Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
How can you people escape eternal judgment by a just God?
I gave you the link to start with. I'm not here to spoon-feed stupid reactionaries on what they should already have looked up, like the History of Marriage.Plenty of history? Put some links where your mouth is.There is plenty of history, you just don't know it, or want to, because it would mean that your mentality is based upon a lie, which it is. And even if marriage once was only meant for reproduction it now no longer is and hasn't been for a very long time, so you're fucked from all sides, and apparently can't deal with like an adult and accept that You Have Lost, period. You will just have to move on because we ain't going back.It's not only outdated, it's not even true. Marriage was never about reproduction. Until recently it wasn't even about love let alone children.Nope. Any man couldn't marry any woman. Now, they can. And since marriage is for reproduction, all discrimination stopped after racial intermarriage was allowed.
Mark
Except marriage is no longer for reproduction - that is outdated.
If you were correct, history would be replete with men marrying men and women marrying women. Know what I think? I think arguments like this are simply one more way that the left lies about history to make what they want more palatable to the "sheep".
thats because the gayz are only 3-4% of the pop.
So what?
How can you people escape eternal judgment by a just God?
How can you live with a vengeful Deity constantly looking over your shoulder with threats of eternal judgement?
Because marriage, by its very nature, is for reproduction. Now, we understand that people can marry without having children, but that it is the exception to the basis for the existence of marriage. That is doesn't happen every time doesn't change that fact.
Yeah there's an option. You could stop believing in worn out Fairy Tales from a religion for fools, slaves, and children. In other words you could grow the fuck up and deal with the fact that dead is dead like a man instead of demanding eternal life in a paradise that you don't even have to work for.How can you people escape eternal judgment by a just God?
How can you live with a vengeful Deity constantly looking over your shoulder with threats of eternal judgement?
Is there an option?
I'll make it simple for you asswipe, we founded the place, it's our nation, fucked as it is, so get out and take for god and guns with you.This is a Liberal Nation founded by Liberals. If you do like then get the fuck out. No one is stopping you.No, marriage is a legal arrangement. People live together without marriages. I do agree though that we are on a slippery slope since there's nothing to prevent bisexuals from marrying a male and female, it's just a matter of time and being a squeaky wheel like the homosexuals.Marriage is a social construct. It is whatever we say it is.
It's time government abandons marriage definitions and legal status and it DOES become a social construct and is whatever you want it to be.
No... You're reasoning is that because the Left is squeaky... we must compromise with them until all standards are eliminated.
The problem with that is that standards are what provide for the viability of any institution... eliminate standards and you eliminate the institution which is sustained by them.
The better alternative is to eliminate the Left.
Culture's routinely survive war... they never survive the infection which attacks the viability of their structure.
THE LEFT... "The better alternative is to eliminate the Left." You're conflating the context of the word "Liberal", which literally means Proponent of Individual LIBERTY" and The Ideological Left, which axiomatically OPPOSES Individual Liberty... preferring to tout the ruse of 'Collective Liberty', which nature requires cannot exist absent INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY.
But, LOL! As a Leftist, you could not have possibly known that. As to know it, requires objectivity and Leftists axiomatically reject objectivity.
Your concession, is therefore duly noted and summarily accepted.
I'll let the Jews and Mormons know of your decision.thats because the gayz are only 3-4% of the pop.
So what?
Extremely minute minority... when means that you people are irrelevant.
Sure there is!!!Is there an option?How can you live with a vengeful Deity constantly looking over your shoulder with threats of eternal judgement?
All behavior brings consequences... you act a if there's a choice.
But to provide you the courtesy of considering your appeal... what would BE such an option?
Because marriage, by its very nature, is for reproduction. Now, we understand that people can marry without having children, but that it is the exception to the basis for the existence of marriage. That is doesn't happen every time doesn't change that fact.
There is NOTHING natural about marriage. Marriage is a construct of Monkey evolution as a society - Marriage is 100% human.
