Why is same-sex marriage "wrong"

[BDBoop]

lol

Removing the immediate ick factor from the thought of brother/sister marriage you are left with a host of biological issues.
As for parent/child marriage, illegal for the simple fact of child abuse/coercion and like factors.

Right... I haven't thought of it.... I'm just glad you didn't use the person/animal example.

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.

Dear Nelson;

Please bring more students back with you.

xoxo

Boop

 

[Artevelde]

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.

Read the thread.

 

[BDBoop]

Nobody "gave" me any of my degrees. I earned them. That is probably also a bit too difficult for you to grasp.

As usual, you just change your tune. Now it's no longerthat women had no property rights but you've shifted to something completely different. Do you ever try to be coherent?

I think I'm being perfectly co-herent, it's too bad you can't follow along, but you just don't seem very bright.

If you can't get a divorce on demand, if your parents pay a dowrey to get rid of you, if your parents are arranging who you get married to, if your husband is allowed to beat you with a stick so long as it isn't bigger than his thumb.

You.

Are.

Property.

It's just as simple as that, guy.

The bible says a husband can take a wife out and stone her if she isn't a virgin on her wedding day. (Deuteronomy 22:13 )

It says a rapist can pay his victims father 50 shekels and buy her. (-- Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

So I find it amusing that you defend this "century old" insittution when most people wouldn't want to practice it the way it's been practiced for most of history, especially the 50% of the population with ovaries.

So now that we've dispensed with that silliness, can you give me a good reason why gays shouldn't be allowed to get married other than your own sexual insecurities?

Do you have any idea what percentage of marriages involved a dowry? You really are completely ignorant.

And you are willfully ignorant.

 

[BDBoop]

I think I'm being perfectly co-herent, it's too bad you can't follow along, but you just don't seem very bright.

If you can't get a divorce on demand, if your parents pay a dowrey to get rid of you, if your parents are arranging who you get married to, if your husband is allowed to beat you with a stick so long as it isn't bigger than his thumb.

You.

Are.

Property.

It's just as simple as that, guy.

The bible says a husband can take a wife out and stone her if she isn't a virgin on her wedding day. (Deuteronomy 22:13 )

It says a rapist can pay his victims father 50 shekels and buy her. (-- Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

So I find it amusing that you defend this "century old" insittution when most people wouldn't want to practice it the way it's been practiced for most of history, especially the 50% of the population with ovaries.

So now that we've dispensed with that silliness, can you give me a good reason why gays shouldn't be allowed to get married other than your own sexual insecurities?

Do you have any idea what percentage of marriages involved a dowry? You really are completely ignorant.

That was the best you could come up with?

Really? Seriously?

Okay, peasents who didn't have shit didn't come up with them...

but the fact that they had them at all says quite a bit, doesn't it?

Now, please tell me how letting gay folks get married affects your life in any way, shape or form?

You live in Belgium which has same sex marriage. Has it fallen into the North Sea? Are there Nazis riding dinosaurs? Please tell us what great horrors await us...

Thank you! ^5

 

[BDBoop]

Do you have any idea what percentage of marriages involved a dowry? You really are completely ignorant.

That was the best you could come up with?

Really? Seriously?

Okay, peasents who didn't have shit didn't come up with them...

but the fact that they had them at all says quite a bit, doesn't it?

Now, please tell me how letting gay folks get married affects your life in any way, shape or form?

You live in Belgium which has same sex marriage. Has it fallen into the North Sea? Are there Nazis riding dinosaurs? Please tell us what great horrors await us...

I note that you acknowledge that all your bluster about the history of marriage was just empty rhetoric.

Answer the question, Miss.

 

[BDBoop]

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.

Oh. My. God. I have NEVER seen anybody so completely clueless about a subject, willing to flame the opposition. Never. Never-ever.

 

[BDBoop]

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.

And yet he put YOUR sorry ass to shame, so there's that.

 

[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.

Oh. My. God. I have NEVER seen anybody so completely clueless about a subject, willing to flame the opposition. Never. Never-ever.

Yes, I already knew you don't know anything about history.

 

[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.

And yet he put YOUR sorry ass to shame, so there's that.

Pretty pathetic, but that's what I would expect from you.

 

[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.

Oh. My. God. I have NEVER seen anybody so completely clueless about a subject, willing to flame the opposition. Never. Never-ever.

Yes, I already knew you don't know anything about history.

No, YOU know nothing about history.

Tell me, how long have you been harboring delusions of your intelligence?

 

[Artevelde]

Oh. My. God. I have NEVER seen anybody so completely clueless about a subject, willing to flame the opposition. Never. Never-ever.

Yes, I already knew you don't know anything about history.

No, YOU know nothing about history.

