Has Anyone Made a Convincing Argument against Gays getting married yet?

[Dari]

If so, I'd like to hear it.

The real issue here is, aside from outright bigotry, why would gay marriages destroy an ancient institution when the fact that gays wanting to get married re-inforces the importance of that very institution?

 

[Red Dawn]

The only one I can think of is that it's not legal.

 

[BugsBunny1078]

Plenty of gays get married. As long as they can suppress their desire to engage in sex outside their marriage and especially with persons of the same sex then there is no reason not to.Michael Jackson got married and I guess that didn't work out too well but it lasted about as long as many other Hollywood marriages. But yeh just because you are gay does not mean you cannot commit to a person of the opposite sex for life and it should be encouraged.
Also some people need to understand that marriage means a civil union between a man and a woman. That is just the definition of the word. If gayswant to have civil unions with others of the same sex I don't have a problem with that . Just don't call it marriage because it isn't and it never will be. Stop using the B word too that is divisive and you will provoke strong anti gay feelings if you don't.

 

[chess9]

Bugs:

Definitions have a funny way of slipping out of our hands and into the hands of those who aren't true believers.

WMD now means "an intent to create WMD".

If your world is built around the stability of word definitions you will need a prescription for some serious psychotropric drugs!

-Robert

 

[Dman877]

And conservatives used to care about money... I agree, definitions are fleeting these days.

 

[XZeroII]

Has anyone made a convincing argument for electing Kerry? No, but liberals still say they are going to do it...

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Has anyone made a convincing argument for electing Kerry? No, but liberals still say they are going to do it...

Well speaking as a Moderate I think the best and most convincing argument is that if Kerry's elected Ashcroft and the Dub's merry band of neocons would no longer be in charge of running this country. I also think that with a Republican Congress and a Democrat in the Executive Office the deficit would go down because the Republican Congress would revert back to being fiscally responsible.

 

[conjur]

There have been no convincing arguments about preventing gays from being married.

They key points of contention are:

1) Marriage - the definition (puh-leeze...lame-ass excuse...give them civil unions but don't call it a marrage. Ok, fine, you politically correct bigots)
2) It's against God and the Bible (Who fvcking cares? Not everyone in this country is a Christian. Stop ramming your Christian beliefs down everyone's throat)
3) Next will be polygamy and bestiality (both slippery slope arguments easily refuted)

Soo...that leaves us with....hmm...nothing!

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Has anyone made a convincing argument for electing Kerry? No, but liberals still say they are going to do it...

Well speaking as a Moderate I think the best and most convincing argument is that if Kerry's elected Ashcroft and the Dub's merry band of neocons would no longer be in charge of running this country. I also think that with a Republican Congress and a Democrat in the Executive Office the deficit would go down because the Republican Congress would revert back to being fiscally responsible.

1. Electing Kerry in just to smite Bush is stupid. They think that anyone will be better than Bush, until they get their man elected.
2. Ok, fine. Make up your mind already. What do you want? Do you want a big depression with huge unemployment, or do you want a deficit? Those are your options. Liberals made a huge deal about the economy, so we went with the deficit idea and now they complain about that.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: conjur
There have been no convincing arguments about preventing gays from being married.

They key points of contention are:

1) Marriage - the definition (puh-leeze...lame-ass excuse...give them civil unions but don't call it a marrage. Ok, fine, you politically correct bigots)
2) It's against God and the Bible (Who fvcking cares? Not everyone in this country is a Christian. Stop ramming your Christian beliefs down everyone's throat)
3) Next will be polygamy and bestiality (both slippery slope arguments easily refuted)

Soo...that leaves us with....hmm...nothing!

1. Marriage is a religious thing. Basically you are just spitting in the face of religious people.
2. Stop ramming your athiest views on us Christians. I CARE. Once again, marriage is a religious thing, so if you are not religious, you have no reason to get married anyway. You should be arguing that marriage should not be recognized by our gov't because everything religious should be done away with within our gov't.
3. Sometimes slippery slop actually occurs. After all, what's to stop polygamy and bestiality? Your exact arguments can easily be used to allow them.

 

[LadyJessica]

1. Marriage is a religious thing. Basically you are just spitting in the face of religious people.

So why does the US government recognize marriage? If it was a religious thing, then people would have their ceremonies and not go sign government documents later.

2. Stop ramming your athiest views on us Christians. I CARE. Once again, marriage is a religious thing, so if you are not religious, you have no reason to get married anyway. You should be arguing that marriage should not be recognized by our gov't because everything religious should be done away with within our gov't.

yes

3. Sometimes slippery slop actually occurs. After all, what's to stop polygamy and bestiality? Your exact arguments can easily be used to allow them.

