Why is same-sex marriage "wrong"

[Artevelde]

Nope, I made my position pretty clear, and you're the only one who took an issue with it, because you want to f ind some kind of literary argument about what constitutes "property". (Again, is it one of those ENglish concepts you don't understand.)

So we'll agree that we have a different defintion of the word "property". But mine is right.

Now, to the point. Please tell me why gay marriage would be bad without saying "it's always been this way".

You could have made the same argument about slavery, and we can all agree that is wrong now, right?

So you are returning to your original ludicrous position that women became property through marriage? Or are you returning to your equally ludicrous position that women had no property rights?

You really are very stupid and ignorant.

 

[JoeB131]

Nope, I made my position pretty clear, and you're the only one who took an issue with it, because you want to f ind some kind of literary argument about what constitutes "property". (Again, is it one of those ENglish concepts you don't understand.)

So we'll agree that we have a different defintion of the word "property". But mine is right.

Now, to the point. Please tell me why gay marriage would be bad without saying "it's always been this way".

You could have made the same argument about slavery, and we can all agree that is wrong now, right?

So you are returning to your original ludicrous position that women became property through marriage? Or are you returning to your equally ludicrous position that women had no property rights?

You really are very stupid and ignorant.

I've never left that position.

When your marriage is arranged and your husband can legally beat you for not submitting to sex, you are property.

When your husband can have you killed by the mob because someone else busted your hymen before he could, you are property.

When he can file for divorce and you can't, you are property.

Thankfully, women have these things called "rights" today. Marriage "evolved" as the President would say.

So now that we have established marriage is a CHANGING institution, please define why changing it to also include same sex couples (which your country has already done) would be a bad thing.

 

[Artevelde]

Nope, I made my position pretty clear, and you're the only one who took an issue with it, because you want to f ind some kind of literary argument about what constitutes "property". (Again, is it one of those ENglish concepts you don't understand.)

So we'll agree that we have a different defintion of the word "property". But mine is right.

Now, to the point. Please tell me why gay marriage would be bad without saying "it's always been this way".

You could have made the same argument about slavery, and we can all agree that is wrong now, right?

So you are returning to your original ludicrous position that women became property through marriage? Or are you returning to your equally ludicrous position that women had no property rights?

You really are very stupid and ignorant.

I've never left that position.

When your marriage is arranged and your husband can legally beat you for not submitting to sex, you are property.

When your husband can have you killed by the mob because someone else busted your hymen before he could, you are property.

When he can file for divorce and you can't, you are property.

Thankfully, women have these things called "rights" today. Marriage "evolved" as the President would say.

So now that we have established marriage is a CHANGING institution, please define why changing it to also include same sex couples (which your country has already done) would be a bad thing.

Really very funny how you keep talking nonsense. You're even returning to the idea that all marriages were arranged? How ignorant can you be?

 

[JoeB131]

Yawn, guy, why are you harping on weak arguments?

Because you can't argue the thing at hand, probably.

Okay, one more time. Convince me that gay marriage is a bad thing.

Go ahead. Let's see if you can do it.

 

[Artevelde]

Yawn, guy, why are you harping on weak arguments?

Because you can't argue the thing at hand, probably.

Okay, one more time. Convince me that gay marriage is a bad thing.

Go ahead. Let's see if you can do it.

Your arguments aren't weak. They are just simple lies.

 

[JoeB131]

at least I made an argument... which you have yet to accomplish.

Someone should have explained to you at an early age contradiction is not an argument.

 

[Artevelde]

at least I made an argument... which you have yet to accomplish.

Someone should have explained to you at an early age contradiction is not an argument.

You have simply spouted some lies.

 

[JoeB131]

at least I made an argument... which you have yet to accomplish.

Someone should have explained to you at an early age contradiction is not an argument.

You have simply spouted some lies.

I stated things that you don't like. And I backed them up.

Is "lies" another one of those English concepts you don't understand?

Okay, one more time. Tell us why Gay marriage would be bad without citing history that never actually happened..

 

[Artevelde]

at least I made an argument... which you have yet to accomplish.

Someone should have explained to you at an early age contradiction is not an argument.

You have simply spouted some lies.

I stated things that you don't like. And I backed them up.

Is "lies" another one of those English concepts you don't understand?

Okay, one more time. Tell us why Gay marriage would be bad without citing history that never actually happened..

You didn't back them up. Repeating your lies is not "backing them up".

It is a lie that all marriages in the past were arranged.
It is a lie that women in the past always lost their property rights upon marrying.
It is a lie that women were their husband's property.

You are simply an ignorant liar.

 

[JoeB131]

Sorry, dude, those things are all true..

Learn to deal.

Most of history, it sucked to have a vagina.

 

[Artevelde]

Sorry, dude, those things are all true..

Learn to deal.

Most of history, it sucked to have a vagina.

You must be one of the most ignorant and stupid people on USMB, and considering the competition, that's quite something.

