Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
"Don't have to, the various states already voted on it."

Well, you're argument was that it wasn't a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT. I've shown that it is under the US constitution. So now you're backing away from your own argument ? In other words - you're wrong yet again ?


***************************************************************

So, when did you become a religious fanatic ?

---

Quote:

---

It's the intentional obtuseness of you two's idiotic replies which is so damn bewildering. I make the point as clear for anyone w/ 1/ 100th a brain to comprehend, yet you continue w/ the sad lunacy.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
"Don't have to, the various states already voted on it."

Well, you're argument was that it wasn't a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT. I've shown that it is under the US constitution. So now you're backing away from your own argument ? In other words - you're wrong yet again ?


***************************************************************

---

Quote:

---

silly sig. There never was, nor ever will be any such thing as a " pregnant man " .

IT was born a woman, and no matter how much cutting, implanting and chemical alteration, IT will always have the inner workings / plumbing/ sexual organs of a female.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

silly sig. There never was, nor ever will be any such thing as a " pregnant man " .

IT was born a woman, and no matter how much cutting, implanting and chemical alteration, IT will always have the inner workings / plumbing/ sexual organs of a female.

---

In that case, you have a woman married to... a woman!

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Rap

Why did you evade such a simple question ?

Marriage is a BASIC right according to the US Supreme Court - yes or no ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Don't have to, the various states already voted on it. Deal w/ it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MalBadInLatin:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Don't have to, the various states already voted on it. Deal w/ it.

---

The more complex, detailed, substantiated, and logical the arguments against you become...the more defensive, short, and pedestrian your responses become. You remind me of a misbehaving child being cornered then saying "I didn't do anything". This is because you're wrong, and you don't own your argument, it's a pieced together diatribe of answers given to shore up small parts of a larger extremely flawed concept that you really seem to have no overview of.

You need to distinguish what the difference between correct and incorrect feels like in your head.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MalBadInLatin:
You need to distinguish what the difference between correct and incorrect feels like in your head.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Well, I have things to do.

I suspect Rap is going to let this die just like all the other threads where he's wrong, oddly enough, yet again ...

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

---

Quote:

---

Getting Past the Arguments for Same Sex Marriage
October 21, 2008
I had a lively debate on Twitter about same sex marriage the other night. I can refute every argument against Same Sex Marriage with facts. It’s time America got past the silly nonsense of denying an entire group of Americans the right to marry.

I call it a right because there are over 1400 benefits (state and federal) that are afforded by the government to a married couple. While some couples make their wedding a church/religious affair, marriage is first and foremost a government granted right. If it wasn’t you wouldn’t need a state certified marriage license. The church would simply write down your marriage if only ordained by the church.

The Declaration of Independence promised all Americans the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These are three inalienable rights afforded to all Americans. Marriage is another of those inalienable rights. It is unconstitutional for any government (state, local, federal or otherwise) to deny anyone the right to marry, who is over the age of consent and unrelated. So, why are so many people against Same Sex Marriage?

1. Fear - People fear the unknown. They don’t understand same-sex relationships, so they’re quick to dismiss them as legit or logical. A same-sex relationship is actually quite similar to a heterosexual relationship. Same-sex couples eat meals together, spend time together, share bills and buy household necessities together, raise children together, buy/build/design a home together, participate in hobbies together, etc. It’s really not very different than any other relationship save for the intimacy involved and even then, it’s fairly similar.

I’ve found that educating others, especially those opposed to same-sex marriage, who don’t know a single gay person, has changed many views. Speaking from experience, being GLBT is not a choice. It’s who the person is, and nothing has ever been proven to change GLBT individuals, not even “reparative” therapies or “get rid of the gay” camps. Not even the church can make a GLBT person non-GLBT. They just make the person a liar.

2. The Bible says it’s bad. Which Bible have you been reading? I’ve read many a Bible and most of the English translations make a mockery of the original Bible. The original Bible was written in Ancient Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew. Before quoting the actual Bible, I recommend people learn Ancient Greek (Open Texture has an excellent program, which uses authentic Bible text - free of English-translated dogma). You can find various places online to learn Hebrew, and I’m sure Aramaic as well.

