Shall we take bets on same-sex marriage? by Niki2

I think they'll strike down DOMA, and punt on Prop 8.

Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 28, 2013 10:43 AM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

^ Yup, what Story said.

DOMA doesn't work with Don't Ask, Don't Tell being thrown out. Under DOMA, the federal government is PROHIBITED from recognizing same-sex couples in the military, or when one of the couple is in the military. A soldier killed in action cannot leave any survivorship benefits, a soldier wounded in action cannot be visited by their spouse, etc.

I'm guessing DOMA will go.

The Supremes *may* toss the Prop 8 case out on standing, being that none of the parties who brought the lawsuit have proper standing to bring it, and cannot prove injury because of it being struck down.

Or they may decide to federalize it - take the provisions that led the appeals court to strike down Prop 8 and apply them nationwide at the federal level.

I would look for them to do the least bold option, and to do as little as they can on this. This isn't the Warren Court, after all...

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 28, 2013 12:13 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Well, I'm with both of you. Striking down DOMA doesn't "legalize" gay marriage, nor does punting on Prop. 8 (except in CA). For the same reasons Mike wrote, but in my opinion, for one more: They don't want to take a stand.

By the way, it appears we're not the only state regretting how "we" voted:

Quote:
The Columbus Dispatch poll shows that 54% of Ohioans now support legalizing same-sex marriage. Only 40% still oppose marriage equality. The poll numbers are nearly a complete reversal of same-sex marriage views since 62% of Ohio voters approved of a state constitutional amendment in 2004 banning same-sex couples from marrying.

Give it time, progress will win in the end, I say.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 28, 2013 1:11 PM

America loves a winner!

What about bets on incest marriage ? Polygamy ?

We want to change the meaning of marriage, why stop now ?

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 28, 2013 1:13 PM

Always count on rappy to come back with the dumbest possible talking point possible.

Have you grown enough spine to share wth us where precisely you got your "definition"? I doubt it.

Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 28, 2013 1:22 PM

MAL4PREZ

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

What about bets on incest marriage ? Polygamy ?

We want to change the meaning of marriage, why stop now ?

Says the tool who still can't tell two consenting adults from a cadre of adults or an adult and child or an adult and a horse. Is it really that hard? Obviously, it is for the Rap!

Hey Rappy - until you are capable of recognizing two consenting adults, you really ought to get into therapy. Or at least buy a second grade grammar book with pictures next to the nouns to help you out. And, for the love of TPTB, stay away from children, farm animals, and family members, lest your confusion get the best of you.

Anyway, back to adult conversation. I've been thinking that the SC will have an easy time striking down Prop 8, but will be more timid about making a statement regarding Federal Law.

However, the way things are going, and with another three months of this to come, I'm starting to guess that both Prop 8 and DOMA are goners. Roberts is pretty savvy about what his court will be remembered for, and making a decision that will be overturned in a very short time, and long remembered as the last vestige of a truly ugly and stupid bias, is not what he wants.

I sure hope I'm right!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 28, 2013 1:25 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Have you grown enough spine to share wth us where precisely you got your "definition"? I doubt it.

10,000 years of human social history.

Where do you get yours ?

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 28, 2013 1:29 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
Says the tool who still can't tell two consenting adults from a cadre of adults or an adult and child or an adult and a horse. Is it really that hard? Obviously, it is for the Rap!

Who are YOU to tell a cadre of adults they can't marry ? Or 2 adult siblings ( River and Simon, remember the out scene where she was " with child " ? LOL )

Quote:

Hey Rappy - until you are capable of recognizing two consenting adults, you really ought to get into therapy. Or at least buy a second grade grammar book with pictures next to the nouns to help you out. And, for the love of TPTB, stay away from children, farm animals, and family members, lest your confusion get the best of you.

Who says marriage must be two ? Why not 3 ? Or 7 ? Why do you HATE so much ? Bigot! Hater !

