2 faggotty for me

9/7/2011 2:21:08 PM

Quote :

"1. What gives the government the right to further restrict the definition of marriage? Note: this isn't opening the door to situations of humans marrying animals, etc. Marriage is a legal contract between consenting adults that is backed by the government. 2. Why must marriage be defined by the government as between two adults of the opposite sex? 3. How does gay marriage infringe upon the rights of others, thus warranting its outlawing? 4. How does gay marriage endanger the people, thus warranting its outlawing? 5. Have no gay marriages ever taken place before our generation (serious question... I don't know, because mainly I don't care, but you brought up the 1,000s of years point)? 6. The mere fact of making it illegal for one certain group of citizens to partake in an otherwise open, legal, government contract, is nothing but limiting their freedom. If the winds changed in 100 years and gays ruled the country and said straight marriage is "dangerous" and should be outlawed, would you not claim this to be a violation of your rights? Personally, I don't give a shit for gay marriage. I don't care for it, I don't like it. But legally, there is no argument against it. There is nothing that says the government has the right to, or even needs to, limit marriage to straight couples. It's a personal choice that harms no one. "

quote this over and over again forever

9/7/2011 2:25:22 PM

If it were up to me government would have nothing to do with marriage, straight or gay. Civil unions for all, religious ceremonies for the religious!

9/7/2011 2:27:08 PM

tww far too reasonable today

9/7/2011 2:28:28 PM

^^

9/7/2011 3:01:32 PM

Quote :

"you will be ignored eventually and people will be granted equal rights."

show me where a gay guy can't walk up and marry a woman. equal rights already exist

Quote :

"What gives the government the right to further restrict the definition of marriage?"

what do you mean "further" restrict? They are saying what the actual definition is, one that has been known for thousands of years. it's like trying to argue over the meaning of the word "is"

Quote :

"Why must marriage be defined by the government as between two adults of the opposite sex?"

why shouldn't it?

Quote :

"How does gay marriage infringe upon the rights of others, thus warranting its outlawing?"

Why is it warranted? Why can't society deem which social constructs it values?

Quote :

"How does gay marriage endanger the people, thus warranting its outlawing?"

who is making it illegal for two gay guys to pledge their butt love to each other?

Quote :

"Have no gay marriages ever taken place before our generation"

the mere notion of a "gay marriage" is fallacious, as marriage specifically requires a man and a woman.

Quote :

"The mere fact of making it illegal for one certain group of citizens to partake in an otherwise open, legal, government contract, is nothing but limiting their freedom. If the winds changed in 100 years and gays ruled the country and said straight marriage is "dangerous" and should be outlawed, would you not claim this to be a violation of your rights? "

again, NO ONE is making it illegal for two gay guys to pledge their butt love to each other. you need to understand the law better, dude. at the point where that is actually happening, then I'll stand with you. Sodomy laws simply aren't enforceable, that's already been shown. Nor should they be enforceable.

Quote :

"quote this over and over again forever"

yes, quote fallacious logic over and over and over again.

[Edited on September 7, 2011 at 3:04 PM. Reason : ]

9/7/2011 3:03:33 PM

^ you sir are an idiot

9/7/2011 3:06:49 PM

^^you are conflating religious marriage and legal marriage. two different things and in the end, aren't related/don't depend on one another

Quote :

"what do you mean "further" restrict? They are saying what the actual definition is, one that has been known for thousands of years. it's like trying to argue over the meaning of the word "is""

This is irrelevant. Slavery has been around for 1,000s of years; doesn't make it right

Quote :

"why shouldn't it?"

Because whenever a government takes action, especially in creating laws, there needs to be sound, factual, and meaningful reasons behind it.

Quote :

"Why is it warranted? Why can't society deem which social constructs it values?"

Because some people don't live by your religious/moral beliefs and it's not right to make them do so. And what society wants is irrelevant.

Quote :

"who is making it illegal for two gay guys to pledge their butt love to each other?"

marriage != sex or love and once again, it is wrong to deny an otherwise open, legal, government contract between two consenting adults. there are certain legal and finical rights/privileges/advantages to marriage which are independent of gender

Quote :

"the mere notion of a "gay marriage" is fallacious, as marriage specifically requires a man and a woman."

says the church. per our constitution, we don't all have to live by your christian beliefs.

Quote :

"again, NO ONE is making it illegal for two gay guys to pledge their butt love to each other. you need to understand the law better, dude. at the point where that is actually happening, then I'll stand with you. Sodomy laws simply aren't enforceable, that's already been shown. Nor should they be enforceable"

I guess this is trolling because it's repetitive and makes no sense.