What's wrong with bestiality? I personally like horses

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Has anyone made a convincing argument for electing Kerry? No, but liberals still say they are going to do it...

Well speaking as a Moderate I think the best and most convincing argument is that if Kerry's elected Ashcroft and the Dub's merry band of neocons would no longer be in charge of running this country. I also think that with a Republican Congress and a Democrat in the Executive Office the deficit would go down because the Republican Congress would revert back to being fiscally responsible.

1. Electing Kerry in just to smite Bush is stupid. They think that anyone will be better than Bush, until they get their man elected.

To smite Bush? How about to rid the Federal Government of the influence of the Neocons who used deciet and duplicity to Buffalo the American Public into supporting the invasion and occupation for the Dub's excellent adventure in Iraq?

2. Ok, fine. Make up your mind already. What do you want? Do you want a big depression with huge unemployment, or do you want a deficit? Those are your options. Liberals made a huge deal about the economy, so we went with the deficit idea and now they complain about that.

Yeah right, like the Republican Congress went on a spending spree just to coddle the Liberals! WIth the Dub in the Whitehouse its party time for the Republican Congress who are spending money like Ted Kennedy at Cocktail Hour!

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: LadyJessica

1. Marriage is a religious thing. Basically you are just spitting in the face of religious people.

So why does the US government recognize marriage? If it was a religious thing, then people would have their ceremonies and not go sign government documents later.

2. Stop ramming your athiest views on us Christians. I CARE. Once again, marriage is a religious thing, so if you are not religious, you have no reason to get married anyway. You should be arguing that marriage should not be recognized by our gov't because everything religious should be done away with within our gov't.

yes

3. Sometimes slippery slop actually occurs. After all, what's to stop polygamy and bestiality? Your exact arguments can easily be used to allow them.

What's wrong with bestiality? I personally like horses

1. I don't know. Maybe it's for the tax benefits (costs)
2. ok
3. That's what I'm saying.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: conjur
There have been no convincing arguments about preventing gays from being married.

They key points of contention are:

1) Marriage - the definition (puh-leeze...lame-ass excuse...give them civil unions but don't call it a marrage. Ok, fine, you politically correct bigots)
2) It's against God and the Bible (Who fvcking cares? Not everyone in this country is a Christian. Stop ramming your Christian beliefs down everyone's throat)
3) Next will be polygamy and bestiality (both slippery slope arguments easily refuted)

Soo...that leaves us with....hmm...nothing!

1. Marriage is a religious thing. Basically you are just spitting in the face of religious people.

If that's the case, then why do marriage ceremonies in this country not require a priest? Why can atheists get married? The religious aspect of marriages is a subset of the institution of marriage. Christians don't hold a monopoly on love and commitment, although they like to think they do.

2. Stop ramming your athiest views on us Christians. I CARE. Once again, marriage is a religious thing, so if you are not religious, you have no reason to get married anyway. You should be arguing that marriage should not be recognized by our gov't because everything religious should be done away with within our gov't.

Again, you're wrong. The totality of the institution of marriage is beyond just religious. The Religious aspect is a subset. And, our country's laws are not based upon Christian dogma. You don't like it? Leave and start your own country with the state-mandated religion being Christianity.

3. Sometimes slippery slop actually occurs. After all, what's to stop polygamy and bestiality? Your exact arguments can easily be used to allow them.

Again, you head down a path that's been beaten to death and disproven. You're grasping at straws as you have no foundation for your arguments other than bigotry again homosexuals.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Has anyone made a convincing argument for electing Kerry? No, but liberals still say they are going to do it...

Well speaking as a Moderate I think the best and most convincing argument is that if Kerry's elected Ashcroft and the Dub's merry band of neocons would no longer be in charge of running this country. I also think that with a Republican Congress and a Democrat in the Executive Office the deficit would go down because the Republican Congress would revert back to being fiscally responsible.

If any Democrat is selected they are gone. I mean he is a better pick than Howard Dean, but Good Lord can't they do a little better. That's almost as bad as the Republicans throwing up Bill Simon to run against Gray Davis

It offends the uptight and anal retentive and therefore must be evil and banned. We have a born again bible thumper in charge

Good enough?

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Has anyone made a convincing argument for electing Kerry? No, but liberals still say they are going to do it...

Well speaking as a Moderate I think the best and most convincing argument is that if Kerry's elected Ashcroft and the Dub's merry band of neocons would no longer be in charge of running this country. I also think that with a Republican Congress and a Democrat in the Executive Office the deficit would go down because the Republican Congress would revert back to being fiscally responsible.

1. Electing Kerry in just to smite Bush is stupid. They think that anyone will be better than Bush, until they get their man elected.

