It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[mdk]

So you can't actually ascribe any differences, it's just a "feeling" you have.

Marriage IS: the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

 

[Syriusly]

No, mixed race marriage WAS a thing, virtually every marriage is mixed race. Marriage is the union of a man and woman, and that is a real thing. A homosexual relationship is also a real thing.

Again- you just are parroting the arguments of the State of Virginia.

Just like you argue that same gender marriage is not a real marriage- the State of Virginia argued- and actually codified into law- that there was no interracial marriage- any such attempt was legally null and void- and a criminal offense to boot.

And this bring us down to the intellectual dishonesty of your arguments.

Your arguments are as bigoted- and as invalid- as the State of Virginia's when they argued in support of a mixed race ban.

The only difference of course- is when the Supreme Court ruled against the State of Virginia, most of Americans agreed with Virginia- not with the Supreme Court.

When the court ruled overturning bans on same gender marriage, the court was actually following public opinion- most Americans are in favor of marriage equality for Americans who are gay.

 

[Syriusly]

Virginia argued that there was no discrimination against black people- because they could marry any black person that they wanted.

But marriage remains the union of a man and woman, you're just denying the right to someone on the basis of race which is a violation of the Civil Rights Act.

Marriage now is the union of two people- regardless of race- regardless of gender.

After Obergefell and Loving v. Virginia.

I once again will point out how your arguments parrot the arguments of the STate of Virginia


Justice Stewart: That is—that was the very purpose of the Equal Protection Clause, coming as it did after the—in the wake of the Civil War.

Mr. McIlwaine: That is correct, but it is clear that the Framers understood that in their intention, a law which equally forbade the members of one race to marry members of another race with same penal sanction on both did treat the individuals of both race equally.

 

[Syriusly]

Again you are just echoing exactly what the State of Virginia said.

It doesn't matter because the argument is different. Why are you not comprehending that? If you walk into court to defend yourself of a crime you didn't commit and you state to the judge that you are "not guilty" ...the judge doesn't accuse you of "echoing exactly what the last defended said!"

But this isn't a court- in court- your argument has already been found to be invalid.

I am just pointing out that you are arguing for discrimination in marriage exactly as the State of Virginia argued for discrimination in marriage- both of you proclaiming that you aren't arguing for discrimination at all- when clearly that is exactly what you and the State of Virginia are doing

 

[Syriusly]

Pops is right, we cannot really justify stopping incest marriages anymore, though it's not because of the allowance of gay marriage, but because of the advance of medical science. If some sibling couple took their right to incest marriage to the supreme, then I wouldn't be at all surprised if they won, I wouldn't be at all surprised if it made head way toward having incest removed from being illegal. On the other hand, I don't see a huge rash of incest couples rushing the court house...

If that was the only issue you would be correct.

And frankly, if that was the only issue that a State tried to defend a ban on incestuous marriage the State would likely lose.

But as I have pointed out- others have put forth other reasons for a ban on incestuous marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

Virginia argued that there was no discrimination against black people- because they could marry any black person that they wanted.

But marriage remains the union of a man and woman, you're just denying the right to someone on the basis of race which is a violation of the Civil Rights Act.

no authority on the planet earth gets to arbitrarily define "marriage remains the union of a man and a woman," so for you to think thats somehow objective and not some arbitrary opinion is giggle worthy and its also no longer the precedent in your very own Country. Society has now advanced past "your" opinion and has adopted a new one. Suck it up, pippy.

Also... to correct your ignorant ass... WE are our OWN authority! We most certainly DO get to decide whatever the fuck we want to decide as a society who governs itself, that's part of the beauty of it. We're not ruled by an activist court. We don't live in homosexual kingdom. We're not obligated to follow whatever idiocy you dream up in your vacant little pinheads. You don't have the right to decide what constitutes an advancement of society or whether it has met that criteria.

Clearly you are still upset about the activist court over turning the bans on mixed race marriage in Loving v. Virginia.

And we do not live in a Christian kingdom, where the prejudices of some Christians get to ignore the rights of Americans they don't approve of. You don't give a damn what others think- only what your little cabal of homophobes thinks.

The majority of Americans favor the right of Americans who happen to be gay being able to marry each other.

You are just telling that majority to fuck off.

 

[Syriusly]

no authority on the planet earth gets to arbitrarily define "marriage remains the union of a man and a woman," so for you to think thats somehow objective and not some arbitrary opinion is giggle worthy and its also no longer the precedent in your very own Country. Society has now advanced past "your" opinion and has adopted a new one. Suck it up, pippy.

