|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
posted June 30, 2013 08:50 PM |
|
|
I have no problem with assisted procreation for gays/lesbians, but at their personal cost. The procedure is expensive and usually is reserved for people who tried everything and it does not work. But I expected them to ask for it, this is the normal behavior for minorities, once you start to give, they feel entitled to ask for more. Just feeling is unfair that part of my taxes could serve to this. The budget is almost halved every year, first the culture (not a surprise), then the ecology, then the teachers, and so on. In this context I find scandalous to legalize such quirks.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted June 30, 2013 10:01 PM |
|
|
Quote:
When the majority is uninterested in original intent of the Constitution it can't be said that the US is still operating under a Constitutional democracy. The Constitution simply does not matter, all that matters is the will of the judges.
but the supreme court judges spend most of their time interpreting the constitution as it originally intends. Gay marriage wasn't even an issue in the C18th, but then again, neither was communism. I very much doubt that Thomas Jefferson was a soothsayer who could predict all the issues of the C20th.
Also, I think it takes about 25+ years of your life to work your way into even being considered as a supreme court judge. That's about 25+ years of studying said constitution that you are claiming doesn't matter any more (how very unpatriotic of you  ). Supreme court judges know this document inside and out, including it's history. It's the same way I'd rather trust a qualified and experience lighting technician organise stage lighting, rather than stick solely to what the script originally said.
I mean, if there was a room in your house that was designed to be used as a slaughterhouse and still wiffed a bit, would you leave it as it was originally intended? probably not, you'd probably have yourself and a few experienced decorators in to clean it up and make a nice room in the house. Maybe put a pool table in there or something?
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted July 02, 2013 10:52 AM |
|
|
Homosexuals are so hung up on having gay marriages. I will probably continue wondering why they don't formulate their own solution similar but simply not using the word 'marriage'.
It would make several heterosexuals willing to accept. Marriage is traditional, sacred, and originated as it was to begin with
I could probably say it 100 times that marriage can be one thing and a new form of unity would be pretty much the same thing but not invasive on the tradition.
Get your own kind of marriage, and stop being obnoxious and taking an offensive stance. I really mean no disrespect but basketball is basketball. If you want to change the rules then you should just make a new game.
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 02, 2013 11:42 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Marriage is traditional, sacred, and originated as it was to begin with
So you're into traditional and sacred polygamy which originated as it was to begin with?
Seriously, world changes anyway and you can do nothing about it. So does "tradition" change, even if you don't see it. Even basketball rules did change through time - because someone said "That will be better" and didn't care about making another sport. Did anyone care about that?
And for me your solution is ridiculous. It's like saying "Well, I won't give you marriage, but here's something which looks the same except that you can do less things. Name it however you want and here you go - just be happy with that thing. Man, aren't hetero and homo equal now? How nice of us!"
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave
|
|
Darkshadow
Legendary Hero
Cerise Princess
|
|
posted July 02, 2013 12:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Homosexuals are so hung up on having gay marriages. I will probably continue wondering why they don't formulate their own solution similar but simply not using the word 'marriage'.
It would make several heterosexuals willing to accept. Marriage is traditional, sacred, and originated as it was to begin with
I could probably say it 100 times that marriage can be one thing and a new form of unity would be pretty much the same thing but not invasive on the tradition.
Get your own kind of marriage, and stop being obnoxious and taking an offensive stance. I really mean no disrespect but basketball is basketball. If you want to change the rules then you should just make a new game.
Just popping in to say this: "Tradition" is one of the giant Achilles heel's of humanity
spot it? dohohohoh
____________
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted July 02, 2013 02:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Marriage is traditional, sacred, and originated as it was to begin with
I love how some anti-gay marriage proponents use "marriage is sacred" to support their argument. It's utterly ridiculous.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 02, 2013 04:41 PM |
|
|
@Omega
Mr moderator, it is your rant that is quite ridiculous. You are quite unjustified in calling Celfious "anti-gay." I don't see anything in his post that is "anti" anything. He is defending the concept of marriage as it has been understood throughout the entire history of the human race.
Your rant is inflammatory and provocative. Please edit your post. Thanks.