To smite Bush? How about to rid the Federal Government of the influence of the Neocons who used deciet and duplicity to Buffalo the American Public into supporting the invasion and occupation for the Dub's excellent adventure in Iraq?

2. Ok, fine. Make up your mind already. What do you want? Do you want a big depression with huge unemployment, or do you want a deficit? Those are your options. Liberals made a huge deal about the economy, so we went with the deficit idea and now they complain about that.

Yeah right, like the Republican Congress went on a spending spree just to coddle the Liberals! WIth the Dub in the Whitehouse its party time for the Republican Congress who are spending money like Ted Kennedy at Cocktail Hour!

I doubt you'll see any neocons (or their policies) in the next Bush Administration. They're all fleeing back to the Democratic Party.

Besides, Kerry doesn't care about deficit reduction. Bush has promised to do something about it, Kerry hasn't.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: conjur
There have been no convincing arguments about preventing gays from being married.

They key points of contention are:

1) Marriage - the definition (puh-leeze...lame-ass excuse...give them civil unions but don't call it a marrage. Ok, fine, you politically correct bigots)
2) It's against God and the Bible (Who fvcking cares? Not everyone in this country is a Christian. Stop ramming your Christian beliefs down everyone's throat)
3) Next will be polygamy and bestiality (both slippery slope arguments easily refuted)

Soo...that leaves us with....hmm...nothing!

1. Marriage is a religious thing. Basically you are just spitting in the face of religious people.

If that's the case, then why do marriage ceremonies in this country not require a priest? Why can atheists get married? The religious aspect of marriages is a subset of the institution of marriage. Christians don't hold a monopoly on love and commitment, although they like to think they do.

2. Stop ramming your athiest views on us Christians. I CARE. Once again, marriage is a religious thing, so if you are not religious, you have no reason to get married anyway. You should be arguing that marriage should not be recognized by our gov't because everything religious should be done away with within our gov't.

Again, you're wrong. The totality of the institution of marriage is beyond just religious. The Religious aspect is a subset. And, our country's laws are not based upon Christian dogma. You don't like it? Leave and start your own country with the state-mandated religion being Christianity.

3. Sometimes slippery slop actually occurs. After all, what's to stop polygamy and bestiality? Your exact arguments can easily be used to allow them.

Again, you head down a path that's been beaten to death and disproven. You're grasping at straws as you have no foundation for your arguments other than bigotry again homosexuals.

Our gov't WAS founded on religious grounds. Thus they adopted marriage as a legal thing. Over time, people just forgot about the religious part and focused simply on the legal part.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: conjur
There have been no convincing arguments about preventing gays from being married.

They key points of contention are:

1) Marriage - the definition (puh-leeze...lame-ass excuse...give them civil unions but don't call it a marrage. Ok, fine, you politically correct bigots)
2) It's against God and the Bible (Who fvcking cares? Not everyone in this country is a Christian. Stop ramming your Christian beliefs down everyone's throat)
3) Next will be polygamy and bestiality (both slippery slope arguments easily refuted)

Soo...that leaves us with....hmm...nothing!

1. Marriage is a religious thing. Basically you are just spitting in the face of religious people.

If that's the case, then why do marriage ceremonies in this country not require a priest? Why can atheists get married? The religious aspect of marriages is a subset of the institution of marriage. Christians don't hold a monopoly on love and commitment, although they like to think they do.

2. Stop ramming your athiest views on us Christians. I CARE. Once again, marriage is a religious thing, so if you are not religious, you have no reason to get married anyway. You should be arguing that marriage should not be recognized by our gov't because everything religious should be done away with within our gov't.

Again, you're wrong. The totality of the institution of marriage is beyond just religious. The Religious aspect is a subset. And, our country's laws are not based upon Christian dogma. You don't like it? Leave and start your own country with the state-mandated religion being Christianity.

3. Sometimes slippery slop actually occurs. After all, what's to stop polygamy and bestiality? Your exact arguments can easily be used to allow them.

Again, you head down a path that's been beaten to death and disproven. You're grasping at straws as you have no foundation for your arguments other than bigotry again homosexuals.

Our gov't WAS founded on religious grounds. Thus they adopted marriage as a legal thing. Over time, people just forgot about the religious part and focused simply on the legal part.

No, people didn't stop focusing on the religious part. If we did, it's a good thing.

I suppose you'd rather go back to Puritans and book-burnings and burning witches at the stake?

BTW, answer my other questions, please.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Has anyone made a convincing argument for electing Kerry? No, but liberals still say they are going to do it...

Well speaking as a Moderate I think the best and most convincing argument is that if Kerry's elected Ashcroft and the Dub's merry band of neocons would no longer be in charge of running this country. I also think that with a Republican Congress and a Democrat in the Executive Office the deficit would go down because the Republican Congress would revert back to being fiscally responsible.

