Five reasons why gay marriage is a basic, conservative value

reply to post by Erno86


I happen to like Mark Levin. The fact that you have pitted a real conservative against the RINO Establishment shows what a fallacy your argument is. I doubt you are a serious conservative or you would never have invoked the name of Mark Levin.

Perhaps you are a bit confused between the definitions of true social and fiscal conservatives and more left-leaning Libertarians(which I surmise you might be).

By the way, what makes Mark Levin tyrannical in your definition? The fact that he can rip a Progressive to shreds in 5 seconds or less?

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
Civil Rights Act of 1964

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Then I demand the right to use the Dallas Cheerleaders dressing room.

Oh wait. Maybe that isn't what they meant...

Originally posted by Erno86
Romney says he is for family values, but how can you be for family values, when a person is against same-sex marriage, like Mitt, that would destroy the tradition of family values for same-sex couples?

What tradtion would that be?

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment]Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. [/url]

Nah I think it is Congress shall make no law establishing religion.

If marraige is religious, and they get tax breaks...Well, establishment here we come!

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
If we are to discuss equal rights, why not add the pre-born to this category, or people marrying animals?

Why stop at two people of the same sex getting married?

Why not three or four, joined in legal union, sorry marriage?

Oh yes, how about menage a trois, not to exlude more than one man and woman? What about group marriage? hahaha oh man that is just too much. Oh wait, if it's one man and many wives it becomes a Harem.

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
You accuse people, myself included - of wanting to remake society's image

I'm asking you a direct question: Who legitimately has the right to determine what society looks like?

Answer it - or don't

You clearly think you have the right to remake society.

I am arguing for nothing but the status quo.

Originally posted by ollncasino
I am arguing for nothing but the status quo.

Well re-defining words IS status quo!

Isn't that "cool"?

I know what you meant though

I just want to know why it was okay to rename gay, but not marraige?

reply to post by Erno86

Romney says he is for family values, but how can you be for family values, when a person is against same-sex marriage, like Mitt, that would destroy the tradition of family values for same-sex couples? Can you see the hypocrisy that these so-called "conservatives" display?

Well, perhaps intent can be brought into play here. Is it really the intent of gays to appreciate marriage for the traditional display that it is, or is it just to get some benefits they see heteros getting(that is right to see significant others in hospital or having access to their health insurance or getting a dependent declaration on their taxes-because if that is so, then is it really conservative or is it Statist?)
Or is it a desire to ruin traditional family values as Marxists love to do?

I mean how hard would it be to get hospitals to let gay lovers see each other in hospital? But the insurance bennies a different story.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Oh yes, how about menage a trois, not to exlude more than one man and woman? What about group marriage? hahaha oh man that is just too much. Oh wait, if it's one man and many wives it becomes a Harem.

I wish someone who is arguing for gay marriage could tell me why a 'marriage' between two men is legitimate but one between three men is not.

I won't hold my breath.

reply to post by ollncasino


Maybe you didn't understand the question. Take your time and really turn it over in your head a few times:
Who legitimately has the right to determine what society looks like?

Last chance for a real discussion - then I'm out

what are you made of Mr. Casino?

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Gays folks want marraige cause they are tired of being "different".

Society (bigots...) let them know just how different they are, at all times. "Let them get something the same, but different." (That is the common defense)

All about making sure others know you are better than they are...Where the suppressed thirst for the day when they can show that they are equals.

Just re-define the word marraige. Once that happens, there will be no argument on the "man and woman" only crap.

FYI, if I got a gender change (legally accepted in most states) I could then get married. Cause I would be an official woman!!!

Oh, but we don't hear about those. Not as easy to say "two guys, gross!!!" if one really really really looks like a gal

reply to post by ollncasino


I will answer yours when you answer mine:

Why was it okay to redefine the word/concept of gay, but not marraige?

Gay wasn't always homosexual, it used to be happy.

