At Day-Care: a nice story of homo families at play

[Strike 5,845]

It's partly a matter of opinion, but at least I have a few coherent arguments on my side. You've got nothing. It's OK though - within our lifetime many if not all states will offer some form of civil unions for gay couples, if not marriage. You are on the wrong side of history.

 

I've got nothing? Again, that's what's sad. You have to resort to comments such as that on an issue such as this. You can't allow for someone to have a differing viewpoint on an issue that is a personal decision issue. I'll be the first to jump on someone for not having a logical argument on issues that are simply logical but when it comes to tradition, morality, and things that can't simply be discussed on logic alone I allow for people to have a differing opinion.

 

I agree that a word can have different meanings in different contexts, that's kinda the point.

 

Gay people are already being married by in the religious sense, so the idea that the legal prohibition somehow protects the religious traditional sense of the word makes no sense to me. If churches are interested in protecting the religious sense of the word then their real beef is with the churches marrying gay people.

 

When a church shows me a copywright on the term "marriage" then I guess I'll concede that they have a right to decide who can use it and who can't.

 

When you prove to me that ALL churches are allowing it I'll concede your point.

[MDC 7,652]

I've got nothing? Again, that's what's sad. You have to resort to comments such as that on an issue such as this. You can't allow for someone to have a differing viewpoint on an issue that is a personal decision issue. I'll be the first to jump on someone for not having a logical argument on issues that are simply logical but when it comes to tradition, morality, and things that can't simply be discussed on logic alone I allow for people to have a differing opinion.

 

I'm totally OK with differences of opinion, provided the person I disagree with can back himself up with something better than "it's my opinion." Deep down I think all this stuff about "tradition" is just bluster - you think you're superior to gay people and insist that the law elevates your union to some status greater than there's. Like I said, in time you'll be on the wrong side of history so there's not much point in arguing about it.

[Fumbleweed 554]

Fumble, why do you assume that the ramifications of gay marriage would be negative? Seems to me that monogamy and greater social stability - since you now have a committed couple and not just long-term boyfriends or whatever - would be the expected result.

 

I also don't get what this has to do with the "ideal" family unit. Same-sex adoption is a different issue. Why would the existence of married gay couples change your ideal? Obviously you'd go on believing that man-woman marriage is superior.

 

It's not so much that I disagree with you - I just think all of this stuff is a canard.

 

MDC....you'll have to use the search feature on this one. We have been through this several times and my view on it has remained constant. If you're truly interested in exploring my take AGAIN, you can do the searching.

 

Thanks.

[parrot 789]

When you prove to me that ALL churches are allowing it I'll concede your point.

Why would I try to prove something I never came close to claiming?

 

I have never seen a gay marriage proposition that would force every church, or any church for that matter, to recognize and or allow gay marriage within their walls. If that comes up, then I'll concede your point.

[Strike 5,845]

I'm totally OK with differences of opinion, provided the person I disagree with can back himself up with something better than "it's my opinion." Deep down I think all this stuff about "tradition" is just bluster - you think you're superior to gay people and insist that the law elevates your union to some status greater than there's. Like I said, in time you'll be on the wrong side of history so there's not much point in arguing about it.

 

You'd be wrong. I have no problem with gay people. Unlike Toro I have no problem with them adopting either. I have no problem with them having a union. And it can have all the "features" of a traditional marriage. I just won't call it a marriage. I have honor for that tradition and believe the word marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman. I suspect you are correct though that eventually the meaning of the word will be expanded to mean any union. The pressure is there and eventually it will probably happen. Doesn't make me happy but I'm resigned to the probability.

 

Why would I try to prove something I never came close to claiming?

 

I have never seen a gay marriage proposition that would force every church, or any church for that matter, to recognize and or allow gay marriage within their walls. If that comes up, then I'll concede your point.

 

You don't, and I never said you claimed every church did. But bringing up the fact that a very small minority of churches will marry gays isn't very compelling either, is it?

[MDC 7,652]

MDC....you'll have to use the search feature on this one. We have been through this several times and my view on it has remained constant. If you're truly interested in exploring my take AGAIN, you can do the searching.

 

Thanks.

 

I guess I have seen it. It's just that it always comes down to your personal belief that you are superior to gay people, your relationship is more valid than theirs, and therefore you want to use the law to relegate them to a 2nd class status. Not in those words but at heart, that's what all this stuff about the "sanctity" of marriage is about.

[MDC 7,652]

It's not that one is superior. It's that they are not the same thing.

 

":Separate but equal," gotcha.

[Toro 1]

":Separate but equal," gotcha.

 

Learn to read, shitforbrains.

 

Not equal. Not the same. Unequal. Not same.

 

Got it?

