In response to:

Marriage a la Mode

PolishBear Wrote: Apr 02, 2013 10:25 AM
The victories for marriage equality in Maine, Minnesota, Washington, and Maryland last November tell me one thing: Americans are learning to make better value judgments. Why is it that Straight couples are encouraged to date, get engaged, marry and build lives together in the context of monogamy and commitment, and that this is a GOOD thing … yet for Gay couples to do exactly the same is somehow a BAD thing? To me this seems like a very poor value judgment. Ask any Straight couple why they choose to marry. Their answer will not be, “We want to get married so that we can have sex and make babies!” That would be absurd, since couples do not need to marry to make babies, nor is the ability of even desire to make babies a prerequisite for obtai
dreadnaught/13 Wrote: Apr 02, 2013 2:22 PM


We understand, Bear;

Homosexual couples have an actual need to be sodomized and to sodomize. They can live with HIV AIDS as long as they're married. What's negative about that?

Tinsldr2 Wrote: Apr 02, 2013 6:50 PM
What about Lesbian Couples Dread?
Bill1895 Wrote: Apr 02, 2013 2:21 PM
What is 'marriage equality'?
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Apr 02, 2013 11:47 AM
Excellent comments Polishbear!

Gay men and lesbian women are denied marriage so they act like single people, and then are criticized for acting like single people instead of being encouraged to marry and change their behavior.
dreadnaught/13 Wrote: Apr 02, 2013 2:35 PM


I wouldn't criticize you for pretending you married your beau. I loved that old song by Nat King Cole;

"Pretend."

Pretend you're happy when you're blue,
It isn't very hard to do,

After all you pretend to be gay.

Tinsldr2 Wrote: Apr 02, 2013 6:50 PM
No dread I am straight. A man married to a wife for the last 25 years. But you can pretend you know the first thing about me Dread
Beethovens10th Wrote: Apr 02, 2013 11:15 AM
It was a "victory" for massive election fraud in the most corrupt election in U.S. history. That is all is was.

In a fair election, marriage would have won, hands down.
DCM in FL Wrote: Apr 02, 2013 10:57 AM
"build lives together in the context of monogamy and commitment... yet for Gay couples to do exactly the same is somehow a BAD thing?"

If you're claiming that same-sex couples have much in the way of real "monogamy," you either don't know much about homosexuality or you hope others don't.

An abnormal sexual preference is an abnormal sexual preference. Your attempt to put lipstick on the pig won't convince those of us who know better.

mulbery Wrote: Apr 02, 2013 11:32 AM
DCM, if you're claiming that all old white christian men have much in the wya of "non-bigotry" you either don't know much about crotchety old christian white guys or you hope others don't.

An abnormally biggoted jerk is an abnormally biggoted jerk. Yout attempt to put lipstick on the pig won't convince those of us who know better.
dreadnaught/13 Wrote: Apr 02, 2013 2:28 PM


Yeah, vaginaphobes know they can't get too close to a vagina. It might swallow you live.

dreadnaught/13 Wrote: Apr 02, 2013 2:31 PM


Don't count me as one of the abnormally bigoted jerks. I think homosexuals should get respect. They ought to get a government check in the mail for buggering one another. Let's be sensible about the vaginaphobic American.

PolishBear Wrote: Apr 02, 2013 10:26 AM
... for obtaining a marriage license.
No, the reason couples choose to marry is to make a solemn declaration before friends and family members that they wish to make a commitment to one another’s happiness, health, and well-being, to the exclusion of all others. Those friends and family members will subsequently act as a force of encouragement for that couple to hold fast to their vows.
THAT’S what makes marriage a good thing, whether the couple in question is Straight OR Gay. It looks like American voters are starting to accept that.
Rockky Wrote: Apr 02, 2013 11:15 AM
The argument is not about the value of commitments, love, or caring for another person. The argument against SSM is based on God’s explicit proclamation that it is unnatural and sinful. At one time, an overwhelming number of people in this country valued God’s objective moral laws by making them part of the civil laws. You obviously do not care about any of that, though.
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Apr 02, 2013 11:38 AM
I dont really care about that Rockky. In fact I DO NOT want it. Now I value my relationship with God but I certainly do not want the BIBLE legislated.

I like being able to work and shop on Sabbath. The Bible says no. I like that people have the right to worship other God's, hate God, Curse God or disbelieve in him. It is their natural right to do so and God gave us free will. Yet the Bible says those things violate his GREATEST commandment.

