Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?

[JakeStarkey]

Reagan's ...

Let the record reflect, the above cited, would-be 'contributor', was the first person I placed on ignore upon joining this board. And as with all of the livestock I keep in the Ignore Barn, I occasionally find some utterance of one or another of the stock, relevant and worthy of crushing.

In no way does that obligate me to consider anything that they're braying at any time. And the reason for that, is the reason that they're in the Barn in the first place. And that reason is that they've demonstrated that they lack the intellectual means to consistently offer a point of view that is both logically valid and intellectually sound. And consequently, given that unsound and illogical 'speech' are disqualified from consideration, by reasonable people. I refuse to consider what they have to say, unless and until what they're saying is useful... to me.

The same is true for my horse and my mule... they live at my pleasure and they die at my displeasure, as such is my responsibility as a good husband of the lower species.

That is all.

Where R My Keys is violating board rules in taking a word out of context to play a riff that has nothing to do with the OP.

Keys used the Ignore function for a while because he simply could not then or now compete with me. He kept looking foolish.

Keys does not have the choice to violate the Board rules and not expect appropriate action because of his foolish actions.

Keys may refuse to consider what I say but he may not take it out of context.

His above words reveal that he is a person who hides behind the Bible as he does weave his evil to deceive.

What I find so amusing is that he thinks his silliness, his imbecility, is somehow pontification. He demonstrates well that he is here for only grins and chuckles.

The misshapen gremlin is adorable when he kicks his little feet and waves his little fists and pouts.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Its not a question of what is "okay with me".

Unlike nanny state RWs who want the govt to hold their hand and control every single thing they do, ...

More spurious claptrap from the Ignore Barn.

Please... let's be honest for a moment, as no doubt a moment of honesty is all you're even potentially capable of enduring.

The Americans, which is to say "The Right", are not asking anyone for anything. We are stating, categorically and unapologetically, that Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

There are no exceptions and there are no potential 'equal' options. Marriage IS... The Joining of One Man and One Woman.

And that is because NATURE... the force that created the Universe... which is a force that does NOT have a judiciary to decide what it does is right or wrong, because what it does IS what it does and THAT IS FINAL, without regard to who doesn't like it.

So Marriage being what it is, is not affected by the whimsy of popular opinion, or the lofty prose of a Supreme Court Decision.

Either a culture recognizes, respects, defends and adhere to the laws of nature, wherein that culture will thrive and enjoy the bounty of viability, existing in relative prosperity, or a culture will reject the laws of nature and die... .

See how that works?

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Marriage is the joining of One Man and One Woman, because that is how Nature designed the human species" is best written Procreation ". . . is the joining of One Man and One Woman, because that is how Nature designed the human species."

See how that works.

Now Keys will cry and sigh and deny and lie and use the Ignore function because he cannot function in an adult discussion.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Come on people. We have some real problems in this country

18 trillion in debt
half the country on some form of govt handout
deficit spending every year
no confidence in congress or the president
the mid east burning
radical islam killing thousands because or religion
more americans in poverty than ever before
hundreds of trillions in unfunded liabilities
racial violence in our cities

and we spend hours arguing about gay marriage???? WTF is wrong with us? And yes, I am guilty of it too.

I have made my last post on a gay thread. I hope many of you will follow suit. Let the court do its job and live with the rulings

We have much more important issues to deal with than whether two gays or lesbians can call their union a marriage.

Gay marriage is important to those who want to marry within their own gender, I suppose. But it has been made a hot political topic because of its ability to separate people into groups and place people into slots of belief.

For some reason, what is MOST important in this country is being able to put everyone into a neat little pigeon hole.

Hmm... Marriage is the joining of One Man and One Woman.

Contesting those who claim otherwise, is important because Marriage is the nucleus of civilization. And screwing with it, provides for the potential to cripple that which DEPENDS UPON IT.

So... if that groups people, then it must be pretty dam' important to be so grouped. Like when the Left was marching across Europe killing anyone who disagreed with their governance... and another, objectively reasoned group formed, specifically to destroy that mass-murderin' self-centered, thus highly subjective group.


Which is a good thing, because it stopped an unspeakable evil... .

Which of course invites another group thing... the old time tested oppositional groups, OKA: Good -v- Evil.

Tell me, which group would you say you 'fit' into?