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 28, 2013 1:35 PM

MAL4PREZ

And still our resident tool can't tell a relationship between willing parties from one that victimizes and does harm...

To borrow from Niki:

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 28, 2013 1:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

What about bets on incest marriage ?

Georgia already allows first cousins to marry, so you should be covered.

Quote:
Polygamy ?

Polygamy was legal in parts of the U.S. well into the 19th Century.

Quote:
We want to change the meaning of marriage, why stop now ?

The fact that you can no longer trade your daughter for three goats and a cow means that we have already changed the meaning of marriage.

Do you actually get paid to be this stupid?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 28, 2013 1:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:
Have you grown enough spine to share wth us where precisely you got your "definition"? I doubt it.

10,000 years of human social history.

Where do you get yours ?

So... That would be a "No" for you, then.

Still can't show where this definition was codified in the last 10,000 years, eh?

Remember, Rappy: "Because I believe that" isn't a valid argument or debate point.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 28, 2013 1:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:
Have you grown enough spine to share wth us where precisely you got your "definition"? I doubt it.

10,000 years of human social history.

Wow.

We have reached a point where rappy has embraced stupdity so fully, that he doesn't even know the definition OF "definition".

Tradition (which has changed many times over said 10,000 years) isn't a "definition".

And I never claimed to have a definition, you blithering fuckwit.

Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 28, 2013 1:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Who says marriage must be two ? Why not 3 ? Or 7 ?

Who indeed?

I have no real problem with polygamy or polyamory, as long as all parties involved are consenting adults entering into said agreement without duress or coercion.

And your "10,000 years" of social evolution includes plenty enough instances where such practices were not only allowed, but often encouraged. In several places, they still are.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 28, 2013 1:45 PM

America loves a winner!

Why do you keep lying ?

can't tell a relationship between willing parties from one that victimizes and does harm ??

Never been my position, in the least.

Seriously, where the frak do you come up w/ this stuff ?

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 28, 2013 1:46 PM

For the benefit of the collossoly, amazingly stupid rappyboy:

Definition of definition (n)

bing.com · Bing Dictionary

def·i·ni·tion

[ dèff? nísh'n ]

1.meaning of word: a brief precise statement of what a word or expression means, e.g. in a dictionary
2.act of defining word: the act or process of defining what a word or expression means, e.g. in writing a dictionary
3.clarification: the act of describing or stating something clearly and unambiguously

Incorrectly repeating "its been like this fer 10,0000 years" meets none of these.

Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 28, 2013 1:48 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:
Have you grown enough spine to share wth us where precisely you got your "definition"? I doubt it.

10,000 years of human social history.

Wow.

We have reached a point where rappy has embraced stupdity so fully, that he doesn't even know the definition OF "definition".

Tradition (which has changed many times over said 10,000 years) isn't a "definition".

And yes, it's predominantly been 1 man + 1 woman. Maybe multiple women, but never ' gay" marriage.

Quote:

And I never claimed to have a definition, you blithering fuckwit.

So, you have none.

Crassic.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 28, 2013 1:51 PM

Yes, I admitted to not having something I NEVER CLAIMED I HAD.

Good for you. You actually got ONE FUCKING THING right!!

Okay, so to everyone with a brain (you can sit down rappy) lets move on, shall we. The fucktard has once again taken a thread where we were having a legitimate discussion, and turned it into yet another entry in his endless parade of his stupidity.

So, lets hijack this one back from the moron, shall we?

Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 28, 2013 1:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:
Have you grown enough spine to share wth us where precisely you got your "definition"? I doubt it.

10,000 years of human social history.

Wow.

We have reached a point where rappy has embraced stupdity so fully, that he doesn't even know the definition OF "definition".

Tradition (which has changed many times over said 10,000 years) isn't a "definition".

And yes, it's predominantly been 1 man + 1 woman. Maybe multiple women, but never ' gay" marriage.

*Never*? Are you sure about that?

You wouldn't happen to have any kind of cites to support that claim, would you?