Then you can go to websites like Codex Sinaiticus to translate the various Ancient Bibles out there yourself.

I can tell you for a fact, there was no mention of homosexuality in the original Bible. There wasn’t even a word for homosexuality until the 1800s. What the Bible did refer to was, the “pagan” temple slaves/prostitutes. These men were condemned. They participated in orgies that celebrated the Gods and yes that included homosexual orgies. The term associated with this was to’ebah, which is often translated as an abomination or a detestable act.

It’s not hard to imagine early Christians condemning this. They believed polytheistic orgies were detestable. Christianity has always been a relatively prudish religion. However, the Christians were paranoid about the polytheists, in particular. The systematic elimination of polytheistic practices (including the subsequent rape of women and murder of men - in order to cleanse the world of polytheists and convert the non-believers) was due to polytheism’s threat to Christianity. For centuries, the Christians feared the resurrection of polytheism, and condemnation of polytheist acts, including temple prostitution and “divinity inspired orgies,” is to be expected.

In the Bible, these male temple prostitutes/slaves are referred to as qadesh. This has been mistranslated to mean homosexual. How would the Ancients have meant qadesh for homosexual when homosexual wasn’t even a word then? It’s clear that the Bible was condemning the temple prostitutes (qadesh) and their orgies as an abomination (to’ebah) and therefore, there is not a SINGLE mention of homosexuality or its condemnation in the Bible.

The Ancient world didn’t have this bias towards homosexuality that we have.

3. Marriage has always been traditionally heterosexual. We cannot change the institution of marriage from what it has always been.

Not so. Actually, many Ancient cultures celebrated same-sex marriages/ceremonies. The Ancient Chinese dynasties, many African tribal groups, the Ancient Greeks, the Ancient Romans, the Ancient Egyptians, early Native Americans, and many other groups celebrated not only same-sex ceremonies, but these were a normal, every day occurrence in these cultures. Transgenderism has also been documented as far back as Ancient Africa, but that’s neither here nor there in the same-sex marriage debate.

Heterosexual marriage, in its earliest sense, was considered a contract between a heterosexual couple. It was said, in some Ancient civilizations, a man coupled with a woman for wealth/status/to continue the family line and coupled with a man for affection and companionship. This makes perfect sense when you look at past examples, such as the blatantly bisexual, Alexander the Great. Alexander married more than once, for status’ sake and to bear a child. He was the lover of Hephaestion because they cared for one another and were each others’ best companions, along the same grain as Achilles and Patroclus (and no Troy fans, he was not Achilles’ cousin!).

Over the years, the lines have blurred for what is “traditional” and what is “marriage,” especially for heterosexual couples. Where once, men only married women to have children, gain status and wealth or other gains (such as a better job - upward mobility), eventually, couples started marrying for love. In some cultures, women are still married off for status/birthing purposes. This “marriage for love” thing is only a relatively new practice, perhaps only in the past 100-200 years with occasional instances of “heroic love stories” occurring before then (you know, the stuff legends are made of).

If you think that we should keep heterosexual marriage traditional, then we need to remember what traditional marriage was:

-a father chooses/sells their daughter’s suitor
-the woman might not even meet her husband until the day of the wedding
-men have the right to marry multiple women (as shown in many Ancient texts, including the Bible)
-men seek wives for status/wealth
-the father of a wealthy male has say in who his son marries
-marriage for love can get a man/woman kicked out of a family (disowned)
-women must obey men unquestioningly
-women stay home to raise/bear children, cook meals, clean house, etc.
-a man can take a woman (his wife) sexually whenever he wants and it will never be considered rape
-many men were also involved in pederastic relationships (on the side)

You see, the tradition of marriage, in ANY form has changed drastically. Traditional marriage would be impossible to impose upon our current culture, so why try to make up an ideal for “traditional” marriage when there is no logical tradition in this culture?

All of the arguments against same sex marriage are silly and frivolous. People need to get over themselves, know the facts, and realize there is absolutely no reason to deny loving couples, of any gender, the right to marriage as long as it is consensual and between two non-related adults.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
will these boards still retain their vitriol?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:


Marriage means 1 man + 1 woman. dork.


