Marriage, Gays, and Atheists

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Asher

I've only made one porno,

So how much $$$ did you get. So at least we know what price range we're looking at. I'm not going through the whole gay porn gallery aye

[Asher]

Up here in Canada, there really is no point to gay marriage, because the only ones who get married now are tourists from abroad.

So I am a tourist from abroad?

I know several couples born and bred in Canada that've wed in recent years as well.

[Boris Godunov]

Since BK has zero experience of both sex and marriage, I'm not sure why I'm bothering with him anyway. Except that sometimes we all need a good punching bag.

[Theben]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
2. Marriage between a man and a woman is the most effective way to ensure that children are born and that they are raised by both parents. All other arrangements are far less effective. Encouraging an arrangement that is less effective is suicidal for the west. I'm sure that all the communists will fare quite well under radical islam.

So now that Obama has been elected, it's the gays pushing the radical Islamic agenda, huh?

"Don't let gays marry or the Taliban will have won!"

Truly awesome in it's sheer stupidity. That made my night.

No, all of you baby boomer dinosaurs are going to finally die off, and we can get busy fixing up the big turd you've left us.

Che is a Gen-Xer.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


It's a rather simple argument. Societies are sustained by encouraging men and women to get married and have children, and raise them until they can repeat the cycle. Gay marriage does nothing to help things. Given the fact that the west is already having trouble, it is suicidal. Where are the kids going to come from Boris? Surely you can't see and agree with me that the west is dying, slowly but surely.

How would granting civil right to marry to gays and lesbians stop the straight population from reproducing when gays and lesbians only make up around ten percent of the population??

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Except that sometimes we all need a good punching bag.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm not gay or anything, not prejudiced by any way whatsoever, but I'd like to concur on that. 'Traditional' people claim 'values' will be lost when gay people will be lost. But seriously, those 'values' are all very recent if you care to take a detailed look, and are constantly changing anyway.

Marriage is a new concept? The thing about values is that they are transcendent in that they apply to everyone across all cultures.

Marriage is a very old concept, and I'm not sure why you say it is 'constantly changing' when the truth is that it doesn't change very much at all.

You don't see a problem with a radical change that means throwing out over 2000 years of tradition for a benefit that is dubious at best?

Gays can marry in our country, and really. Really. Reaaaally: straight couples don't wed any less. They still marry for the very same reasons the people 100 years ago did.

Again, it's not going to change the world immediately. Try 20 years from now, and see whether you are seeing the same thing.

It's all about giving other people more rights.

So if we gave everybody the right to parade naked, that would be a good thing? How about to drive drunk or to do narcotics?

In fact: gays win, but straight people don't lose.

All rights come with responsibility. Rights aren't free. That the state is providing benefits to gay marriage is taking from the state, and weakening the benefits associated with marriage.

If every relationship is recognised as marriage, then none will be.

[Ben Kenobi]

How would granting civil right to marry to gays and lesbians stop the straight population from reproducing when gays and lesbians only make up around ten percent of the population??

1. You are assuming that what you do has no effect on anybody else.

2. You are assuming that there is a fixed category of 'straight' and 'gay' and we both know that's bull****. Exhibit A, Asher.

3. If you are providing benefits for marriage alternatives then more people will take advantage of these benefits and not other ones.

4. It's not just about the right to marry, it's about affirmation. It means that you have to browbeat society to agree with you that this is a good thing.

5. You will take away the right of Priests to perform marriages because they refuse to do gay marriage. You will persecute anyone who says to the contrary, quotes the bible, etc.

6. You will insist on K-12 sex education to ensure that there is no heteronormativity, ie, everyone has to see gay = straight.

This isn't just about gay marriage, and you know it. It's about remaking society altogether to cast off the last vestiges of primitive superstition. The problem is there is a reason those traditions are there in the first place.

[Asher]

I see you avoiding my points. I take it you admit they are right?
Here you go, I'll quote them again for you.

a truly logical person would see that:
1) Kids cost money. A lot of money.
2) Gay couples make a tremendous amount of money with very little expenses compare to a heterosexual family
3) Gay people know what the other partner wants

Logically, out of pure self-interesting, being gay is the way to be.

It is anything but logical to commit yourself to a PMSy, bloody woman with irrational actions and emotionally needy *****iness. It is anything but logical to create little beings that suck your funds dry while waking you up in the middle of the night.