Quote:

Quote:

And I never claimed to have a definition, you blithering fuckwit.

So, you have none.

Crassic.

See, you and Story *DO* have something in common! Well, except that he's not the one trying to convince everyone what the definition of marriage is.

You are. You're making an assertion, so the burden of proof is no you to back up your claim.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 28, 2013 2:10 PM

Rappy, remember when you made the claim that Islam is responsible for more deaths than any other religion in the last 500 years? Remember how you overstated your case and inflated the time span to something you really couldn't support with facts? Remember how easily I slapped you down by pointing out that Hitler was a Christian, and he had a much higher death count than all of "radical Islam" in the last 500 years?

You're doing it again. Are you sure you want to stick with that "10,000 years" figure? Want to modify it in any way?

Hokey-dokey. I'll play.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

http://www.datehookup.com/content-the-history-of-samesex-marriage.htm

http://www.gaychristian101.com/Gay-Marriage.html

We have Romans engaging in gay marriage ceremonies as recently as 342AD. It wasn't until CHRISTIANS outlawed the practice that it fell out of use among ancient people.

And we all know you don't support Christians making all the rules and deciding what you can and can't do. Right?

You say it never happened in 10,000 years of human social history, but it wasn't uncommon at all for more than 8000 of those years. In fact, it was only the rise of the Christian and Islamic religions that stigmatized the practice. Are you sure you're not trying to subject everyone to some kind of theocracy that you claim not to believe in?

So would you like to rethink your position? Reword your argument? Restate your case? Revise your numbers?

Or shall we just accept at face value that you really are as uninformed and misinformed as you appear to be?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 28, 2013 2:16 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Okay, so to everyone with a brain (you can sit down rappy) lets move on, shall we. The fucktard has once again taken a thread where we were having a legitimate discussion, and turned it into yet another entry in his endless parade of his stupidity.

So, lets hijack this one back from the moron, shall we?

I just love exposing you clowns for who you truly are.

What is 'legitimate' is only what you SAY is 'legitimate'. But when faced w/ seeing yourself in the mirror, you react like scared , angry monkeys, and start tossing your own poo around, because you just can NOT comprehend it all.

If there is no definition of marriage , at all, then why is anything I've said here met with such anger and personal vitriol ?

You can't deal with being intellectual honest, is why.

Nothing I've said is so much different than same sex " marriage ". Adult siblings, ( not dad and his pre teen daughter , as some have tried to imply ) or polygamy... the same exact objections YOU have for these sorts of " marriages " can be said for same sex " marriage ".

Absurd! Not natural! Sick! And why can't just be serious, and talk about the ISSUE!

I get it. It's too early for your mind to deal w/ such things. You're too fresh over just being able to grasp that you can " win " this gay marriage thing, you don't want to deal w/ the headache that's on the horizon. If we change the definition of marriage now , ( 1 man + 1 woman, as it's been for centuries ) what next ? If we can arbitrarily say it's ANY adult couple, but not really mean " ANY ", aren't we just being hypocrites ?

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 28, 2013 2:21 PM

So Rappy still has nothing on the thread topic, I've noticed.

No bets or guesses about what the SCOTUS will decide, Rap?

That's what this thread is about, remember?

Do you need a moment to zip up and quit thinking about your sister?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 28, 2013 2:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Okay, so to everyone with a brain (you can sit down rappy) lets move on, shall we. The fucktard has once again taken a thread where we were having a legitimate discussion, and turned it into yet another entry in his endless parade of his stupidity.

So, lets hijack this one back from the moron, shall we?

I just love exposing you clowns for who you truly are.

What is 'legitimate' is only what you SAY is 'legitimate'. But when faced w/ seeing yourself in the mirror, you react like scared , angry monkeys, and start tossing your own poo around, because you just can NOT comprehend it all.

If there is no definition of marriage , at all, then why is anything I've said here met with such anger and personal vitriol ?