Edit: Noted Gen. And thank YOU!

 

[JakeStarkey]

This assertion follows with no proof, no evidence: "Contesting those who claim otherwise, is important because Marriage is the nucleus of civilization. And screwing with it, provides for the potential to cripple that which DEPENDS UPON IT." However, I do agree that Marriage Equality only strengthens the unsupported claim.

 

[Genevieve]

Come on people. We have some real problems in this country

18 trillion in debt
half the country on some form of govt handout
deficit spending every year
no confidence in congress or the president
the mid east burning
radical islam killing thousands because or religion
more americans in poverty than ever before
hundreds of trillions in unfunded liabilities
racial violence in our cities

and we spend hours arguing about gay marriage???? WTF is wrong with us? And yes, I am guilty of it too.

I have made my last post on a gay thread. I hope many of you will follow suit. Let the court do its job and live with the rulings

We have much more important issues to deal with than whether two gays or lesbians can call their union a marriage.

Gay marriage is important to those who want to marry within their own gender, I suppose. But it has been made a hot political topic because of its ability to separate people into groups and place people into slots of belief.

For some reason, what is MOST important in this country is being able to put everyone into a neat little pigeon hole.

Hmm... Marriage is the joining of One Man and One Woman.

Contesting those who claim otherwise, is important because Marriage is the nucleus of civilization. And screwing with it, provides for the potential to cripple that which DEPENDS UPON IT.

So... if that groups people, then it must be pretty dam' important to be so grouped. Like when the Left was marching across Europe killing anyone who disagreed with their governance... and another, objectively reasoned group formed, specifically to destroy that mass-murderin' self-centered, thus highly subjective group.


Which is a good thing, because it stopped an unspeakable evil... .

Which of course invites another group thing... the old time tested oppositional groups, OKA: Good -v- Evil.

Tell me, which group would you say you 'fit' into?

Of course I am in the "good" group.
But why must we be in cute little slots?
I have strong beliefs and I live in a country where I am free to express those beliefs. But I allow others their beliefs too. I reserve my disdain is for those gay people who would force someone to make them a wedding cake.... not for the gay people who just quietly go about their personal business. I will stand up for a church that chooses not to allow gay marriages within their doors. It's their right. And if militant gay people try to force that issue, I will stand with the church.

And I adamantly disagree with anyone who wants to march around killing anyone who doesn't agree with their view of things.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I commend reading the words of Genevieve to you folks on the far left and far right that are not thinking clearly.

"From the cowardice that shrinks from new truth, from the laziness that is content with half truth, from the arrogance that thinks it has all truth — O God of truth, deliver us."

Hugh B Brown

 

[bripat9643]

Oh I do, it leads to a legal paradox that opens the door to same sex sibling marriage, and since that discriminates againt heterosexuals (based on their ability to procreate) a good chance that all sibling marriage become legal.

Nope, don't like it.

Oh and by the way, should SSM become law, the arguments for it would be EXACTLY the same all along the line.

So, your only reason is, I Don't Like It? Well, not enough for the courts or society at large. Guess that puts you out in the cold my friend.

I think I went into a bit more detail. That's ok coming from someone who approves of incest

What difference does someone fucking their sister make to me, or you? Oh right, none. You should learn to be rational and objective.

It's good to see you coming out in favor of incest.

Why is it that you have to: a) try to piggy back onto the gay marriage argument for your incest, and b) have to misrepresent what others say in order to make your "argument" at all?

I have no idea what "Piggy back" is supposed to mean. Any fool can see the two issues are closely related. As many have said countless times, all the arguments queers use to justify gay marriage can also be used to justify incestuous marriage. I know queers don't want anyone pointing that out. Nevertheless, it's simply a fact.

I also haven't misrepresented a thing. You just said incest shouldn't be a concern for anyone.

 

[bripat9643]

No one here has shown why the state does not have a compelling interest to keep incestuous marriage illegal. No paradox exists. Until that happens, all the talks is just nonsense.

According to PMH and other members of the GAYstapo, "Marriage has nothing to do with procreation or sex." That's one of the main arguments they use to justify so-called "gay marriage."

None of which has anything to do with incestuous marriage.

Of course it does. If marriage has nothing to do with procreation, then there isn't a reason in the world to make such marriages illegal.