[MDC 7,652]

Learn to read, shitforbrains.

 

Not equal. Not the same. Unequal. Not same.

 

Got it?

 

Why don't you take your nuts out of your MIL purse and say exactly what you mean you focking poosay.

 

You said it's not that one is superior. Therefore they are equal. Make more sense.

[MDC 7,652]

I thought I did. I thought the words "not the same thing" were pretty focking clear. Maybe those beers at lunch has caused you some confusion. Why don't you walk your 31-year-old-loser-ass back home to your craphole apartment and take a nap on your futon. I am sure the secretarial pool will help cover your dictation. You need to get refreshed before you have a hard night of writing short stories that everyone thinks is absolutely crap besides the dude at Kinkos who smokes crystal meth.

"It's not that one is superior. It's that they are not the same thing. "

 

Do you see the word equal in that, fockface?

 

Good answer stupidass.

 

First you say neither one is superior to the other. Then you say they are unequal. No wonder your focking MIL has to pay all of your bills and keep your cack in her purse, and you're such a focking embarassment and disgrace to your kids and your wife, who enjoys it when I pinch a hot lunch off into her mouth.

[MDC 7,652]

Not equal.

 

1 == 1.

1 != 2.

 

Is 2 superior to 1? 2 is greater than one, but it is not superior.

 

Link to definition of equal: http://www.answers.com/equal&r=67

 

"Showing or having no variance in proportion, structure, or appearance."

 

They are not equal.

 

Sorry - when you said that neither marriage was superior to the other, I took that to mean equal in a moral sense, since that was clearly what you were talking about, before you decided to spin your way out of it with this stupid torridjoe-esque semantic argument.

 

No kids?

 

I don't have any kids.

 

Why not? Your mother in law can't afford them?

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

Not equal.

1 == 1.

1 != 2.

 

Is 2 superior to 1? 2 is greater than one, but it is not superior.

 

Link to definition of equal: http://www.answers.com/equal&r=67

 

You lost me on this one:

 

1 = 1

1 < 2

 

If superior is "one of greater rank or station or quality", is not 2 superior to 1 when speaking of numbers? If 2 is greater than 1, then it is superior.

 

I think I understand your argument (and I agree that a civil union is not equal to marriage), but I don't understand whether you mean that marriage should be held on a different legal ground than a civil union. Should it and, if so, should a marriage in a church be held to a higher standard than one done by a JP?

[parrot 789]

Is 2 superior to 1? 2 is greater than one, but it is not superior.

How about a link to definition of "superior"?

 

Greater in number or amount than another

 

Face it, if torrid made this statement 17 people would have it as their sig already.

[MDC 7,652]

How am I supposed to figure out what Toro means when he doesn't even know?

[Strike 5,845]

How about a link to definition of "superior"?

Face it, if torrid made this statement 17 people would have it as their sig already.

 

Considering only two of us put his asinine "it's not illegal to commit a crime" statement in their sigs I doubt it. But I just ignore Toro. Unlike Muhammad, Toro's stupidity comes from the heart. Muhammads comes from the democratic party line.

[parrot 789]

Considering only two of us put his asinine "it's not illegal to commit a crime" statement in their sigs I doubt it. But I just ignore Toro. Unlike Muhammad, Toro's stupidity comes from the heart. Muhammads comes from the democratic party line.

I exaggerated. You got me.

[Strike 5,845]

Who said that?

What stupidity? Please show me my error?

 

I was talking in general.

[Fumbleweed 554]

I guess I have seen it. It's just that it always comes down to your personal belief that you are superior to gay people, your relationship is more valid than theirs, and therefore you want to use the law to relegate them to a 2nd class status. Not in those words but at heart, that's what all this stuff about the "sanctity" of marriage is about.

 

This isn't true and I'm truly sorry you have come to this understanding, but I'm tired of trying to explain myself to you. You will draw the same conclusions about me no matter what I say it seems....so believe what you want to, I guess.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

Can you rank numbers? Is one better than 2? They are both numbers. I guess if you look at it by the value of the numbers, then Roseanne Barr is superior to Halle Berry.

 

Legally: They should be 2 seperate entities. They might have similar attributes, but they are different.

 

Also, I don't give a crap where they got married or civil unioned. It's just the fact that there is someone who signs a piece of paper that says that the contract is good.

 

Don't get mad at me because you don't know what you are talking about.

 

Tell you what. I will give you $1 (US) and you give me 2 million dollars (US). They are just numbers

 

As far as whether there are two separate legal definitions, I understand what you are saying. The question that keeps coming up is whether those two definitions end up with the same rights under the law? If so, I am with you. If you think that one has more/different rights, then I disagree.