____________
Revelation
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 02, 2013 05:03 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 17:04, 02 Jul 2013.
|
Quote:
I don't see anything in his post that is "anti" anything. He is defending the concept of marriage as it has been understood throughout the entire history of the human race.
Why do you always deliberately spread disinformation when you have been corrected many times about that. Throughout history many forms of marriage have been around. Even if we were to generalize, monogamy wouldn't win, step back only 5000 years and polygamy is much more common. Again, you take your cultural norm as the universal, timeless human truth.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 02, 2013 05:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I don't see anything in his post that is "anti" anything. He is defending the concept of marriage as it has been understood throughout the entire history of the human race.
Why do you always deliberately spread disinformation when you have been corrected many times about that. Throughout history many forms of marriage have been around. Even if we were to generalize, monogamy wouldn't win, step back only 5000 years and polygamy is much more common. Again, you take your cultural norm as the universal, timeless human truth.
Why do you insist on continually making false statements about me? Please stick to comments about my posts and leave my person out of your posts. Thanks.
One thing is quite certain. Marriage in all of recorded history in every culture has always been a man-woman thing. And even in cultures that allowed polygamy very few men actually had multiple wives.
Another thing is quite clear. Whether you are an atheist or a theist you must admit that males were designed for females and females for males, whether by nature or by God. A consideration of the sexual organs proves that beyond any doubt.
____________
Revelation
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 02, 2013 05:41 PM |
|
|
It's not a false statement, even if you look at THIS thread, you will see that it has been explained with valid references that throughout history polygamy is more common than monogamy and you were around reading it. But you keep on pretending none of that has been discussed and "reset" the argument to "good ol' marriage as it has always been" which is an illusion, just like tradition never changing is an illusion, it slowly does change, you just can't notice it change over day. And no, the polygamy in the old times was not "just a formality" on paper. If it was seen less sometimes although it was allowed, that was because people couldn't afford it, not because they felt weird about it. So man/woman or man/woman/woman or woman/man/man etc etc, your point that marriage never changing throughout the entire human race is not true and opposing gay marriage because of such a reason is a flawed argument. How nature "sets" us wouldn't be an argument in your favor either, since men are genetically programmed to fertilize as many females as they can. So if you go by nature, the concept of marriage is very questionable to begin with because our instinct is to cheat.
As long as you ignore previous corrections about your statements like a wall and repeat them like a broken record, I will mention that you are doing so and I will point it out. If you don't like that, don't make people repeat the same thing 100 times.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 02, 2013 05:46 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 17:47, 02 Jul 2013.
|
Eh, could anyone explain why it even matters if marriage is man-woman thing or not? Does there really need to be an universally true and absolute definition to marriage? I actually think it's sad that for a country with such massive problems, completely irrelevant questions like these actually have power to change the outcome of elections.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted July 02, 2013 06:14 PM |
|
|
Anti-gay marriage = against gay marriage. Or what, is the prefix "anti" now insulting? By that standard Elodin should have been banned ages ago, anti-theist and anti-american being his most used words.
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted July 02, 2013 06:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Another thing is quite clear. Whether you are an atheist or a theist you must admit that males were designed for females and females for males, whether by nature or by God. A consideration of the sexual organs proves that beyond any doubt.
comment about this post:
This offends me.
I'm glad that you've never known the confusion related to finding out you're gay.
Be thankful that you're able to perceive things in this simplistic manner.
Be grateful to whatever god you believe in that you never have to understand the self hatred and the fear related to it.
Be proud that you've never had to worry about your best friend, who you have known for 15 years, never speaking to you again.
God damn it, Elodin.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 02, 2013 06:21 PM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 18:22, 02 Jul 2013.
|
Xerox : no one cares about the real problems in France. and the few ones who really care, no one listen to them. only arguments that are false or even complete lies seem to influence opinion here.
Quote:
I love how some anti-gay marriage proponents use "marriage is sacred" to support their argument. It's utterly ridiculous.
lol. is divorce sacred?
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 02, 2013 06:26 PM |
|
|
I'm not sure how observing that male and female sexual organs are complementary is offensive. Mankind has the male gender and female gender. The male gender was obviously tailored to the female and the female to the male. Simple biological fact.
I do not care who anyone sleeps with or how many people anyone sleeps with. What I do care about is marriage being redefined for the sake of political correctness.
