Opposition to Gay Marriage - Any Basis Other Than Intolerance and Bigotry?

[logical4u]

Guess again big fella...

History of Marriage in Western Civilization



I reproduced plenty...more than most I'd say...

Nothing in the article you posted disproves what I said.

If you reproduced in the normal fashion, you aren't a homosexual.

It certainly did...had you actually taken the time to read it. Marriage started as nothing more than a business arrangement. It was about PROPERTY more than anything else...that property being women AND children as well as material goods. Marriage was not "about" reproduction.

So, because children came out of my vagina, I must be straight? Science is not a concept you've ever even considered is it? Were you aware the world is round?

Does this statement make sense to you? "It was about PROPERTY more than anything else...that property being women AND children as well as material goods." If the "property" was a "wife" and "children", would not that prove that it was about "children"?
Sorry, those of you that support the homosexual extremists are as slippery as wet eels. When someone presents a simple, direct reason, you want to quantify it, and 'break down' all marriages, so you can manipulate a tiny fraction, to make an exaggerated point that is void of any logical consideration to how that could happen (the whole child bearing qualifier, when a HUGE percentages of marriages produce children).

Sorry, it seems the homosexual extremist reason for marriage seems to be: because I waaaaaant it. I waaaaaant it right now. I don't care what it does to who, I waaaaaant it.

 

[rightwinger]

To put it bluntly, a marriage license is a license to fuck

The bible prohibits sex outside of marriage. Otherwise, you would wait till the woman was pregnant before you got a license to procreate.

It is also the reason the religious right opposes gay marriage. They do not approve of the way they have sex, so they think banning gay marriage somehow stops gay sex.

And they'll tell you all about the sex they disapprove of....in more graphic details and more often than gay people will.

Once again it comes down to them forcing their irrational hatred on the rest of society

"I am repulsed by homosexuals so I want to prevent them from marrying the person they love"

 

[bripat9643]

Try repeating that 1000 times before you waste everyone's time again.

Ok ...let me try

Marriage exists because of procreation
Marriage exists because of procreation

Then why do two 65 year olds marry?

Logic is not your friend no matter how many times you repeat it

Because they can.

As I said previously, the fact that we haven't cluttered up the law with all manner of exceptions and requirements for fertility tests proves nothing accept that liberals haven't managed to take over completely as of yet.

 

[logical4u]

britpatfascist sounds like the nazis on racial ideology and aryan birthrates. Such as pustule.

Proof?

or just more of the typical response to: I don't have anything rational to say so I will call them a bigot/racist/nazi/liar.

Yes, you are still a sad, little (your mentality) man.

 

[rightwinger]

Try repeating that 1000 times before you waste everyone's time again.

Ok ...let me try

Marriage exists because of procreation
Marriage exists because of procreation

Then why do two 65 year olds marry?

Logic is not your friend no matter how many times you repeat it

Because they can.

As I said previously, the fact that we haven't cluttered up the law with all manner of exceptions and requirements for fertility tests proves nothing accept that liberals haven't managed to take over completely as of yet.

Exceptions like blacks and whites being allowed to marry? There are still americans more repulsed by that than homosexual marriage

 

[logical4u]

I contradicted nothing. You really need to be more secure before making statements like that.

I said there were biological ramifications, but not that "marriage exists solely and primarily for and because of reproduction."

God you have your head up your ass.

If I accused you of saying "marriage exists solely and primarily for and because of reproduction," then you might have an argument. However, that is the essential fact of marriage. It wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the biological and social implications of reproduction. Anyone who denies that is either an imbecile or a lying demagogue.

And you did contradict yourself. I'll leave it to the rest of the forum to decide who is telling the truth.

So you repeat the same drivel to support the drivel. Gotcha. You still haven't proven (NOR CAN YOU PROVE) that the essential fact of marriage is

Let's get religious for a moment. You know what St. Austine said about marriage? He said EVERY sacrament (of which marriage is one) was designed by God to cure a particular sin: Baptism - original sin, Marraige - lust, Communion - life time sins, The Last Rites - life time of sins. I explain this, not that you'd ever take it as dispositive, but to show you that there are more fucking justifications for marriage than you have ever dreamt of, Mercutio.