Tell me, how long have you been harboring delusions of your intelligence?

You're even to ignorant to read your own thread.

As for history, do you join the other idiot in claiming that all marriages were arranged, that women had no property rights and that married women were the property of their husbands?

 

[BDBoop]

Yes, I already knew you don't know anything about history.

No, YOU know nothing about history.

Tell me, how long have you been harboring delusions of your intelligence?

You're even to ignorant to read your own thread.

As for history, do you join the other idiot in claiming that all marriages were arranged, that women had no property rights and that married women were the property of their husbands?

Nobody said all marriages were arranged, but a great many were, yes.

Women had no property rights for a great many centuries, and that was as recently as the early 1900's.

The BIBLE says married women are the property of their husbands.

And you? What was the history of your world?

By the way, it's "too" ignorant, and see all those answers? That's me, reading (and responding to!) my thread. Derp.

 

[Artevelde]

No, YOU know nothing about history.

Tell me, how long have you been harboring delusions of your intelligence?

You're even to ignorant to read your own thread.

As for history, do you join the other idiot in claiming that all marriages were arranged, that women had no property rights and that married women were the property of their husbands?

Nobody said all marriages were arranged, but a great many were, yes.

Women had no property rights for a great many centuries, and that was as recently as the early 1900's.

The BIBLE says married women are the property of their husbands.

And you? What was the history of your world?

By the way, it's "too" ignorant, and see all those answers? That's me, reading (and responding to!) my thread. Derp.

An extremely small percentage of marriages were arranged (probably less than are "arranged" today by all sorts of dating agencies).

The idea that women had no property rights is so ludicrous and anti-historical that it's farcical.

And I'm surprised to know that according to you all of human history prior to 1900 was ruled by the bible.

You really are a very ignorant person. You don't have a clue about history or the World and only manage to think in slogans. That's your problem, not mine.

 

[BDBoop]

I'm sorry, I'm laughing too hard to post. However, I am sharing your thoughts with a group of intelligent, educated women so they can point and laugh. I'll be back with their thoughts later. Or maybe not. No sense in doing the 'pearls before swine' routine.

 

[Artevelde]

I'm sorry, I'm laughing too hard to post. However, I am sharing your thoughts with a group of intelligent, educated women so they can point and laugh. I'll be back with their thoughts later. Or maybe not. No sense in doing the 'pearls before swine' routine.

Best of luck. You certainly aren't intelligent or educated.

 

[gxnelson]

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.

Dear Nelson;

Please bring more students back with you.

xoxo

Boop

Im back. And still banging my head on the wall reading some of these posts.

 

[BDBoop]

-.-

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.

Dear Nelson;

Please bring more students back with you.

xoxo

Boop

Im back. And still banging my head on the wall reading some of these posts.

Serious about bringing friends, lady!!

 

[JoeB131]

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.

I don't use it as a shock label. If someone was trying to make you have a gay marriage, then you'd be completely entitled to be against that. YOu don't play for that team. Got it.

But to say because you don't like it, no one should be able to do it, well, then you are acting out of a "phobia". So the term "homo-phobe" kind of fits.

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.

So you are letting con men do your thinking for you based on a book of Bronze Age fairy tales. How special for you.

But I again have to ask the question. Would you be down with stoning your daughter (hypothecally) if she was not a virgin on her wedding day? Would you let her marry her rapist if he paid you fifty shekels like the Bible says. If she stopped being a Christian and became a Wiccan, would you kill her like the bible says to?

It seems to me that you are very selective in which religous texts you are keen to follow.

 

[logical4u]

No it's not. They can have sex anytime. We're not talking fundamentalists who can't do the deed until they take their vows.

Ahhhhh! How wise of you.

So they don't really need to get married at all. There is no particular liberty associated with marriage. They just want some mythological sense of equality and have their relationships given the same recognition and respect as traditional marriage. Except they don't have a good reason for it, other than to make themselves feel good. It's all about them feeling good about themselves. Same sex relationships are the foundation of nothing, build nothing and don't benefit society whatsoever. All they can do is reduce the general marital institution to one of depravity.

It's the same arguments that legalizing drugs and prostitution is best for the culture. All it does is make them feel better about what they are doiing. Reducing the age of consent for sex to 6 isn't to help children feel loved, it's to make pedophiles feel better about themselves. Getting divorced 6 times doesn't build families, it makes the serial polygamist feel less guilty. Change behavior and belief justifying the behavior will eventually follow.

It's all about depravity and degeracy. The more people degenerate the better and the more normal degenerates feel.

They want to get married because they are in love and it's the logical next step.

Logic has "nothing" to do with it.

 

[BDBoop]

It's not your call.