Gay Marriage

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
And I've told you a thousand times. This isn't about gays. This is about changing the definition of marriage. They aren't denied any rights...they can still marry someone from the opposite sex just like I can. You can argue that we need a NEW right to marry members of the same sex, but you need to argue why it's a necessary right...and there's NO way you'll be able to come up with an argument that won't also apply to any and every other type of deviant relationship.

"Deviant" as you and most others use it is pejorative and judgemental. Stripped of its accusatory judgement, you, sir, are "deviant".

The blindingly overwhelming majority of Americans do not post on AnandTech. That is the norm amongst all Americans. You do. You, sir, deviate from the norm, and, as such, are denotatively, a "deviant".

Which brings us to the second bolded part of your reply, "This isn't about gays". Ooooooooooooh, yes, it IS, Sparky. One glance at the topic title, "Gay Marriage", simply tells you so. That you would come into a thread about Gay Marriage and say, "This isn't about gays" is telling and says volumes, you "deviant" AnandTech poster, you.

What does it say when you can't admit the true root of your objection?

 

[Sureshot324]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
My personal answer as I don't speak for "Rightys" as you so eloquently put it.

I hate the trend of accepting abberant behavior. I believe in informal standards, moral and ethical, for individuals and families. While I 100% do not want to force people legally to conform to those standards, I do want to protect their informal existence as a benchmark. I believe a society without them will decay.

So basically, change is bad?

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
And I've told you a thousand times. This isn't about gays. This is about changing the definition of marriage. They aren't denied any rights...they can still marry someone from the opposite sex just like I can. You can argue that we need a NEW right to marry members of the same sex, but you need to argue why it's a necessary right...and there's NO way you'll be able to come up with an argument that won't also apply to any and every other type of deviant relationship.

"Deviant" as you and most others use it is pejorative and judgemental. Stripped of its accusatory judgement, you, sir, are "deviant".

The blindingly overwhelming majority of Americans do not post on AnandTech. That is the norm amongst all Americans. You do. You, sir, deviate from the norm, and, as such, are denotatively, a "deviant".

That's exactly why I used the term. I'm not passing judgement...I'm just calling it deviant. Thanks for reminding me of the definitoin I already knew.. LOL...what...you thought you "had" me on something there?

More presumption and prejudgement by the open-minded and accepting liberals. :roll:

Which brings us to the second bolded part of your reply, "This isn't about gays". Ooooooooooooh, yes, it IS, Sparky. One glance at the topic title, "Gay Marriage", simply tells you so. That you would come into a thread about Gay Marriage and say, "This isn't about gays" is telling and says volumes, you "deviant" AnandTech poster, you.

What does it say when you can't admit the true root of your objection?

That's terrifically naiive of you to think the issue of gay marriage is confined solely to the issue itself. That's like somebody bringing up the economy in a taxes thread.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Sureshot324

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
My personal answer as I don't speak for "Rightys" as you so eloquently put it.

I hate the trend of accepting abberant behavior. I believe in informal standards, moral and ethical, for individuals and families. While I 100% do not want to force people legally to conform to those standards, I do want to protect their informal existence as a benchmark. I believe a society without them will decay.

So basically, change is bad?

Can be? Are you implying that all change is good?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Sureshot324

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
My personal answer as I don't speak for "Rightys" as you so eloquently put it.

I hate the trend of accepting abberant behavior. I believe in informal standards, moral and ethical, for individuals and families. While I 100% do not want to force people legally to conform to those standards, I do want to protect their informal existence as a benchmark. I believe a society without them will decay.

So basically, change is bad?

Can be? Are you implying that all change is good?

Are you saying that the right for homosexuals to marry never existed or that the interpretation has been that the right does not exist? We won't know the former until we are told by the USSC... and the latter, it seems to me differs from State to State.

 

[Sureshot324]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: InfectedMushroom

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: InfectedMushroom
Vic, my reply was for HoP who has demonstrated through his posts to be a bible thumper.
If you would note my post, I do say that I have no problem with people believing in some kind of god, but have a great problem with those who try to impose their god and their beliefs on me.

That's funny, I have a problem with people forcing their sexual perversions on society. What a coincidence.

Who have I "thumped" with my beliefs? If anybody is attacking others with their beliefs it's you. I'm sure the irony is lost though.

why do you care if 2 men or 2 women fvck each other? and how is that sexual perversion? how is the fact that they would like to have the same rights as a same sex couple imposing their way of life on you? you are the one imposing your views on them by telling them they have no such rights.
got it?

I don't care. They can do whatever they want. I'm not trying to change their life style. I just don't want them changing the current definition of marriage.

Get it yet? I'm not trying to change them...so I'm not forcing anything on them. They are trying to change marriage...they are trying to force their beliefs on society.