Like I've said previously I fully support equal rights before the law for gay couples. I don't support the word "marriage" being applied to gay couples.
____________
Revelation
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted July 02, 2013 06:26 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Homosexuals are so hung up on having gay marriages. I will probably continue wondering why they don't formulate their own solution similar but simply not using the word 'marriage'.
It would make several heterosexuals willing to accept. Marriage is traditional, sacred, and originated as it was to begin with
I could probably say it 100 times that marriage can be one thing and a new form of unity would be pretty much the same thing but not invasive on the tradition.
Get your own kind of marriage, and stop being obnoxious and taking an offensive stance. I really mean no disrespect but basketball is basketball. If you want to change the rules then you should just make a new game.
What about secular marriages, which are a new game and by definition not sacred? Can those definitions be changed (in your opinion, of course)?
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted July 02, 2013 06:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I'm not sure how observing that male and female sexual organs are complementary is offensive. Mankind has the male gender and female gender. The male gender was obviously tailored to the female and the female to the male. Simple biological fact.
What I find offensive, Elodin, is you're decision to state what I, as a man, should be tailored with.
What I find offensive, Elodin, is that you stating this as "Simple biological fact" is a backhanded dismissal of the very real persecution I have gone through as a gay man.
What I find offensive, Elodin, is that you claiming some kind of "Historical basis" for this ignores the multitude of LGBQT people throughout history.
Quote:
I do not care who anyone sleeps with or how many people anyone sleeps with. What I do care about is marriage being redefined for the sake of political correctness.
It's not done for the sake of political correctness! it's done for the sake of allowing a percentage of the population to be on completely, undoubtable equal footing to the rest! May I have my rights as a human being, sir? the same right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that you claim to champion as a patriot?! because support of DOMA was preventing gay couples from receiving the same tax breaks that straight couples do upon wedlock. The kind of stuff that will prevent a man in a committed relationship with his husband having equal footing to a skeezy, scummy man who kills his wives and buries them in the back garden before marrying a new one.
Quote:
Like I've said previously I fully support equal rights before the law for gay couples. I don't support the word "marriage" being applied to gay couples.
so you want something "Separate" but "Equal" to marriage for gay people?
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 02, 2013 08:26 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Whether you are an atheist or a theist you must admit that males were designed for females and females for males, whether by nature or by God. A consideration of the sexual organs proves that beyond any doubt.
If what you say is right, then nature or God wouldn't allow us to have anal or oral sex. However, there are no spikes in anus or mouth, and both of these body parts are quite erogenous. Can nature or God explain that?
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 02, 2013 09:08 PM |
|
Edited by fred79 at 21:08, 02 Jul 2013.
|
to further what hobbit said, one can have sex with many parts of the body: feet, breasts, hands, mouths, etc. all one really needs is friction, lust, and a desire to please your partner.
i don't think marriage is such a sacred thing that it cannot be "changed". just the history of man-woman marriage is enough evidence of that. how many people have cheated in their marriages, throughout time? and, if it's sooooo sacred, then why can you get it done in minutes in vegas? it only really requires a paper to be official. doesn't even require a church.
but i see both sides of this thing. i can see why gay people making this a big deal is irritating, they are just as bad as the anti-gay marriage side. but then, i can actually see where they are coming from, being that they aren't being treated fairly.
what i want to know is, what's next? after gay marriage is accepted and becomes commonplace, what will be the next "marriage" issue? i can see the world becoming a much more interesting place, where people will have much more to complain about. i don't even see marriage as an issue WORTH addressing. but that's just me. i'm not trying to stay ball-and-chained to anyone, as nature has shown me that it is much more fun with multiple partners, and "ties" be damned.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted July 02, 2013 09:27 PM |
|
|
Quote:
However, there are no spikes in anus or mouth, and both of these body parts are quite erogenous.
Try to poo with spikes in your anus. Is not a good argument
Anyway, Bixie is going emotive there. What you'd want, that people affirm that homosexuality is the norm? It is not, so every time someone recalls that you're going to be offended? Hacking the survival mechanism can't be defended from an universal point of view but only accepted as personal choice. Now, the sexual tastes/perversions of everyone are only his business, but impelling moral claims to be considered absolutely normal is ridiculous.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
