Not In America's Interest

[teens4bush]

If a liberal tells you that gay marriage is in our best interest, think again. Lats election, eleven states voted to constitutionally ban gay marriage in their state constitutions. What does that tell us? Even in democratic Oregon, 60% voted to ban it.
Your thoughts?

[Wadi66]

The topic changed from the one intended to the UN. Thus, I created a new thread to separate the issues.

[God v2.0]

basically it somes down to this in my mind.

Gay marraige is impossible.

Marriage is a religious sacrament, and the government cant force a religion to change its practices. Little thingie called the First Amendment.

Gay Civil Unions are the same as regular civil unions, the same benefits as a normal couple. (Being gay is NOT normal, in a biological sense). When a straight couple is married in the Church, they are also given a legal document saying so.

That is gay marriage, and it comes down to personal choice. Do what you want as long as you dont hurt someone else. Think, does two gay men who are married really change your life at all?

[NightOne]

If a liberal tells you that gay marriage is in our best interest, think again. Lats election, eleven states voted to constitutionally ban gay marriage in their state constitutions. What does that tell us? Even in democratic Oregon, 60% voted to ban it.
Your thoughts?


Something like 100% of the Southern states would have voted to keep slavery in 1860.

What does that tell us?

[Icer]

You're a sheep if you believe that. Honestly, what the liberals want everyone to believe is that the South wanted to keep slavery. According to fairly recent research the South was very willing to give up slavery. They, like everyone else would, knew that it would take time to find something to depend on other than slave labor, a principle which was not even relatively new to or limited to that era. Jews were murdered by the millions in Europe almost 60 years ago. They are not told to hold on to their anger towards Germans, but to peacefully coincide with them, just as whites and blacks and all other races must do.

[bird]

You're a sheep if you believe that. Honestly, what the liberals want everyone to believe is that the South wanted to keep slavery. According to fairly recent research the South was very willing to give up slavery. They, like everyone else would, knew that it would take time to find something to depend on other than slave labor, a principle which was not even relatively new to or limited to that era. Jews were murdered by the millions in Europe almost 60 years ago. They are not told to hold on to their anger towards Germans, but to peacefully coincide with them, just as whites and blacks and all other races must do.

Gay Southerners..... Gay Slaves..... Gay Jews...... Gay Germans....Gay Whites.... Gay Blacks....

What is the topic here??

Is your point that Gay Jews want to marry Gay Germans? And Gay whites want to marry Gay Blacks? And Gay southerners want to marry Gay yankees? Or maybe Gay Jews want to marry Gay blacks? No, no, maybe it's that Gay whites want to marry Gay slaves??

You are too smart and you are confusing my simple little kooky right wing nutjob mind!!! :rolleyes:

[Republican_Anthem]

Ok, I am in favor of gay marriage...but...(yes...you all knew that was coming(

The problem with instituting gay marriage is that it could lead to the legalization of NAMBLA's dream of marrying men and boys. It could lead to humans marrying animals...or multiple humans marrying each other at once (Mormons not included).

Their basic defense will most likely be "We have chosen to have sex with young boys, so why can't we marry them?" or "I have chosen to marry my prized pig and love it forever and ever."

That is what I fear. There should be a rule that allows human to marry human...THAT IS IT.

No if's, and's, or but's about it.

And even if the states rule that gay marriage should be banned, so be it. No big dilemma to me since I am as straight as a straight thing...or something like that.

[Roper]

Republican Anthem -- you make a good point.

But we do have a legal system in place, with checks and balances, which would prevent such a thing from happening. Just because gays are allowed to marry doesn't mean pedophilia or bestiality would be legalized.

I think it's safe to say that the GRAND majority of gay and lesbian couples who want the right to marry (and the straight people who support them) would agreet that the objectives of NAMBLA are reprehensible.

The "slippery slope" argument does not hold; we are a rational, democratic society, with the means to legalize or criminalize actions on a case by case basis, as long as people stay engaged in the political process. Sweeping generalizations are the realm of communism and facism. We have a better system than that.

[CognitiveTruth]

That is the very definition of a liberal. The liberals will always want something more. What happens if they get everything they want? They will want more once another group demands their "rights". When blacks were given civil rights people thought that was the end of the line. When women were given civil rights people thought that was the end. They were nessesary changes but it has to stop somewhere. I don't support gay marriage for other reasons that I will not discuss here but this is a more pertinent reason to decide where to draw the line. The liberal will always want to change but the conservative will always be happy where they are. There is such a thing as too much change.

[HealthyCommie]

Ok, I am in favor of gay marriage...but...(yes...you all knew that was coming(

The problem with instituting gay marriage is that it could lead to the legalization of NAMBLA's dream of marrying men and boys. It could lead to humans marrying animals...or multiple humans marrying each other at once (Mormons not included).