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis

Maybe you didn't understand the question. Take your time and really turn it over in your head a few times:

Who legitimately has the right to determine what society looks like?

Is this a trick question?

Wouldn't the answer be society itself?

Originally posted by adigregorio
I will answer yours when you answer mine:

Why was it okay to redefine the word/concept of gay, but not marraige?

Gay wasn't always homosexual, it used to be happy.

Wasn't it homosexuals who redefined the word 'gay'?

If the want to call themselves married then by all means they can do so.

To demand that the legal meaning of the word 'marriage' is changed to encompass same sex unions is a different thing again.

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
Who legitimately has the right to determine what society looks like?

Society does!

Unfortunatly society doesn't define words

But they sure follow those definitions!! That's why I think we should change the definition of the word marraige.

I mean no one wants to answer why it was okay to change the definition of gay, but it's not okay to do it to marraige...

That "sucks" (No I don't mean a vaccum, I mean that it is "sad". You see "sucks" doesn't always involve escaping air.)

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis

Maybe you didn't understand the question. Take your time and really turn it over in your head a few times:

Who legitimately has the right to determine what society looks like?

Is this a trick question?

Wouldn't the answer be society itself?

Good answer

:-)

Perfect answer actually

I'm out of here - and thank you much for a genuine reply - it's been a very long time coming

Sincerely - Spira

P.S. had to give you a star for that one

Originally posted by ollncasino
Wasn't it homosexuals who redifined the word 'gay'?

HEY I was asking you, no fair playing "turn-around"

You seem to be an official on this situation, wouldn't an official know all the details?

Why is it okay to change the definition of some words, but not this one? (I know why, so do you which is why you did the "turn-around".)

Originally posted by ollncasino
To demand that the legal meaning of the word

LOL Legal meaning?

You mean the dictionary?

gay
   [gey] Show IPA

adjective gay·er, gay·est,
1. homosexual.

Hmm, seems pretty legal to me!

(Dictionary.com)

reply to post by adigregorio


yes - society does :-)

and I love words too adigregorio - very much

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by adigregorio
I will answer yours when you answer mine:

Why was it okay to redefine the word/concept of gay, but not marraige?

Gay wasn't always homosexual, it used to be happy.

Wasn't it homosexuals who redefined the word 'gay'?

If the want to call themselves married then by all means they can do so.

To demand that the legal meaning of the word 'marriage' is changed to encompass same sex unions is a different thing again.

edit on 23-5-2012 by ollncasino because: spelling

So are we using "significant other", "spouse", or "wife" or "husband" any more?

reply to post by adigregorio


I found it!!

marriage

n. the joining of a male and female in matrimony by a person qualified by law to perform the ceremony (a minister, priest, judge, justice of the peace or some similar official), after having obtained a valid marriage license (which requires a blood test for venereal disease in about a third of the states and a waiting period from one to five days in several). The standard age for marriage without parental consent is 18 except for Georgia and Wyoming where it is 16, Rhode Island where women can marry at 16, and Mississippi in which it is 17 for boys and 15 for girls. More than half the states allow marriages at lesser ages with parental consent, going as low as 14 for both sexes in Alabama, Texas and Utah. Marriages in which the age requirements are not met can be annulled. Fourteen states recognize so-called "common law marriages" which establish a legal marriage for people who have lived together by agreement as husband and wife for a lengthy period of time without legal formalities.

dictionary.law.com...

Again, I point to congress making a law establishing religion. So this is moot, since the whole idea of this is against the constitution of the United States.

I guess you could say the people against gay marraige, are subversive citizens. I mean they are trying to undermine a principle foundation of the constition to my country.

Aw Snap!

EDIT (To inform)
Almost forgot, there is no such thing as gay according to the legal dictionary. So why are you arguing about fictitious people?

EDIT (Holy Crap!!)
According to this definition if a gay couple lived as husband and wife, they would be commonlaw married. Since the first way has to be a man and a woman, but the second way does not dilenate sexes.

Just sayin'