Sure the bible says things like Do not murder or steal which are also part of our laws. But they are part of our laws because they violate another persons right to life, to be secure in their person or property and NOT because they are in the bible.
mulbery Wrote: Apr 02, 2013 11:52 AM
screw your bible. It is unlawful to enshrine religious scripture into law. Would you want Sharia law written into law? Do you want a law against eating pork? How about making it illegal to eat shellfish? You can't impose your religion on the legal system in this country. Get that idea OUT OF YOUR HEAD.
Rockky Wrote: Apr 02, 2013 12:18 PM
Your belief in moral relativism makes it illogical for you to deem anything either 'right' or 'wrong.' You do understand that, right?
Rockky Wrote: Apr 02, 2013 12:21 PM
You are obviously not very familiar with the Bible. It is rather clear that societies which condoned and practiced heathen beliefs often lost God's favor. Is that what you are willing to risk with America?
Rockky Wrote: Apr 02, 2013 12:23 PM
You are obviously not very familiar with the Bible. It is rather clear that societies which condoned and practiced heathen beliefs often lost God's favor. Is that what you are willing to risk with America?
bob sledd Wrote: Apr 02, 2013 12:26 PM
There is no point in debating people who are determined and focused on overturning our societal norms, passed down for thousands of years. Western Civilization has been built on Judeo Christian mores and customs and law. homosexual marriage has always been forbidden as un natural acts. MARRIAGE as an Instiution, has been revered as one of child bearing and proper upbringing. I guess we have all of a sudden awakened last week? 2 momths ago? 3 years ago? And have decided that all that has been consiedered sacrosanct and taken as a given, is no longer relevant. we have become hip...and God and and his Commandments and the words of the prophets are no longer relevant. I suppose we will soon find out how that will work out.
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Apr 02, 2013 1:39 PM
Thts nice Bob,

"MARRIAGE as an Instiution, has been revered as one of child bearing and proper upbringing"

Tht would be true if couples that could not have children could not get married. But they can. So many couples will marry and have Children. And some couples will get married and NOT have children. But they are still married.

There is no point debating with people that obfuscate basic facts like marriages often leglly occur without children.
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Apr 02, 2013 1:45 PM
Rockky Wrote: 1 hour ago (12:18 PM)
Your belief in moral relativism makes it illogical for you to deem anything either 'right' or 'wrong.' You do understand that, right?
...........

Not at all true Bob. First I do not engage in Moral Relativism. Nothing in my comments says so. But Gov, especially at the Federal and some what at the state level, should not be making laws based on things like Biblical moral codes. They should be basing laws on NATURAL RIGHTS.

We are all born with our Natural Rights and one of those rights is not to have YOUR biblical codes forced on us.
Rockky Wrote: Apr 02, 2013 2:18 PM
"We are all born with our Natural Rights and one of those rights is not to have YOUR biblical codes forced on us. "

What exactly is it that you reference when determing if something is a "natural right' or not? Is it your feelings and emotions or is there an objective source which can be relied on as truth? Without an objective moral standard, you are most certainly practicing meta-ethical moral relativism. Just because you don't think you are doesn't make it so.
Bill1895 Wrote: Apr 02, 2013 2:23 PM
'screw your bible'? were you one of Hitler's Book Burners?
dreadnaught/13 Wrote: Apr 02, 2013 2:23 PM

Yes; of course.

Who wants a law against IMBECILES?

Bill1895 Wrote: Apr 02, 2013 2:24 PM
So Tinsdlr go lobby for stricter marriage lwas like fertility tests.
Bill1895 Wrote: Apr 02, 2013 2:25 PM
Rockky: you hit the target, where do rights come from?
dreadnaught/13 Wrote: Apr 02, 2013 2:26 PM

You have a right to pretend you got married; sure.

It's in the US Constitution; or if it isn't, it should be. Just as when you masturbate to orgasm. You can explain how much your fist loves you.

Rockky Wrote: Apr 02, 2013 2:53 PM
Rockky: you hit the target, where do rights come from?