 

[bripat9643]

Oh I do, it leads to a legal paradox that opens the door to same sex sibling marriage, and since that discriminates againt heterosexuals (based on their ability to procreate) a good chance that all sibling marriage become legal.

Nope, don't like it.

Oh and by the way, should SSM become law, the arguments for it would be EXACTLY the same all along the line.

So, your only reason is, I Don't Like It? Well, not enough for the courts or society at large. Guess that puts you out in the cold my friend.

I think I went into a bit more detail. That's ok coming from someone who approves of incest

What difference does someone fucking their sister make to me, or you? Oh right, none. You should learn to be rational and objective.

It's good to see you coming out in favor of incest.

Neither for nor against, but there is only one valid argument against, potential defective children, which isn't saying much.

The would imply that marriage has something to do with reproduction, a claim you just denied.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one here has shown why the state does not have a compelling interest to keep incestuous marriage illegal. No paradox exists. Until that happens, all the talks is just nonsense.

According to PMH and other members of the GAYstapo, "Marriage has nothing to do with procreation or sex." That's one of the main arguments they use to justify so-called "gay marriage."

None of which has anything to do with incestuous marriage.

Of course it does. If marriage has nothing to do with procreation, then there isn't a reason in the world to make such marriages illegal.

I did not say marriage had nothing to do with procreation, I said procreation had to do with Nature's dictate. You need to repeat what others say honestly. Seventy year olds who marry are not doing for procreation, son.

 

[Londoner]

What difference does someone fucking their sister make to me, or you? Oh right, none. You should learn to be rational and objective.

ROFL!

Words mean things... and how PERFECT does the above demonstration get; in the science of reading Left-think, wherein the would-be 'contributor', prefaces its conclusion, by asking what difference does the subject make, to YOU or THEM? Which is the GEOMETRICAL CENTER of: SUBJECTIVE REASONING... only to close by implying that it's reasoning is the OPPOSITE OF THAT?

I'm all about the learnin'... so allow me to offer the Intellectually Less Fortunate, a lesson in perspective... When you are worried about how something will affect YOU... the species of reasoning you're applying in that consideration is SUBJECTIVE.

This, by way of comparison, to the circumstance wherein you are wondering 'How will this affect something BIGGER THAN JUST YOU... It may be your family... it may be your neighborhood, your company, Town, County, State of Nation. When you're considering THAT perspective, you are applying OBJECTIVE Reasoning.

Objective reasoning is what the Founders of the United States used, when they were designing our governance, it was what was being applied, when the Founders who framed and ratified the US Constitution.

Objectivism is what was being applied when the Founders explicitly rejected Socialism... choosing instead, the Constitutional Republic, which applied democratic representation.

And Objective reasoning is what was being applied, when the law was debated and passed, in every respective state, to forbid sodomy... ergo: to outlaw homosexuality. Because doing so precluded the normalization of the mental disorder that presents as sexual deviancy... and in so doing it precluded the normalization of reasoning which describes its subjective nature in painful detail, while claiming such is the GEOMETRIC OPPOSITE OF THAT.

See how that that works?

I appreciate your desire to introduce terms like "Objectivism", "Objectivity" and "Subjectivity".

On another note... I can't help but see a certain irony when the Right uses the term Objectivism.

Ayn Rand is credited with turning the term Objectivism into a specific political philosophy. Her movement was built around the notion of objectivity (which refers to "external" facts discoverable by the light of Reason. This is in contrast to subjectivity, which is more tied to internal feelings/perceptions).

What I find interesting is that Ayn Rand - the scion of U.S. Libertarians - was notoriously anti-religious and anti-conservative. She had a famous battle with William F Buckley, who rightly saw her as dangerous to the Conservative movement. Of course, Reagan settled this dispute by offering himself as the franchise of both. Reagan's ability to appeal to both Libertarians and Conservatives has lead to serious intellectual confusion on the Right, where people confuse these two very different philosophies.

Keep in mind that "Objective" and "Subjective" are fairly technical philosophical terms. "Objective Reality" is often referred to as the "external world" as it exists apart from the limitations of human consciousness and bias. Whereas Subjective Reality often refers to what the subject perceives, e.g., subjective impression.

