[Ray9]

Marriage is between a man and a woman (male/female) period. The rest of this is just laughable. Most people don't give a rat's ass what others do in private no matter how perverse but reasonable people draw the line at altering society and butchering traditions to celebrate that perversity. It's not going to happen.

[Nemesis]

	Originally Posted by Ray9 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It's not going to happen.

Already is.

[Nothingradio]

Some previous Marriage traditions:
-legal marital rape
-arranged marriage
-possession of a spouse as property
-marriage of teenagers
-marriage within approved social circles
-requiring a dowry
-Conducted as a business deal
-No possibility of divorce
-Often polygamous
-Man=money maker, Woman=house wife

The definition of marriage has changed, many times over. Limitations have been placed and removed, restrictions have been added, rules have been bent. Society will not collapse by changing things a little bit more (changes that have already occurred in several places already)

the cultures that adapt with shifting circumstances are the ones that survive. Our culture is heavily based in freedom and individualism, and thus we must accommodate for people being individuals acting freely, lest we actually do betray the more innate values of our culture

[BlackOp]

	Originally Posted by Ray9 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	reasonable people draw the line at altering society and butchering traditions to celebrate that perversity.

“Tradition is the illusion of permanence.” ..Woody Allen

Woody Allen > Ray9

---------- Post added 08-06-2012 at 09:48 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by newtome To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Sodom and Gomorrah To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

And this proves what?...there is no archeological evidence that these places ever existed. If you want to debate..try to make sure your arguments are rooted in something other than idealism wrapped in a fairy tale.

[dungeonguy88]

	Originally Posted by Ray9 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Marriage is between a man and a woman (male/female) period. The rest of this is just laughable. Most people don't give a rat's ass what others do in private no matter how perverse but reasonable people draw the line at altering society and butchering traditions to celebrate that perversity. It's not going to happen.

An appeal to tradition. Nothing more.

[newtome]

Originally Posted by BlackOp To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Some close-minded people on this forum. I would think an INTJ wouldn't give two fucks about someone being gay..but would definitely spot the hypocrisy/contradictions in those that do. They would also realize that "god" doesn't give a shit about gay marriage....and if it does, it will be them, alone, who has to answer in the end. None of their fucking business...and has no bearing on their life. Always getting into other's shit..acting like they know better...but never do and conveniently skip over vital elements that don't support their narrow-minded argument. Fact: Being attracted to the same gender is proven to be genetic. Dont like it...blame your all knowing "god" for the crappy engineering.

	Originally Posted by BlackOp To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What part of "thou shall not judge" confuses you..do earthquakes kill only sinners..tornadoes, tidal waves..volcanoes..hurricanes? Don't project that you know what the fuck a "god" might think...and use that as an excuse. It's ridiculous...and not objectively thought out.

	Originally Posted by BlackOp To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	And this proves what?...there is no archeological evidence that these places ever existed. If you want to debate..try to make sure your arguments are rooted in something other than idealism wrapped in a fairy tale.

YOU raised GOD first, not me. You stated that god doesn't give a shit about gay marriage and even then god would take it up with the gay later. You blamed gayness on god and his crappy engineering. You asked that I not project that I know what the fuck "god" might think.

Then it becomes that my idealism shouldn't be wrapped in a fairy tale.

Do me a favour and stop using fairy tales to convince me of why gays should have marriage when those same fairy tales tell of whole cities being destroyed for permitting and condoning homosexuality. You claim the fairy tales make it between god and the gay person yet the same fairy tales show it is also between god and the society.

You know my views on gay marriage, but to claim fairy tales support the fact that society should butt out is absurd and when that is pointed out you claim that fairy tales should never be used as the basis for an arguement anyway.

So what was your original point again? Oh yeah, the bible says its OK.