And the willful ignorance of the pro-SSM crowd are unable to provide a logical answer to the question. Their moral standard consists of the following: "If something feels or seems good, then it is right." By its very nature, their moral code is contradictory and dangerous because it both promotes AND denies tolerance at the same time. They simply have nothing to point to in order to establish the validity of their moral argument which is why they lash out with accusations of bigotry and prejudice.
bob sledd Wrote: Apr 02, 2013 3:07 PM
There is no point debating someone who is willfully tosses aside thousands of years of history...but you are probably much more enlightened than the billions who came before you that created and shaped Western Civilization as ou and I know it. Silly fool that I am. I Wish to be enlitened into this new Progressive society but my knowledge of History and belief In my religion does not allow me to. You will have to carry on without me. And I am sorry to report, no matter what the Supremes do or dont do, it will not change my understanding of the Bible, or recorded history.
bob sledd Wrote: Apr 02, 2013 3:13 PM
The western world is PREDICATED on the laws handed down thru Judeo Christian religion. NOT what you refer to as NATURAL laws, whatever that is. Good grief man. Study some history before you reinvent it. Western civilization evolved ENTIRELY from Judeo Christian roots. the 10 Commandments,until very recently, have been the guiding light of our civilization. s there any of then10 you Progressives seriously disagree with as right true and acceptable for civilized society? The Commandments are Biblically based and religious in nature...they pre date PROGRESSIVE life by thousands of years and apply to civilization today as much as they did thousands of years ago. You LIVING Constitutionalists and revisionists need to get some facts
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Apr 02, 2013 3:33 PM

Bill1895 Wrote: 53 minutes ago (2:24 PM)
So Tinsdlr go lobby for stricter marriage lwas like fertility tests


............

Why would any sane person want that Bob? YOU go legislate for it. I want MORE freedom not less.
bob sledd Wrote: Apr 02, 2013 3:36 PM
I think those old white guys known as the FOUNDERS referenced our "rights" came from God...our Creator of all things...seen and unseen. I am with you Rocky and Bill. Logic..history.. All run counter to homosexual "marriage". I am done dancing around these Progressive issues and political correctness. Homosexual activity is abnormal and contrary to the Natural world...as opposed to "Natural Rights". Abortion is murder of our most helpless and dependent members of our human brethren. I am no longer going to sugar coat this stuff.
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Apr 02, 2013 3:36 PM
bob sledd Wrote: 4 minutes ago (3:13 PM)
The western world is PREDICATED on the laws handed down thru Judeo Christian religion. NOT what you refer to as NATURAL laws,

..........

No Bob you study history. The Declaration of independence is practically a recitation of passages John Locke wrote on Natural Rights.

http://www.nlnrac.org/earlymodern/locke

Locke is one of the founders of the philosophy of individual rights and limited govern­ment. This is the philosophy on which the American Constitution and all Western political systems today are based. In the Second Treatise of Government, Locke’s most important political work, he uses natural law to ground his philosophy.

bob sledd Wrote: Apr 02, 2013 3:54 PM
Based on Judeo Christian standards. You cannot obfuscate those facts. The western world ,including John Locke, is based on and grounded in Judeo Christian standards. Natural rights are given to us from God. If homosexual marriage was intended from the time of John Locke, or later, at the founding of our Constitution, why has it NOT been explicably referenced or been accepted from that time? Homosexuals have been around since the beginning of time..no? Why now, ,5000 years into civilization is it now ok? Have we become more ENLIGHTENED than those who we know as from the ENLIGHTENMENT? Tell us why NOW this is acceptable after thousands of years of history when it has not been, and has been shunned as aberrant behavior.
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Apr 02, 2013 6:48 PM
It was only 40 years ago when it was finalized that Blacks had a RIGHT to marry whites. Why for 5000 years or more (it is much longer) was that right denied them.
Were the people that denied that right more enlightened then today ?

We build on a foundation. We do not stay dormant.
bob sledd Wrote: Apr 02, 2013 7:16 PM
Absolute and total nonsense. Please cite historical fact or law that states that "40 years ago" blacks and whites had the RIGHT to marry. You are confusing men and women. Blacks and whites have been free to marry for many a moon. It has become well accepted by our society, the marriage of men and WOMEN regardless of race,religion, as long as,they were of legal age and not related by blood. You truly grasping at straws when you equate the union of a man and a woman, one black, one white as somehow the same as homosexuals or lesbians uniting in "marriage" . All this is intended to dois weaken traditional culture in the futile hope that 98% of America will legitimaize un natural unions.
bob sledd Wrote: Apr 02, 2013 7:19 PM
Civil unions? Fr the protection of assets and so forth? Fine. Marriage of 2 people of the same sex? Preposterous. Thousands of years of traditional marriage to be-trampled and overturned by a small minority who want it, and an liberal activist judiciary suddenly becoming enlightened? No way.
The American public's apparent surrender to same-sex marriage -- the Pew Research Center says 49 percent of us now support it, with just 44 percent opposed -- has been much remarked lately. I think I can explain it in part.

The problem is with the failure of the culture to take marriage itself with the seriousness it used to receive. Connected more with pleasure than with responsibility, marriage functions more and more as just as a set of personal preferences. If it feels good, tastes good, looks good, etc., -- hey, why not? If none of the above, never mind....