Gay Marriage Leads To Bestiality
- Thread starter Trampled Underfoot
- Start date
Hedge,
to try and validate your argument, which I personally don't believe in, you should have to make a case for both sides.
Basic debating 101
Think about Hedge, the ding bat womens man hating groups have tried to make a case against men that all sex is rape ! WHAT ?
Can you debate that?
Right to life/Pro Choice What if you were assigned to take the Pro Choice stance in a debate class in an impromtu debate, pull info from your ass. *** No jokes TU ***
You don't have to be happy about some of these topics and decisions, but you aren't the law, you don't make or interpret the law, but you can vote people in and out.
You continue to be stuck in the mud in your political, social and religious dogma and have a great fear to move away from the herd because the herd provides you comfort.
Thanks for quoting the Cie,
I was typing that so fast, and not really paying attention, being that I have the attention span
of a hummingbird :shrug: . and as I re-read that,
Damn, I should save that and put it in my signature.
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
:director: Here's what I want to know.... (You too, VAnurse).
Why should ANY married couple (however you define "marriage") get MORE rights or privileges than a single person?!?!?!! I'm not "married" (not gay, nor do I fuk animals either, which is beside the point), so why should I get "less" than anyone else? :shrug:
:SIB
In my simple mind, the institution of marriage, as acknowledged by our governement, is meant, at least partially, to keep government out of the business of raising children. It provides a legal father to a child at the time of birth. In theory, marriage also provides stability for our youth. I am sure that many single parents do a great job raising their children, but my experience tells me it is clearly a two person job, if possible.
While I realize some folks are married without children (for varying reasons from infertility to lack of interest), the institution of marriage is being rewarded with tax incentives for the likelyhood of procreation that follows.
I think it is good policy, as the web of the nation is held together by families. Of course, now I sound like I favor married couples to single folks, so where is the equality in that? Well, I can overlook discrimination against the unmarried when it appears to be, at least from my angle, for the greater good.
Last edited:
i`ll try and answer(even though i`m ambivalent on the gay marriage issue...by that i mean it`s fine with me).....
but playing devil`s advocate(as i often do...lol) why is gay marriage even necessary if it divides the country?....are we opening pandora`s box?...could the precedent lead to ridiculous court cases and ridiculous scenarios(man/boy...polygamy etc)?...why not polygamy?...they aren`t hurting anybody...if they truly love one another..and another..and another...you get my drift...
i`ll quote president obama who is against gay mariage(he`s stated it many times publicly)....why not civil unions that include joint ownership of property; joint credit; the ability to share health-care benefits with a partner; and inheritance rights?....
is it the word marriage?... a semantic argument...or a substantive argument?...
remember...i`m just playing devil`s advocate(don`t hedgehog me)......i have nothing against gay marriage...but many honest,good people have issues with it...
including our president...i disagree with him on this(after all,imfeklhr is my dude..whatever he wants,i`m down wit` it)...:toast:
but playing devil`s advocate(as i often do...lol) why is gay marriage even necessary if it divides the country?....are we opening pandora`s box?...could the precedent lead to ridiculous court cases and ridiculous scenarios(man/boy...polygamy etc)?...why not polygamy?...they aren`t hurting anybody...if they truly love one another..and another..and another...you get my drift...
i`ll quote president obama who is against gay mariage(he`s stated it many times publicly)....why not civil unions that include joint ownership of property; joint credit; the ability to share health-care benefits with a partner; and inheritance rights?....
is it the word marriage?... a semantic argument...or a substantive argument?...
remember...i`m just playing devil`s advocate(don`t hedgehog me)......i have nothing against gay marriage...but many honest,good people have issues with it...
including our president...i disagree with him on this(after all,imfeklhr is my dude..whatever he wants,i`m down wit` it)...:toast:
Last edited:
But seriously, it is both semantic and substantive.
I am more concerned with the substance. Inheritance rights, hospital visitation, social security/tax rights etc. etc.