So, essentially, your argument is... we can arbitrarily change whatever any word means and make it mean whatever we need for it to mean in order to accommodate what we desire. I kind of think that general policy MIGHT pose a problem down the road somewhere. I also think... unless we've redefined what "free speech" means, I have the right to disagree with this policy and warn people that it's an idiotic idea.

words meant to accommodate theyre to communicate, and yes any word can be changed to match our updated levels of communication. pretty simple.

No... fundamentally, words cannot be changed to fit our desires or all of civilization crumbles because... literally, nothing means anything anymore! --IDIOT!

Poor Boss.

Convinced if gays are allowed to marry each other that civilization will 'crumble'.

His ignorance of the history of marriage is only matched by his lack of faith in Americans.

 

[Syriusly]

your arbitrary decision to define the word whatever the fuck you want to define it as has no bearing on how society deems it.....and you're now old and in a few more years, venturing toward the prehistoric definition. awwww, should I have a sad for you?

I did not make an arbitrary decision and didn't define the word marriage. It was already defined and had been defined as the union of a man and woman for thousands of years. You are the one who wants to arbitrarily change that. It has no bearing on what society accepts.

Marriage has always been defined as more than that.

For thousands of years marriage was defined as the union of a man and many women. You reject that tradition- and you want to redefine marriage to ignore that kind of marriage.

Marriage has changed dramatically even in the last 100 years. Divorce is now legal and acceptable. Women have equal rights within a marriage. Whites can marry blacks. People can marry in churches- and can marry completely outside the church.

You just are upset that homosexuals are no longer being discriminated against- just as Virginia was determined to continue discrimination against mixed race couples.

 

[Syriusly]

of course they mean something - they mean whatever the fuck theyre accepted to mean at the time you dummy.

Obviously not true because marriage is still the union of a man and woman.

Do you realize what a fucking idiot you sound like here? .

Do you realize what a fucking idiot you sound like here?

How ironic from the writer of the OP who wrote telling us how he believes homosexuals will be trying to pass laws to allow them to rape him in public.

Clearly he doesn't realize what a fucking idiot he has been from the OP.

 

[Syriusly]

Pop's argument is essentially that gay marriage is the same as incestuous marriage- and both should be banned

Which hardly coincidentally was the argument the State of Virginia made in support of mixed race bans

and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage

Congratulations for Pop- echoing the arguments of the racist's who opposed mixed race marriage.

Such a simplistic view.

Of course, it comes from a simpleton, so there Ya go

And note- you couldn't even manage to deny the truth of my post

Pop's argument is essentially that gay marriage is the same as incestuous marriage- and both should be banned

Which hardly coincidentally was the argument the State of Virginia made in support of mixed race bans

and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage

Congratulations for Pop- echoing the arguments of the racist's who opposed mixed race marriage.

How is two same sex hetro sisters marrying an incestuous relationship?

I've asked you this many times. Still no answer

You got the answer, you just don't like it.

There is no harm then.

Pop can go ahead and marry his sister now. His life's dream fulfilled.

Then Boss can force Kate Upton to marry him- because he believes in the sanctity of marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

I asked one. She said it was pure stupidity and bigotry on your part. Good advice, thanks.

(Means I can read and laugh at your posts in a dismissive manner)

If she's the same one that told you society will ever accept homosexuality as normal, I'd get a full And complete refund.

You do realize that it is already, right? Homosexuality is accepted as normal. Welcome to the 21st Century, Rip.

Sure, that's why an overwhelming number of parents hope their children grow to be homosexual.

Good lord, get a grip on your OCD.

Poor Pops...doesn't realize that the country doesn't hate gays like he does anymore.

Time to check your Depends old man...and welcome to the 21st Century. Lots of cool stuff going on.

Now show the poll showing what sexuality parents hope their children become.

You have reluctant tolerance now, that's about it. Tolerance and acceptance are far different concepts.

And you have neither.

Just bigotry towards homosexuals.

And butthurt that most of America no longer shares your bigotry.

 

[Syriusly]

Marriage was the governments attempt to bring order to chaos. Same sex coupling required no such order as it produced no offspring.

Same sex coupling produce offspring in the exact same fashion as many opposite sex coupling do.

Why do you want to deny the children of gay couples married parents- but not the children of heterosexual couples- who produce offspring in the same manner?

 

[Montrovant]

of course they mean something - they mean whatever the fuck theyre accepted to mean at the time you dummy.

Obviously not true because marriage is still the union of a man and woman.

Do you realize what a fucking idiot you sound like here? Nothing can mean anything if we can change it to mean anything we want. You say "of course it can, it means what we say at the time" but it doesn't have to mean that and we don't all say it means the same thing at the same time... so it can't really mean anything... nothing can. We can just change whatever it means, or some of us can. There is no escaping your absence of logic here.