[BlackOp]

Originally Posted by newtome To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

YOU raised GOD first, not me. You stated that god doesn't give a shit about gay marriage and even then god would take it up with the gay later. You blamed gayness on god and his crappy engineering. You asked that I not project that I know what the fuck "god" might think. Then it becomes that my idealism shouldn't be wrapped in a fairy tale. Do me a favour and stop using fairy tales to convince me of why gays should have marriage when those same fairy tales tell of whole cities being destroyed for permitting and condoning homosexuality. You claim the fairy tales make it between god and the gay person yet the same fairy tales show it is also between god and the society. You know my views on gay marriage, but to claim fairy tales support the fact that society should butt out is absurd and when that is pointed out you claim that fairy tales should never be used as the basis for an arguement anyway. So what was your original point again? Oh yeah, the bible says its OK.

It's pretty simple...If people have a problem with gay marriage....and it's not based on religion..they're selfish, small-minded bigots. If they are against gay marriage and it IS based on religion..they are a selfish, small-minded bigots that believe in fairy tales...see the difference? Sorry for the confusion..

Let me flip this....Christians believed witches were real...to the point of burning them alive. Do you agree with this? Were they wrong? How could they be wrong if the word of god is unflappable? It IS your religion....somehow, somewhere...civilization decided this was kind of fucked up and it stopped. "Your" god hasn't said anything in a long. long time...so how can witches all of a sudden not become witches? Please explain as I'm confused...if god's word is law...then we should still be burning them right?

[newtome]

	Originally Posted by BlackOp To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It's pretty simple...If people have a problem with gay marriage....and it's not based on religion..they're selfish, small-minded bigots. If they are against gay marriage and it IS based on religion..they are a selfish, small-minded bigots that believe in fairy tales...see the difference?

Hmmmmmm, would the people who think the bigots are bigots be bigots themselves?

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
)

[BlackOp]

	Originally Posted by newtome To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Hmmmmmm, would the people who think the bigots are bigots be bigots themselves? To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. )

I'm not preventing an entire group of people from enjoying equal freedom....kind of a small detail, conveniently removed from your rebuttal.

[newtome]

	Originally Posted by BlackOp To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm not preventing an entire group of people from enjoying equal freedom....kind of a small detail, conveniently removed from your rebuttal.

True, but that is not the definition of a bigot. In case the two line description in the link was too hard to read I will post it.

	A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own or intolerant of people of different political views, ethnicity, race, class, religion, profession, sexuality or gender.

Nothing there about trying to prevent something, just intolerance. If you are intolerant of anti-gay opinions then............

[BlackOp]

	Originally Posted by newtome To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	True, but that is not the definition of a bigot. In case the two line description in the link was too hard to read I will post it. Nothing there about trying to prevent something, just intolerance. If you are intolerant of anti-gay opinions then............

I don't care about Christians....they can do what ever they want..as long as it inst fucking with an innocent group of people.

Just because your cult has a lot of people..doesn't mean it's right. Muslims have you dwarfed as far as the amount of followers..essentially, their god is bigger than yours.

You haven't answered my post about witches...until you explain that logic in detail, I'm not going to keep making fun of you.

[Nemesis]

	Originally Posted by BlackOp To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You haven't answered my post about witches.

I'm looking forward to this answer, too.


Side note:

What kind of flimsy ass reasoning is this "aren't the people who think bigots are bigots, bigots themselves" and "you are against our intolerance, so you must be intolerant" crap?

May as well just say 'I know you are, but what am I?" then go cry by the playground.

[newtome]

Originally Posted by BlackOp To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

What part of "thou shall not judge" confuses you..do earthquakes kill only sinners..tornadoes, tidal waves..volcanoes..hurricanes? Don't project that you know what the fuck a "god" might think...and use that as an excuse. It's ridiculous...and not objectively thought out. Christians used to burn witches less than 5 generations ago...they stopped...I bet that pisses your god off...all those witches, prancing around free in 2012...probably explains the heat wave...god is getting it's revenge.

Originally Posted by BlackOp To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I don't care about Christians....they can do what ever they want..as long as it inst fucking with an innocent group of people. Just because your cult has a lot of people..doesn't mean it's right. Muslims have you dwarfed as far as the amount of followers..essentially, their god is bigger than yours. You haven't answered my post about witches...until you explain that logic in detail, I'm not going to keep making fun of you.