Their basic defense will most likely be "We have chosen to have sex with young boys, so why can't we marry them?" or "I have chosen to marry my prized pig and love it forever and ever."

That is what I fear. There should be a rule that allows human to marry human...THAT IS IT.

No if's, and's, or but's about it.

And even if the states rule that gay marriage should be banned, so be it. No big dilemma to me since I am as straight as a straight thing...or something like that.

Gay marriage doesn't relate to men marrying boys or people marrying animals at all.

Gay marriage: an adult, consensual decision made by both parties.

Man marrying a boy: Not a consensual decision. The boy is not an adult, he is basically forced to marry. Not to mention it'd be statutory rape, so that wouldn't work.

Man marrying an animal: The animal doesn't have a choice because...well for one animals can't speak. Animals aren't as intelligent as human beings, so they wouldn't even be able to comprehend what is happening.


Your arguements are not very strong.

[Republican_Anthem]

Those things are in NO WAY related.

All I said was that it could lead to NAMBLA pushing the issue of men and boys getting married...that's it.

And yes, it is a strong argument. because the ACLU allowed NAMBLA to be still in progress, and they will most likely try and get a marriage license for men and boys to get married...although it will never happen.

A boy can get himself out of that situation...just charge the man with molestation charges or rape.

I am aware that animals aren't as smart as human beings, it's common sense. But just because they aren't as smart as humans, does that mean humans won't try and marry them? There are sick individuals out there.

[Icer]

The actual case:

ACLU and NAMBLA vs. Boy Scouts of America (http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200402270920.asp)

[All Dead]

Who cares who marries who? You call liberals hypocrites, when you call it a free nation, and opress people due to sexual preference. Who cares what it says in the Bible? You don't even know if it's real or not! People should have their own choices.

[Icer]

Gee, I don't know who cares about what the Bible says, well here's a hint, maybe the majority of the religious world.

[KrazyKonservative]

It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

[HealthyCommie]

If it was Adam and Eve, than I guess incest is ok with the USA. :smile:

[Wadi66]

If it was Adam and Eve, than I guess incest is ok with the USA. :smile:during the days of Adam and Eve, there were not the genetic considerations there are today. But nice try HC. Hmmm, you might spend just a few minutes with the bible, it'll make you a well rounded person. You don't have to believe it, just read it. Speed reading doesn't count.

[HealthyCommie]

Explain please.

I've read the bible, Wadi.

[Wadi66]

Explain please.

I've read the bible, Wadi.I know, you've said before that you have which is why I found your comment ridiculous. Adam and Eve doesn't equate incest.

[HealthyCommie]

Explain how that doesn't equal incest? They had two boys, and they can't reproduce with each other so.....Who else would they reproduce with?

[Wadi66]

Explain how that doesn't equal incest? They had two boys, and they can't reproduce with each other so.....Who else would they reproduce with?Only two of their children are mentioned until later. So what, you think the boys impregnated their mother? LOLOLOL

[HealthyCommie]

Ok, then maybe they had a girl later. The boys would then have sex with her.....which is incest. Who else would they have had sex with if not the mother?

[Wadi66]

Ok, then maybe they had a girl later. The boys would then have sex with her.....which is incest. Who else would they have had sex with if not the mother?HC, its wasn't considered "incest" then. God can pretty well do whatever he wants to propagate the species. Adam and Eve had many children, girls and boys. While there isn't absolute concrete proof, one needs to apply logic. The whole purpose was to populate the earth. Doesn't it stand to reason that Eve would be fertile?
Then when you review the geneology in Gensis, since the eldest son is the only one listed, are we to suppose that he was an only child? I think not.

[Avid_Liberal_Hater]

http://216.220.97.17/

I almost posted this in the humor section, because I thought it was a joke at first. But, alas, it seems to be legit. I only wonder why there is no FQDN for this site, only an IP address???

The North American Man Boy Love Association, once again proving that the left has absolutely no shame, is an organization seeking to ensure that a man's constitutional 'right' to sodomize a boy is not enfringed upon. Not satisifed with two consenting gay adults, they've attempted to take it to the next level (just like I said they would). Any wagers on what the next liberal perversion will be? Beastiality? Necrophelia?

As always, I'd like to get liberal perspective on this, and if you are a liberal and think this is just hunky dory, what would be your reaction if your 12 year old boy joined this group? Or if a NAMBLA man wanted your 12 year old son?

I guess the phrase 'better lock up your daughters' will need to be changed to 'better lock up your sons'...

Gross.

[Argonath]

When Cane killed able, or one the other, he was banished to the land of Nod, He then governed the city there. He was one of the first two children Eve had. WHAT CITY WAS THERE TO GOVERN!?!?