Also consider a situation close to me: Immigration rights. Suppose for a minute I in a legitimate long term relationship with someone who is here legally, but not a citizen. A conventional man could marry a non-citizen and they would gain some rights to stay in the country forever. Without Federal recognition of a gay marriage/union, I do not share that right.
It is a niche issue, but an often overlooked one.
I am patient, and know that within our lifetime, gay marriage will be a reality. I just don't see what could stop it at this point. In the mean time I am not sweating it much.
As for Pandora's box being opened. I think things like man/boy or man/horse are flimsy arguments for a few reasons.
1. Consent. Horses and Children cannot give consent to sex with adults. They can?t really enter contracts with adults, so they can?t really get married.
2. Lack of Demand. I don?t think there is a movement or large enough group of Americans who even want to do these things. And while our constitution should be designed to protect the smallest minority, the fact of the matter is, if there isn?t a large enough portion of the population who wants something, the political capital to get it done just doesn't exist. There have always been gay people on Earth. Whether it?s 1-10% of the population, I don?t know. But they have gained clout and seized upon changing human views of social issues, to gain some rights. That?s millions of people, no matter how you slice the percentage. I don?t think you will ever see more than a handful of people seriously promoting man/boy or man/animal. It is virtually a non-issue.
As for polygamy. I can?t make the consent issue, but I can say I just don?t think there is large enough demand to make it happen. It?s not something I ?worry? about.
I am more concerned with the substance. Inheritance rights, hospital visitation, social security/tax rights etc. etc.
Also consider a situation close to me: Immigration rights. Suppose for a minute I in a legitimate long term relationship with someone who is here legally, but not a citizen. A conventional man could marry a non-citizen and they would gain some rights to stay in the country forever. Without Federal recognition of a gay marriage/union, I do not share that right.
It is a niche issue, but an often overlooked one.
I am patient, and know that within our lifetime, gay marriage will be a reality. I just don't see what could stop it at this point. In the mean time I am not sweating it much.
As for Pandora's box being opened. I think things like man/boy or man/horse are flimsy arguments for a few reasons.
1. Consent. Horses and Children cannot give consent to sex with adults. They can?t really enter contracts with adults, so they can?t really get married.
2. Lack of Demand. I don?t think there is a movement or large enough group of Americans who even want to do these things. And while our constitution should be designed to protect the smallest minority, the fact of the matter is, if there isn?t a large enough portion of the population who wants something, the political capital to get it done just doesn't exist. There have always been gay people on Earth. Whether it?s 1-10% of the population, I don?t know. But they have gained clout and seized upon changing human views of social issues, to gain some rights. That?s millions of people, no matter how you slice the percentage. I don?t think you will ever see more than a handful of people seriously promoting man/boy or man/animal. It is virtually a non-issue.
As for polygamy. I can?t make the consent issue, but I can say I just don?t think there is large enough demand to make it happen. It?s not something I ?worry? about.
Last edited:
good arguments......but what if a polygamy rights group were to spring up after passing a gay marriage amendment?....
it`s a devil`s advocate argument...not an immediate issue....i agree...just sayin`...when i`m not feelin`it,my game suffers..and i`m not feelin` this one...so i basically agree with you...
lets face it...at it`s core theres a traditional /religious basis to the resistance to gay marriage....and that saddens me..i`m no bible thumper...i`m more in the "live and let live" demographic...
there was some stink in the political forum over textbooks and i actually am a thomas jefferson guy...he was a smart mofo....
his moneyshot for me was this:..."Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."...
how much more perfectly can it be stated?...
the gay marriage argument is the wrong battle,imo....but don`t f-ck with christmas!...:nono: :toast:
single people pay more in taxes :shrug: so you and your buddy get married even though you both are straight for the tax benefit:mj07:
traditional marriage is the only form of marriage that should be legal
traditional marriage is the only form of marriage that should be legal