Gays CAN marry the opposite sex, just as anyone else can. EXACT same rights, pal.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Words mean things. By diluting what the word 'marriage ' means, and all that it implies, it cheapens what marriage is, and for what ? To placate a very tiny, noisy and often violent minority, just becaus they say so ? Sorry, but sometimes you can't get what you want, merely because you want it. Gays can unite, join, partner, live with, what ever the hell you want to call it, getting all the benefits of those who marry, but it's still not a marriage. Why is that such a big deal ? No one is denying anyone's right here, nor is anyone keeping 2 people a part , not in the least. Just don't call it marriage, because it's NOT a marriage.

There's nothing 'mean' here, what so ever. It's a simple acknowledgement of the facts, as they are, and nothing else. Celebrate your life with whom ever you want, and if you're lucky to find someone to share it with, by all means, have at it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Words mean things. By diluting what the word 'marriage ' means, and all that it implies, it cheapens what marriage is, and for what ? To placate a very tiny, noisy and often violent minority, just becaus they say so ? Sorry, but sometimes you can't get what you want, merely because you want it. Gays can unite, join, partner, live with, what ever the hell you want to call it, getting all the benefits of those who marry, but it's still not a marriage. Why is that such a big deal ? No one is denying anyone's right here, nor is anyone keeping 2 people a part , not in the least. Just don't call it marriage, because it's NOT a marriage.

There's nothing 'mean' here, what so ever. It's a simple acknowledgement of the facts, as they are, and nothing else. Celebrate your life with whom ever you want, and if you're lucky to find someone to share it with, by all means, have at it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:

I don't think anyone here really thinks that you are against granting gays equal rights.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Frem:

On the Osama thing (him being all morbid and corpsified and all), I don't doubt that he's croaked it, shuffled off this mortal coil, and all that, but I'd really like some confirmation, just for closure, if you will...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Find me that federal definition. Go, boy ! Fetch !

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:

I don't think anyone here really thinks that you are against granting gays equal rights.

---

...raises hand...

Actually, that is EXACTLY what I think this is about.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Find me that federal definition. Go, boy ! Fetch !

---

There is the Defense of Marriage Act signed by Bill Clinton.

But the Court in the Virginia case used the word "marriage". Anytime a court uses a term that is not specifically defined in the law then you must delve into the realm of common law for a definition. Marriage has always been defined as one man, one woman.

Here is the common law definition...short version...marriage is a contract between a free man and free woman to live their lives in the union that which exists between husband and wives. They must be free, meaning neither slaves, nor already married. They must be able to contract, meaning no minors (without parental permission), no mental infirmaty, sober (except in Vegas), etc. No force or fraud. No immediate family or first cousins (except in West Virginia). There are some other cool things like consumation and vows and such and of course the legal effects, but you get the point.

H

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I don't think anyone here really thinks that you are against granting gays equal rights. That's not what this is about.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
Here is the common law definition...(...) They must be free, meaning neither slaves, nor already married. They must be able to contract, meaning no minors (without parental permission), no mental infirmaty, sober (except in Vegas), etc.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I don't think anyone here really thinks that you are against granting gays equal rights. That's not what this is about.

---

Gay folks already have an equal right to marry.

A gay man is as free to marry a woman as a straight man. Likewise a straight man is barred from entering into a same-sex marriage.

There is no discrimination here, hence no need for additional legislative or judicial protection. The rule is neutral in construction and applies to all persons, not just gay folks.

H

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:

Where does one find this definiton of the common law marriage? I tried wikipedia but it doesn't mention "man & woman".

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Is that like saying white people and black people were equally discriminated from marrying each other?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Is that like saying white people and black people were equally discriminated from marrying each other?

---

No. Its not like that at all. The black/white issue was one of erasing the distinction between black and white. There is no such distinction here. It is a common mistake to see the gay rights movement as somehow related to Civil rights, legally however, there is no connection.

In this case ALL sides are equally barred from same-sex marriage.

H

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:

But isn't this missing the conflict: that heterosexuality and homosexuality are viewed as being distinct - in nature and value. It's not a discrimination of wording but a discrimination of.. spirit, if you will. Homosexual relationships, by being barred from marriage, are being distinguished from heterosexual ones.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Good luck with teachin him that, since several years of harsh realities have failed to.

---