Great to hear, so let's figure out which tiny group you belong to that also doesn't fucking matter? Let's start with your penis and your brain. That's two tiny things but I'm sure there are more.I'll let the Jews and Mormons know of your decision.thats because the gayz are only 3-4% of the pop.
So what?
Extremely minute minority... when means that you people are irrelevant.
They know...
Just for the hell of it, let's say that all of that is true. Good so far?Because marriage, by its very nature, is for reproduction. Now, we understand that people can marry without having children, but that it is the exception to the basis for the existence of marriage. That is doesn't happen every time doesn't change that fact.
There is NOTHING natural about marriage. Marriage is a construct of Monkey evolution as a society - Marriage is 100% human.
In truth, thus in reality, Marriage is the natural, logical extension of the human physiological design, wherein the female is protected during gestation and wherein the complimenting traits of the respective genders nurture and train their progeny, as a means to promote the highest probability that such will result in a viable adult, thus promoting the highest potential for the species to propagate through sustainable process, therefore promoting human viability. Did you not take ANY Science classes?
Conservatives who get their information from the Rightwing message system don't understand the libertarian minimalist state, nor do they understand the Constitution, which protects everyone's beliefs, including Muslims and Homosexuals, provided those beliefs don't harm others.
(Republicans want a powerful state which imposes their values on others. They want to limit the freedom and full civic participation of groups they find evil, abnormal or otherwise inferior. FYI: these groups shift over time. Homosexuals are the flavor of the month.)
But they weren't always the flavor of the month. Conservative traditionalists (from both political parties) opposed the progress of blacks and women. To understand the disgust these people have for different value systems, research the reaction of Nixon's "Silent White majority" to the feminist revolution of the 60s.
The Rightwing czars of morality have an uneasy relationship to science, which is why they needed to create a massive institutional network of think tanks, which enabled them to tailor their scientific findings to their political goals. If science proves that human sexuality is an automatic response, the job of their think tanks is to show that it is a choice. They can get away with this because their voting coalition includes a block of people who have not had much advanced education, and so are quite vulnerable to the many charismatic pundits who seem to thrive on the Right.
Here is what many Republicans don't understand about the moral duty of the state to protect the sanctity of marriage. Government does not exist to save our souls. This is the job of individuals and families, in the privacy of their own lives. The sacredness of marriage doesn't come from the contract or the state, it comes from free individuals - individuals who are not told by bureaucrats what is good and normal, that is, individuals who are free to practice their own beliefs provided they don't harm others. The marriage contract is only a legal document that stipulates rights and obligations. Only a conservative could confuse a bureaucratic contract with a holy document.
Government exists merely to hand out and enforce legal contracts. We don't want a bureaucrat at the foot of every bed or hiding in every closet to make sure that each American practices the lifestyle and beliefs of conservatives. We want government not to care about our soul, our sexuality, our book purchases, etc. We want a minimalist state.
We want a minimalist state that doesn't play an activist role in morality or beliefs.
We want a minimalist state that hands out contracts and protects our right not to be harmed by others. We don't want Washington to legislate morality and impose a single set of values on all groups. We want maximum freedom for the maximum number of people.
Conservatives, on the other hand, want a big powerful government that imposes a single set of values on all people. In the 1800s they told us it wasn't natural for women to leave their domestic/biological destiny for public or civic leadership. We were told that women were too irrational to meet the rigorous mental demands of politics, and that they were more suited to being man's helper and providing a nurturing home.
Thank god we didn't let conservatives and traditionalists win that fight. Thank god we didn't let them define what was moral and normal behavior for women. [You get the picture right? Every generation of conservatives has a unique set of beliefs and values to be imposed by big government on the rest of us. They always find a group which is abnormal, evil or inferior, and who therefore deserves a lower status, with fewer rights]
Unfortunately, because the centralized power of Washington exists, we are still vulnerable to the centralization and violent imposition of a single value system, one that subjugates all outsiders to a singular system, much like communism, which itself limited a diversity of beliefs and practices for "the good of society".
