Issues concerning gays -- part XXXVVV

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Wiglaf


Can an argument be made that marriages ought to be allowed among 50 people or not?

A marriage is between two unrelated people is it not? I'm not talking about polygamy. That isn't even a topic in this thread. Now don't be irrelevant. But you've earned the title of "MR IRRELEVANT".

[Ming]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
And Ming, a nation must have a definition of marriage. If you let gays marry, the definition as it has stood successfully for generations collapses, America is swept away by culture wave, and marriage as a venerable institution is gone, replaced by a chilling effected waste of time.

Yeah... change... so the world will come to an end...

Yeah... right... Your baseless claims are nothing more than your misguided opinion.

If gay couples are allowed to get married, it will have no effect on hetero couples that are married... If the fact that gays are allowed to get married changes your opinion of the institution of marriage, that's YOUR problem... It's about love and commitment... and just because gay people get married doesn't change anything. If anything, maybe the country will become a better place... maybe people will begin excepting people for what they are... and give respect where earned instead of based on some warped view of their own personal opinons... sounds better to me than one where a bunch of bigots try to dictate to the rest of us...

You make the call

[Wiglaf]

A marriage is between two unrelated people is it not? I'm not talking about polygamy. That isn't even a topic in this thread. Now don't be irrelevant. But you've earned the title of "MR IRRELEVANT".

No, it is relevant, moron.

If you let gays marry than why not change marriage to allow for polygamy? Since there is no objective marriage clearly.

So, again. Is polygamy acceptable?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Wiglaf


No, it is relevant, moron.

If you let gays marry than why not change marriage to allow for polygamy? Since there is no objective marriage clearly.

So, again. Is polygamy acceptable?

No it is not relevant. Polygamy is not the same as homosexuality. Nice try really. You can't bring in irrelevant topics.

[Wiglaf]

MR POLYGAMY

[Ming]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
You can't bring in irrelevant topics.

This from the man who brings up sex with animals, and 50 people marriages...



Keep it up... the hole you have dug yourself is just getting deeper with every post...

[Wiglaf]

Polygamy is relevant to the definition of marriage, which you're evaporating.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Polygamy is relevant to the definition of marriage, which you're evaporating.

No I'm not. If anything by giving marriage to a same sex couple, you are strengthening marriage.

[Wiglaf]

By changing the definition after generations to accomodate sodomy and subjective morality, you weaken marriage, obviously.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
By changing the definition after generations to accomodate sodomy and subjective morality, you weaken marriage, obviously.

If the fact that gays getting married effects your relationship... you are the one with the problem, and everybody should question your love for your partner.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
By changing the definition after generations to accomodate sodomy and subjective morality, you weaken marriage, obviously.

Heterosexuals do sodomy too. Nice try. Again, subjective morality? WTF? What is morality? It is always subjective. Especially christian morality, which is highly bigoted subjective.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
It's a chilling effect argument.
It's a chilling effect argument.
It's a chilling effect argument.
It's a chilling effect argument.
It's a chilling effect argument.
It's a chilling effect argument.

It's not a literal metaphor, for Christ's sakes stop laughing about it, cat-sex was funny in grade one.

WTF is a "chilling effect"?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Can an argument be made that marriages ought to be allowed among 50 people or not?

No, because many of the legal implications of marriage become nonsensical when applied to more than two people.

[Wiglaf]

All homosexuals do is sodomy, within the contexts of this age-appropriate forum.

The fact that some heterosexuals do it is irrelevant.

[Wiglaf]

Chilling effect = slippery slope = give them an inch they take a mile.

And why nonsensical? Divide it up into 1/50's.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
And why nonsensical? Divide it up into 1/50's.

There are several legal privileges given to the spouse that are by their nature impossible to reconcile with multiple spouses.

[Wiglaf]

Not really.

[Kuciwalker]

Things such as the right do decide what happens with the deceased's body.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
All homosexuals do is sodomy, within the contexts of this age-appropriate forum.

The fact that some heterosexuals do it is irrelevant.

All homosexuals do is sodomy? Seems you don't know what the word actually means.

[Wiglaf]

Things such as the right do decide what happens with the deceased's body.

They can vote.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
They can vote.

... which, as I said, is nonsensical and contrary to the spirit of the legal privilege.

[Wiglaf]

No it isn't.

[Kuciwalker]

If it wasn't, then you wouldn't be against it. QED.

[Wiglaf]

It can be legally justified.

