Maine Christians ready to screw homosexuals...

[Japher]

How's Fresno Kid? My dad is telling me it is suppose to cool off to below 100 by Sunday

[Omni Rex Draconis]

chegitz guevara:
Marrriage only has as much meaning as the contracting parties put into it.

As long as you are including society as one of the three contracting parties. And here is where I think the homosexual community (and the kneejerk politically correct) have gotten off the track.

Marriage was never about two people promising to love each other to the end of time. It original meaning was the SOCIAL contract to produce and socialize children while protecting their rights (inheritance, etc).

This contract was necessarily bound on a sexual and exclusionary basis. Remember that if you have sex with an unmarried person you are simply a fornicator. Do it with a married person, however, and you are an adulterer - a sin so bad the Judeo-Christians put it on their Top 10 list.

Most societies have based an extensive number of obligations and privileges associated with being a family member. In the United States and Canada, for example, parents are held legally reponsible for damage willfully caused by their children. Likewise, children surrender most of their adult rights to their parents. Society, in turn, protects the marriage union by punishing those that intrude upon it, as well as elevating it (ie. tax benefits) beyond the status of just "some people living together".

MrFun:
Which is why everyone should have that equal right

If you follow and agree with my reasoning above, then you see that marriage is NOT a right. It is a solemn and binding contract regarding the most precious of resources - our children.

Homosexuals have the right to live together and openly pledge their undying love, most certainly.

I am little uncertain (lack of knowledge) about the fitness of homosexual parents in raising what is most likely a heterosexual child.

But I vehemently object to entitling a self-serving gay activist movement with an institution they so clearly do not comprehend and are not even capable of supporting.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Omni Rex Draconis
It original meaning was the SOCIAL contract to produce and socialize children while protecting their rights (inheritance, etc).

Bull****! The historical record says otherwise. Women in Sumeria, the first civilization, used to have the right to take multiple husbands. This necessarily confuses the issue of parentage for children. We know this is true because the revolutionary, Urukagina outlawed the practice during his reign.

Going back even further, we believe that in some cultures (i.e., Europe) married people didn't even live together. Neolithic children remained in the home of their mother, and the adult male role was provided by brothers and uncles.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You give 'em Hell, che!

Marriage was not simply a social contract to produce children. For a very long time, it was a way of political bargaining. Marrying into someone else's household would form a political alliance.

Though that's a sidetrack... I can't imagine which anti-human rights bigots would be against EQUAL RIGHTS against discrimination for gays! Some may say that we don't understand why people are so against it, but I think in this instance we shouldn't have to. It's plain bigotry and shouldn't be dignified.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Datajack Franit
Why can't you just accept that many homosexuals are against gay marriage as well? I am gay AND against gay marriage, which is a stupid thing that turns the real marriage into a meaningless contract

Legal marriage is only a "meaningless" contract already.

[DeathByTheSword]

it is not meaningless...it give rights, obligations and privilages to the 2 parties involved...if you are married and you would get in an accident and get in a coma the general rule is that your spouse then is in charge...why should gays have these same rights? call it civil union if you want but then call it also that for straights...marriage by a church is something else because they arent obliged to marry every one...the LEGAL version is for everyone that is an adult...

but it is true protecting the santaty (sp?) of marriage is idiot in a world with 24 hour devorce services...

[DRoseDARs]

"Sanctity" is the spelling you're looking for.

[Dr Strangelove]

If Christian men screw homosexuals what does that make them? ..........

[DRoseDARs]

Sorely in need of condominiums.

[Omni Rex Draconis]

chegitz guevara:
Women in Sumeria, the first civilization, used to have the right to take multiple husbands. This necessarily confuses the issue of parentage for children.

Only from a patriarchal point of view. The children would quite clearly belong to the mother.

And what does living together have to do with it? Husbands and wives of the Gusii of Kenya don't do it today. And yet the children are still clearly demarked in patrilineal descent.