You simply state the same stupid shit over and over and I suspect you're patting yourself on the back. In reality the more you stand obstinate to reality, the stupider and stupider you look.

People can fuck and have kids without marriage. Hell, marriage as a legal concept hardly even controls the birthrate. So again, your so-called purpose for marriage fails.

How many different ways can you be wrong? Seriously. Post again and let's up the count.

If you want to go "religious": marriage should represent the trilogy: the husband and wife become one and thru their love, a third is born. Similar to the belief that the love between the Father and Son made the Holy Spirit.

I didn't think you wanted to go there. You just wanted to pull out a tiny spec to support your argument and then dive for cover under: this is not about religion.

 

[bripat9643]

Exceptions like blacks and whites being allowed to marry? There are still americans more repulsed by that than homosexual marriage

The Constitution specifically bars discrimination based on race. Nothing in the Constitution says a couple of fuck-buddies have the right to government benefits.

 

[logical4u]

A marriage license is not a license to have children, it is a license for a partnership.

It has nothing to do with shooting a "dear"

Marriage is a legal arrangement that protects mothers and children. That's the only reason it exists. No one except the left wing idiots in here claimed it was a license to have children.

Really?

Where in your marriage license does it mention protecting mothers and children? Where does it mention mothers and children at all?

Marriage is a partnership allowing for sharing your assets And caring for each other for the rest of your life. It has never required procreation

Do you understand "vow"? Do you understand that even JPs have the marriage participants "vow"? You don't get the license without the "vow"?

 

[logical4u]

Really? YOu've proved that marriage required procreation to be valid? Where did you do that?

Where have I ever stated that "marriage requires procreation to be valid?"

Lie, lie, lie!!

Marriage laws are about reproduction. Gays can't reproduce.

Anyone with a brain understands that if it wasn't for the fact of reproduction, marriage wouldn't exist.

I saw no lie. This country could not afford the validation process to require all marriages prove there was procreation (does that include abortions/miscarriages?). The majority of marriages (that would be under the old definition of man and woman) produce children. Prove that they don't.

 

[logical4u]

Where have I ever stated that "marriage requires procreation to be valid?"

Lie, lie, lie!!

Marriage laws are about reproduction. Gays can't reproduce.

Anyone with a brain understands that if it wasn't for the fact of reproduction, marriage wouldn't exist.

Where is it written. The reality of the matter is that you do not have to be married in order to have children. Also, you do not have to have children to be married. Sterile couples can be married. Single peoples can have intercourse and have children without being married. People can adopt children. Gay couples can hire a surrogate mother or a sperm donor.

The old argument that marriage is so that couples can join their DNA together to produce / protect children is lame at best.

So the new argument is: I don't like the definition, so change it?

 

[JakeStarkey]

britpatfascist sounds like the nazis on racial ideology and aryan birthrates. Such as pustule.

Proof?

or just more of the typical response to: I don't have anything rational to say so I will call them a bigot/racist/nazi/liar.

Yes, you are still a sad, little (your mentality) man.

The proof is in the hatred of your language, buddy. Your beliefs aren't facts, necessarily, and they are, by themselves, not the law. Law changes, time changes, and are understanding of matters eternal change. We are mutable, kiddo, and you best learn it.

 

[logical4u]

Really?

Where in your marriage license does it mention protecting mothers and children? Where does it mention mothers and children at all?

Marriage is a partnership allowing for sharing your assets And caring for each other for the rest of your life. It has never required procreation

You continue to misstate the argument because you know your drivel is idiotic. No one ever said "marriage requires procreation." The argument is that marriage exists because of procreation.

Try repeating that 1000 times before you waste everyone's time again.

Ok ...let me try

Marriage exists because of procreation
Marriage exists because of procreation

Then why do two 65 year olds marry?