But then again... here we go with the debate about the concept of "Consent" and what it means... GT believes that "Consent" is simply a word we can attribute whatever meaning we please at the time... it doesn't have to mean what it means. He is making that argument better than I would ever dare to try.

Some of you might think it's ridiculous anyone would ever redefine what consent means but here is GT professing that is exactly what we can do if we don't like what it means and want to change it. If you disagree with him, you're old and out of touch and it doesn't really matter anyway because you'll soon be dead. Frankly, I am glad that I'll be dead and won't have to watch society collapse into abject idiocy.

Do you honestly believe that words never change meaning?

 

[Pop23]

If she's the same one that told you society will ever accept homosexuality as normal, I'd get a full And complete refund.

You do realize that it is already, right? Homosexuality is accepted as normal. Welcome to the 21st Century, Rip.

Sure, that's why an overwhelming number of parents hope their children grow to be homosexual.

Good lord, get a grip on your OCD.

Poor Pops...doesn't realize that the country doesn't hate gays like he does anymore.

Time to check your Depends old man...and welcome to the 21st Century. Lots of cool stuff going on.

Now show the poll showing what sexuality parents hope their children become.

You have reluctant tolerance now, that's about it. Tolerance and acceptance are far different concepts.

I suppose it makes homophobic bigots feel better to think that.

Think that? That's reality

 

[Pop23]

Marriage was the governments attempt to bring order to chaos. Same sex coupling required no such order as it produced no offspring.

Same sex coupling produce offspring in the exact same fashion as many opposite sex coupling do.

Why do you want to deny the children of gay couples married parents- but not the children of heterosexual couples- who produce offspring in the same manner?

Same sex coupling had never produced a single child.

 

[Pop23]

Marriage was the governments attempt to bring order to chaos. Same sex coupling required no such order as it produced no offspring.

Same sex coupling produce offspring in the exact same fashion as many opposite sex coupling do.

Why do you want to deny the children of gay couples married parents- but not the children of heterosexual couples- who produce offspring in the same manner?

You name a single child ever produced by a same sex coupling.

 

[Pop23]

Virginia argued that there was no discrimination against black people- because they could marry any black person that they wanted.

But marriage remains the union of a man and woman, you're just denying the right to someone on the basis of race which is a violation of the Civil Rights Act.

Uh, no it isn't in the U.S.. it's the union of two consenting people over the age of consent.

Denial is not a river.

You really don't understand the law, do you?

 

[Pop23]

Such a simplistic view.

Of course, it comes from a simpleton, so there Ya go

And note- you couldn't even manage to deny the truth of my post

Pop's argument is essentially that gay marriage is the same as incestuous marriage- and both should be banned

Which hardly coincidentally was the argument the State of Virginia made in support of mixed race bans

and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage

Congratulations for Pop- echoing the arguments of the racist's who opposed mixed race marriage.

How is two same sex hetro sisters marrying an incestuous relationship?

I've asked you this many times. Still no answer

You got the answer, you just don't like it.

There is no harm then.

Pop can go ahead and marry his sister now. His life's dream fulfilled.

Then Boss can force Kate Upton to marry him- because he believes in the sanctity of marriage.

Yeah, we know, you can't argue the point. Nice deflection though.

 

[Pop23]

If she's the same one that told you society will ever accept homosexuality as normal, I'd get a full And complete refund.

You do realize that it is already, right? Homosexuality is accepted as normal. Welcome to the 21st Century, Rip.

Sure, that's why an overwhelming number of parents hope their children grow to be homosexual.

Good lord, get a grip on your OCD.

Poor Pops...doesn't realize that the country doesn't hate gays like he does anymore.

Time to check your Depends old man...and welcome to the 21st Century. Lots of cool stuff going on.

Now show the poll showing what sexuality parents hope their children become.

You have reluctant tolerance now, that's about it. Tolerance and acceptance are far different concepts.

And you have neither.

Just bigotry towards homosexuals.

And butthurt that most of America no longer shares your bigotry.

I never produced a poll that had nothing to do with the matter to begin with.

The question was acceptance, which homosexuals desire but will never obtain.

 

[Pop23]

Marriage was the governments attempt to bring order to chaos. Same sex coupling required no such order as it produced no offspring.

Same sex coupling produce offspring in the exact same fashion as many opposite sex coupling do.

Why do you want to deny the children of gay couples married parents- but not the children of heterosexual couples- who produce offspring in the same manner?

Do same sex couples seek artificial insemination due to one of the partners reproductive disability?

Funny, I don't think so.

See the difference simpleton?