God help us, because the Nazis were also driven by a very powerful conception of what was good and normal. Study eugenics. All it took was a massive economic downturn, which made the masses vulnerable to a charismatic leader promising moral renewal by expunging from the state all who were not pure.
God help us.
What part of the minority being protected from the majority here were you not taught?Great to hear, so let's figure out which tiny group you belong to that also doesn't fucking matter? Let's start with your penis and your brain. That's two tiny things but I'm sure there are more.I'll let the Jews and Mormons know of your decision.So what?
Extremely minute minority... when means that you people are irrelevant.
They know...
Belongs?
Any group can participate. But insignificant minorities do not get to set the rules.
In truth, thus in reality, Marriage is the natural, logical extension of the human physiological design, wherein the female is protected during gestation and wherein the complimenting traits of the respective genders nurture and train their progeny, as a means to promote the highest probability that such will result in a viable adult, thus promoting the highest potential for the species to propagate through sustainable process, therefore promoting human viability. Did you not take ANY Science classes?
Our kids are fine and we're having them whether we're married or not. We're also marrying whether we have kids are not...just like straight folks.
Some of us DO have children. Gays are having children exactly like straights do....adoption, artificial insemination, IVF, divorce.
Someone explain why our families, whether with or without children, are less deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges associated with civil marriage than straight families (with or without children)? What is your reasonable person standard you use to justify discriminating against our loving partnerships?
Personally, I believe that kids should be brought up with a man and a woman as the parents. I think that nature devised a plan that has worked since the dawn of humankind, and I believe that kids bought up in a one gender household miss out on the guidance of the other gender.
Mark
Personally I'm glad you don't get to make the rules about who gets to be parents or not. I don't think fundamentalist Christians should get to be parents...I've seen more than my share of kids fucked up by having Fundie Parents.
I'm glad I don't get to make the rules about who can be parents either.
That doesn't answer the question though...try again. What reasonable person standard to you use to deny our family the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage?
Well, the states disagree. Now what my little faggot-hater?Our kids are fine and we're having them whether we're married or not. We're also marrying whether we have kids are not...just like straight folks.
Some of us DO have children. Gays are having children exactly like straights do....adoption, artificial insemination, IVF, divorce.
Someone explain why our families, whether with or without children, are less deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges associated with civil marriage than straight families (with or without children)? What is your reasonable person standard you use to justify discriminating against our loving partnerships?
Personally, I believe that kids should be brought up with a man and a woman as the parents. I think that nature devised a plan that has worked since the dawn of humankind, and I believe that kids bought up in a one gender household miss out on the guidance of the other gender.
Mark
Personally I'm glad you don't get to make the rules about who gets to be parents or not. I don't think fundamentalist Christians should get to be parents...I've seen more than my share of kids fucked up by having Fundie Parents.
I'm glad I don't get to make the rules about who can be parents either.
That doesn't answer the question though...try again. What reasonable person standard to you use to deny our family the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage?
I just answered it. The state shouldn't be condoning gay marriage.
Yeah there's an option. You could stop believing in worn out Fairy Tales ...
Our kids are fine and we're having them whether we're married or not. We're also marrying whether we have kids are not...just like straight folks.
Some of us DO have children. Gays are having children exactly like straights do....adoption, artificial insemination, IVF, divorce.
Someone explain why our families, whether with or without children, are less deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges associated with civil marriage than straight families (with or without children)? What is your reasonable person standard you use to justify discriminating against our loving partnerships?
Personally, I believe that kids should be brought up with a man and a woman as the parents. I think that nature devised a plan that has worked since the dawn of humankind, and I believe that kids bought up in a one gender household miss out on the guidance of the other gender.
Mark
Personally I'm glad you don't get to make the rules about who gets to be parents or not. I don't think fundamentalist Christians should get to be parents...I've seen more than my share of kids fucked up by having Fundie Parents.
I'm glad I don't get to make the rules about who can be parents either.
That doesn't answer the question though...try again. What reasonable person standard to you use to deny our family the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage?
I just answered it. The state shouldn't be condoning gay marriage.
Mark