Logic is not your friend no matter how many times you repeat it

If 65 year olds marry, they are joining in "holy" matrimony. It means they are expecting miracles.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Lie, lie, lie!!

Marriage laws are about reproduction. Gays can't reproduce.

Anyone with a brain understands that if it wasn't for the fact of reproduction, marriage wouldn't exist.

Where is it written. The reality of the matter is that you do not have to be married in order to have children. Also, you do not have to have children to be married. Sterile couples can be married. Single peoples can have intercourse and have children without being married. People can adopt children. Gay couples can hire a surrogate mother or a sperm donor.

The old argument that marriage is so that couples can join their DNA together to produce / protect children is lame at best.

So the new argument is: I don't like the definition, so change it?

The real argument is that your definition, ipso facto, is not necessarily so. You have a right to your opinion but not to your own facts.

 

[Moving to USA]

Exceptions like blacks and whites being allowed to marry? There are still americans more repulsed by that than homosexual marriage

Perfect timing.
I'm writing a report on this same thing right now, could you help me out and point me to the credible statistics that show more people are repulsed by a man an woman being married than they are with a man and a man?

Just a simple link would be fine.

 

[logical4u]

Marriage exists to create reciprocity of privileges and obligations. Same sex marriages have been able to adopt or have children from birth mothers. bripatascist wishes to restrict marriage to a cultural code that is outdated morally and physically. He is entitled to his opinion but not his own facts. His time is over.

Is this the definition in Webster's dictionary? Or is this how you waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaant "marriage" to be defined? Will this be the new norm? If two percent of the population disagree with a definition, and can get some cult followers to join the chant, the definition is changed? Sad, sad, little, little, man.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Check the law, kiddo.

 

[Lasher]

More "libs r stupid" drivel. *yawn*

This guy's been dispatched. Next.

Oh, please don't ignore me, Van, it would do inestimable harm to my self-image, and only serve to strengthen my inferiority complex. Spare me.

 

[JakeStarkey]

More "libs r stupid" drivel. *yawn*

This guy's been dispatched. Next.

Oh, please don't ignore me, Van, it would do inestimable harm to my self-image, and only serve to strengthen my inferiority complex. Spare me.

Yep, your drivel is ignorable. As a human being, there is always hope for you, not for the drivel.

 

[logical4u]

Then your issue is with the OP. You may be as hateful and as bigoted as you wish, and provide no justification accordingly. You may not, however, attempt to codify that hate and bigotry into secular law, nor use it as justification to deny others their civil rights.

And what are you going to do about it? Why are you so concerned whether or not society is ‘accepting’ of homosexuality?

Unless, of course, you’re concerned that such acceptance and tolerance will undermine your efforts to deny homosexuals equal protection of, and equal access to, the law.



A Google search will provide an extensive list.

Otherwise, even if homosexuals provided no significant contribution to art or science, that wouldn’t justify denying them their rights.

Homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else. They can marry someone of the opposite sex that is willing to marry them as long as neither has legal comittments.
Your argument is basically: we want it and it hurts no one else (not really, but that is what you say). Now, if that is the standard for re-defining words and changing laws, can't two consenting adults, one that is going to commit suicide and one that wants to eat the person after they are dead say they are having dinner together? It shouldn't be a problem because they are "consenting" adults and it will not hurt anyone else. Let's not be judgemental about this, they should be able to do .... whatever and everyone just ACCEPT it, because they waaaaaant it.

Homosexuals can marry people of the opposite sex

One of the dumbest arguments on the Internet

They are the ones saying they don't have the "same" rights, just pointing out that they do have the "same" rights. Are you admitting the homosexual activists are waaaaaaaanting "additional" rights?

 

[Lasher]

More "libs r stupid" drivel. *yawn*

This guy's been dispatched. Next.

Oh, please don't ignore me, Van, it would do inestimable harm to my self-image, and only serve to strengthen my inferiority complex. Spare me.

Yep, your drivel is ignorable. As a human being, there is always hope for you, not for the drivel.

Thank you for your valuable input, sir, and always feel free to exercise your freedom of speech, even if you aren't concerned.