Five reasons why gay marriage is a basic, conservative value

Justifying defining other people (and inflicting upon them) by ones personal belief in a god that can't be proven to exist smacks of some wierd insanity that should be outlawed so we can have a sane peaceful society

to you conservatives who think you have the right to dump on gays:

Jeff Gannon and Other Gay Republicans

www.conspiracyplanet.com...

you know they say "at least Democrates like women"
Bohemian grove is purported to be the biggest hirer of gay porn stars there is

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
And when we learned about those great people who made great contributions, we always learned about who they were married to as well didn't we? Same thing.

I was never taught who great people were married to. Nor were famous people identified by their sexual preferences.

Yet that is what California's 'Gay month' legislation is forcing teachers to do.

Why can't gays just keep sex out of the classroom?

Why do they have to make such a big deal about their sexual preferences?

Hetrosexuals don't, so why do gays.

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
But in a very legal sense, it is the EXACT same thing. Only in a theological sense could you take offense at it. It's only the theological opposition that sees a problem with it.

I am not theological and I do not support gay marriage. Your assumption is mistaken.

Marriage has been defined as a legal union between a man and a women for thousands of years, yet you have not made any sort of reasonable case as to why that should change.

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
LEGALLY a union is a union regardless of gender, so there is no legal reason to not allow them to marry.

There is no reason to be confused.

Legal union between a man and a women = marriage

Legal union between two men = civil partnership

What could be simpler than that?

reply to post by freakjive


That's something that always smacked of hypocrisy to me...

conservatives harping on about limited government etc etc... They don't want the government interfering in their personal lives, something I think that goes beyond party lines... But there is a catch...

They only support limited government if it benefits them directly. Stay out of MY bedroom, but, sure, go poke around Big Gay Al's bedroom all you want, because I'm not gay, so screw his rights.

It's just complete BS, there is no legal, moral, or VALID, argument against ever American having the same rights.

I've said this here, and I've said this to plenty of people face to face....

I don't care if you don't like gay sex or gay people, I really don't. Just be honest. You aren't against gay marriage because it affects you, or changes marriage, or any of that. You are against it because you find gay sex to be icky and gross.

I do. I think it's gross. But I'm not gay, and I'm not about to tell anyone how to find pleasure in their lives. I was born straight, so I prefer the opposite sex, and can only imagine that for most gay men, the feeling would be the same towards women, they find it gross and it doesn't do a thing for them.

Be honest about your reasons for being against it and I support your opinion, but hiding behind "traditional marriage" and all of that BS is crap.

Most straight couples aren't married.
Those who do get married, around 50 percent get divorces
Plenty of straight couples have kids, raise them great, and never get married.

so enough with the end of the world

Marriage has been defined as a legal union between a man and a women for thousands of years, yet you have not made any sort of reasonable case as to why that should change.

Allow me to correct you, that it was defined for eons as a union between A man and A woman, rather it was A man and many women for thousands of years.
Marriage was simply about property rights inclusive of ownership womens' reproductive abilities, It is very limiting to remember marriage as a romantic gift from god/s for one man and one woman, that is basically rewriting history.....

There is no such thing as same sex marriage, just like there is no such thing as interracial or heterosexual marriage.

You know why?

Because marriage is the uniting of two individuals, whether you're a male/female, male/male, female/female, etc.

We're all equal. We're all humans. We all deserve the same treatment.

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

Really where does it end? How about we get back to the simple golden rule. Civility works every single time.

The golden rule is a Christian scripture. Christians go to war and kill people all the time. Christians want to take away people's right to marry the one they love. The golden rule isn't working. We need to try something else.

Blimey, how/why did you swing that one in and why isolate Christians? I'm a Christian (although not a particularly good one) and I have no issue in same sex marriages being available via the government - as in at a registary office. I do take issue that the same should be demanded of any faith - that is a different thing and should be a decision for them to take.

