For or Against Gay Marriage

I can remember when President Bush was re elected all the liberals and hollywood elite we going to move to Canada....

I am still hoping for that to happen but sadly it has not.......
 
Yep.



Nope. His coach did that.



My sister did that.



Yep

But I take it you missed my entire post about all the people teaching my son all kinRAB of things - outside of their stupid, restrictive, pointless gender roles. **gasp**



In a nutshell - no.

I may not teach my son how to insert a tampon - not that I mind he have the knowledge, just that it's pretty pointless.
 
Voice Of Reason said:
It's all that tired diversion deserves. I can't believe my gay marriage would have so much power over you, by getting you to marry your sister or 2 women, but your straight marriage wouldn't have the same kind of power over me.
Click to expand...
 
I agree, its not really about gay marriage.......Its really about having the gay lifestyle accepted as a suitable alternate lifestyle...........

Gay Marriage is just a red herring.........
 
Nothing at all. I am referencing that poster's tendency, in any argument, to claim that it all boils down to his subsidizing others in society, seeing himself in the role of the few responsible members burdened by the dregs.

On our point, I left off, as I take it you did too, mainly with the notion of "choice" as a fallacy, and even if not, unimportant as a evaluative reference.
 
Noone has a right to get married. One is granted the privilege of getting married by obtaining a marriage license. One must satisfy all the qualifications prior to getting a marriage license.

If it walks like a gay couple, talks like a gay couple and looks like a gay couple, why call it a married couple?


The solution is to pass laws in Congress granting all the rights now accorded to married couples to couples in gay/lesbian unions. There is still no need to call them "married".


You've hinted at making one point for me. Governments don't move to allow rights, they allow privileges that can just as easily be taken away.


I repeat, marriage is not a right.

Maybe you should refresh your familiarity with a common dictionary; husband: 1: a married man

It doesn't. Each child has one biological mother and one biological father. Children adopted in gay male homes have two father figures, children adopted into lesbian homes have two mother figures. One lesbian can look and act as manly as she wants. She's still not anyone's father.


I repeat: marriage is not a right.


Yes they did. If you're into creationism, read Genesis...see that men took wives and started families.

If you're into evolution, look at the animal kingdom. Males and females of many species mate for life. I doubt you'll find two males coupled for life any where but in a zoo.


Churches may do as they please within the law. Recognition of a gay/lesbian marriage by a church does make it legal. Nothing the churches do will automatically obligate the government to do likewise.

We have separate but nearly equal public toilet facilities. Are you saying we should go the route of those decatent Europeans and go with unisex toilets?
 
The same, predictable, diversion from the issue, ad nauseum. Saying someone is gay or a liberal is labelling the person, it is not addressing the person's argument.
 
I'm not into what type of parents are good or no good, but calling Jim a "feel good" lib made me want to post...

I'm going to remember that... :rolleyes: ...I needed a good laugh anyway. :p
 
Obviously if it is the truth, then it's not slanderous. Could you please explain how it is we are to know it is the truth, that we may recognize it and accede to it?
 
Looks like I was defeated in some places?! Are you talking about the posts that were made in my absence because over the weekdend I have a life?! :rolleyes: Let me just say this, if you see someone respond to me and I have not yet responded back, it is not because I lost, it is because I have a life outside of the cyber world, and will get back when I get back, I hardly think that's defeat. Oh and it is the end of the discussion, on this forum because I'm not intreasted in this debate.:rolleyes:
 
It doesn't matter who brought you to the dance. It matters more who brings you home. Many a supposed strict Constitutionalist has changed his stripes once on the SCOTUS.
 
The very definition of Marriage prevents gays from being married. If they want to call it something else and get the tax benifts they want so bad go ahead. But marriage is between a man and a woman PERIOD.
 
What about the general welfare of gay people are we not citizens covered under the constitution? Why is that we can have our children taken from us, lose our homes, be denied access to our loved ones, have to pay taxes on our inheritance, be denied access to our partners remains, and be denied more then the 1000 rights that hetero couples take for granted? What is it about equal protection under the law do you not get?

We are talking about real people and real peoples lives here not some abstract point of academic conjecture. Justice and equality are being denied to a group of people because of who they are. Should we take a page from the American revolution when justice was being denied to the colonists by the British government? Is that what you want?
 
Back
Top