Why indeed? You've yet to come up with a valid definition of marriage, or explain where you got the one you claim is the real definition.

Why won't you answer the question, Claire?

Instead, you launch into the slipperiest of slopes and start insinuating that if a man can marry a man, why then, a horse can marry a soapdish!

You've been shown where same-sex unions and ritualized ceremonies of marriage have occurred for thousands of years of that alleged "10,000 years of human social history" you prattle on about.

Quote:
1 man + 1 woman, as it's been for centuries

According to whom? You keep saying that, but you can't offer any cites to support it. I notice you've not shortened your claim from "10,000 years" to "centuries", though. Could it be you realized that you had it completely wrong?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 28, 2013 3:03 PM

MAL4PREZ

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
According to whom? You keep saying that, but you can't offer any cites to support it. I notice you've not shortened your claim from "10,000 years" to "centuries", though. Could it be you realized that you had it completely wrong?

LOL! No, he never will.

Just like he'll always stick with that "slippery slope" BS, that once gay marriage is legal then folks will be able marry their dogs. It kills me, that these fools can't grok "consenting adults".

BTW, I'm all right with polygamy if it happens in the "Moon is a Harsh Mistress" way, rather than the creepy "Preacher Enslaves Parish Girls" way.

Poor Rappy, though. He's parroted these lame arguments from his heroes at Faux news for so long. What will he do now that Orally and Gingrich have reversed course on gay marriage?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 28, 2013 3:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:

BTW, I'm all right with polygamy if it happens in the "Moon is a Harsh Mistress" way, rather than the creepy "Preacher Enslaves Parish Girls" way.

Exactly. Consenting adults, all entering into said agreement without coercion. In such cases, I don't care if it's one guy and six women, one woman and six men, six men and six women, a dozen women together, a dozen men together, or whatever. If it works for all involved, more power to 'em.

Rappy's trying to do the old reducto ad absurdum, trying to get everyone to recoil from the idea that marriage could be anything other than one-man-one-woman, but all he's really doing in reinforcing our position.

By the way, Rap, when you say "one man, one woman", I notice you don't specify that the man and woman be unrelated. So really, isn't your definition of marriage already incest-ready?

Or do you want to change your definition of marriage?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 28, 2013 3:57 PM

America loves a winner!

If it's on wikipedia, it must be right, huh Kwickie ?

Bonjour!

Random, anecdotal accounts of gays marrrying in the fashion that men and women have done, for thousands of years, doesn't make the case that you think it does.

Horse
In some parts of Celtic Ireland, sudan (often called "sacred kings") had to wed the local goddess of the land. A druidess was usually chosen to represent the land goddess as the king's wife, but one king in Donegal married a horse, a representative of their local goddess. [1]

May 1998 – The Jerry Springer Show had an episode titled "I Married a Horse!". The show was ultimately not aired by many stations on the planned date, apparently due to concerns about the acceptability of broadcasting an episode in which a man admitted to a long term emotional and sexual relationship of this kind. The man and his horse later participated in a British documentary on the subject.[1]

Dog

June 2003 – A nine year old Indian girl of the Santal (or 'Santhal') tribe of Khanyhan, near Calcutta was formally married to a dog, in order to ward off a bad omen. The wedding was attended by more than one hundred guests, who danced to the beating of drums and drank home-made liquor. The girl told Western press, "I have no regret in marrying the dog Bacchan. I am fond of the dog who moves around our locality (translation [sic])" and tribal elders added she was free to remarry a human in future as an adult.[2]

November 2007 – A man in southern India married a female dog in a traditional Hindu ceremony as an attempt to atone for stoning two other dogs to death – an act he believes cursed him. Selvakumar, 33, told the paper he had been suffering since he stoned two dogs to death and hung their bodies from a tree 15 years prior.[3]

February 2009 – An infant boy was married off to his neighbors' dog in eastern India by villagers who said it will stop the groom from being killed by wild animals. The boy will still be able to marry a human bride in the future without filing for divorce.[4]
November 2010 – A young Toowoomba, Queensland man tied the knot with his best friend – a five-year-old labrador.[5]