Originally posted by WhoKnows100

Romans 1 talks about the depraved mind in verse 29, "They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters…" The list goes on, concluding with verse 32; "Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."
.

OH WOW, the "religious right" really is mentioned in the Bible!!!

Originally posted by rexusdiablos

Originally posted by WhoKnows100
Lenin had it right in the secular world "The best revolutionary is a youth devoid of morals."

Can the bigoted passive hatred for freedom of all not be construed as so immoral that it is in accordance with Lenin's maxim?

A generation of backwards homophobic youths would have suited Lenin well.

It almost allowed Hitler to take over the world!!!

Originally posted by ollncasino

There is no reason to be confused.

Legal union between a man and a women = marriage

Legal union between two men = civil partnership

It's so sad that in your little world there isn't even a box for a "Legal union between two women".

Did you know there are still people insisting that some marriages be called "Interracial unions" and not simply "marriages".

"It's very dear to me, the issue of gay marriage. Or, as I like to call it: ' Marriage.' You know, because I had lunch this afternoon, not gay lunch. I parked my car. I didn't gay park it" - Liz Feldman

Originally posted by Duskangels
The whole world has gone to **** anyway. Just like Sodom and Gomorrah was thousands of years ago so it is today. This is not new. Sin is sin and it's just way more rampant. I thank God for people standing up to gays like Will Smith did by b**** slapping them.

Watch out! Your homophobia is showing... You are totally under the wrong impression about what happened between Will Smith and Vitalii Sediuk - it's not even close to relevant here.
Also - the fact that you feel physical violence is the answer to your homophobia says a lot about you... Two words come to mind. Cave. Man. Welcome to the 21st century.

=====
It's threads like these that make one wonders about human society. Society takes one step forward and a handful of fearful ones cry out "No! Our minds cannot cope with change and acceptance! I'm sorry but I cannot move forward." And the whole of society give a step back trying not to leave the fearful ones behind.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Marriage has been defined as a legal union between a man and a women for thousands of years, yet you have not made any sort of reasonable case as to why that should change.

It should change because a group of people want it to change. This group of people are law-abiding, tax-paying citizens, whose value is equal to any other law-abiding, tax-paying citizen.

Thousands of years ago, marriages were contracts arranged by families. People didn't even get to choose who they married. Another way marriage has been re-defined over the years.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
And when we learned about those great people who made great contributions, we always learned about who they were married to as well didn't we? Same thing.

I was never taught who great people were married to. Nor were famous people identified by their sexual preferences.

Yet that is what California's 'Gay month' legislation is forcing teachers to do.

Why can't gays just keep sex out of the classroom?

Why do they have to make such a big deal about their sexual preferences?

Hetrosexuals don't, so why do gays.

What was George Washington's wife's name? What was Abraham Lincoln's wife's name? What contributions did they, by themselves make to the country?

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
But in a very legal sense, it is the EXACT same thing. Only in a theological sense could you take offense at it. It's only the theological opposition that sees a problem with it.

I am not theological and I do not support gay marriage. Your assumption is mistaken.

Marriage has been defined as a legal union between a man and a women for thousands of years, yet you have not made any sort of reasonable case as to why that should change.

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
LEGALLY a union is a union regardless of gender, so there is no legal reason to not allow them to marry.

There is no reason to be confused.

Legal union between a man and a women = marriage

Legal union between two men = civil partnership

What could be simpler than that?

Oh brother...
well, we're in the USA where the majority doesn't decide on the rights of the minority. We go by the US Constitution, not by the GOP. Unfortunately, it's a slow process, but luckily, times are changing and the public at large is becoming more intelligent.
Possibly the best result of all this is that YOU don't get to make the decisions. In the next five years, when MARRIAGE is open to any adult to another adult regardless of gender, you can sit back and whine and cry, but there's not really much you'll be able to do about it. You can complain, you can shake your cane at people and grumble, but it's not going to make much difference. The newly married gay couples can pat you on the head or give you spare change as they pass by and you're mumbling at them incoherently, but there just won't be much you can do about it.