If any Democrat is selected they are gone. I mean he is a better pick than Howard Dean, but Good Lord can't they do a little better. That's almost as bad as the Republicans throwing up Bill Simon to run against Gray Davis

If it was someone like John McCain then Kerry would be outclassed but we are talking about the Dub here, not some wily individual like Clinton who had a way with words[/quote]

It offends the uptight and anal retentive and therefore must be evil and banned.

Are you talking about Gay Marriage?

We have a born again bible thumper in charge

Good enough?

Nothing wrong with being a Christian, most Americans are Christian. The deal is that our leader shouldn't pander to the Ridiculous..err..Religious Right!

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: conjur
There have been no convincing arguments about preventing gays from being married.

They key points of contention are:

1) Marriage - the definition (puh-leeze...lame-ass excuse...give them civil unions but don't call it a marrage. Ok, fine, you politically correct bigots)
2) It's against God and the Bible (Who fvcking cares? Not everyone in this country is a Christian. Stop ramming your Christian beliefs down everyone's throat)
3) Next will be polygamy and bestiality (both slippery slope arguments easily refuted)

Soo...that leaves us with....hmm...nothing!

In all seriousness, how can the state allow same-sex marriage between two people, and prohibit marriage (of whatever sexes) between three or more people (polygamy)? Don't they have that right also?

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

1. Marriage is a religious thing. Basically you are just spitting in the face of religious people.

Marriage laws were known first in ancient Egypt. The goddess Isis was the one who had marriage under her portfolio.
Do you want to acknowledge the ancient Egyptian gods as existing, or do you just follow their rituals?

P.S. Marriage was mostly for social and economical reasons there too.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: conjur
There have been no convincing arguments about preventing gays from being married.

They key points of contention are:

1) Marriage - the definition (puh-leeze...lame-ass excuse...give them civil unions but don't call it a marrage. Ok, fine, you politically correct bigots)
2) It's against God and the Bible (Who fvcking cares? Not everyone in this country is a Christian. Stop ramming your Christian beliefs down everyone's throat)
3) Next will be polygamy and bestiality (both slippery slope arguments easily refuted)

Soo...that leaves us with....hmm...nothing!

In all seriousness, how can the state allow same-sex marriage between two people, and prohibit marriage (of whatever sexes) between three or more people (polygamy)? Don't they have that right also?

Simple.

Polygamy harms the family unit. The children will be deprived of nurture and love as the father (or mother) will be spending time with other families. Income from the bread-winner would be shared amongst multiple families, lowering their standard of living.

Look at the history of polygamy. Look at the cultures that support it now. Those treat women as second-class citizens or, worse, as property.

 

[chuckieland]

it's my humble opinion, so don't flame me
I don't think it's right to legalize marriage for people that are gay
my opinion on marriage =male and female
i think that it's true around the world regardless of race or religious or political system.
if people that are gay, and want the same thing, they should make they own vocab.
another words that define as same-sex marriage.
for example
if i heard a guy say i'm marry, i would think it's a girl that he marry
if i heard a guy say i'm "????" i would think of it's same sex partner.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: conjur
There have been no convincing arguments about preventing gays from being married.

They key points of contention are:

1) Marriage - the definition (puh-leeze...lame-ass excuse...give them civil unions but don't call it a marrage. Ok, fine, you politically correct bigots)
2) It's against God and the Bible (Who fvcking cares? Not everyone in this country is a Christian. Stop ramming your Christian beliefs down everyone's throat)
3) Next will be polygamy and bestiality (both slippery slope arguments easily refuted)

Soo...that leaves us with....hmm...nothing!

In all seriousness, how can the state allow same-sex marriage between two people, and prohibit marriage (of whatever sexes) between three or more people (polygamy)? Don't they have that right also?

Simple.

Polygamy harms the family unit. The children will be deprived of nurture and love as the father (or mother) will be spending time with other families. Income from the bread-winner would be shared amongst multiple families, lowering their standard of living.

Look at the history of polygamy. Look at the cultures that support it now. Those treat women as second-class citizens or, worse, as property.

Mormons are still doing it, right? I honestly think polygamy should be legalized for men in all 50 states. But that's just me.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: chuckieland
it's my humble opinion, so don't flame me
I don't think it's right to legalize marriage for people that are gay
my opinion on marriage =male and female
i think that it's true around the world regardless of race or religious or political system.
if people that are gay, and want the same thing, they should make they own vocab.
another words that define as same-sex marriage.
for example
if i heard a guy say i'm marry, i would think it's a girl that he marry
if i heard a guy say i'm "????" i would think of it's same sex partner.

So because of your confusion over the possible meaning of the word you think it should be outlawed? Come on Chuckie, you are better than that!