It's culturally absurd.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Wiglaf

Culturally the world is in upheaval, this liberal idea that advocates pleasure above all else.

This 'liberal' sentiment presumably:

" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. "

Say what?

'The pursuit of happiness' ?


Yeah, you commie pinko pervert Founding Fathers, marrying your cats and dogs !

For shame....

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
It's culturally absurd.

Why? The is no rationale to your statement. Nor that gay marriage will result 'in the collapse of Western civilisation' as you keep saying in some form or other. So substantiate it!

Just because something is tradition doesn't make it right. Remember slavery? Was that right? At the time, you'd have probably wanted to retain slavery because it is tradition and would shake the foundations of society. But no, because you have the power of hindsight. What makes this different?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


What makes this different?

It's to do with sodomitical morphodites like me.


Apparently I have spent the past three months entirely preoccupied with this:


'All homosexuals do is sodomy'

Wiglaf


I tell you, sodomy is quite hard to conceal on a visit to a Norman church, the Banqueting Hall (made it somewhat difficult to appreciate the Rubens' ceiling) and it definitely got in the way of trying to eat a Dijon slice and a Mont Blanc at Miason Bertaux.

I'm hoping my partner's parents will forgive my giving myself up entirely to pleasures of the fleshly kind, and will have provided wipe clean furniture covers for the duration of my visit.

I fear that I may have to warn the train company in advance though, as my wet wipes may be used up by the time I reach Paddington Station.

Rush hour sodomy can be so taxing....

[SpencerH]

Its time to remove the bias inherent in the Judeo-Christian concept of marriage from our laws ........... but only for homosexuals. Fascinating! Mormons, moslems, and anyone else who thinks differently (but are consenting adults of course) they're ****ed.

[Pekka]

I think when it comes down to it, it's definitely an issue of freedom and equality. The two things we should be looking out in democracies. Should be protecting those things.

It's a matter of "I don't want gays to marry". That is imposing a belief against someones life. That is RESTRICTING someones life and way of life, when that someone is NOT restricting your way of life and life. That's the bottom line IMO. We are limiting someone elses freedoms. Now, we might like it or not, we might not like the idea of two guys kissing in the streets. I must say that I go myself 'NASTY!'!! But then again, it's not MY life. If I value my life and my way of life and my freedoms, I should protect others freedoms as well, as that is protecting MY freedoms. I can't choose, that what ever freedom I don't care is not needed or important. I can't scream freedom when it suits me, and restriction when it doesn't. That's just against the nature of freedom.

Gay sex and bestiality is not the same thing. Bestiality is not legal. It is illegal. Gay sex is legal. And of course, bestiality involves animals, where as gay sex involves people. Hey, hetero guys stick it in the poopster too. They do exactly the same things, that gay people do. There's just no difference in the bedroom.

All I'm saying is that if we decide to limit the freedoms of gay people, we are limiting our own freedoms at the same time. And if we allow that, we can just as well limit other freedoms that we don't happen to like. Freedom is not something that we should always like. Freedom of expression and speech involves also speech we don't like, expression we don't like. It's the nature of it. Otherwise it's not really a freedom, but chosen set of things we allow and chosen set of things we don't allow in a big set of things that are really the same thing, but at the end we just don't feel like something is serving us right, something we don't like.

Religion etc, that point of view has different approaches on the issue. It's not clear, cut and settled. But since when does religion rule the laws in a democracy, limiting freedom of something it does not see as a good idea, overriding laws? In true democracies it doesn't. IN Taliban world it does.

If in the US the states can decide for themselves, then states should decide themselves how they're going to approach this issue. And the gays ruining the institution fo marriage.. well.. straight people have been doing a really good job at it for a long time.

In freedom, I should not be able to limit what you want to do if it's legal. Just like you should not be able to limit mine.

What if the world was gay dominant, and they didn't allow us straight people to marry, because they find it nasty and wrong? What if we were the minority? Of course we'd be screaming unequality. So why is it OK to go the other way then? I think it isn't, I think we're all created equal and our system in our societies are here to serve us and to protect our rights, and those are rights to freedom and all that.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Its time to remove the bias inherent in the Judeo-Christian concept of marriage from our laws ........... but only for homosexuals. Fascinating! Mormons, moslems, and anyone else who thinks differently (but are consenting adults of course) they're ****ed.

As I mentioned, the legal rights accorded to a married couple don't work with more than two people. They can certainly form marriage-like contracts, but marriage as we do it isn't possible between more than two people.