Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Republicans really do hate gay people

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by DinoDoc View Post
    What does love have to do with marriage?
    Everyone I know in my life (friends, family) where the two of them got married, married because they love one another.
    A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by MrFun View Post
      And that makes no sense. That would be like saying, "Marriage is a right, but interracial marriage is not marriage."
      Yes, it would be like that, but not precisely the same! The difference is that interracial marriage really is marriage, and under reasonable understandings of the term gay marriage really isn't marriage. It's a thing analogous to marriage but with an important difference.

      Marriage is marriage, period - to hang onto the definition of marriage as being exclusively between a man and a woman makes no sense,


      Yes, but only because it's a good idea to extend the meaning of marriage to cover lifelong monogamous relationships between same-sex partners, as it costs us nothing and makes them happy.

      as even before gay marriage had been legalized in some states, gay people have ALREADY GOTTEN MARRIED symbolically


      i.e. even they admitted that their marriage was metaphorical.

      What is the difference between love and devotion between two men, and love and devotion between a woman and man besides gender?
      When you have sex with your boyfriend, do you call it vaginal intercourse? Why not? How is it different just because you're giving it to some guy up the ass?

      Words have meanings! You think we should change the meaning. Fine! I agree with you! But the anti-gay marriage people are on solid ground when they say that this is a new meaning.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by gribbler View Post
        Maybe his point is that if men are biologically incapable of pregnancy, then they are biologically incapable of entering a lifelong relationship with another man. Who knows, really.
        Men are biologically incapable of getting married to each other. They are perfectly capable of entering into a lifelong relationship with another man

        Comment


        • Originally posted by gribbler View Post
          No one is even born a polygamist so that is not a valid comparison.
          I was born a polygamist.
          John Brown did nothing wrong.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Kuciwalker View Post
            Fine! I agree with you! But the anti-gay marriage people are on solid ground when they say that this is a new meaning.
            okay
            A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Kuciwalker View Post

              When you have sex with your boyfriend, do you call it vaginal intercourse? Why not? How is it different just because you're giving it to some guy up the ass?
              This says a lot about the shallowness of people who diminish love and devotion between two people, to where they put their dick.
              A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by MrFun View Post
                This says a lot about the shallowness of people who diminish love and devotion between two people, to where they put their dick.
                Yes. This discussion is just sad.

                Comment


                • Hell, it looks like all men are born polygamists. So if we're going to change the laws so that MrFun can get married, how about showing a little love to those of us who have normal and natural biological urges?
                  John Brown did nothing wrong.

                  Comment


                  • Felch

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by MrFun View Post
                      This says a lot about the shallowness of people who diminish love and devotion between two people, to where they put their dick.
                      It says a lot about your presumptuousness that you think your definition of marriage is better the one that predates the beginning of recorded history, and has survived mostly unmolested until the 1990s. Calling all of human history "just sad" requires such a dim view of humanity and a lack of faith in its capacity to reason, that you must not be fun at all to be around.
                      Last edited by Wiglaf; May 19, 2012, 16:59. Reason: Gay people deserve a tax deduction

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by MrFun View Post
                        This says a lot about the shallowness of people who diminish love and devotion between two people, to where they put their dick.
                        That was just an analogy AFAICT.
                        1011 1100
                        Pyrebound--a free online serial fantasy novel

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Kuciwalker View Post
                          No, it wasn't, Imran. Anti-miscegenation laws had been clearly introduced with the specific intent of proscribing something that would have otherwise been considered well within the traditional notion of marriage. By contrast, the very idea of gay marriage did not exist until recently.
                          Utter nonsense.

                          In the US, for instance, anti-miscegenation laws have been on the books since the late 17th Century - roughly as long as laws on marriage in the Colonies to begin with. Furthermore, if you really want to be pedantic - you had anti-miscengenation laws ongoing for thousands of years - look at Biblical prohibitions of Jews marrying non-Jews. It has been a primary facet of marriage for ages. The practice was prohibited for those of different ethnicity. So... "traditional marriage" means only something that may have been around prior to 3,000 years ago?

                          This is a great argument for why the prohibition on polygamy (as religious discrimination) is more Constitutionally suspect than the non-recognition of gay marriage. It isn't an argument that the institution of marriage doesn't exist or that the word has no definition. The evolution of ideas and language doesn't imply the radical linguistic relativism you're asserting.
                          Not a fan of banning polygamy either. However, those tend to be caught up in separate legal issues (religious issues).

                          Furthermore the right of marriage as guaranteed by the state is an institution that confers certain legal rights. For all intents and purposes equal obtaining of those legal rights is the issue. To the extent of "why can't we call it civil unions" argument, what's the point - from henceforth on all rights marriage has apply to civil unions means they are in essence the same thing and calling it different things is a silly thing the state is doing for no benefit or reason whatsoever. Especially when more than a few churches are in the business of performing homosexual marriage. There, of course, is the Brown v. Board argument that separate can never be equal.
                          “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
                          - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui View Post
                            Utter nonsense.

                            In the US, for instance, anti-miscegenation laws have been on the books since the late 17th Century - roughly as long as laws on marriage in the Colonies to begin with. Furthermore, if you really want to be pedantic - you had anti-miscengenation laws ongoing for thousands of years - look at Biblical prohibitions of Jews marrying non-Jews. It has been a primary facet of marriage for ages. The practice was prohibited for those of different ethnicity. So... "traditional marriage" means only something that may have been around prior to 3,000 years ago?
                            Imran, you are making my point for me. Compare this to anti-same-sex marriage laws. They didn't even exist because "same-sex marriage" was already a contradiction in terms. There was no need to ban something that was logically impossible.

                            This is an actual example of the exception proving the rule.
                            Last edited by Kuciwalker; May 20, 2012, 01:54.

                            Comment


                            • They didn't need to ban same-sex marriage because sodomites were put to death. Obviously no open homosexuals means no homosexuals trying to claim marriage rights.

                              Comment


                              • There were plenty of cultures that tolerated or even encouraged sodomy.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X