Subjective impressions can be infected by human perception, e.g., I can have a subjective impression of a curved stick, but in reality the stick is straight but submerged in water and only appears curved. In this case there is a difference between the external world of facts and the subjective world of impressions. Subjectivity can also be infected by time or history, e.g., our intellectual predecessors thought the world was flat, and they treated this as a fact. The history of science is filled with intellectual revolutions that discard "objective facts" that people once took seriously.

The Enlightenment Philosophers, lead by Descartes and Kant, have spilled a lot of ink on the difference between objective facts and subjective impressions or feelings. Also, please note that post Enlightenment philosophers, like Nietzsche or Heidegger, have spilled a lot of ink deconstructing the objectivity/subjectivity divide, claiming that "objective" findings are not universal truths floating above the vagaries of time and space (history and culture), but infected by an embedded self whose relationship to the "external" world is irreducibly mediated by a particular time and place. Meaning: what people accept as true is very much dependent on their historical era and geographic location. For instance, we in the intellectually advanced West used to think that women were irrational and therefore incapable of meeting the demands of civic function. This is why they were excluded form voting and holding office. Indeed, female inferiority was seen as a fact because it was supported by science and the medical community. However, the social world evolved and the supposed fact of female inferiority turned out to be little more than a bias. I mention this only to show the potential pitfalls with using terms like objectivity.

You might read Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" to see how "objective reality" is not as solid and universal as we take it to be. Indeed, we use to think it was a fact that the earth was the center of the solar system (which fact supported the Biblical cosmology and the power of the Church). This fact (called "geocentrism") is where our rational, objective reasoning lead us. But then our knowledge changed and we realized that the earth rotated around the sun (heliocentrism). History is filled with cultures who take their version of objectivity too seriously, and use it as a basis to kill, torture or, thinking of Galileo, imprison.

Also, I'm not sure the divide you sketch between objective and subjective makes sense the way you've laid it out. I see your point, but I'm a little confused by how you are using objectivity and subjectivity. For instance, a subject using rational self-interest can unwittingly further the general or national good. That is, because I selfishly or subjectively care about my children, I want my neighborhood, town and nation to be set up correctly, so it maximizes the freedom and rights of citizens. In this way my concern for self implies a concern for the larger world beyond my subjective impressions and selfish concerns. Which is to say, I'm not entirely convinced by your dichotomy, though I think I understand your general point.

 

[bripat9643]

No one here has shown why the state does not have a compelling interest to keep incestuous marriage illegal. No paradox exists.

Until that happens, all the talks is just nonsense.

According to PMH and other members of the GAYstapo, "Marriage has nothing to do with procreation or sex." That's one of the main arguments they use to justify so-called "gay marriage."

Again, marriage is not about children or the ability of either party to have them. Never has been.

ROLF! Aside from ignoring 10,000 years of human history, that pretty much shoots down any argument against incestuous marriages.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

So, your only reason is, I Don't Like It? Well, not enough for the courts or society at large. Guess that puts you out in the cold my friend.

I think I went into a bit more detail. That's ok coming from someone who approves of incest

What difference does someone fucking their sister make to me, or you? Oh right, none. You should learn to be rational and objective.

It's good to see you coming out in favor of incest.

Why is it that you have to: a) try to piggy back onto the gay marriage argument for your incest, and b) have to misrepresent what others say in order to make your "argument" at all?

I have no idea what "Piggy back" is supposed to mean. Any fool can see the two issues are closely related. As many have said countless times, all the arguments queers use to justify gay marriage can also be used to justify incestuous marriage. I know queers don't want anyone pointing that out. Nevertheless, it's simply a fact.

I also haven't misrepresented a thing. You just said incest shouldn't be a concern for anyone.

IF those two issues are closely related, so in heterosexual marriage related to any and all other forms of marriage.

Why are gays being held responsible for every configuration throughout the history of human kind? Why is it all on them when it has been straights who were actually doing the doing?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

No one here has shown why the state does not have a compelling interest to keep incestuous marriage illegal. No paradox exists.

Until that happens, all the talks is just nonsense.

According to PMH and other members of the GAYstapo, "Marriage has nothing to do with procreation or sex." That's one of the main arguments they use to justify so-called "gay marriage."

Again, marriage is not about children or the ability of either party to have them. Never has been.

ROLF! Aside from ignoring 10,000 years of human history, that pretty much shoots down any argument against incestuous marriages.

Nope.