Originally posted by jpmail

Originally posted by babybunnies
During the primaries, the GOP candidates kept invoking Margaret Thatcher as a stalwart example of their Conservative values.

Santorum AND Romney both invoked the memories of her in charge of the UK during speeches.

Good old Maggie was FOR gay rights, including civil unions. She was actually a very progressive leader for her time. She was also in support of the idea of humans contributing to global warming, despite everyone telling her that she was nuts, and was pro choice, and was all for redistribution of wealth by de nationalising many of the Government run companies, such as British Telecom (I made a killing on BT stock).

Today, the GOP would call her a moderate socialist if they reviewed her true positions.

I had to laugh at how you made Thatcher out to be some great leader of the UK in her time only because you made a killing on shares in BT, thats typical of anyone that supports thatcher and her regin of terror they got rich. The poor that she trampled and tested new taxes on are all forgotten.

If I could go back in time and have her shoot I would in a heart beat.

As for the OP gay marriage should have nothing to do with politics it should have anything to do with the men and a women getting married. I belevie that myself, a polition, a goverment, a country or a religion have should have absolutly zero say in gay marriage, only the people getting married should have a say in it.

Your last comment makes no sense whatsoever. A marriage license is granted by an arm of the government so how can the government have no say in the matter?

Originally posted by ollncasino
Why do they have to make such a big deal about their sexual preferences?

Hetrosexuals don't, so why do gays.

But heterosexuals DO make a big deal out of their sexual preferences.

They talk about their spouses, have pictures hanging around... They procreate and brag about it. They flirt with members of the opposite sex, hold hands, hug and kiss in public. A female teacher tell her class about her husband, when she's getting married, etc. It's all very easy and acceptable in our society to flaunt our sexuality. As long as it's heterosexual.

Students learn about the love between Romeo and Juliet, Anthony and Cleopatra, Lancelot and Guinevere, Henry the VIII and his SIX wives... ALL heterosexual couples! Why do they have to flaunt their sexuality so?

And the word marriage has a wider definition that you're giving it (and always has). The word marriage is defined as:

3 : an intimate or close union (the marriage of painting and poetry)

I like to make a big pot of chili and before I freeze the individual portions for later, I let it sit in the refrigerator for 24 hours, so the flavors "marry". It's a perfectly fine definition of the word, and suggests a joining to become one blended unit. It's worked for thousands of years. YOU choose to limit YOUR definition of marriage to a union between a man and a woman, and that's fine. But each couple defines their marriage for themselves.

People get married for many different reasons.

For love, for convenience, for companionship, for regular sex, for money, for prestige, for citizenship, because it was arranged, to have babies, etc...

If you're married, who defines your marriage? And if not, who WILL define it for you? Someone else? Or you? Who says how the kids will be raised or if there even will be kids? Who says how the money will be spent? Will it be a religious marriage or secular? Will you both work? Who makes these decisions? How often (if at all) will you have sex? My point is that each individual couple defines their own marriage. You simply cannot and should not try to define other people's marriage.

As SeventhSeal so beautifully and simply stated:

Originally posted by SeventhSeal
We're all equal. We're all humans. We all deserve the same treatment.

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
reply to post by freakjive

 

It's just complete BS, there is no legal, moral, or VALID, argument against ever American having the same rights.

I've said this here, and I've said this to plenty of people face to face....

I don't care if you don't like gay sex or gay people, I really don't. Just be honest. You aren't against gay marriage because it affects you, or changes marriage, or any of that. You are against it because you find gay sex to be icky and gross.

YES -- I believe this is the whole crux of the matter. People find gay sex repulsive because it is so different then what they do. It is this underlying feeling that drives it all. They try to use the Bible or the idea of tradition to justify their feelings, even though those arguments fall apart upon closer inspection.