[Strike 5,845]

This isn't true and I'm truly sorry you have come to this understanding, but I'm tired of trying to explain myself to you. You will draw the same conclusions about me no matter what I say it seems....so believe what you want to, I guess.

 

LOL. yeah I came to the same conclusion. Apparently if we don't share his beliefs on gay marriage we must feel gays are inferior.

[Strike 5,845]

In general, you can suck my corn out of my shat.

 

How's that?

 

Kinda stupid?

[MDC 7,652]

It's not that one is superior. It's that they are not the same thing.

 

Not equal. Not the same. Unequal. Not same.

 

OK, so you tell me that you don't think straight relationships are superior to gay relationships (and vice versa), but then go on to tell me that they're unequal. Makes perfect sense to me.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

But looking at money, the main definition of superior is based on the number. Superior....awww, forget it.

 

Exact same rights. But one is for a man and a woman.

 

I am with you. Same rights, call it something different.

 

'Mkay?

[MDC 7,652]

One is not better than the other. They are two seperate and distinct entities.

 

How's that, fakespeare?

 

You sound stupid to everyone here.

[MDC 7,652]

Not really. It's just confusing to you. Everyone else here knew exactly what I was talking about.

 

Sure they did.

[porkbutt 897]

i'll tell you that straight relationships are superior.

[fastfish 0]

i'll tell you that straight relationships are superior.

 

And any 1st year anthropolgy student would confirm that you are right porkbutt. Humankind has taboos because the species needs them for survival. Homo's don't produce offspring and thus society, ALL societies in all lands since the beginning, have made homo-sex inferior and deviant so that the majority can get on with procreation as nature intended. Incest is another good example of a taboo that has it's origin in survival...babies with your sister make for a sick gene pool and weaken the species. So incest is a taboo and is deviant sex. Find a mate away from your own family gene pool and the species thrives.

 

What the lil' lib twins MDC-parrot want to argue is that homo marriage is the same as hetro marriage and society will someday "mature" (more blue state snobbery here) to the point where all homo's hookups will be welcome as the same as marriage bewtween a man and woman. This is gay-lib dreaming and has no basis in history or fact. There is no example of a society, any society, where homo hookups are anything more than a small minority of folk being nasty for fun and lewd pleasure.

 

It's not bigotry or discrimination or one group trying to be superior...it's anthropolgy and the rules are as plainly written as our DNA. Marriage is between man and woman. It's the fundamental unit of human society.

[Chronic Husker 85]

Incest is another good example of a taboo that has it's origin in survival...babies with your sister make for a sick gene pool and weaken the species.

 

It's not bigotry or discrimination or one group trying to be superior...it's anthropolgy and the rules are as plainly written as our DNA.

 

If you have children, I'm positive that they are weakening the species.

[Bigtraine 32]

Humankind has taboos because the species needs them for survival. Homo's don't produce offspring...

 

So you are against Gay Marriage because you are afraid that the human species will die out due to not being able to reproduce sufficiently?

[parrot 789]

There is no example of a society, any society, where homo hookups are anything more than a small minority of folks ...

Exactly, and they will stay a small minority whether you grant them equal protections under the law or not, unless you buy the load of tripe that legalizing gay marriage will somehow start a mass exodus to homosexuality that hasn't yet happened in all of recorded time. As Bigtraine pointed out, the human race is in far more danger of overpopulating the planet than of dying out because men and women suddenly deciding they don't like to fock each other, so all your gasbag pontificating about anthropology and the survival of the species being threatened is a load of typical chicken-little horsesh!t with no basis in rational thought.

[parrot 789]

OMG THE HOMO'S ARE COMING THE HOMO'S ARE COMING

[SUXBNME 1,583]

OMG THE HOMO'S ARE COMING THE HOMO'S ARE COMING

 

I think they are already here

[fastfish 0]

I think they are already here

 

no sh!t

 

I explained in an amazingly succinct manner why the majority will never accept homo hookups as marriage... all fervent gay-lib wishing making no difference at all. And if we look at the recent evidence at the polls, each time people are asked this question they vote for man-woman marriage and against homo hookups.

 

But don't let me rain on your gay-pride parade...carry on. Just quit trying to indoctrinate the kids before the majority really does decide homo's threaten their famlies.

[God Almighty 35]

no sh!t

 

I explained in an amzingly succinct manner why the majority will never accept homo hookups as marriage... all fervent gay-lib wishing making no difference at all. And if we look at the recent evidence at the polls, each time people are asked this question they vote for man-woman marriage and against home hookups.

 

But don't let me rain on your gay-pride parade...carry on. Just quit trying to indoctrinate the kids before the majority really does decide homo's threaten their famlies.

 

I accept you just as you are, just like I accept them as my children.

 

You are a misguided twit.