Firstly, I am not christian unless like muslim's you think someone either has to be christian or non christian with no shades of grey, just like muslims think you must be a believer or a non-believer. I have no interest in defending the Christian faith anymore than I do in defending gay marriage but I also accept that they are entitled to their views as you are to yours.

Witchhunts; whose god are we talking about? The fairy tale god, the Christian god, Muslim god or some other god? Why go back 5 generations, we can talk about today if you want.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Modern witch-hunts:

	India In India, labeling a woman as a witch is a common ploy to grab land, settle scores or even to punish her for turning down sexual advances. In a majority of the cases, it is difficult for the accused woman to reach out for help and she is forced to either abandon her home and family or driven to commit suicide.

	Papua New Guinea Though the practice of "white" magic (such as faith healing) is legal in Papua, the 1976 Sorcery Act imposes a penalty of up to 2 years in prison for the practise of "black" magic. In 2009, the government reports that extrajudicial torture and murder of alleged witches — usually lone women — are spreading from the Highland areas to cities as villagers migrate to urban areas

Saudi Arabia Witchcraft or sorcery remains a criminal offense in Saudi Arabia, although the precise nature of the crime is undefined.[54] The frequency of prosecutions for this in the country as whole is unknown. However, in November 2009, it was reported that 118 persons had been arrested in the province of Makkah that year for practising magic and “using the Book of Allah in a derogatory manner”,

I wont defend witch hunts or the Christian churches role but it isn't only in the name of the Christian god or generations ago.

If you want to compare gods and say that based on followers one god is bigger than another then I'm fine with that, but you may not be. The Muslim god still preaches intolerance and condeming people to death. Other faiths in the name of their gods do as well. Christianity is kinda not so bad in comparison.

---------- Post added 08-07-2012 at 03:12 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by Nemesis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm looking forward to this answer, too. Side note: What kind of flimsy ass reasoning is this "aren't the people who think bigots are bigots, bigots themselves" and "you are against our intolerance, so you must be intolerant" crap? May as well just say 'I know you are, but what am I?" then go cry by the playground.

It is possible to not like ones opinion without being prejudiced or intolerant. Judges do it all the time in a court of law as do most of society. The fact that you miss that is interesting.

[BlackOp]

	Originally Posted by newtome To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Christianity is kinda not so bad in comparison.

Oh really...followers of this fucked up religion have killed more people than all others combined..... Remember that when making a judgment call..and the history of the company you keep. This is what you bought into...own it. Dont distance yourself from the gory past..it's all a part of what "guides" this cult and what the followers deem fit for "the rest of us".

The US was founded on the escaping that repression..now, many here think they are "great patriots" denying others freedoms...based on religion. Tools would be an understatement.

[newtome]

Originally Posted by BlackOp To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Oh really...followers of this fucked up religion have killed more people than all others combined..... Remember that when making a judgment call..and the history of the company you keep. This is what you bought into...own it. Dont distance yourself from the gory past..it's all a part of what "guides" this cult and what the followers deem fit for "the rest of us". The US was founded on the escaping that repression..now, many here think they are "great patriots" denying others freedoms...based on religion. Tools would be an understatement.

First thing, everything grows and evolves. Christians seem far more tolerant these days. Maybe you should emigrate to the Middle East or parts of Asia and campaign for Gay Marriage.

Secondly, I'm not even American and I don't believe that. America may have seperation of church and state but there is clearly a Christian basis to most of your history.

Judeo-Christian.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The present meaning of "Judeo-Christian" regarding ethics first appeared in print on July 27, 1939, with the phrase "the Judaeo-Christian scheme of morals" in the New English Weekly.[8] The term gained much currency in the 1940s, promoted by groups which evolved into the National Conference of Christians and Jews, to fight antisemitism by expressing a more inclusive idea of American values rather than just Christian or Protestant.[9][10] By 1952 Dwight Eisenhower looked to the Founding Fathers of 1776 to say: "all men are endowed by their Creator." In other words, our form of government has no sense unless it is founded in a deeply felt religious faith, and I don't care what it is. With us of course it is the Judeo-Christian concept, but it must be a religion with all men created equal.