If gay marraige were legalized, you'd want to change it back to being illegal, so then wouldn't you be forcing your views on society?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Perknose
:thumbsup: To CAD the cunning bigot, the wily weasel of the well turned wriggle, who has spent the last several days and paragraph after paragraph after paragraph after paragraph after paragraph after paragraph trying to put a nice lawerly and legalistic face on his dead nuts desire to deny gay people the same simple access to the rights and priveleges ALL Americans should enjoy.

Actually, as I see it, he's trying to present arguments to the one-sided populus of this board. Rather that accept his gesture for what it is and actually think about the opposing points and present valid counter-arguments, you, and almost every other poster here, have chosen instead to hop up on an imaginary pedestal and, in a close-minded fashion resembling the greatest of bigots, spew nothing but insults and derogatory labels. It may make you feel "better" about yourself to erect villains and stone them, but it's unhealthy for your personal growth as well as the debate of the underlying issues at hand.

That's great Hero, but I have asked a thousand times why you all want to deny gays the same rights as you have.

And I've told you a thousand times. This isn't about gays. This is about changing the definition of marriage. They aren't denied any rights...they can still marry someone from the opposite sex just like I can. You can argue that we need a NEW right to marry members of the same sex, but you need to argue why it's a necessary right...and there's NO way you'll be able to come up with an argument that won't also apply to any and every other type of deviant relationship.

OK now tell me why the definition of marriage should not have been changed to allow blacks and whites to marry? Why should them deviant racial cross-pollinators be allowed to marry?

 

[Moonbeam]

Hehe, I care about ethics and standards so I don't want people in love to marry. Now aren't I a deep moral thinker? Baah Baaaaah Baaaaah

I wonder why God made Bonobo ape so gay and then turned around and made it our closect living relative? Must be a test to see how much sh!t I'll buy.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Hehe, I care about ethics and standards so I don't want people in love to marry. Now aren't I a deep moral thinker? Baah Baaaaah Baaaaah

I wonder why God made Bonobo ape so gay and then turned around and made it our closect living relative? Must be a test to see how much sh!t I'll buy.

The evolutionists would have a 'Field Day' with that one.

The Bonobo ain't really Gay... he just likes to play baseball and other sports with the boys while the girls go shoppin or do what ever it is that girls do when the boys go play.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Hehe, I care about ethics and standards so I don't want people in love to marry. Now aren't I a deep moral thinker? Baah Baaaaah Baaaaah

I wonder why God made Bonobo ape so gay and then turned around and made it our closect living relative? Must be a test to see how much sh!t I'll buy.

The evolutionists would have a 'Field Day' with that one.

The Bonobo ain't really Gay... he just likes to play baseball and other sports with the boys while the girls go shoppin or do what ever it is that girls do when the boys go play.

Looked more like didn't-quite-make-it-over leap-frog to me.

 

[FoBoT]

the missouri constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is passing by a WIDE margin, roughly 70% for and 30% against

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
the missouri constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is passing by a WIDE margin, roughly 70% for and 30% against

Yes it is truly impressive that thirty % of the people in a backward place like MO have the courage to vote for the benefit of others. There can be no doubt at all that bigotry is dying.

 

[Darkhawk28]

I live in MO and I'm certainly NOT proud of these results. Anonymous bigotry is just too easy.

 

[judasmachine]

I understand the religious wrangling going on here, but it's the STATE that is defining marriage, and it's supposed to be a democratic one. Not one that imposes exclusionary policies. Someday we will look back at this and compare it to the civil rights movement of the 20th century. Those who are against gay marriage will be looked up as those who forced blacks to the back of the bus.

 

[EXman]

Because it simply isn't neccessary Gays can marry in every state in the nation. It is just their lifestyle keeping from it. :beer:

Also I think MO is kinda the silent majority speaking out on common sense. Bigotry no more that the anti-Christian bigotry rampant here. :roll:

Flame away "Flaming" Liberals hehehe

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: EXman
Because it simply isn't neccessary Gays can marry in every state in the nation. It is just their lifestyle keeping from it. :beer:

Also I think MO is kinda the silent majority speaking out on common sense. Bigotry no more that the anti-Christian bigotry rampant here. :roll:

Flame away "Flaming" Liberals hehehe

The difference betweens Gays and the Fund A Mental Cases is that the Gays aren't telling others how they should live.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: EXman
Because it simply isn't neccessary Gays can marry in every state in the nation. It is just their lifestyle keeping from it. :beer:

Also I think MO is kinda the silent majority speaking out on common sense. Bigotry no more that the anti-Christian bigotry rampant here. :roll:

Flame away "Flaming" Liberals hehehe

The difference betweens Gays and the Fund A Mental Cases is that the Gays aren't telling others how they should live.

I hope you are joking...

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
The difference betweens Gays and the Fund A Mental Cases is that the Gays aren't telling others how they should live.

I hope you are joking...

Joking? No not at all. I've yet to see any Gay activists tell me how I should live my personal life. One definately can't say that about the Fund A Mental Cases. Take note, I'm not talking about your average Christian, I'm taking about the Lunatic Fringe of that Religion.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
The difference betweens Gays and the Fund A Mental Cases is that the Gays aren't telling others how they should live.