Old Post 11-17-08 08:38 pm Click Here to See the Profile for Asher Click here to Send Asher a Private Message Find more posts by Asher Add Asher to your buddy list
Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
#41 Report this post to a moderator


quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Plenty of reasons.

1. Men and women aren't the same and pretending that they are interchangeable parts hurts both men and women. Trying to square a circle just doesn't work.

God wouldn't have put the prostate where it is if he didn't intend for something to enter and stimulate it.



Not only does it work, but it is fantastic.

Discuss. Or I'll rupture your prostate and wait 20 years and see how it affects the fabric of society.

[Ben Kenobi]

Truly awesome in it's sheer stupidity. That made my night.

There is none so blind as he who will not see.

It's already happening all around the world, and the folks you attack are the ones who are holding up the foundation.

Absolutely brilliant.

I suppose Theo van Gogh isn't a wakeup call for you? This isn't happening in the deepest darkest deserts of Arabia, but in Amsterdam.

It's a portent, and you don't want to see it.

[chequita guevara]

BK never fails to live down to his reputation.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


1. You are assuming that what you do has no effect on anybody else.

2. You are assuming that there is a fixed category of 'straight' and 'gay' and we both know that's bull****. Exhibit A, Asher.

3. If you are providing benefits for marriage alternatives then more people will take advantage of these benefits and not other ones.

4. It's not just about the right to marry, it's about affirmation. It means that you have to browbeat society to agree with you that this is a good thing.

5. You will take away the right of Priests to perform marriages because they refuse to do gay marriage. You will persecute anyone who says to the contrary, quotes the bible, etc.

6. You will insist on K-12 sex education to ensure that there is no heteronormativity, ie, everyone has to see gay = straight.

This isn't just about gay marriage, and you know it. It's about remaking society altogether to cast off the last vestiges of primitive superstition. The problem is there is a reason those traditions are there in the first place.

Even given that sexual orientation may be more fluid/blurred than traditionally perceived, it will be a real minority group of those who identify themselves as thoroughly gay or lesbian who will marry. So again, my statement that this will not end heterosexual reproduction and marriage still stands.

Second, granting the civil right to marry for gays and lesbians by secular law will NOT compel churches to marry gay and lesbian couples. Those couples can go to churches that are willing to do so, or they can go to a secular office.

Third, I never argued for sex education in kindergarten. You distorted my earlier argument I made on false presumption that I do not first consider what is age appropriate and THEN decide what to teach different grade levels. I do not think there are any social studies or sex ed courses in kindgergarten. Even so, there are story books for very young children that tell a story about a gay couple or gay parents without any sexual content.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
1. You are assuming that what you do has no effect on anybody else.

You are assuming that what two gays marrying do effects everybody else.

2. You are assuming that there is a fixed category of 'straight' and 'gay' and we both know that's bull****. Exhibit A, Asher.

You are assuming there is a continuum of sexuality. Exhibit A, Ben Kenobi.

3. If you are providing benefits for marriage alternatives then more people will take advantage of these benefits and not other ones.

So you are saying sexuality is a choice. You would be tempted to marry a man once it becomes a legal option, rather than a woman?

4. It's not just about the right to marry, it's about affirmation.

Yes, this is actually true. This is why it's more important than you realize. Homosexuals are not second-class citizens and deserve not to be treated as such. They are human beings -- equals under the eyes of your God and under the law -- and deserve to be treated as such.

5. You will take away the right of Priests to perform marriages because they refuse to do gay marriage. You will persecute anyone who says to the contrary, quotes the bible, etc.

Bull**** from right field. Where the **** do you pull this?

6. You will insist on K-12 sex education to ensure that there is no heteronormativity, ie, everyone has to see gay = straight.

In terms of rights, yes.
In terms of worth as a human being, yes.
In terms of people, yes.

gay = straight. The fact that you are implicitly denying this, that heterosexuals are on some plane above homosexuals, is to exemplify your patent bigotry.

How would you like it if I mocked your hearing disability? Why should we teach people that you have the same rights, privileges, and worth as a human being as everyone else when you are "defective"? Isn't that line of reasoning fun.

The problem is there is a reason those traditions are there in the first place.

Quiz: is this bigot referring to segregation or denying gays rights? You can't tell because it's the same ****ing argument.

A bigot is a bigot, and you are a ****ing massive bigot.

[Asher]

I just took my pants off and cockslapped Ben Kenobi so hard he's hitting on me in a parallel dimension.

[MrFun]

That's nice.

I'm going to bed now. I will have to wait until tomorrow to see what bullsh*t BK will have in response to my last post.