the same punishment, only more slowly. The modern civilized person shouldn't even mention killing babies by exposure. We kill more babies every day than were killed by exposure in a year. Only we call it a woman's "choice".

Today women aren't considered property. Men feel free to impregnate them and then go about their business as if they were taking a dump in the corner gas station. There is no responsibility for either the pregnant woman OR the child. Of course not. The responsibility belongs to Big Papa, also known as Uncle Sugar, also known as the government.

Looking back, women were probably much better off when they were considered property. At least they had some VALUE. Today they have little to none, unless they have good jobs and can bring home the bacon. I don't want to rag on husbands, but they do own cars and likely take better care of them than they do their wives.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

[

marriage provides for children.....traditional marriage works....and thus provides stability to society....

historically you got married by the preacher.....of course that was not an option for queers back then......not much today either for that matter.... except by their minority sect preacher...

Neither history nor ‘tradition’ are legitimate justifications for preempting Due Process rights, nor is procreation a requisite for making marriage legitimate:

[T]he fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice; neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attack. Second, individual decisions by married persons, concerning the intimacies of their physical relationship, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, this protection extends to intimate choices by unmarried as well as married persons.

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

well.....when the Supreme Court rules that laws deeming marriage to be between a man and a woman are unconstitutional.......let us know.......

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

no matter how miserable marriage was for women in the past.....it still was marriage between a man and a woman.....

See the irrelevance of tradition in post # 415.

acceptance of gay marriage is certainly not a requirement for the transformation to modern civilization...

Acceptance of the 14th Amendment’s mandate of equal access to the laws of all citizens is certainly a requirement in our Constitutional Republic; we transformed into a modern civilization in 1789, it’s well past the time we conduct ourselves accordingly.