US Declaration of Independence states:

	an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence, which reads, "All men…are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

Who is the creator it refers to?

The official motto of the United States; In God We Trust

.........it was found that the Act of Congress dated January 18, 1837, prescribed the mottoes and devices that should be placed upon the coins of the United States. This meant that the mint could make no changes without the enactment of additional legislation by the Congress. Such legislation was introduced and passed on April 22, 1864, allowing the Secretary of the Treasury to authorize the inclusion of the phrase on one-cent and two-cent coins.[11] Another Act of Congress passed on March 3, 1865. It allowed the Mint Director, with the Secretary's approval, to place the motto on all gold and silver coins that "shall admit the inscription thereon." [12][13] In 1873, Congress passed the Coinage Act, granting that the Secretary of the Treasury "may cause the motto IN GOD WE TRUST to be inscribed on such coins as shall admit of such motto."

Hmmmmmm, so even congress believes in, or at least did, a "God".

There are many many other excerpts that support the religious values that helped make America what it is today. Just as American Christianity has come a long way so has American society and Gay rights.

I have no interest in distancing myself from any gory past. My judgement call has little to do with Christianity. I see their point of view and I see yours. They believe marriage is sacred. You want equality of rights. A compromise would be to rewrite the laws so they have the sanctity of marriage through the church and you along with every other couple have equal rights by a civil union through the state. It is called a compromise for a reason, you lose the right to use the term marriage, nothing else. Christians lose American society being based on the concept of marriage.

---------- Post added 08-07-2012 at 05:51 PM ----------

To argue your case against American Christianity for you here are some words about Christianity from your founding fathers.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The Bible? Here is what our Founding Fathers wrote about Bible-based Christianity Thomas Jefferson "I have examined all the known superstitions of the world and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth." SIX HISTORIC AMERICANS By John E. Remsburg, letter to William Short Jefferson again "Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and imposters led by Paul, the first great corruptor of the teachings of Jesus." More Jefferson "The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulturated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ." Jefferson's word for the Bible? "Dunghill." John Adams "Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole cartloads of other trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?" Also Adams "The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity." Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 states "The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." Here's Thomas Paine "I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible)." "Among the most detesable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to 'God' to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers, and to debauch and rape the daughters. I would not dare so dishonor my Creator's name by (attaching) it to this filthy book (the Bible)." "It is the duty of every true Diest to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible."

So the Founding Fathers believed in GOD. But not the Bible or Christianity. So were they Diest's or Freemasons? They must have been part of some group the believed in a fairy tale god, so which one? What Cult did they belong to?

[LadySpock]

Originally Posted by Nothingradio To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Some previous Marriage traditions: -legal marital rape -arranged marriage -possession of a spouse as property -marriage of teenagers -marriage within approved social circles -requiring a dowry -Conducted as a business deal -No possibility of divorce -Often polygamous -Man=money maker, Woman=house wife The definition of marriage has changed, many times over. Limitations have been placed and removed, restrictions have been added, rules have been bent. Society will not collapse by changing things a little bit more (changes that have already occurred in several places already)

You are using some interesting reasoning there...

That handy dandy list does not contain one instance of the definition of marriage changing...It contains examples of the details, set up, and functional operation of marriage changing. Even with everything on that list, marriage was still between men and women, not between men and men or women and women.

	the cultures that adapt with shifting circumstances are the ones that survive. Our culture is heavily based in freedom and individualism, and thus we must accommodate for people being individuals acting freely, lest we actually do betray the more innate values of our culture

I have seen absolutely no circumstance that warrants changing marriage from being defined as one man plus one woman.

Our culture can shift to becoming less based on individuality and freedom at any time....or it can go the other way. We will be just fine. Homosexual marriage is not the social linchpin you seem to be saying it is.