[parrot 789]

no sh!t

 

I explained in an amazingly succinct manner why the majority will never accept homo hookups as marriage...

Yep, because heterosexual sex, one of the primary instinctive driving forces of the vast majority of the population will suddenly fall out of fashion and the human race with its 6.5 billion and growing members will DIE OUT if we allow legal recognition of domestic arrangements that are already occurring!

 

That's amazingly suckcinct all right.

[phillybear 366]

It is of my most unbiased and most thoroughly researched conclusion that this thread has deteriorated into post padding, and that it should have been off page one a day and a half ago.

 

:postpad:

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

And any 1st year anthropolgy student would confirm that you are right porkbutt. Humankind has taboos because the species needs them for survival. Homo's don't produce offspring and thus society, ALL societies in all lands since the beginning, have made homo-sex inferior and deviant so that the majority can get on with procreation as nature intended. Incest is another good example of a taboo that has it's origin in survival...babies with your sister make for a sick gene pool and weaken the species. So incest is a taboo and is deviant sex. Find a mate away from your own family gene pool and the species thrives.

 

What the lil' lib twins MDC-parrot want to argue is that homo marriage is the same as hetro marriage and society will someday "mature" (more blue state snobbery here) to the point where all homo's hookups will be welcome as the same as marriage bewtween a man and woman. This is gay-lib dreaming and has no basis in history or fact. There is no example of a society, any society, where homo hookups are anything more than a small minority of folk being nasty for fun and lewd pleasure.

 

It's not bigotry or discrimination or one group trying to be superior...it's anthropolgy and the rules are as plainly written as our DNA. Marriage is between man and woman. It's the fundamental unit of human society.

 

Again, you show your lack of knowledge. Anthropology tells us that we should actually just have polygamy. The strong male will procreate with as many women as possible so as to have a stronger species. That is fine if you want to have Planet of the Apes. However, that has nothing to do with a "society". Our society says that we can have one male and one female as part of a marriage. No other species does it that way. Marriage (to a single person) is completely man made (fock the swan argument). If you want to say that guys should be able to shag at will, then I am with you. Otherwise, you are showing your ignorance (again).

[torridjoe 48]

 

Your kind of court.

 

Just because the 9th circuit said so, doesn't make it right.

 

Neither precedent I cited was made by the 9th.

 

That's too simplistic. I'm not getting into my views with you yet again, but it falls along the lines of needing to maintain some traditional ideals with respect to family. When the boundaries are completely eroded with respect to institutions like marriage, I think the ramifications are enormous. I know you don't agree and I wouldn't ask you to of course, but it runs deeper than what you're saying.

 

Man-woman marriage needs to stay the ideal for society for a number of reasons, IMO. I have said all along that I am in favor of civil unions or whatever is necessary to eliminate discrimination, but while every family in America should be considered "ok", it is still appropriate, I believe, to have ideals with respect to institutions and relationships.

 

I won't get more specific as we have done this same thread a hundred times. I just wanted to explain that the reasons aren't as simple as you're making them out to be in my opinion.

 

How does same sex marriage erode boundaries? Both are the union of 2 humans of age, in love pledged to each other.

 

If same sex marriage is a deviation from "the ideal", divorces, quickie marriages and blended families are deviations from the ideal as well, aren't they? Would you ban these arrangements as well?

 

 

 

Considering only two of us put his asinine "it's not illegal to commit a crime" statement in their sigs I doubt it. But I just ignore Toro. Unlike Muhammad, Toro's stupidity comes from the heart. Muhammads comes from the democratic party line.

 

Keep trying to pretend I'm a Democrat. Keep looking ignorant.

And I never said "it's not illegal to commit a crime" in the first place.

 

Again, you show your lack of knowledge. Anthropology tells us that we should actually just have polygamy. The strong male will procreate with as many women as possible so as to have a stronger species. That is fine if you want to have Planet of the Apes. However, that has nothing to do with a "society". Our society says that we can have one male and one female as part of a marriage. No other species does it that way. Marriage (to a single person) is completely man made (fock the swan argument). If you want to say that guys should be able to shag at will, then I am with you. Otherwise, you are showing your ignorance (again).

 

I believe penguins mate for life.

[Ravens 03 0]

How does same sex marriage erode boundaries? Both are the union of 2 humans of age, in love pledged to each other.

 

Do you actually believe this BS or just like being argumentative?

[Strike 5,845]

And I never said "it's not illegal to commit a crime" in the first place.

 

LOL so I paraphrased. Same meaning. Spin the slight difference in words however you like. It gets mentioned every day, and not by me. You're still a laughinstock over that idiotic comment. Just because you disappear for a week out of embarrassment doesn't mean people forget.