I hope you are joking...

Joking? No not at all. I've yet to see any Gay activists tell me how I should live my personal life. One definately can't say that about the Fund A Mental Cases. Take note, I'm not talking about your average Christian, I'm taking about the Lunatic Fringe of that Religion.

By telling us that we have to accept gay marriage it forces me in my personal life to redefine my marriage. And that is what the silent majority has shown for years and years in poll after poll. Also the proliferation of the "Gay Agenda" in the Liberal media effects what my children will be exposed to. Not that I cannot be a parent but the constant bombardment in the news and media. I'm not fringe not by a long shot, I live next to Fundy's and even I poke fun at some of their uberdated ways.

Remember Christians that are moderate are moderate not fringe!

 

[Darkhawk28]

Since when does the constitution, federal or state, have anything to do with what the majority wants? If that were the case, we'd have black-only schools, white-only schools, no interracial marriages, complete seperatism, rampant racism and Christianity forced down our throats. Anybody that denies this is fooling themselves.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
The difference betweens Gays and the Fund A Mental Cases is that the Gays aren't telling others how they should live.

I hope you are joking...

Joking? No not at all. I've yet to see any Gay activists tell me how I should live my personal life. One definately can't say that about the Fund A Mental Cases. Take note, I'm not talking about your average Christian, I'm taking about the Lunatic Fringe of that Religion.

Your problem, Red, is that you're not tempted every time you see a homosexual, but those poor fundie Christians have had their penis squeezed so tight by their religious sexual repression every time they see a gay they get excited. They can't help but feel that gays are calling them to join. They experience temptation and envy. Then the angel on their right shoulder pops up and says you're a bad boy. Then they have to flagellate themselves. It's not sex but it's better than what's in third place.

 

[piasabird]

No such thing as gay marriage. Gays can marry now, just not each other.

You silly gay people think the world revolves around you, you are so funny.

For 2,000 years we have known what marriage is and you want to change the definition.

That is just stupid.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: piasabird
No such thing as gay marriage. Gays can marry now, just not each other.

You silly gay people think the world revolves around you, you are so funny.

For 2,000 years we have known what marriage is and you want to change the definition.

That is just stupid.

For hundreds of years, blacks were slaves and that ended. So what's the difference? Intolerance and bigotry doesn't end, just chooses a new target. Someday, that bullseye will be on you in some form and then you'll understand what the gay community was saying to you.

Plus, I love how people call you gay when you defend a gay's argument. LOL, I'd rather be gay than a religious hypocrite.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: piasabird
No such thing as gay marriage. Gays can marry now, just not each other.

You silly gay people think the world revolves around you, you are so funny.

For 2,000 years we have known what marriage is and you want to change the definition.

That is just stupid.

For hundreds of years, blacks were slaves and that ended. So what's the difference? Intolerance and bigotry doesn't end, just chooses a new target. Someday, that bullseye will be on you in some form and then you'll understand what the gay community was saying to you.

Plus, I love how people call you gay when you defend a gay's argument. LOL, I'd rather be gay than a religious hypocrite.

Yup and for 2000 years the sun revolved around the center of the universe, the earth. Change is a bitch. Every change just makes me less and less important. Man I just hate that.

 

[Zebo]

Hero,
As an after thought and for what it is worth, I'm a Christian too.. have been since forever, I guess. But, my Christianity has as its fundamental objective entry in to the presence of Jesus in Heaven. It has not to do with anything here on Earth. That which is Caesar's is his... My God is interested in my Soul not what I did to insure the Gays do or don't get to be married. When asked how often I looked for the splinters in the eyes of folks, I'll answer that I tried as hard as I could to provide mirrors so they could see them, if they exist, by and for themselves. When asked if I loved my neighbor, I'll respond that I loved each and every one of them and worked to insure that no matter their view they had all that I sought for myself. When asked if I forgave all who harmed me, I'll respond that I never needed to forgive what others did to me cuz you did and who am I to argue with that.

Some may well have serious argument against 'gay marriage' based on all sorts of rationalization. But, the fact remains that marriage itself is not harmed by who gets married. The basic rights we enjoy are individual rights. That is my basic argument. The right to marry and garner the benefits consistent with the 'full faith ...' clause insures Colorado recognize Utah's law as it may pertain to a Citizen of Utah passing through Colorado. This is an individual right. Income tax is individual as is Social Security as is when one dies intestate. The ability for one to be automatically enabled for health care as next of kin or the other law regarding marriage.
We must treat all individuals as equal. To deny Betty the ability to marry just because the spouse's name is Joan is denial of the same right you have to Betty. I know I married a person with a girl name. What difference does my sex have to do with it?
By no reasonable measurement is the 'Union' that is created by 'Marriage' harmed by the partners so joined.

Great posts lunar.