How many times does the proof have to be posted?

Marriage has changed many times and will continue to change.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I commend reading the words of Genevieve to you folks on the far left and far right that are not thinking clearly.

"From the cowardice that shrinks from new truth, from the laziness that is content with half truth, from the arrogance that thinks it has all truth — O God of truth, deliver us."

Hugh B Brown

She's certainly welcome to her opinions but the last thing we need is yet another far right winger condemning people for things that are no one's business but theirs.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I appreciate your desire to introduce terms like "Objectivism", "Objectivity" and "Subjectivity".

I doubt it, but I'll take your word for it, you seem like an honest gal.

On another note... I can't help but see a certain irony when the Right uses the term Objectivism.

Oh, how sad... for you I mean.

It turns out that you're not honest. And subsequently, ya have no credibility. Therefore, the balance of your screed is disqualified from consideration.

 

[HappyJoy]

so, what you are saying is that the dem/libs patronized the gays in order to get their votes and they really don't give a shit about gay marriage. Do the gays know that?

More posts on a gay thread, Red Minnow? Can't quit the topic?

There are quite a few fish who display homosexual behavior in nature.

• Amazon molly[48]
• Bennett
• Blackstripe topminnow[49]
• Bluegill sunfish[49]
• Char[47]
• Grayling[47]
• European bitterling[50]
• Green swordtail[50]
• Guiana leaffish[51]
• Houting whitefish[47]
• Jewel fish[52]
• Least darter (Microperca punctulata)[50]
• Mouthbreeding fish sp.[49]
• Salmon spp.[53]
• Southern platyfish[50]
• Ten-spined stickleback[50]

How does a fish display homosexual behavior?

Some babies are born with two heads.

Homosexual Behavior Among Fish Increases Attractiveness to Females - SciTech Daily

In many species, females are attracted to large, conspicuous males. But among animals that mate with many partners, males that manage to mate with more than one female can increases their chances of attracting others, even if they aren’t as conspicuous.

The scientists published their findings in the journal Biology Letters. In some species of fish, smaller, less flashy males can win over females by flirting with larger males. Researchers worked with the tropical freshwater fish Poecilia mexicana. Females were shown video footage of small, drab-colored males nipping the genital openings of larger, brightly colored males, an action which precedes mating in opposite-sex fish pairs.

After witnessing this behavior, the female fish indicated their newly awakened interest by spending more time swimming near the images of the less impressive males. The finding suggests that homosexual behavior can enhance a male’s ability to pass on his genes by attracting females that wouldn’t be interested in him otherwise.

Mollies aren’t the only fish that exhibit homosexual behavior. There are documented cases of at least 15 different species doing the same. Whether all of these species do so in an effort to attract more females hasn’t yet been determined.

The paper itself says the behavior described is heterosexual.

No, the fish are going down on their own sex. The purpose may be that it helps those male fish to become more popular with the ladies, it's still a gay act. Technically it's sodomy.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

No one here has shown why the state does not have a compelling interest to keep incestuous marriage illegal. No paradox exists.

Until that happens, all the talks is just nonsense.

According to PMH and other members of the GAYstapo, "Marriage has nothing to do with procreation or sex." That's one of the main arguments they use to justify so-called "gay marriage."

Again, marriage is not about children or the ability of either party to have them. Never has been.

ROFLMNAO!

So, in order to make marriage suitable for the Sexually Deviant... the Left has simply defined marriage down to:

MEANINGLESS.
​

Which I suppose is to be expected... they have to do the same thing when they try to claim that they're "Americans".

 

[bripat9643]

No one here has shown why the state does not have a compelling interest to keep incestuous marriage illegal. No paradox exists. Until that happens, all the talks is just nonsense.

According to PMH and other members of the GAYstapo, "Marriage has nothing to do with procreation or sex." That's one of the main arguments they use to justify so-called "gay marriage."

None of which has anything to do with incestuous marriage.

Of course it does. If marriage has nothing to do with procreation, then there isn't a reason in the world to make such marriages illegal.

I did not say marriage had nothing to do with procreation, I said procreation had to do with Nature's dictate. You need to repeat what others say honestly. Seventy year olds who marry are not doing for procreation, son.

PMH said marriage has nothing to do with procreation, and so did Skylar, for that matter. You didn't dispute it when I pointed it out.