 

[JoeB131]

So you aren't even going to try to rationalize your homophobia, are you?

You know, most homophobes are really closeted homosexuals... which probably explains much.

 

[Artevelde]

So you aren't even going to try to rationalize your homophobia, are you?

You know, most homophobes are really closeted homosexuals... which probably explains much.

Trying to change the subject again? You really are a pathetic loser.

 

[JoeB131]

So you aren't even going to try to rationalize your homophobia, are you?

You know, most homophobes are really closeted homosexuals... which probably explains much.

Trying to change the subject again? You really are a pathetic loser.

Nope, just moving on to the salient point.

This isn't about any 'sanctity", it's about you justifying your bigotry.

 

[Artevelde]

So you aren't even going to try to rationalize your homophobia, are you?

You know, most homophobes are really closeted homosexuals... which probably explains much.

Trying to change the subject again? You really are a pathetic loser.

Nope, just moving on to the salient point.

This isn't about any 'sanctity", it's about you justifying your bigotry.

It's actually about your ignorance and your lying.

 

[BDBoop]

So you are returning to your original ludicrous position that women became property through marriage? Or are you returning to your equally ludicrous position that women had no property rights?

You really are very stupid and ignorant.

I've never left that position.

When your marriage is arranged and your husband can legally beat you for not submitting to sex, you are property.

When your husband can have you killed by the mob because someone else busted your hymen before he could, you are property.

When he can file for divorce and you can't, you are property.

Thankfully, women have these things called "rights" today. Marriage "evolved" as the President would say.

So now that we have established marriage is a CHANGING institution, please define why changing it to also include same sex couples (which your country has already done) would be a bad thing.

Really very funny how you keep talking nonsense. You're even returning to the idea that all marriages were arranged? How ignorant can you be?

Please bold specifically where he stated what you think you saw.

 

[BDBoop]

So you aren't even going to try to rationalize your homophobia, are you?

You know, most homophobes are really closeted homosexuals... which probably explains much.

Trying to change the subject again? You really are a pathetic loser.

Nope, just moving on to the salient point.

This isn't about any 'sanctity", it's about you justifying your bigotry.

Speaking of which.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

Some people look on this issue as a 'civil' or equal rights issue. I cannot agree. I point to those who have spent years in a heterosexual relationship, only to decide years later that they are in fact homosexual (apparently more females than males are in this group). When you decide that you are in effect a homosexual, are you then a member of that protected group? Can you go back to being heterosexual (I've met those people as well)? I personally do not know of any Black, Asian, or Native Americans who have jumped from one ethnic group to another and back again. I find it somewhat humorous to imply that a person's ethnicity is therefore similar to one's sexual orientation. I also have to ask WHICH sexual activity is therefore protected? Are all of them, or just some of them?

As I've also said a hundred times, these views DO NOT give credence to any hostility toward a homosexual person or couple. My values and my morals do not allow for such actions.

It's just the way I see it...

So it's okay that you're a homophobe because your religion says Homophobia is okay?

The fact is, when someone comes out after being in a straight relationship, the reality is that they were always gay. I knew a woman who was exactly what you describe. She was in a straight relationship with a guy, but she knew from the time she was 11 she liked women. But she married the jerk to make her religious family happy.

And this is the best argument for gay marriage. Once you've said, "this is okay", you won't have people making themselves and others miserable trying to conform.

I always have to chuckle at the left's attempt to group people due to some belief that they don't like and then assign that belief some negative label. All in the hope that if we call you that name, then you'll be so shocked that you'll immediately join the 'correct' group. I've used the analogy of Orwell's book 1984 before. "You can't hold a differing opinion because it is not the correct one and it doesn't 'fit' in to the preferred belief system. To be a part of THE group you must hold this opinion, otherwise you are a _________ (fill in the blank)."

I do not believe that a homophobe is someone who just doesn't support same-sex marriage. Just like I do not believe someone is racist when they do not support Barry's agenda. Shock labels just cheapen the labels themselves.

Religion does play a major role in forming a person's values. All of my children went to church when they were young. They attended activities and we were very active in the church. Now that they are adults they hold mostly the same values that I have. And when the constitutional amendment came to a vote, they voted the same way I did.

Such is life.

 

[BDBoop]

Try taking some reading lessons: I wrote about parents and their adult children, thus no child abuse involved.

-.-

A parent is a parent, a child of that parent is still a child of that parent. It's still an abuse of power of the parent. Also, there is still the issues of biological problems.

What if the child and parent are the same sex?

Oh, look; we have a new dim kid on the block.

 

[BDBoop]

You need to take some reading lessons, it is abuse of the parent no matter what age the child is. A parent is a parent an child is a child of that parent no matter what age. It is still coercion.

You realize that is pretty ridiculous, right?

Woody Allen and Soon Yi Previn.

By the way? You having to go to THAT weak-ass point is proof that you don't have any valid arguments left.