Imran Siddiqui:
For a very long time, it was a way of political bargaining. Marrying into someone else's household would form a political alliance.

And perhaps you can reason out what that would be so? Because the children of such a marriage would inherit the property of the parents, thereby unifying a fractious political division.

But thanks for helping me make my point.

I can't imagine which anti-human rights bigots would be against EQUAL RIGHTS against discrimination for gays!

Then look no further; I am right here.

Each new law proposed to fight "anti-discrimination" does, in fact, the exact opposite. It clearly outlines a class of people as being "different" and therefore worthy of a separate set of laws. Hate crimes are a particularly noxious example of this.

The only legal reason a landlord should have to reject a prospective renter is the PROVEN inability to pay the rent, such as not having a job. The only legal reason an employer should have to reject an applicant is their inability to do the job.

To follow the decisions you so fervently support will always leave some minority unprotected by the law. What happens when some fundie nutter decides to reject me because I am an atheist? Nuts to me; I guess I have to actually suffer discrimination as the gays/blacks/et al have done before the society you propose will get around to protecting me.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And perhaps you can reason out what that would be so? Because the children of such a marriage would inherit the property of the parents, thereby unifying a fractious political division.

And thus, before any children were birthed, the two sides would still at war, yes?

Obviously then the need to produce and socialize children wasn't the meaning of marriage. It was for political means. The children were secondary to the whole thing and a necessary consequence, but it wasn't meant for them.

Then look no further; I am right here.

If you wish to adopt the mantle of bigot, then by my guest. I'm not going to change my designation because you happen to be such a bigot.

What happens when some fundie nutter decides to reject me because I am an atheist? Nuts to me

Would be nice if you were knowlegable on the law. Discrimination on the basis of religion covers non-religion as well, unless you have a damned good reason for it (ie, you run a church).

[Omni Rex Draconis]

Would be nice if you were knowlegable on the law.

Would be nice if you took care of your spelling - knowledgeable - and spent more time debating and less time with the eye-rolling smilies.


Before the birth of representative governments, political leadership was almost always defined by blood. Given that marriage in those times was actually considered sanctified by society, a decision by the parties involved to intermarry would have ended the war - regardless of when or if children are produced.

Discrimination on the basis of religion

You harp on my (admittedly bad) example. Alright, I'm an avid Civver being picked on by a rabid anti-gamer. Happy now?

[Imran Siddiqui]

political leadership was almost always defined by blood. Given that marriage in those times was actually considered sanctified by society, a decision by the parties involved to intermarry would have ended the war - regardless of when or if children are produced.

Thanks for admitting your error .

Would be nice if you took care of your spelling - knowledgeable - and spent more time debating and less time with the eye-rolling smilies.

Nice that your claims of victory involve pointing out typos rather than responding to actual arguments contained within.

And the is reserved for those like you. It fits perfectly, if I do say so myself.

[Omni Rex Draconis]

Nice that your claims of victory involve pointing out typos rather than responding to actual arguments contained within.

Considering that your post did not even contain an argument relevant to the thread, one would think that I actually AM winning this discussion - not that I ever made that claim.

I stand by my original argument. Why would marriage defined in your terms, a political means to an end, be based on the union of a man and a woman if not for their capability of producing children?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Considering that your post did not even contain an argument relevant to the thread

If you opened you eyes, you would see there were plenty, including one which you yourself had to admit.

Why would marriage defined in your terms, a political means to an end, be based on the union of a man and a woman if not for their capability of producing children?

As you have admitted, a decision to intermarry would have ended a war, no matter if any children were produced. I think I almost have you verbatim there. The linkage of the families by marriage was the important thing. Children would probably come, but if they didn't, it would go onto the next in line. Children were not the goal of marriage, it was to link clans or noble familes. Children were a secondary effect.

Besides by your definition of marriage, we'd have to prevent all sterile men and women from marriage. After all, if the original meaning was to produce children... well they can't do that. Does your argument mean that we have to have fertility tests before a marriage license can be granted?