9/7/2011 3:34:09 PM

Quote :

"you are conflating religious marriage and legal marriage. two different things and in the end, aren't related/don't depend on one another"

I'm talking about marriage, a concept which exists independent of the law and has for centuries until recently.

Quote :

"This is irrelevant. Slavery has been around for 1,000s of years; doesn't make it right"

slavery isn't a definition that is in question, either.

Quote :

"Because whenever a government takes action, especially in creating laws, there needs to be sound, factual, and meaningful reasons behind it."

great, I agree. What does that have to do with the price of tea in china? Why can't the government define a word that it is using, especially when said definition is one that has been understood for thousands of years?

Quote :

"Because some people don't live by your religious/moral beliefs and it's not right to make them do so. And what society wants is irrelevant. "

When society is making up the laws and defining what benefits it wants to ascribe to certain social constructs, it is relevant.

Quote :

"marriage != sex or love and once again, it is wrong to deny an otherwise open, legal, government contract between two consenting adults."

and it is not being denied. Show me, again, where two men cannot pledge their love to each other.

Quote :

"there are certain legal and finical rights/privileges/advantages to marriage which are independent of gender"

Correct. And all a gay person has to do to get them is enter into an actual marriage, one man, one woman.

Quote :

"says the church."

Says the fucking dictionary

Quote :

"I guess this is trolling because it's repetitive and makes no sense."

I repeated it because you aren't getting it. NO ONE is asking to make homosexuality illegal, nor is anyone asking to make it illegal for homosexuals to live together or pledge their lives to each other. NO ONE. You are getting upset over something that simply doesn't exist

9/7/2011 4:25:43 PM

good lord you are thick and/or trolling.

come back when you want to focus on what we're talking about.

you keep arguing about a religious marriage. we're talking about a legal marriage.

almost everything you post is about religion. marriage, in this argument, is not about religion. it is a legal contract.

oh yeh... dictionary, eh?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage

to me, it seems to cover marriage between same sex couples, to me.

[Edited on September 7, 2011 at 4:33 PM. Reason : .]

9/7/2011 4:31:42 PM

welcome to my world, wdprice

9/7/2011 4:34:01 PM

haha. I've agreed with burro often, but sheesh, not even close on this one

9/7/2011 4:37:02 PM

Quote :

"you keep arguing about a religious marriage. we're talking about a legal marriage."

and you still don't quite comprehend that marriage is marriage, no matter what fucking term you put in front of it. We created "legal marriage" as a benefit to bestow upon marriage. ergo, talking about marriage as it has been known forever makes perfect fucking sense.

Quote :

"it is a legal contract."

and one that the gov't has a right to define the parties who can enter into it. I'm glad we agree.

Quote :

"to me, it seems to cover marriage between same sex couples, to me."

one that they had to add in beyond the accepted and normal definition. ergo, my point stands.

Quote :

"almost everything you post is about religion."

not even close. you are just trying to claim it because you know that you are 100% wrong on what marriage is.

9/7/2011 5:04:51 PM

What bothers me are the "single issue voters" - the people that would vote for any warmongering, corporate interests serving motherfucker as long as they pay lip service to the LGBT "cause."

Get the government out of marriage. Then we can start arguing about things that actually matter and affect everyone's quality of life.

[Edited on September 7, 2011 at 5:10 PM. Reason : ]

9/7/2011 5:08:30 PM

9/7/2011 5:31:23 PM

i love you, leon. no homo

9/7/2011 5:47:16 PM

Quote :

"Get the government out of marriage. Then we can start arguing about things that actually matter and affect everyone's quality of life."

it will never happen.

it's too easy to rile up the simpletons with single, polarizing issues such as this, and politicians fully realize it.

their sheep will come out flailing, arguing to no end, even when they have nothing to rely on but non-sequiturs and subjective interpretations of the law. (see: aaronburro)

[Edited on September 7, 2011 at 6:48 PM. Reason : .]

9/7/2011 6:47:24 PM

what the hell is "subjective" about expecting the god damned definition of a word be the actual definition? exactly

9/7/2011 7:02:23 PM

Quote :

"they shouldn't, because the history of interracial marriage is a valid and existing one. no where do we see it accepted that a marriage was anything other than one man, one woman. yet fools like you want to redefine it to make other people with different choices feel good about themselves"

Sounds like you have some reading to do, then. I guess those Roman emperors who had gay marriages totally got told off by the Senate and had their health care benefits taken away.

9/7/2011 7:10:23 PM

I keep reading this thread as 'Bandwagon Gay Cruises'

9/7/2011 7:13:53 PM

Quote :

"I guess those Roman emperors who had gay marriages totally got told off by the Senate and had their health care benefits taken away."

hahahaha. I'm guessing the Native American tribes that allowed same sex marriage did the same thing. Perhaps the Indians and Thais as well.

