The gay community is losing friends.

[DarkWizard12]

RealClearPolitics - Articles - The Gay Community is Losing Friends

discuss0r

 

[UtahBill]

very good article, hits all the points squarely....
Gays have all but the word marriage, and still are throwing hissy fits, and threatening others over the issue. I was never pro or con, didn't care, but their childish behavior has made me want to vote against them....should I ever get the chance.

 

[Thorgasm]

I don't buy the seperate but equal position.

 

[Renae]

I don't buy the seperate but equal position.

It's not, this isn't the 1960's.

Marriage is a word to describe a union formally recognized by the state, an/or church and society between a man and a woman.

People want to change that definition.

That's why even in Oregon, they lost. Hell they've NEVER won at the ballot box.

 

[Thorgasm]

It's not, this isn't the 1960's.

Marriage is a word to describe a union formally recognized by the state, an/or church and society between a man and a woman.

People want to change that definition.

That's why even in Oregon, they lost. Hell they've NEVER won at the ballot box.

Definitions change. Language evolves. The concept of marriage has evolved drastically despite it being exclusively for the Tab A fits into Slot B couples. You don't have to be in love to get married. You don't have to have kids. You don't have to even live together. You don't have to have sex with each other. You don't have to be monogamous.

So tell me, besides it feeling good, what does a penis and a vagina have to do with marriage really? What is so special that they should get special recognition of their relationship from the govt.? Right now that is the only qualification to get married.

Your argumentum ad populum argument doesn't move me.

 

[Hatuey]

It's not, this isn't the 1960's.

Marriage is a word to describe a union formally recognized by the state, an/or church and society between a man and a woman.

People want to change that definition.

That's why even in Oregon, they lost. Hell they've NEVER won at the ballot box.

Why can't the state recognize the union between two men? I get why the church wouldn't but why wouldn't a secular state recognize this?

 

[Renae]

Why can't the state recognize the union between two men? I get why the church wouldn't but why wouldn't a secular state recognize this?

Question, why should the state recognize this?

 

[1069]

The gay community is losing friends.

I seriously doubt this is the case, but even if it were, they will always have a staunch ally in me. Always.

 

[Hatuey]

Question, why should the state recognize this?

For the same reason it recognizes the union of a man and a woman as two adults coming together on an agreement that involves two consenting adults and nobody else. Now answer my question.

 

[jallman]

It's not, this isn't the 1960's.

Marriage is a word to describe a union formally recognized by the state, an/or church and society between a man and a woman.

People want to change that definition.

That's why even in Oregon, they lost. Hell they've NEVER won at the ballot box.

And it's a damned good thing they don't throw their hands up and give in to the discrimination in this area. While I disagree with gay marriage on religious grounds, I see absolutely no argument against it on secular grounds.

 

[jallman]

For the same reason it recognizes the union of a man and a woman as two adults coming together on an agreement that involves two consenting adults and nobody else. Now answer my question.

Cue the ploygamy, bestiality, and incest argument orchestra now...

Same old song and dance in 3...2...1....

 

[Renae]

Cue the ploygamy, bestiality, and incest argument orchestra now...

Same old song and dance in 3...2...1....

Cue legal case, if they win this case....

VANCOUVER, British Columbia - Canada's decision to legalize gay marriage has paved the way for polygamy to be legal as well, a defense lawyer said Wednesday as the two leaders of rival polygamous communities made their first court appearance.

The case is the first to test Canada's polygamy laws.

=-=

"If (homosexuals) can marry, what is the reason that public policy says one person can't marry more than one person?" said Suffredine, a former provincial lawmaker. Canada's Parliament extended full marriage rights to same-sex couples in 2005.

Canada polygamists' defense: Gay marriage - Americas- msnbc.com
Accused polygamist to use gay-marriage laws as defence

 

[jallman]

Cue legal case, if they win this case....


Canada polygamists' defense: Gay marriage - Americas- msnbc.com
Accused polygamist to use gay-marriage laws as defence

Which means what, exactly, to US law?

 

[Thorgasm]

What would really change if Hugh Hefner was married to all of his "girlfriends"?

 

[jallman]

What would really change if Hugh Hefner was married to all of his "girlfriends"?

That is beside the point. Our marriage law is built, time and again, on the precedent that marriage is a contract where one person names another to be "irreplaceable". (Perez)

Polygamy is ruled out by that precedent.

 

[Lightdemon]

Cue the polygamy, bestiality, and incest argument orchestra now...

Same old song and dance in 3...2...1....

Cue legal case, if they win this case....

Just wanted to say that Jallman called it, and you still did the same song. That was a fail. :neutral:

 

[Thorgasm]

That is beside the point. Our marriage law is built, time and again, on the precedent that marriage is a contract where one person names another to be "irreplaceable". (Perez)

Polygamy is ruled out by that precedent.

I agree. I just don't see the crime against society with it.

It's off topic so I won't carry on with this train of thought.

 

[jallman]

I agree. I just don't see the crime against society with it.

It's off topic so I won't carry on with this train of thought.

Something tells me whether you change gears and go back to the gay community supposedly "losing friends", the topic of polygamy will come up again and again like a skip on a scratched record.

 

[Thorgasm]

Something tells me whether you change gears and go back to the gay community supposedly "losing friends", the topic of polygamy will come up again and again like a skip on a scratched record.

Sadly, it always does.

 

[RightOfCenter]

Sadly, it always does.

I don't personally see what's wrong with polygamy.

 

[RightOfCenter]

I don't personally see what's wrong with polygamy.

To take it another step bestiality for that matter. We already raise and butcher them by the hundreds of thousands. A little sexual molestation probably wouldn't make their lives any worse.

 

[Alex]

Question, why should the state recognize this?

As long as marriage is a legal institution, the states must apply it equally to all persons.

The 14th Amendment:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Is marriage a legal institution?

 

[Alex]

Cue legal case, if they win this case....


Canada polygamists' defense: Gay marriage - Americas- msnbc.com
Accused polygamist to use gay-marriage laws as defence

As long as this involves consenting people, let it be.

 

[1069]

To take it another step pedophilia for that matter. We already raise and butcher them by the hundreds of thousands. A little sexual molestation probably wouldn't make their lives any worse.

Ah... do you mean "beastiality"?
I'm not aware that we're "raising and butchering" hundreds of thousands of children, unless this is some bombastic reference to abortion.

 

[RightOfCenter]

Ah... do you mean "beastiality"?
I'm not aware that we're "raising and butchering" hundreds of thousands of children, unless this is some bombastic reference to abortion.

Ha, oops, my bad. Yes, bestiality is what I meant.