[Nemesis]

	Originally Posted by LadySpock To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Our culture can shift to becoming less based on individuality and freedom at any time....or it can go the other way. We will be just fine. Homosexual marriage is not the social linchpin you seem to be saying it is.

Well, if it really doesn't matter... why would it be a problem? An overly pedantic interpretation of a definition? Woo. Top notch.

[Nothingradio]

	Originally Posted by LadySpock To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You are using some interesting reasoning there... That handy dandy list does not contain one instance of the definition of marriage changing...It contains examples of the details, set up, and functional operation of marriage changing. Even with everything on that list, marriage was still between men and women, not between men and men or women and women.

except for the fact that most modern dictionaries include caveats in their definitions for gay marriage.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


several states and countries have already changed definitions to include same sex marriage

	I have seen absolutely no circumstance that warrants changing marriage from being defined as one man plus one woman.

yes, i agree, absolutely no circumstance. except the circumstance that a majority of the population
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.

	Our culture can shift to becoming less based on individuality and freedom at any time....or it can go the other way. We will be just fine. Homosexual marriage is not the social linchpin you seem to be saying it is.

so why not legalize it?

[IotaNull]

	Originally Posted by Ray9 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Marriage is between a man and a woman (male/female) period.

This is one of those instances where proper punctuation really matters.

	Most people don't give a rat's ass what others do in private no matter how perverse

But you're not "most people", are you?

	but reasonable people draw the line at altering society and butchering traditions

Tell that to Jacob. Society has never been completely static. Even Fox News (the only source that seems to be of any relevance to you) understands that -- it's in their very name.

---------- Post added 08-07-2012 at 03:36 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by LadySpock To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I have seen absolutely no circumstance that warrants changing marriage from being defined as one man plus one woman.

Because going to ridiculously byzantine lengths to change the functional operation of marriage without changing the definition is a much easier and simpler alternative. Given that a list of things homosexuals cannot do due to the extant definition has
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
, I suggest you get reading glasses. Well, either that or abandon your idea that being steadfast in your beliefs in the face of contradictory facts is a virtue.

Out of curiosity, are you a black supremacist? It seems to be the only sensible way to interpret your stances across this board.

[LadySpock]

I am a LadySpock Supremacist.

[AnaK]

All this thread has done for me is drive home just how much single people are discriminated against in the USA. I'm pissed off. Why can't I designate another adult to be covered under my employer health care policy? Why can't I let another adult draw against my social security benefits. Is the state in the business of promoting sexual relationships? Why?

[Arcanist]

	Originally Posted by AnaK To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	All this thread has done for me is drive home just how much single people are discriminated against in the USA. I'm pissed off. Why can't I designate another adult to be covered under my employer health care policy? Why can't I let another adult draw against my social security benefits. Is the state in the business of promoting sexual relationships? Why?

Good, I'm glad other people are starting to think like this. It isn't fair. It's discriminatory and it privileges only a very certain kind of relationship and sees the rest as somehow lesser than.

The state should not be involved in marriage.

[INTelliJent]

	Originally Posted by AnaK To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Is the state in the business of promoting sexual relationships? Why?

Yes.


Check Japan for the extreme example.

[LadySpock]

	Originally Posted by AnaK To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	All this thread has done for me is drive home just how much single people are discriminated against in the USA. I'm pissed off. Why can't I designate another adult to be covered under my employer health care policy? Why can't I let another adult draw against my social security benefits. Is the state in the business of promoting sexual relationships? Why?

Excellent questions.


Rather than all the venomous bile spewing and comparisons to being BLACK, why not address this issue with more practicality and tact.

Homosexual behavior does not amount to being Black. Any neutral parties or friends you had among Blacks who actually pay taces and vote are gone when you start stating that bullshiggity.

[Nemesis]

	Originally Posted by LadySpock To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Homosexual behavior does not amount to being Black.

That's not what anyone is saying.

The comparison is between how marginalized groups (of which, there are many) are similarly mistreated in society, not a comparison directly equating blacks and gays.