9/7/2011 7:16:14 PM

so, we have Roman Emperors (who was gonna tell him no?) doing it... not a huge point at all.
we see pederasty being specifically called something different from marriage in Greece, thus proving my point.
even the Native American reference gives credence to the definition of marriage as "one man, one woman" by saying that one of the males became a "woman in spirit". you really are failing here, dude

9/7/2011 7:21:44 PM

Greece /= Rome. And it wasn't just emperors getting gay married, they're just the most famous examples.

9/7/2011 7:28:02 PM

wasn't trying to conflate greece and rome.
and everything I am seeing regarding rome shows people living together, which can hardly be considered "marriage". what we are seeing is that they are the exception, not the norm, and, as such, the term "marriage" is still properly seen in its historical context

9/7/2011 7:35:44 PM

You should get a custom bike made, because you could win the Tour de France with all the backpedaling you do.

9/7/2011 8:12:44 PM

not really. all you've got is "Nero was fuckin crazy!" well, yeah. and then we have history saying that marriage has always been known as one man, one woman, except when it comes to emperors who do whatever the fuck they want

9/7/2011 8:15:40 PM

And except for all the other cases people have mentioned in this thread, and others besides.

9/7/2011 8:23:22 PM

Question. If Chaz Bono shows up at the courthouse, which sex must its partner be in order for them to get legally married?

9/7/2011 8:24:24 PM

Would this marriage be in NC or NY?

9/7/2011 9:24:57 PM

^^Unless Prop 8 is struck down or same-sex marriage generally legalized by court order, Chaz could only legally marry a woman.

[Edited on September 7, 2011 at 9:28 PM. Reason : also McDanger, same-sex marriage was b& everywhere before 1 April 2001

9/7/2011 9:26:47 PM

I guess the question I'm really getting at is what is Chaz legally considered? M or F? Does popping testosterone and getting your boobs sucked out make you a male? I'm pretty sure there's still female plumbing in the basement.

9/7/2011 9:33:33 PM

IIRC laws vary from state to state.

9/7/2011 9:37:11 PM

shouldn't the republicans be trying to find a cure for the gays so big business can mass market it and make millions off curing the fagz?

9/7/2011 9:40:38 PM

Quote :

"And except for all the other cases people have mentioned in this thread, and others besides."

no, because the cases you are mentioning are examples of the rich and powerful doing whatever the fuck they want. Do you really think the Roman "police" were gonna show up and arrest Nero for "marrying" a dude? there are no other cases mentioned in this thread. Even the Native American case wasn't exactly as it seemed.

9/7/2011 10:18:25 PM

Sweet, sweet, Sergius and Bacchus lovin'

9/7/2011 10:20:56 PM

bump this thread daily as a monument to the dumb piece of shit that is aaronburro

9/8/2011 6:53:06 PM

I use the word faggot in the context as the "state of being all faggy". Doesn't mean they are an actual faggot. C.K Lewis.

9/8/2011 7:10:52 PM

yes, McDouche, continue to tell me all about those poor homosexuals being locked up because it's illegal to be gay.

9/8/2011 7:14:40 PM

Quote :

"Oppose fat marriage. They made bad choices. Don't reward them. Traditionally fatties are ostracized and not regarded as attractive enough to find a mate. This is a time tested tradition. "

Sweet!

Quote :

"If it were up to me government would have nothing to do with marriage, straight or gay. Civil unions for all, religious ceremonies for the religious!"

That's exactly my philosophy. Furthermore, if we structured our tax code so that it was marriage/civil union agnostic, that would be even better. Pay all of the military the "with dependent" housing allowance rate. I'd like to move down that road to the point where there would be no financial impact with respect to marriage/civil unions (or lack thereof).

If 2 adults want to enter into a contract, and the government is involved from a perspective of enforcing contract law if necessary, then that's fine. Other than that, go hump or live with who you want, and go have a ceremony in a church if you desire to.

9/8/2011 7:16:35 PM

Quote :

"I keep reading this thread as 'Bandwagon Gay Cruises'"

I wish it was.

9/8/2011 7:26:56 PM

Quote :

"If 2 adults want to enter into a contract, and the government is involved from a perspective of enforcing contract law if necessary, then that's fine. Other than that, go hump or live with who you want, and go have a ceremony in a church if you desire to."

Bingo.

9/9/2011 10:51:12 AM

someone please embed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5o2YyTA-55c

9/9/2011 10:57:30 AM

Quote :

"Why is it warranted? Why can't society deem which social constructs it values?"

