I think the question at the end was legitimate, though the vid was just dumb really.
Is same-sex marriage really about providing a secure home and family, or is it about them trying to "make" people accept it?
It can't be about sex because they have sex without being married. I think the latter. I posted something in the other thread about the LBGT group fussing about the two guys NOT kissing in Modern Family.
They want to make this a normal part of society. The problem is that, forcing stuff on people has never worked. It just makes them more hostile against whatever is being "forced".
Just ask those who are tired of televangelists.
Children need loving parents of both sexes. Gay marriage has always rubbed me wrong because at its basis it asserts that there are no fundamental differences between the sexes.
It will never be normal, because it never has been normal.
I suggest you look up the definition of normal.
It would be nice for people to find it acceptable, but the fact is, that no one who supports the legality of gay marriage is trying to make anyone do anything. This is such a preposterous misinterpretation of the issue.
Has anyone tried to make you get a gay marriage? How about this:
If you don't want a gay marriage, then don't get one. Very fucking simple.
You can have your non-acceptance of it. You can't have the government's non-acceptance of it. The government is representative of everybody, not just you.Lol, idiot.
I wasn't even suggesting the notion of being forced into a gay marriage. Simple fact is, people who don't accept it are criticized no matter the reason they don't accept it.
That is what's stupid. In my eyes, they are just a human as I am.
It would also be nice if I could have my non- acceptance of it without being called names.
Lol, idiot.
I wasn't even suggesting the notion of being forced into a gay marriage. Simple fact is, people who don't accept it are criticized no matter the reason they don't accept it.
That is what's stupid. In my eyes, they are just a human as I am.
It would also be nice if I could have my non- acceptance of it without being called names.
Wow that is fucking disgusting.
LOL, good ad
that's my point: you are completely allowed to not accept it. Do you think, though, that people should be forced, by law, to be denied their civil liberty? No one is trying to force anyone to accept it. That's what I'm talking about.
You can have your non-acceptance of it. You can't have the government's non-acceptance of it. The government is representative of everybody, not just you.
"Where's your mommy?" is a natural question.
Marriage is between one man and one woman.
If a gay couple can give a child a loving and stable home, great.
Yep, it's between a man and woman who's father accepts two goats, a rooster, and a cow as payment.
What's that? We've redefined marriage since then? Oops.
How has it been redefined exactly?
It is still between a man and a woman. All that changed was the courting rituals. How does marriage change because the woman gets a diamond engagement ring instead of giving her father a goat?
EDIT: But at least you seem to implicitly be admitting that same-sex marriage is a redefinition of marriage. Its a start.
The word marriage has been redefined many times over the centuries. To think that this is the first or even the most radical is ignorant and turning a blind eye to history.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200505/marriage-history
The word marriage has been redefined many times over the centuries. To think that this is the first or even the most radical is ignorant and turning a blind eye to history.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200505/marriage-history
in the way that it preys on the most fundamentally ignorant among us, you are correct.
So lobbying/complaining that two guys aren't kissing on TV isn't forcing? As far as I know, there isn't any right to have anyone (homo/hetero) showing affection on TV.
Sure, I can change the channel, but what if I liked the show before I saw two men kissing?
For the record, I never watched it, but I read about them complaining about the lack of kissing, and when they got what they wanted, they were happy about it.
Like the millions of liberals who dont know it was made by hateful liberals looking to stir up hate? Among liberals?
wait...what are we talking about, here? I am not aware that I was responding to some specific issue regarding something happening on a TV show...
Something being "redefined" over history doesn't mean anything and doesn't change it's true definition.
All you are saying here is that it's been interpreted in ways it previously wasn't, which is always subjective.
I did not realize that test tube babies have existed since the "dawn of mankind".
And even today 2 men cannot procreate no matter how much science you throw at the problem.
Like the millions of liberals who dont know it was made by hateful liberals looking to stir up hate? Among liberals?
Like the millions of liberals who dont know it was made by hateful liberals looking to stir up hate? Among liberals?
Ah, I see you're unfamiliar with language. Let me help.
re·de·fine
1: to define (as a concept) again : reformulate <had to redefine their terms>
2a : to reexamine or reevaluate especially with a view to change
2b : transform
Something being "redefined" changes its definition. There's no "true" definition that stays current as something is redefined; there's just the definition that's been changed.
That said, what does the historic definition of marriage matter in regards to this issue? Is your only argument against gay marriage that it wasn't done in the past? Equal rights for women wasn't done in the past either; should we go back to traditional values on that as well? Democratic government wasn't done much in the past either. Perhaps we should get rid of that as well? An appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy that presumes that because something has been done a certain way in the past, that way is preferable. If someone can come up with demonstrable evidence that the old way is not preferable, the appeal to tradition is moot.
Restricting gay marriage prevents homosexual partners from enjoying government benefits that straight couples have access to, including tax incentives, next of kin delineation rights, visitation rights, insurance and retirement package benefits, and numerous other rights afforded straight married couples. Why is it OK to give these additional rights to heterosexual couples but not homosexual couples?
How in God's name did you get all that from just two sentences, unless you think you know what I am thinking, and I think you're wrong about what you think I'm thinking, but I think that you think you're right.
Like I've said in the past, I am glad I don't have to decide on these issues. It is not my wish to imposed my views, or the lack thereof, on others by writing them into law.
If I were in a government position and this was on my desk, I would simply request someone else make a ruling on it. I would not fight for
or against same-sex marriage. I don't agree with it, nor would I want to discriminate, so I wouldn't touch it period.
One thing I don't want to do is compromise what I believe to be right. If that makes me a monster, so be it. I'd rather not vote on such an issue than to rule against my conscience or to deprive others of what the law affords them.