Goat

Main article: Sudanese goat marriage incident

February 2006 – A Sudanese man named Charles Tombe caught having sex with a neighbour's goat which was subsequently nicknamed Rose, was ordered by the council of elders to pay the neighbour a dowry of 15,000 Sudanese dinars ($75) and marry the animal.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human%E2%80%93animal_marriage#Historical_
cases

As you can see, humans marrying animals is a historical FACT. Only a matter of time before the right side of history leaves you homosapien + homosapien relics in the past.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 28, 2013 4:12 PM

Here is your statement from above:

"And yes, it's predominantly been 1 man + 1 woman. Maybe multiple women, but never ' gay" marriage."

Your words. "Never".

When you make such sweeping, blanket statements, all one need do is find ONE example to prove you 100% wrong.

By the way, I can't help but notice that in the same post in which you whine about Wiki as a source (one of three I cited), you yourself cite only one source: Wiki.

Bonjour, indeed, Rappé.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 28, 2013 4:15 PM

By the way, incestuous marriage is also a historical fact.

It fits in with your definition of marriage perfectly.

Go tell your sister!

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 28, 2013 7:54 PM

Quote:
As you can see, humans marrying animals is a historical FACT. Only a matter of time before the right side of history leaves you homosapien + homosapien relics in the past.

Thank you. You have just finally agreed with me that "one man one woman" marriage is not the defining end-all-be-all of marriage for the last 10,000 years.

Who are we to redefine things? We're Americans. Nations used to be ruled by Kings, who led by Divine Right, by being literally chosen by God, until we decided that we wanted to redefine how a country was run. So we did.

We had slaves for hundreds of years, and then one day we decided to redefine that relationship, and slavery was no more in this country because we said so and changed things to make it so.

Same-sex marriage causes no harm to you. It causes no harm to anyone. "Because it kills my boner to think of icky man-sex" isn't a valid reason to outlaw something; it's a valid reason for you not to participate in it, or to think about it, but not to legislate it out of existence for others. If your religion doesn't allow same-sex marriage, you don't have to get gay married. If your religion doesn't allow it and you want to get gay married, you can find a different religion.

Heck, even Rush Limbaugh now says it's "inevitable". And he's a guy who knows something about marriage - the one-man-four-women kind, that is.

Where were all the conservatives protesting his divorces in all his sham marriages? If you REALLY want to get into the discussion of what marriage "tradition" really is, doesn't it say something about " 'til death do you part"? Is Limbaugh dead? Is Gingrich? Was Reagan dead when he dumped Wife # 1 to cheat on her with Wife # 2?

If marriage is "one man, one woman", then it needs to be FOR LIFE, doesn't it? That's the way it always was, for thousands of years, right? Why do you want to redefine it to allow quickie divorces?

Oh, that's right: because marriage has never been something that everybody agrees on, all around the world. It doesn't HAVE an ironclad definition, despite your weak-kneed protestations to the contrary. You can't come up with a single argument that's based in fact, reason, and reality to defend your statements. As someone who supposedly has no gods and respects reason and science, how would you react to your arguments if someone else were making them?

The only argument you've really tried to make is the one Christians try to use, and have been using since they got Constantine to ban same-sex marriages in the Fourth Century. For an atheist, are you really sure you want to use the Christian position on this? And if so, how far are you willing to go? Shall we stone to death every woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night? Need we force rapists to marry their victims? Will we really execute people for committing adultery?

Is that what you're pushing for? If you want to go with the slippery slope argument, that's where you're headed.

And with that, dear sir, I bid you good morrow.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 29, 2013 4:00 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

I'll make you a deal Niki.... :)

I'll vote yes to same sex unions if you give me guns.

I was going to vote yes for both if they come up on my state's votes anyway.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 29, 2013 4:10 AM