FOREVERSERENITY WRITES:

STUBBYFINGER POSTS:

Of course re-defining marriage to include other arrangements is going to destroy it.


Explain to someone who served in the armed services that the veterans' benefit he justly earned are now going to be extended to those who never served. Explain to senior citizens who get discounts in many different venues that their benefits are going to be made available to everyone regardless of age...and then tell veterans and senior citizens that the new policy will have no effect on them.

What's their phone number?

I think somebody losing the early bird special discount is bull. It's not about that and and saying it will go to some crazy extreme, well, that's just extremist.

Oh, but it does have bearing on this issue.
Critically think it through to its logical conclusion.

If marriage gets re-defined, then anything goes. We can't discriminate against anyone. To accomodate 2 homosexuals in the name of so-called equal rights, then what't to stop Tom and Dick from falling in love with Harry and claiming "equal rights" to include him in the "marriage"? Would you deny Sally who loves her cat and wants to marry it her "equal rights"? That would be discrimination wouldn't it and we can't have that, can we?

Nonsense. Men and women will still get married just as they always have. This is a purely nonsensical statement.



What are you talking about? This has nothing to do with veterans benefits or senior citizen discounts. Say what you mean. You mean to say that you somehow feel threatened that gay couples will be entitled to the same legal and financial marital benefits as straight couples and in your mind believe that it will somehow take them away from you. That's absurd and has no basis in either logic or fact at all.

Trying to equate marital benefits to veteran's benefits or senior citizen discounts is, in a word, insane. Truth is you and your kind are grasping at silly arguments in an attempt to justify your religion based bigotry.

lula posts:

Oh, but it does have bearing on this issue.
Critically think it through to its logical conclusion. Permitting homosexual "marriage" would open a pandora's box of sexual behavior and relationships.

If marriage gets re-defined, then anything goes because it will become impossible to virtually exclude any "relationship" based on "love" and "commitment". We can't discriminate against anyone. Then when Tom and Dick fall in love with Harry then what's to stop them from claiming "equal rights" to "marriage"? Would you deny Sally who loves her cat and wants to marry it her claim to "equal rights"?

FOREVERSERENITY WRITES:

The link refers mainly to the court's ruling which favors "a few" over the voting will of "the many".

The Court's ruling permitting same-sex “marriages” was in direct opposition to Proposition 22, an initiative to preserve marriage as a union of one man and one woman that was passed in 2000 by more than 61% of California’s voters.

When you think about it these California voters were upholding the mores and later the laws in every higher civilization in the history of the world who inherently understood and sanctioned marriage as an institution as the union of one man and one woman.

These California voters and not the unelected judges realize the grave importance of marriage as something special...Marriage, the union of a man and a woman begins a family which is the virtual building block of cultures and until recent history was treated specially in custom and law. If marriage isn't something special, isn't intended for the good of children, becomes only a secular union for the state to manipulate, then it will be destroyed...and history warns us against such nonsense.

FOREVERSERENITY WRITES:

The link refers mainly to the court's ruling which favors "a few" over the voting will of "the many".

The Court's ruling permitting same-sex “marriages” was in direct opposition to Proposition 22, an initiative to preserve marriage as a union of one man and one woman that was passed in 2000 by more than 61% of California’s voters.

When you think about it these California voters were upholding the mores and later the laws in every higher civilization in the history of the world who inherently understood and sanctioned marriage as an institution as the union of one man and one woman.

These California voters and not the unelected judges realize the grave importance of marriage as something special...Marriage, the union of a man and a woman begins a family which is the virtual building block of cultures and until recent history was treated specially in custom and law. If marriage isn't something special, isn't intended for the good of children, becomes only a secular union for the state to manipulate, then it will be destroyed...and history warns us against such nonsense.

FOREVERSERENITY WRITES:

The link refers mainly to the court's ruling which favors "a few" over the voting will of "the many".

The Court's ruling permitting same-sex “marriages” was in direct opposition to Proposition 22, an initiative to preserve marriage as a union of one man and one woman that was passed in 2000 by more than 61% of California’s voters.

When you think about it these California voters were upholding the mores and later the laws in every higher civilization in the history of the world who inherently understood and sanctioned marriage as an institution as the union of one man and one woman.

These California voters and not the unelected judges realize the grave importance of marriage as something special...Marriage, the union of a man and a woman begins a family which is the virtual building block of cultures and until recent history was treated specially in custom and law. If marriage isn't something special, isn't intended for the good of children, becomes only a secular union for the state to manipulate, then it will be destroyed...and history warns us against such nonsense.

I'm not a big gay marriage proponent, BUT, I think people are people no matter what.  I also do not think that it is okay to deny people who are in a committed, monogamous relationship just like a married heterosexual couple the tax benefits and employment benefits that I receive just because I am a woman and I chose to marry a man. 

The wolf is coming, the wolf is coming!

That's sheer nonsense and is anything but logical. You're trying to throw polygamy and bestiality into an issue which has nothing to do with either. The issue is about couples getting married, not groups and not animals. The logical conclusion is that couples will be allowed to get married. Your argument is very similar to the ones used by those who opposed equal rights for blacks and is just as invalid. Redefining marriage to include gay couples does not in any way open a door for pedophiles, bestiality, or polygamy. It simply allows any couple of legal age to marry regardless of genders.

Your argument is sheer hyperbole, not logic.

I can't believe you people!


toothpastefordinner.com

I'm not trying to be rude Lula but exactly which planet do you live on?  Where have you been for the last forty years?  The sexual revolution has been here for upteenth years now!  How exactly is a gay marriage going to interfere with that?  It all boils down to one thing with fundamental christians, that is SEX.  Let's just get that out of the way and on the table.  It is insane that you would think that a gay union would somehow come in between an heterosexual couple?!!   You do know that there are diffent sexual positions and pleasures of the flesh that has nothing to do with being GAY!  Get that confusion out of the way!

 

And referring to denial of benefits to veterans and elderly people, and besitiality?  As Mason and others asked, what does that have to do with people being GAY?  You need to get out more!

 

The few suffers the ignorance and fear of the many!  We are always afraid of the unknown. That is as human as eating an apple!  We fear what we don't know.  We lived in the dark ages so many centuries ago, we have learned and are still learning, we are growing as a society.  We have to allow for the differences in our society. We might not like it, but that's the way it is.  Just in the same way many years ago, interacial marriage was against all that is supposedly holy and just and true and natural....the same views are being pitted against gay marriage.

 

 

 

 

LOL!  Believe it SanCho....the things that comes out of some people's mouth!  While I can see that some look at this discussion in an objective way, and try to see things from different points of views, LULA, there's just one way of looking at things for him/her? Sorry , not sure which it is!

 

 

Exactly!

 

In Sheep clothing!

 

 

As long as they work for it, the way we all do, exactly!

 

 

 

Well said Kelly!

 

 

 

Stubby, that is what I would like to know too! 

 

[posting because now going to page 1 and not wanting to lose what I've written!]

 

 

 

That's right!  If they want to get into marriage, then let them.  They'll feel all the pain and cofusion and love that a marriage is all about!  It is two people deciding that they want to be monogomous, to each other, to love and be with each other, until they die, or until one hates each other too much to stay together!  Then one gets taken for everything he/she is worth, and the other has to move into a hotel or one bedroom place without furniture!  Same difference!