Having animosity toward someone who is different starts in childhood, which is why you see childhood bullying. I guess it is part of human nature, or animal nature -- to drive the weaker (or different) ones out of the herd. But because we are humans, we can overcome this animalistic behavior. Some of us just need to become a little more "evolved".

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by ollncasino
Why do they have to make such a big deal about their sexual preferences?

Hetrosexuals don't, so why do gays.

But heterosexuals DO make a big deal out of their sexual preferences.

They talk about their spouses, have pictures hanging around... They procreate and brag about it. They flirt with members of the opposite sex, hold hands, hug and kiss in public. A female teacher tell her class about her husband, when she's getting married, etc. It's all very easy and acceptable in our society to flaunt our sexuality. As long as it's heterosexual.

Students learn about the love between Romeo and Juliet, Anthony and Cleopatra, Lancelot and Guinevere, Henry the VIII and his SIX wives... ALL heterosexual couples! Why do they have to flaunt their sexuality so?

And the word marriage has a wider definition that you're giving it (and always has). The word marriage is defined as:

3 : an intimate or close union (the marriage of painting and poetry)

I like to make a big pot of chili and before I freeze the individual portions for later, I let it sit in the refrigerator for 24 hours, so the flavors "marry". It's a perfectly fine definition of the word, and suggests a joining to become one blended unit. It's worked for thousands of years.

YOU choose to limit YOUR definition of marriage to a union between a man and a woman, and that's fine. But each couple defines their marriage for themselves.

People get married for many different reasons.

For love, for convenience, for companionship, for regular sex, for money, for prestige, for citizenship, because it was arranged, to have babies, etc...

If you're married, who defines your marriage? And if not, who WILL define it for you? Someone else? Or you? Who says how the kids will be raised or if there even will be kids? Who says how the money will be spent? Will it be a religious marriage or secular? Will you both work? Who makes these decisions? How often (if at all) will you have sex? My point is that each individual couple defines their own marriage. You simply cannot and should not try to define other people's marriage.

As SeventhSeal so beautifully and simply stated:

Originally posted by SeventhSeal
We're all equal. We're all humans. We all deserve the same treatment.

I nominate you for "Post of the...umm....thread"!! Can't say year because it's only May
Excellent summation and very well put!

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
You know the stereotype, those who are most vocally against something harbor some desire for it.

You are vocally against marriage retaining its tradtional meaning.

Using your own line of reasoning, those who are most vocally against tradtional marriage harbor some desire for it.

So according to your own logic (twisted with the purpose of developing a clumsy ad hominem attack) you actually support tradtional marriage.

Welcome on board.

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel
reply to post by ollncasino

 

Frankly marriage has a length-of-recorded-history-long definition that has not changed in all those years. Now some want to change the definition of this ancient subject? That's more than a bit crazy.

ACTUALLY, You couldn't be more wrong, firstly, the definition of marriage has certainly changed, woman aren't 'property' anymore nor can husbands legally rape their wives nor can they kill them if they fail to give birth to a son. Secondly, in the christian religion there is a rite almost identical to marriage in every way that is specifically for binding two men in "The Offic of Same-Sex Union", exhibit A. St. Bacchus and St. Sergius. Or the thirteen or fourteen roman emperors who married men.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
You know the stereotype, those who are most vocally against something harbor some desire for it.

You are vocally against marriage retaining its tradtional meaning.

Using your own line of reasoning, those who are most vocally against tradtional marriage harbor some desire for it.

So according to your own logic (twisted with the purpose of developing a clumsy ad hominem attack) you actually support tradtional marriage.

Welcome on board.

Fine, let's go with TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE then...
1. Your parents set it up
2. There are land contracts involved
3. If your husband is killed in battle, you'll have to hook up with his brother in order to produce offspring
4. You'll have to share him with his other wives since plural marriages are older than singular marriages
5. Make me a sammich

Now, hop to it!