Society can deem whatever the fuck social constructs it desires. But the fact that in your twisted mind you think it's ok to force those social constructs on people is sick.

Social constructs used to deem a lot of immoral shit as "normal" (see: segregation, suffrage, etc.). If the government had backed the fuck off and not forced social constructs on people, this country would have been free years ago.

It's people like you that I can't stand, because you're right on a lot of issues...but you and the rest of the social conservatives are getting your stupid religious bullshit in the way of actually having the rest of your views (and mine) being taken seriously.

9/9/2011 11:06:33 AM

Quote :

"Social constructs used to deem a lot of immoral shit as "normal" (see: segregation, suffrage, etc.)."

entirely different. no one is forcing anyone to get married or preventing anyone from spending their lives together. Society is simply saying "we value this over this", and we do it every fucking where.

Quote :

".but you and the rest of the social conservatives are getting your stupid religious bullshit in the way of actually having the rest of your views (and mine) being taken seriously."

hahaha, you are hilarious. you actually think shit like this. I am ANYTHING but socially conservative. I'm with theDuke and wolfpackgrrr above, but I hate it when gays come in and bitch about something that they have no business complaining about. they made their choice, now live with it. Marriage is marriage, and no amount of butt hurt changes that fact. And, I rightfully laugh at people like wdprice3 who somehow think that the government not giving benefits to people who don't meet the basic fucking requirements for it is the same as making homosexuality illegal and throwing guys in jail for sucking on a dick

[Edited on September 9, 2011 at 1:08 PM. Reason : ]

9/9/2011 1:04:35 PM

this thread needs more spiderman....

9/9/2011 1:07:19 PM

^^ yet you continue to conveniently ignore that in denying them the ability to actually marry, they are being denied other benefits and privileges that are afforded to other citizens. some of great significance, especially in end of life situations (eg. when a partner suffers a sudden injury that could lead to death, the living partner is not afforded that right to make the end of life decision).

that's where a lot of the rub lies.

just curious, are you only opposed to gay marriage or are you okay with civil unions, if civil unions were revised to afford all of the same rights, privileges and tax benefits and burdens as marriage.

(you may have stated your position on this, but i'm not bothering with wading through this mess to find it).

[Edited on September 9, 2011 at 1:10 PM. Reason : .]

9/9/2011 1:10:40 PM

Quote :

"yet you continue to conveniently ignore that in denying them the ability to actually marry"

I'm not denying them ANYTHING. they want to go have a ceremony, fine. they still won't be married, BECAUSE THEY DON'T MEET THE BASIC FUCKING REQUIREMENT. get that through your thick fucking skull, dude. NO ONE IS DENYING THEM ANYTHING BUT THEMSELVES.

Quote :

"they are being denied other benefits and privileges that are afforded to other citizens. "

and they can get those benefits: by marrying someone of the opposite sex and completing the basic requirement for marriage. I don't go buy stock in GM and then demand to get dividends from Ford.

Quote :

"some of great significance, especially in end of life situation"

and that can be obtained already, for anyone. Just go file the paperwork.

Quote :

"just curious, are you only opposed to gay marriage or are you okay with civil unions, if civil unions were revised to afford all of the same rights, privileges and tax benefits and burdens as marriage."

if the people voted as such, then so be it. But complaining right now that "you aren't given the same rights" is bullshit when you aren't doing what is required to GET those rights. What homosexuals effectively want is for the government to say "what you do is A-OK". They want government acceptance. That's not the government's job.

[Edited on September 9, 2011 at 1:15 PM. Reason : ]

9/9/2011 1:14:36 PM

ohhhh, it's becoming quite clear now.

you're one of the delusional mongoloids who believes that homosexual people choose to be gay.

i'm sorry i didn't realize that sooner. carry on.

9/9/2011 1:34:21 PM

nice come back. how dare I think that going against the way we are naturally programmed is anything other than a choice. instead, you'll just call me names, meaning you have no actual argument

even if it weren't a choice, and it is, it would have NO effect on my argument so far. They STILL wouldn't meet the requirements of marriage as it is and was understood when the laws were passed to give benefits to it.

[Edited on September 9, 2011 at 1:36 PM. Reason : ]

9/9/2011 1:36:08 PM

Quote :

"and they can get those benefits: by marrying someone of the opposite sex and completing the basic requirement for marriage. I don't go buy stock in GM and then demand to get dividends from Ford."

This is BS on so many levels. Why is it that the self entitled feel like they can tell someone else how to run their own life?

It is one thing to be personally against a certain idea, but entirely something else to force your own personal ideas onto other people, as if you know what is best for them. Why is so difficult to live in a world that is different from your utopia?

9/9/2011 2:41:12 PM